Sounds very subjective and prone to abuse. How is a judge or other official to know what someone sincerely believes? Where do they draw the line between someone who simply thinks or feels that they should follow a certain way of life and those that "sincerely believe" that they should follow a certain way of life?
A campaign contribution of $10 certainly would not indicate that the church is truly sincere about their cause. However a $100,000 campaign contribution probably would. How regularly contributions are made would also be a good indicator of the strength a church's beliefs. This simple formula has worked well for our leaders when determining what's right for citizens for years. I imagine it would apply to a religion just the same as any other group.
In a courtroom they'd probably have to judge sincerity on the number of high-profile attornies representing you. If you show up with a public defender then you obviously don't care too much about the outcome.
The tax we have here (aside from various compound sales taxes) is only on the CDR media specifically for audio. (read: the kind that works with those near-useless standalone CD copying whizmos).
This sounds like what we have in the US. The cd-player/burners require the audio CD-R's which you have to pay the tax on. However the regular CD-R's here aren't taxed (even though you can use them to burn a CD on your computer instead.) I thought that was what was different in Canada, that they are taxed for CD's that more likely will used for data as well as audio CD's.
If there's no blood, or more importantly interesting video, then who's going to be interested in reporting it. Maybe I'm just feeling cynical tonight, but I'm starting to think that Net protests may well be ineffectual simply because they aren't interesting enough to watch on TV. The general public needs something to get their attention like entertainment. A bunch of people typing e-mails or sending letters doesn't sound like an interesting story. People getting beat up by cops on video, or run over by a tank...now that's interesting.
Thinking about it a little more...some video is better than none. For instance, is anyone producing any video on the Sklyarov case? Not something especially entertaining, but wouldn't people be interested in an interview with his family. Crying about how their loved one has been taken away from them, they have no idea if/when they'll see him again. That's a tear-jerker right there...someone will be interested in that. The irony of a Russian being unjustly held prisoner by the USA (at least to US citizens) will appeal to another subset of people. If people get beat up protesting his captivity that will appeal to an even larger group of people (especially if it's on video.)
Net protests aren't going to go over well unless there's something at least as interesting as the hampster dance web site to the general public. In the US at least, freedom from tyranny, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of happiness are all things that we've always been taught that we have in Social Studies/Civics/US History classes. Reading about it online is going to be about as interesting as your average high school history class. (Not that history isn't interesting, but most people I know could give a shit about history. They're more concerned about tomorrow and more often the present.) The rights we have as Americans are guaranteed by our constitution, correct? Why should we worry about crap like that when we can hear about drama (Elian Gonzales), violence (OJ Simpson), or sex (Clinton) on the news.
I think getting some video of the key players in the Sklyarov case is important. Even if it's not on the news, there are aspects of the story that will appeal to people, especially if it comes with some video with tears and/or violence. If it's interesting enough it will spread around the Net as quickly as the original South Park epsiode.
I put in a transfer over a month ago away from NetSol and it still hasn't gone through. Now it's past the renewal date and NetSol says not to worry about the "Final Notice" letters that my domain service is going to be shut down. The person I talked to said it's normal to continue receiving these letters even after you've transferred. However, I've never been contacted by NetSol about the transfer...but from what I've read here I should've been contacted by them before they'd allow the transfer. What gives? Does this mean that they haven't gotten around to transferring it yet if they haven't contacted me to verify that this is what I wanted?
700k might sound ridiculous at first, but the system I worked on recorded each transaction a customer made in as detailed a manner as possible. For example if you played a slot machine there would be a timestamp on each coin you insert, each handle pull, each win/loss, each rejected coin, plus other things that I'm probably forgetting...it's been several years. Also, each free perk or offer for the perk, dates you visited, which mailings you were sent, what time you entered/left the parking garage, etc, would be stored in the database. Some customers with credit with a casino also have their digitized signatures in the system. It adds up.
I didn't work for Harrah's, but the company I worked for was a completely IBM shop (except for win 3.1/win 95 on the desktops and Novell on the file servers.) The AS/400's where the heart of the system. OS/2 for the critical data collection units. Token Ring everywhere.
As far as the riverboats, each had it's own AS/400 on board. When the boats docked they were plugged into a land-based network which allowed the data to be synced to another AS/400 on land. This system, of course, was connect by WAN to the other properties.
At my first IT job I worked for a casino and worked directly on this exact type of system. I worked closely with the developers and was fairly familiar with the whole system. About four years back when I left they were just beginning to license the system to other casinos. I wouldn't be suprised if it's the same system that the casino reps in the article are talking about.
The amount of data the system collects is astounding. Each table has a card reader which the dealers can run your card through to keep track of how long you've been at which table. Each slot machine is also connected. I believe about 75% percent of floor space, the maximum allowed by law in Atlantic City at the time, was allocated to slot machines. The slot machines generate more money per square foot than any other part of the casino so it is beneficial to fit as many of them as possible into the available space on the casino floor.
