If that's "safer now than it has ever been," then the shuttle has always been a death-trap.
the Shuttle is safer now than it has ever been; in other words, still very dangerous, but less so than before Columbia. It looks like you're trying to argue with him, but really you're just agreeing with him, though it doesn't seem like you're aware of it.
No, it wasn't a flawed analogy, because I wasn't referring to legality in that respect, but ethics. Well, maybe it was a flawed analogy, but not for the reasons you've stated. Still, there are federal laws that protect against, you know, "internet terrorism" or whatever, so you have to take that into account too. I only assume that you were stateside, as I am, because of your arizona.edu email. In which case, you most certainly would be breaking one crazy federal law or another, with undoubtedly with ridiculously harsh penalties. Prevailing in the suit, on the other hand, is an entirely different question, well beyond my scope of knowledge.
But all of that is besides the point, as this is supposed to be about ethics, if I remember correctly. Here's the point I was trying to demonstrate: In the scenario where I find someone breaking into my property, I could very well get away with whacking them with a baseball bat, on the grounds that I felt threatened and was acting in self defense. In the scenario where I find someone breaking into my wireless network, I couldn't get away with hitting them with a baseball bat, but I really really really wish I could. Not that I mean to direct these hostilities towards your actions, which can admittedly be painted in a different light given the circumstance. I'm just referring to it in a broader sense of principles. (or lack thereof, since hitting people with bats doesn't necessarily scream out "principled individual")
(This one only took a couple minutes to write up. I think I'm improving?)
Maaaaybe it blocked all of the viruses but 1, but that one that got through infected it 100 times, of which the software then found and cleaned 6. Alternatively, maybe it really did only get 4%, but they gave it an extra two points for effort. and a star sticker too. Ok, so probably not. I'm going to guess that maybe the test wasn't as thorough as the article makes it out to be.
Also, my results show only a couple of good hits, but that's what I get for choosing such a wacky username.
I've never been to Ubi.com, those aren't my flickr photos, and I most certainly do not have a Level 70 Human Warlock. Furthermore, my real name yields only 4 search results belonging to someone else who was attempting to research their own geneology. Neat.
trivial != easy
I apologize if I made that seem like it was the case. If a locksmith said that a given lock is really easy to break into, and you tried to do it and couldn't, it doesn't mean that he was wrong. The problem is that is meant as a comparative statement than a directly descriptive one. That is, compared to other available security methods it is relatively simple to break. That is, not easy for anyone but easy in comparison.
I don't understand what you mean in the first part of your main point. I'll try to be less thoughtful in my subsequent responses. =D
I'm genuinely just trying to be helpful, and yes, I'm stupid, and I actually sometimes take 20 or 30 minutes of editing and rewriting my responses to try to make them as clear and concise as possible. As is apparent, neither clear nor concise are my strong points.
Seriously though, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that it's not legal to break into someone's network. This might seem like crazy talk, but hear me out. Permission to access doesn't mean you have permission to access through whatever means you please. Granted, you probably had a case where you could have been reimbursed some money, had you paid specifically for wireless Internet access. But it's very important to realize that you are placing yourself at serious risk if you attempt to force access to the network without explicit permission to do so. Furthermore, I will suggest that it certainly isn't ethical, on the grounds that two wrongs don't make a right, but I won't go so far as to say that it is completely unethical, unless of course you had prior permission to do so. In which case, I'd say go for it. You didn't mention that you had asked and been granted permission, so I assume you didn't have permission to break into their network. Or, the crazy/. brand analogous situation: If for some reason you were locked out of your hotel room, and no one had the key handy because no one uses that room very often, I imagine you'd be more inclined to request a refund for your hotel room instead of trying to break into it through the window.
Try it out on your home wireless network if you want to see what little protection WEP actually provides.
Do not break into any equipment that you do not own. *insert standard "I cannot be held liable" disclaimer here*
It occurred to me that in this situation, it was completely legal, completely ethical, and completely necessary
I think you mean:
Possibly not illegal
Not completely unethical
Probably not "necessary"
Breaking WEP is trivial for someone who wants to break into it, knows how, and has the proper equipment, which is what makes it useless from a security standpoint when it's the only method you are using to secure your wireless network. Further complication is added by the fact that not all wireless cards allow you the appropriate level of hardware access to initiate packet injection, which is the primary step in breaking into a WEP network speedily and with any decent probability of success without having to retry in between possible rekeying. WEP is possible to break without packet injection, and with only one computer, but the standard (super speedy) setup involves two machines; one for injection and one for listening to the response.