Not a drop of data is wasted. The system would register the exact time that each coin is put in, the exact time the handle was pulled (or the time the bet/spin buttons were pressed), which machine it was, the type of game, the denomination of the coin(s) inserted, whether a coin was rejected, every conceivable transaction. We could actually calculate the average time it took between the last coin being inserted and the patron pulling the handle. All the data is archived with the same care that financial instutions archive their transactions. If you use a 'loyalty card' as they call it in the article then the data is attached to the patron.
The big reason to use one of these cards is all the free perks you get should you spend enough money gambling. The prefered parking areas at the casino required your card to get in and the reader on the parking gate was also attached to the system. If a high end player arrived the system would page a Casino Executive (actually just a fancy title for someone who makes sure a high end player's needs are well tended) and the exec could go wait near the corridor to greet the arriving guest.
From the casino's perspective, knowing the patron's likes/dislikes, which events to send invitations for, which players warrant personal attention, and things like these are important in generating customer loyalty--you want to make your casino the customers' preferred destination when they come to town and you want to keep it that way. Regular visitors to the city might visit several casinos while in town, but they usually have a favorite where they spend most of their time and money.
Another imporant part of the system is to allow the patron to collect points by gambling. The more points you accumulate per visit the more free perks you get such as tickets to shows, fights, parties, free rooms/suites, meals at gourmet restuarants, limos, helicopters, charter flights, etc.
I was going to make an analogy to frequent flyer miles but it's not quite the same thing. With frequent flyer miles it's the number of points you accumulate the decides when you get your free airfare/upgrades. At a casino it's the number of points that you are likely to earn on your next or current visit that are important. This is based on 'past performance' of the patron. However, as with frequent flyer miles, it pays off to patronize the same place in order to get the most freebies. It's usually preferable to be offered a free suite at one casino than to be offered a free room upgrade at 3 or 4 different casinos which are not your favorite.
Even in the early 90's they were already doing this. In the meantime I'm sure much thought and effort has been expended to refine the process.
I threw together two scripts to compile the entire database into a CSV file (which may be imported into MS Excel or anything else that likes CSV.)
The first script, riaa_pull.pl uses LWP to pull all the data in it's original HTML format into a file called riaa.htm on your harddrive. Beware, this is 30991603 bytes worth of data.
The second script, riaa_parse.pl parses riaa.htm data for relavant info and creates the CSV file riaa.csv.
The riaa.csv file it created for me was 1596076 bytes and appears to contain the entire 16474 entries.
1) I just downloaded the Linux version. The installer is pretty slick and I got high transfer rates, but unfortunately I had to do it 6 times before it would actually complete the install without hanging.
2) Upon installing it insists that you register for their Netcenter website and the fonts where it asks you if you'd like spam along with your registration are so small that they're barely legible. Suggestion: Just click the link says "I'm under 13 years old" to get around the mandatory registration.
3) So far this version shows no improvement over the nightly snapshots I've been downloading from Mozilla's site. Suggestion: Download a recent nightly build from mozilla.org instead if you really insist on upgrading.
If Gore wanted those votes, he had to prove he was worthy of them. He did not. They are not his be default, and the dem idea that he deserved them is arrogant beyond description.
Thank you. I'm tired of hearing how I should've voted for Gore instead of Browne. But I voted my conscience. Of course I didn't expect Browne to win. I wanted my vote to show that I was completely dissatisfied with Bush and Gore. If this hurt Gore then that's great.
Maybe this will get the democratic party to start dealing with the issues that independent voters care about.
My point is that if Gore losing my vote to a third party candidate stings him a little, then I'm glad that I and the other independent voters got his attention. BTW, I'm a Florida resident.
Drug users are hurting themselves and I am dedicated to doing whatever it takes to stop them. This is a war, dammit, and there are casualties in a war.
This war on hacking is gonna be just like the war on drugs. Suspects have no rights. The law is supreme and those who represent the law have supreme power. Speak against them and you will be branded a deviant, a criminal sympathizer, and perhaps much worse.
The War on Drugs has resulted in a much more powerful police force and much weaker rights than we previously had. The government used the War on Drugs to justify civil forfeiture laws which allows local and federal agencies to confiscate your property merely upon suspiscion that it was used in a crime--and they never have to give it back even if you are proven innocent! Here's the real kicker: The agencies (local and/or federal) get to keep your property for their own use, or sell it. In states that restrict this kind of behavior, municipalities can team up with a federal agency such as the DEA or FBI to circumvent these restrictions so they still can get a slice of the pie. In almost all cases where the person is found to be innocent the property is still not returned.
The government obviously feels the need to police the Internet, and have expressed the need for more resources to do it. A War on Hacking modeled after the War on Drugs is the winning formula for them to accomplish this.
If you want to learn the history that we were not taught, but are likely doomed to repeat, check out:
Smokedot.org - Smokedot links to a lot of great articles on War on Drug issues as well as other stuff. It's not just for stoners ya'know.
numb
Re:Reading on the screen (Topic Drift)
on
The Satori Effect
·
· Score: 2
It's funny but just today I was reading Programming Python and thinking a web-pad with thumb-buttons to flip pages would be a lot easier than flipping paper. If a fairly cheap device with easy to read fonts was available to do this I doubt I'd being buying as many printed books as I do today. I'd still buy the really good ones in print because they look good on my bookshelves--of course, I'm already two levels deep in books/mags so it would be a space saver as well.