I don't know anything about being an American? I was born in Detroit and I live in Chicago. I don't mind getting modded as flamebait, though my comment was intended to be humerous. The humor hinges on whether or not anyone in the conversation knows that I am an American, but explaining it detracts from the humor, so I didn't.
Given all that, there should be nothing that lead you to the conclusion one way or the other, so you made an assumption and ran with it. Right into a wall.
I agree that technologies like these are useful tools to put in the hands of parents. On the other hand, it seems completely unnecessary for the government to get involved in, but its a not an issue for me as the government seems to be wasting its time on far useless projects, or implementing truly invasive technologies that require attention much more than this little project merits. The headline to this, "To Screen All Content" is misleading and sensationalist, implying that the censorship is somehow automatic and compulsory. Furthermore, the reason the article itself gives for the implementation of this article uses quite specious logic to justify the legislation, "Since the content viewed by children is no longer restricted to TV or radio, Sen. Mark Pryor feels that the new law is necessary", which only fans the flames to make this otherwise insignificant issue appear to be notable.
It seems to be quite a challenge to find an valid argument that could possibly portray this in a bad light. I agree that the law doesn't seem necessary, but the effect of having the FCC overview the creation and implementation of a new V-Chip standard doesn't exactly sound too particularly Orwellian for my tastes.
That is ridiculous and it's definitely not the norm in any of the circles that I run in. Software Update Services is the solution to that problem, and I'd wager that it is probably in place at most companies with over 200 computers. From the client side it appears that the computer is just downloading software and security updates from microsoft as usual, but really they're being downloaded from an internal server. Furthermore, WSUS allows you to approve or deny updates, allowing your tech support or whoever to test them before they bork your cnc machine's software and whatnot. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.as px
Why I find this humorous is that when I was in 6th grade, some 15 years or so ago, my elementary school had a list of books that we were required to read and write book reports and be generally harassed until they were sure we understood the meaning of the content. Julie of the Wolves and A Wrinkle In Time were among the books that we were required to read, and also appear on the list that I linked to above, in positions 38 and 22 respectively. It's also worth noting that this was a Catholic elementary school that I attended, and I believe it was 1993 when I was in 6th grade. I say all this because I am trying to build a mental time line for when this would have been considered normal reading material to becoming listed on a frequently challenged reading material list dated 1990-2000. I don't know what happened, but something went terribly wrong somewhere along the way.
Dismayed to find it and many other titles on that list would be an understatement. (Damned that foul mouthed and filthy minded Mark Twain)
That's all fine and well, but IIRC Randi wasn't suing him for fraud, but trying prevent people from becoming mindless followers of Randi and buying into his hokey pseudo-religion. Secondly, it is debatable whether or not "people know magic is fake". Crossing Over, Faith Healers, Scientology, or most aspects of religion that people seem to get most caught up in, altogether garner the support and beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people. Randi is more or less concerned with protecting these damned fools from themselves, or at least providing them with an rational alternative from which they can choose.
If you've ever followed the details regarding incidents involving Geller that have happened over the past few decades you'd realize how what he does can be a dangerous thing.
Ok, so you don't take issue with the fact that it's useless and ridiculously expensive, but you think people are complaining about it a little too much than you think they should be? I can think for myself, and I meter my outrage of different issues as I see fit.
Secondly, your last line of the argument blatantly uses circular logic to prove itself.
Thirdly, I am purposefully avoiding the red herring about the Internet and security that you through out there. Just thought I'd let you know.
You expected it to be bad? I thought it was going to be great, and I wasn't disappointed. But then again I thought that the ELO episode of the previous season, Love and Monsters, was the best one... so what do I know? They're similar episodes in the respect that they take the focus almost completely off of what the Doctor and friends are doing, and focus on someone else. I hope Davies does one more like it in next year's season.
My Terminator 3 experience was completely different. I was on vacation visiting my brother out of town when it came out. At the time he was dating a real stiff of a girl who was 12 kinds of snobby. Her and I never really got along that well, mostly because she was too uptight for my tastes so I used to antagonize her. In this moment of brilliancy I decided that one of the things that I absolutely had to do while visiting them while I was in town was take them to go and see Terminator 3. Sadly, this was the last time I was to ruin another night of her miserable existence, as they broke up about 6 months after that, so now I can only look back at that film with fond memories.
Actually he doesn't have to admit that your opinion is valid, and you declaring that it must be so makes you sound retarded. What the poster was implying is that the position that the gentleman held required little to no knowledge of algorithms, and apparently that is about the _only_ thing that the CS expert was knowledgeable in. A lot of people that I know whom have doctorates are strange fellows, several of them requiring a healthy daily dose of petting their egos. On the other hand, a few of the other doctorate students I know that are without these issues are the most entertaining folk to be around. It appears that either getting your doctorate makes you crazy, or one has to be crazy in the first place to want one, even after becoming fully aware of the torment that is required to obtain one.