I'm more detached from the campaign than ever this year. I barely know or care who's doing what in the "republicrat" parties. I don't know who I'm going to vote for, I'm only certain that it won't be one of them. Maybe Nader, maybe Browne. At least then my vote will mean something, though probably not much. At least it'll be a vote for change. How's voting for a republican or democrat going to change anything?
It seems like people will gain a lot more influence by organizing to change things securely and anonymously online in the coming years--encryption will gain a foothold eventually. People don't need an office building or complex of office buildings anymore to create a strong organization. They don't need to be in the same physical location to ensure private communications.
I guess what I worry about most is, what happens when the politicians' biggest relevance is that they're the guys with control of the guns?
It starts becoming a major world issue when record and movie companies buy laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which say that I cannot even listen to SDMI music or watch DVD movies except under their terms.
I don't think I'll be buying many CD's anymore precisely because of this. It's become a choice between evils. The lesser evil is piracy. The greater evil is funding the RIAA's (and MPAA's) efforts to amend our constitution.
The money the RIAA receives from CD's we buy is hurting freedom and music. Yet I intensely love music. It's really very sad.
numb
If you pirate MP3's / on the Internet / we will hunt you down like dogs / and fuck you till you're dead.
--Nutty McShithead, Recording Association for Popsong Economics
Actually, it is far more likely that the box you connected to had already been the target of a script kiddie, and he was using that as a relay. i expect you only got a picture of another victim, and his mother.
In retrospect this does seem most likely. Hmm. Makes me glad I didn't go after his e-mail address, then I would really feel like a bozo.
The cloaking article says "they can't crack what they can't find"... and sadly I think it's very true. My home small network has a firewall with only ssh2 open. I get portscanned about 3 times a day. I think my setting is pretty secure, but I might always have a security hole somewhere. However, script kiddies will not bother with my computer because so many others are fully open.
I get scanned that many times an hour at times (probably because people know my subnet is all cablemodems.) One day I decided to run nmap on the IP's as they scanned me. On about the third IP address I that nmapped I found an open port 139. So for kicks I connected to it with a null login and password from an Win2k box I was testing. His entire C: drive, CDROM, and CDR were wide open. How convenient of him to leave a guest account for the people he scanned to find out more about him. I got bored fast (sharing over tcpip was way slow) so I didn't bother to read through his homework, but I did download a photo of him and his mother. I should've mailed it back to him from a hotmail account and told him he's an idiot. Disclaimer: Before you even think about trying this yourself, consider that the machine may be a honeypot owned by a hacker. Documents and executables may contain trojans.
Considering how quickly I got scanned by a script kiddie whose own system was wide open, I have to wonder is this the average skill level of a script kiddie?
There is an excellent radio show available online called Info.sec.radio. It's available on SecurityFocus.com under the Audio/Visual Media section. They do a one hour show every two weeks. They've got some cool interviews: the RCMP officer that busted the welsh hacker, and most recently Kevin Mitnick himself. They also have done a feature on Hacking Through the Ages which is a historical perspective on hacking. Every show they do a segment on new vulnerabilities.
I wasn't expecting much but now I'm addicted. They do an excellent job of providing a lot of information quickly. I think what suprised me the most was that the show moves quickly and is not boring at all. If you have any interest in securing/cracking systems you'll be glad you checked it out (IMO).
Sorry to respond to my own message, but I want to provide a reference.
Asset forfeiture has grown into a multi-million dollar revenue source for local, state, and federal police agencies. Approximately $550 million in forfeiture proceeds are deposited into the U.S. Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund every year; millions more are taken by local and state police.
This document is actually from 1995 but the problem hasn't gotten any better. Check out some of the other search results on google to get an idea just how bad the problem is here in the US--it may also shed some light on why law enforcement is so gung-ho about keeping the war on drugs going.
... Civil asset forfeiture, however, does away with the need to prove the owner's guilt. To seize any sort of property, police simply have to show that the property was somehow connected to illegal drugs. To do that, the police must meet only a civil law standard of proof -- a far lower standard than that required to convict someone of a crime. It doesn't matter if the owner of the property is never convicted of a crime, or never even charged with a crime. In 80 per cent of forfeitures, in fact, charges are never laid. -- From the media awareness project.
Don't forget what happens to the property after it is siezed. They police department keeps it or auctions it for money. If it's your house they'll most likely sell it, but your car or computer (as are commonly siezed in the raids now) are often useful to the police so they keep them. As far as I can tell this is more like an incentive plan for the police to bust people than anything. Ah, prohibition at work--when will we ever learn?
I think Mr. Touretzky has some interesting points. The most important of which is the Amphetamine Anti-Proliferation act.
The specific part of the Act that is referred to in the article, but has no direct link is:
421. Distribution of information relating to manufacture of controlled substances
`(a) PROHIBITION ON DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO MANUFACTURE OF CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCES-
`(1) CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE DEFINED- In this subsection, the term `controlled substance' has the meaning
given that term in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
`(2) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for any person--
`(A) to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means information
pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching,
demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime; or
`(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute to any person,
by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture of a controlled substance, knowing
that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that
constitutes a Federal crime.
`(b) PENALTY- Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or
both.'.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to chapter 21 the following new item:
There is a nice explanation (linked from the article) available here
And don't let the name of the act fool you, this amendment applies to all controlled substances. For example it would be illegal for me to explain on Slashdot how to build a hydroponic system in your closet using:
(1) 5 gallon bucket
(1) 2 liter bottle
6 feet of plastic tubing
(1) fish tank pump
(1) flourescent lamp
(2) automatic timers (to toggle water/light)
(1) bag of perlite
(4 or 5) seeds out of the couch
(1) link to web site that sells hydroponic nutrients (1) roll of mylar (optional)
Now, this is dangerous information because it partially teaches someone how
build a basic hydroponic setup that could grow a plant that is a controlled
substance--and the setup is scalable too so who knows what could happen.
If a prosecutor decides that my intent is for you to use this information in
something that could be a federal crime, then I'm facing fines and up 10 years
Rob and company have 48 hours to remove the link to the drug manufacture
paraphenalia site that I linked (don't laugh, google picked it, not me) or
someone there faces up to 3 years in prison. They'd have to establish
that my intent was for people reading it to commit a federal crime--like
distributing the pot to chemotherapy and aids patients, or even teaching
them how to grow their own.
I happened to submit a link to the Slashdot crew about this last August because
figured the whole "illegal speech" thing and "illegal linking" thing would
piss them off. I think my submission slipped past them though because it
related more directly to medical marijuana than watching DVD's in Linux.
numb
PS: I believe the link I had submitted was from NORML but all I can find is a short blurb in
their 8-12-99 news archive.
When Lars went after napster he generated more publicity for napster than he probably intended. I know many who learned of napster due to Lars.
Just to back you up on this--most of the people I've met know about Napster due to Lars. At the time Metallica was making their big stink about Napster my friends were hosting an open mic night which I was recording to put online. Immediately after that people that showed up started asking if the music would be available on Napster and people were making jokes about Metallica. And this wasn't in the valley, it was Jacksonville, FL.
So, you're absolutely right about Metallica shooting themselves in the foot. I also recently was asked about "the kid that got arrested for writing a DVD program." This was from my friend's mother-in-law, a nurse and not involved in the tech industry whatsoever. So the MPAA is also generating a decent amount of publicity. Unfortunately, I don't think people understand the concept of DeCSS as well as they do Napster.
At the very least this is another "proof of concept." Encapsulating traffic in unexpected places (HTTP, DNS, or even ICMP traffic) is neat stuff. It's also important from a security standpoint. Many firewalls pass DNS traffic unrestricted through UDP port 53 (DNS.) If you manage a network where users might be able to do this, then this kind of information is good stuff to know.
BTW, one of the reasons Slashdot is as popular as it is is because they know which articles are most interesting to the bulk of their readers--why do people still keep second guessing them?
As for what happens in the meantime, you can see this already. I'm sitting on a 10Mbit network connected to an OC-3. Sometimes I get 500kbps+, but usually I get closer to DSL speed - 100kpbs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having a 100Mbit link merely means that you *can* get that kind of bandwidth - not that you *will*. What's to keep the routers from just dividing the available bandwidth evenly among all users?
Yes, I think you're absolutely correct. In fact, this is what's been happening all along. Every so often an idea comes along that will increase bandwidth to the home and then the "sky is falling" people jump up and talk about how it will bring the Internet to it's knees (like broadband and dsl were supposed to, or before that the ability of Joe user to put binary attachments in his e-mail.) I remember there was some kind of "bandwidth conservation" group back in the early-mid nineties that used to worry about this stuff.
Anyway, the argument that a 100MB connection between any two points on the Internet will bring the whole thing down as silly. In fact I'm connected by a 100Mb connection right now--the cablemodem on the other side of the firewall is kind of a bottleneck, but what's the difference if the bottleneck is here in my apartment, or at the ISP? It think it's probably wise to start rolling out fibre to the home now, because at some point we certainly will make use of it even if right now it's overkill for most people.
The argument about joe user flooding a major NAP with 100Mbs is pretty silly I think. It's not as if everyone is getting a dedicated 100Mb connection to a major network access point. Your traffic will have to pass through your ISP just as it does today and you'll still have all kinds of bandwidth limitations in between.
I think that a 100Mb fiber connection would benefit me most in the short term as local VPN between my friends and I, but in the long term it will boil down to the fact that the throughput will already be there when the NAPs and the rest of the net are ready.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds very subjective and prone to abuse. How is a judge or other official to know what someone sincerely believes? Where do they draw the line between someone who simply thinks or feels that they should follow a certain way of life and those that "sincerely believe" that they should follow a certain way of life?
A campaign contribution of $10 certainly would not indicate that the church is truly sincere about their cause. However a $100,000 campaign contribution probably would. How regularly contributions are made would also be a good indicator of the strength a church's beliefs. This simple formula has worked well for our leaders when determining what's right for citizens for years. I imagine it would apply to a religion just the same as any other group.
In a courtroom they'd probably have to judge sincerity on the number of high-profile attornies representing you. If you show up with a public defender then you obviously don't care too much about the outcome.
The tax we have here (aside from various compound sales taxes) is only on the CDR media specifically for audio. (read: the kind that works with those near-useless standalone CD copying whizmos).
This sounds like what we have in the US. The cd-player/burners require the audio CD-R's which you have to pay the tax on. However the regular CD-R's here aren't taxed (even though you can use them to burn a CD on your computer instead.) I thought that was what was different in Canada, that they are taxed for CD's that more likely will used for data as well as audio CD's.
If there's no blood, or more importantly interesting video, then who's going to be interested in reporting it. Maybe I'm just feeling cynical tonight, but I'm starting to think that Net protests may well be ineffectual simply because they aren't interesting enough to watch on TV. The general public needs something to get their attention like entertainment. A bunch of people typing e-mails or sending letters doesn't sound like an interesting story. People getting beat up by cops on video, or run over by a tank...now that's interesting.
Thinking about it a little more...some video is better than none. For instance, is anyone producing any video on the Sklyarov case? Not something especially entertaining, but wouldn't people be interested in an interview with his family. Crying about how their loved one has been taken away from them, they have no idea if/when they'll see him again. That's a tear-jerker right there...someone will be interested in that. The irony of a Russian being unjustly held prisoner by the USA (at least to US citizens) will appeal to another subset of people. If people get beat up protesting his captivity that will appeal to an even larger group of people (especially if it's on video.)
Net protests aren't going to go over well unless there's something at least as interesting as the hampster dance web site to the general public. In the US at least, freedom from tyranny, freedom of speech, and the pursuit of happiness are all things that we've always been taught that we have in Social Studies/Civics/US History classes. Reading about it online is going to be about as interesting as your average high school history class. (Not that history isn't interesting, but most people I know could give a shit about history. They're more concerned about tomorrow and more often the present.) The rights we have as Americans are guaranteed by our constitution, correct? Why should we worry about crap like that when we can hear about drama (Elian Gonzales), violence (OJ Simpson), or sex (Clinton) on the news.
I think getting some video of the key players in the Sklyarov case is important. Even if it's not on the news, there are aspects of the story that will appeal to people, especially if it comes with some video with tears and/or violence. If it's interesting enough it will spread around the Net as quickly as the original South Park epsiode.
I put in a transfer over a month ago away from NetSol and it still hasn't gone through. Now it's past the renewal date and NetSol says not to worry about the "Final Notice" letters that my domain service is going to be shut down. The person I talked to said it's normal to continue receiving these letters even after you've transferred. However, I've never been contacted by NetSol about the transfer...but from what I've read here I should've been contacted by them before they'd allow the transfer. What gives? Does this mean that they haven't gotten around to transferring it yet if they haven't contacted me to verify that this is what I wanted?
numb
700k might sound ridiculous at first, but the system I worked on recorded each transaction a customer made in as detailed a manner as possible. For example if you played a slot machine there would be a timestamp on each coin you insert, each handle pull, each win/loss, each rejected coin, plus other things that I'm probably forgetting...it's been several years. Also, each free perk or offer for the perk, dates you visited, which mailings you were sent, what time you entered/left the parking garage, etc, would be stored in the database. Some customers with credit with a casino also have their digitized signatures in the system. It adds up.
numb
I didn't work for Harrah's, but the company I worked for was a completely IBM shop (except for win 3.1/win 95 on the desktops and Novell on the file servers.) The AS/400's where the heart of the system. OS/2 for the critical data collection units. Token Ring everywhere.
As far as the riverboats, each had it's own AS/400 on board. When the boats docked they were plugged into a land-based network which allowed the data to be synced to another AS/400 on land. This system, of course, was connect by WAN to the other properties.
numb
At my first IT job I worked for a casino and worked directly on this exact type of system. I worked closely with the developers and was fairly familiar with the whole system. About four years back when I left they were just beginning to license the system to other casinos. I wouldn't be suprised if it's the same system that the casino reps in the article are talking about.
The amount of data the system collects is astounding. Each table has a card reader which the dealers can run your card through to keep track of how long you've been at which table. Each slot machine is also connected. I believe about 75% percent of floor space, the maximum allowed by law in Atlantic City at the time, was allocated to slot machines. The slot machines generate more money per square foot than any other part of the casino so it is beneficial to fit as many of them as possible into the available space on the casino floor.
Not a drop of data is wasted. The system would register the exact time that each coin is put in, the exact time the handle was pulled (or the time the bet/spin buttons were pressed), which machine it was, the type of game, the denomination of the coin(s) inserted, whether a coin was rejected, every conceivable transaction. We could actually calculate the average time it took between the last coin being inserted and the patron pulling the handle. All the data is archived with the same care that financial instutions archive their transactions. If you use a 'loyalty card' as they call it in the article then the data is attached to the patron.
The big reason to use one of these cards is all the free perks you get should you spend enough money gambling. The prefered parking areas at the casino required your card to get in and the reader on the parking gate was also attached to the system. If a high end player arrived the system would page a Casino Executive (actually just a fancy title for someone who makes sure a high end player's needs are well tended) and the exec could go wait near the corridor to greet the arriving guest.
From the casino's perspective, knowing the patron's likes/dislikes, which events to send invitations for, which players warrant personal attention, and things like these are important in generating customer loyalty--you want to make your casino the customers' preferred destination when they come to town and you want to keep it that way. Regular visitors to the city might visit several casinos while in town, but they usually have a favorite where they spend most of their time and money.
Another imporant part of the system is to allow the patron to collect points by gambling. The more points you accumulate per visit the more free perks you get such as tickets to shows, fights, parties, free rooms/suites, meals at gourmet restuarants, limos, helicopters, charter flights, etc.
I was going to make an analogy to frequent flyer miles but it's not quite the same thing. With frequent flyer miles it's the number of points you accumulate the decides when you get your free airfare/upgrades. At a casino it's the number of points that you are likely to earn on your next or current visit that are important. This is based on 'past performance' of the patron. However, as with frequent flyer miles, it pays off to patronize the same place in order to get the most freebies. It's usually preferable to be offered a free suite at one casino than to be offered a free room upgrade at 3 or 4 different casinos which are not your favorite.
Even in the early 90's they were already doing this. In the meantime I'm sure much thought and effort has been expended to refine the process.
numb
I threw together two scripts to compile the entire database into a CSV file (which may be imported into MS Excel or anything else that likes CSV.)
The first script, riaa_pull.pl uses LWP to pull all the data in it's original HTML format into a file called riaa.htm on your harddrive. Beware, this is 30991603 bytes worth of data.
The second script, riaa_parse.pl parses riaa.htm data for relavant info and creates the CSV file riaa.csv.
The riaa.csv file it created for me was 1596076 bytes and appears to contain the entire 16474 entries.
Scripts are here: http://g27.sourceforge.net/files
numb
1) I just downloaded the Linux version. The installer is pretty slick and I got high transfer rates, but unfortunately I had to do it 6 times before it would actually complete the install without hanging.
2) Upon installing it insists that you register for their Netcenter website and the fonts where it asks you if you'd like spam along with your registration are so small that they're barely legible. Suggestion: Just click the link says "I'm under 13 years old" to get around the mandatory registration.
3) So far this version shows no improvement over the nightly snapshots I've been downloading from Mozilla's site. Suggestion: Download a recent nightly build from mozilla.org instead if you really insist on upgrading.
4) It won't render NVidia's Linux Drivers page. Lame...
numb
If Gore wanted those votes, he had to prove he was worthy of them. He did not. They are not his be default, and the dem idea that he deserved them is arrogant beyond description.
Thank you. I'm tired of hearing how I should've voted for Gore instead of Browne. But I voted my conscience. Of course I didn't expect Browne to win. I wanted my vote to show that I was completely dissatisfied with Bush and Gore. If this hurt Gore then that's great.
Maybe this will get the democratic party to start dealing with the issues that independent voters care about.
My point is that if Gore losing my vote to a third party candidate stings him a little, then I'm glad that I and the other independent voters got his attention. BTW, I'm a Florida resident.
numb
Drug users are hurting themselves and I am dedicated to doing whatever it takes to stop them. This is a war, dammit, and there are casualties in a war.
Casualties 4Q 2000:
9/15/00 shot by police 10 years old
9/28/00 shot by police 60 years old
10/5/00 shot by police 62 years old (oops, wrong house.)
Refugees:
Renee Boje - waiting to receive refugee status in Canada while hiding out from American bounty hunters.
Ethnic cleansing in GWB's home state:
Tulia, TX
Brought to you courtesy of the war on drugs...
numb
This war on hacking is gonna be just like the war on drugs. Suspects have no rights. The law is supreme and those who represent the law have supreme power. Speak against them and you will be branded a deviant, a criminal sympathizer, and perhaps much worse.
The War on Drugs has resulted in a much more powerful police force and much weaker rights than we previously had. The government used the War on Drugs to justify civil forfeiture laws which allows local and federal agencies to confiscate your property merely upon suspiscion that it was used in a crime--and they never have to give it back even if you are proven innocent! Here's the real kicker: The agencies (local and/or federal) get to keep your property for their own use, or sell it. In states that restrict this kind of behavior, municipalities can team up with a federal agency such as the DEA or FBI to circumvent these restrictions so they still can get a slice of the pie. In almost all cases where the person is found to be innocent the property is still not returned.
The government obviously feels the need to police the Internet, and have expressed the need for more resources to do it. A War on Hacking modeled after the War on Drugs is the winning formula for them to accomplish this.
If you want to learn the history that we were not taught, but are likely doomed to repeat, check out:
"civil forfeiture" on Google
LibertyBoard.org
Smokedot.org - Smokedot links to a lot of great articles on War on Drug issues as well as other stuff. It's not just for stoners ya'know.
numb
It's funny but just today I was reading Programming Python and thinking a web-pad with thumb-buttons to flip pages would be a lot easier than flipping paper. If a fairly cheap device with easy to read fonts was available to do this I doubt I'd being buying as many printed books as I do today. I'd still buy the really good ones in print because they look good on my bookshelves--of course, I'm already two levels deep in books/mags so it would be a space saver as well.
numb
I'm more detached from the campaign than ever this year. I barely know or care who's doing what in the "republicrat" parties. I don't know who I'm going to vote for, I'm only certain that it won't be one of them. Maybe Nader, maybe Browne. At least then my vote will mean something, though probably not much. At least it'll be a vote for change. How's voting for a republican or democrat going to change anything?
It seems like people will gain a lot more influence by organizing to change things securely and anonymously online in the coming years--encryption will gain a foothold eventually. People don't need an office building or complex of office buildings anymore to create a strong organization. They don't need to be in the same physical location to ensure private communications.
I guess what I worry about most is, what happens when the politicians' biggest relevance is that they're the guys with control of the guns?
numb
It starts becoming a major world issue when record and movie companies buy laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which say that I cannot even listen to SDMI music or watch DVD movies except under their terms.
I don't think I'll be buying many CD's anymore precisely because of this. It's become a choice between evils. The lesser evil is piracy. The greater evil is funding the RIAA's (and MPAA's) efforts to amend our constitution.
The money the RIAA receives from CD's we buy is hurting freedom and music. Yet I intensely love music. It's really very sad.
numb
If you pirate MP3's / on the Internet / we will hunt you down like dogs / and fuck you till you're dead.
--Nutty McShithead, Recording Association for Popsong Economics
Actually, it is far more likely that the box you connected to had already been the target of a script kiddie, and he was using that as a relay. i expect you only got a picture of another victim, and his mother.
In retrospect this does seem most likely. Hmm. Makes me glad I didn't go after his e-mail address, then I would really feel like a bozo.
numb
The cloaking article says "they can't crack what they can't find"... and sadly I think it's very true. My home small network has a firewall with only ssh2 open. I get portscanned about 3 times a day. I think my setting is pretty secure, but I might always have a security hole somewhere. However, script kiddies will not bother with my computer because so many others are fully open.
:|
I get scanned that many times an hour at times (probably because people know my subnet is all cablemodems.) One day I decided to run nmap on the IP's as they scanned me. On about the third IP address I that nmapped I found an open port 139. So for kicks I connected to it with a null login and password from an Win2k box I was testing. His entire C: drive, CDROM, and CDR were wide open. How convenient of him to leave a guest account for the people he scanned to find out more about him. I got bored fast (sharing over tcpip was way slow) so I didn't bother to read through his homework, but I did download a photo of him and his mother. I should've mailed it back to him from a hotmail account and told him he's an idiot. Disclaimer: Before you even think about trying this yourself, consider that the machine may be a honeypot owned by a hacker. Documents and executables may contain trojans.
Considering how quickly I got scanned by a script kiddie whose own system was wide open, I have to wonder is this the average skill level of a script kiddie?
There is an excellent radio show available online called Info.sec.radio. It's available on SecurityFocus.com under the Audio/Visual Media section. They do a one hour show every two weeks. They've got some cool interviews: the RCMP officer that busted the welsh hacker, and most recently Kevin Mitnick himself. They also have done a feature on Hacking Through the Ages which is a historical perspective on hacking. Every show they do a segment on new vulnerabilities.
I wasn't expecting much but now I'm addicted. They do an excellent job of providing a lot of information quickly. I think what suprised me the most was that the show moves quickly and is not boring at all. If you have any interest in securing/cracking systems you'll be glad you checked it out (IMO).
Requires Realaudio
numb
Sorry to respond to my own message, but I want to provide a reference.
Asset forfeiture has grown into a multi-million dollar revenue source for local, state, and federal police agencies. Approximately $550 million in forfeiture proceeds are deposited into the U.S. Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund every year; millions more are taken by local and state police.
This document is actually from 1995 but the problem hasn't gotten any better. Check out some of the other search results on google to get an idea just how bad the problem is here in the US--it may also shed some light on why law enforcement is so gung-ho about keeping the war on drugs going.
numb
... Civil asset forfeiture, however, does away with the need to prove the owner's guilt. To seize any sort of property, police simply have to show that the property was somehow connected to illegal drugs. To do that, the police must meet only a civil law standard of proof -- a far lower standard than that required to convict someone of a crime. It doesn't matter if the owner of the property is never convicted of a crime, or never even charged with a crime. In 80 per cent of forfeitures, in fact, charges are never laid. -- From the media awareness project.
Don't forget what happens to the property after it is siezed. They police department keeps it or auctions it for money. If it's your house they'll most likely sell it, but your car or computer (as are commonly siezed in the raids now) are often useful to the police so they keep them. As far as I can tell this is more like an incentive plan for the police to bust people than anything. Ah, prohibition at work--when will we ever learn?
numb
The specific part of the Act that is referred to in the article, but has no direct link is:
421. Distribution of information relating to manufacture of controlled substances
There is a nice explanation (linked from the article) available here
And don't let the name of the act fool you, this amendment applies to all controlled substances. For example it would be illegal for me to explain on Slashdot how to build a hydroponic system in your closet using:
(1) 5 gallon bucket
(1) 2 liter bottle
6 feet of plastic tubing
(1) fish tank pump
(1) flourescent lamp
(2) automatic timers (to toggle water/light)
(1) bag of perlite
(4 or 5) seeds out of the couch
(1) link to web site that sells hydroponic nutrients
(1) roll of mylar (optional)
Now, this is dangerous information because it partially teaches someone how
build a basic hydroponic setup that could grow a plant that is a controlled
substance--and the setup is scalable too so who knows what could happen.
If a prosecutor decides that my intent is for you to use this information in
something that could be a federal crime, then I'm facing fines and up 10 years
Rob and company have 48 hours to remove the link to the drug manufacture
paraphenalia site that I linked (don't laugh, google picked it, not me) or
someone there faces up to 3 years in prison. They'd have to establish
that my intent was for people reading it to commit a federal crime--like
distributing the pot to chemotherapy and aids patients, or even teaching
them how to grow their own.
I happened to submit a link to the Slashdot crew about this last August because
figured the whole "illegal speech" thing and "illegal linking" thing would
piss them off. I think my submission slipped past them though because it
related more directly to medical marijuana than watching DVD's in Linux.
numb
PS: I believe the link I had submitted was from NORML but all I can find is a short blurb in
their 8-12-99 news archive.
I would choose a car analogy instead because MP3 has much more in common with a vehicle (maybe a pizza delivery van
Also, I think most people can better identify with the ownership/usefulness of a vehicle.
numb
Why not?
I'm not sure either. That type of space-shifting (converting from DVD to 8mm) was allowed as "fair use" last time I heard.
numb
When Lars went after napster he generated more publicity for napster than he probably intended. I know many who learned of napster due to Lars.
Just to back you up on this--most of the people I've met know about Napster due to Lars. At the time Metallica was making their big stink about Napster my friends were hosting an open mic night which I was recording to put online. Immediately after that people that showed up started asking if the music would be available on Napster and people were making jokes about Metallica. And this wasn't in the valley, it was Jacksonville, FL.
So, you're absolutely right about Metallica shooting themselves in the foot. I also recently was asked about "the kid that got arrested for writing a DVD program." This was from my friend's mother-in-law, a nurse and not involved in the tech industry whatsoever. So the MPAA is also generating a decent amount of publicity. Unfortunately, I don't think people understand the concept of DeCSS as well as they do Napster.
numb
At the very least this is another "proof of concept." Encapsulating traffic in unexpected places (HTTP, DNS, or even ICMP traffic) is neat stuff. It's also important from a security standpoint. Many firewalls pass DNS traffic unrestricted through UDP port 53 (DNS.) If you manage a network where users might be able to do this, then this kind of information is good stuff to know.
BTW, one of the reasons Slashdot is as popular as it is is because they know which articles are most interesting to the bulk of their readers--why do people still keep second guessing them?
numb
As for what happens in the meantime, you can see this already. I'm sitting on a 10Mbit network connected to an OC-3. Sometimes I get 500kbps+, but usually I get closer to DSL speed - 100kpbs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having a 100Mbit link merely means that you *can* get that kind of bandwidth - not that you *will*. What's to keep the routers from just dividing the available bandwidth evenly among all users?
Yes, I think you're absolutely correct. In fact, this is what's been happening all along. Every so often an idea comes along that will increase bandwidth to the home and then the "sky is falling" people jump up and talk about how it will bring the Internet to it's knees (like broadband and dsl were supposed to, or before that the ability of Joe user to put binary attachments in his e-mail.) I remember there was some kind of "bandwidth conservation" group back in the early-mid nineties that used to worry about this stuff.
Anyway, the argument that a 100MB connection between any two points on the Internet will bring the whole thing down as silly. In fact I'm connected by a 100Mb connection right now--the cablemodem on the other side of the firewall is kind of a bottleneck, but what's the difference if the bottleneck is here in my apartment, or at the ISP? It think it's probably wise to start rolling out fibre to the home now, because at some point we certainly will make use of it even if right now it's overkill for most people.
The argument about joe user flooding a major NAP with 100Mbs is pretty silly I think. It's not as if everyone is getting a dedicated 100Mb connection to a major network access point. Your traffic will have to pass through your ISP just as it does today and you'll still have all kinds of bandwidth limitations in between.
I think that a 100Mb fiber connection would benefit me most in the short term as local VPN between my friends and I, but in the long term it will boil down to the fact that the throughput will already be there when the NAPs and the rest of the net are ready.
numb