I'll tell you this little secret though. I think he sounded retarded too, but for different reasons. I think it mostly has to do with whining about having a job.
Wrote a piece of software that clearly violates University Policy and used it for 6 months... His actions sing a whole different song than his words.
The biggest offense that you can sight in his actions is that he gave the software to a few friends and a professor. When developing a piece of software such as this, one might be best served by testing it on a variety of different computers, especially if you plan on presenting it to a potential employer. In fact, this sounds pretty close to what he said he was doing with it, so his actions speak pretty closely to his words. You don't just write software, guess that it works, and go run off to a company to demo for to them. Unless you're some kind of fan of untested, broken, and poorly designed software. I wouldn't want to hire anyone who who did anything less. Regardless, I imagine giving the software out to a professor was probably not the brightest of his ideas, as it was probably installed on a school owned computer that probably (if my own experience is of any value here) crashed, broke down, and did all sorts of other unsightly things that required the services of their local IT support. Upon their latest maintenance of the machine they would find this strange piece of software. At least that's how it played out in my mind when I read that he gave the software to his professor.
Hanlon's Razor comes to mind:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Wait, what? I am not particularly fond of any of the three entities that you mentioned in your post, but I think you should expound on your belief. I can't really tell how the RIAA, MPAA, and Disney could have forced WorldCom to commit massive accounting fraud. Believe me, I would like to see the RIAA, MPAA, and Disney, as well as quite a few others go away, but blaming them willy-nilly for things that they don't really have connection to is detrimental to the cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Touché!
No, it wasn't a flawed analogy, because I wasn't referring to legality in that respect, but ethics.
Well, maybe it was a flawed analogy, but not for the reasons you've stated. Still, there are federal laws that protect against, you know, "internet terrorism" or whatever, so you have to take that into account too. I only assume that you were stateside, as I am, because of your arizona.edu email. In which case, you most certainly would be breaking one crazy federal law or another, with undoubtedly with ridiculously harsh penalties. Prevailing in the suit, on the other hand, is an entirely different question, well beyond my scope of knowledge.
But all of that is besides the point, as this is supposed to be about ethics, if I remember correctly. Here's the point I was trying to demonstrate: In the scenario where I find someone breaking into my property, I could very well get away with whacking them with a baseball bat, on the grounds that I felt threatened and was acting in self defense. In the scenario where I find someone breaking into my wireless network, I couldn't get away with hitting them with a baseball bat, but I really really really wish I could. Not that I mean to direct these hostilities towards your actions, which can admittedly be painted in a different light given the circumstance. I'm just referring to it in a broader sense of principles. (or lack thereof, since hitting people with bats doesn't necessarily scream out "principled individual")
(This one only took a couple minutes to write up. I think I'm improving?)
Maaaaybe it blocked all of the viruses but 1, but that one that got through infected it 100 times, of which the software then found and cleaned 6.
Alternatively, maybe it really did only get 4%, but they gave it an extra two points for effort. and a star sticker too.
Ok, so probably not. I'm going to guess that maybe the test wasn't as thorough as the article makes it out to be.
Just number 6?
p.s. It's "Hear! Hear!" by the way.
Also, my results show only a couple of good hits, but that's what I get for choosing such a wacky username.
I've never been to Ubi.com, those aren't my flickr photos, and I most certainly do not have a Level 70 Human Warlock.
Furthermore, my real name yields only 4 search results belonging to someone else who was attempting to research their own geneology. Neat.
trivial != easy
/. brand analogous situation: If for some reason you were locked out of your hotel room, and no one had the key handy because no one uses that room very often, I imagine you'd be more inclined to request a refund for your hotel room instead of trying to break into it through the window.
I apologize if I made that seem like it was the case. If a locksmith said that a given lock is really easy to break into, and you tried to do it and couldn't, it doesn't mean that he was wrong. The problem is that is meant as a comparative statement than a directly descriptive one. That is, compared to other available security methods it is relatively simple to break. That is, not easy for anyone but easy in comparison.
I don't understand what you mean in the first part of your main point. I'll try to be less thoughtful in my subsequent responses. =D
I'm genuinely just trying to be helpful, and yes, I'm stupid, and I actually sometimes take 20 or 30 minutes of editing and rewriting my responses to try to make them as clear and concise as possible. As is apparent, neither clear nor concise are my strong points.
Seriously though, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that it's not legal to break into someone's network. This might seem like crazy talk, but hear me out. Permission to access doesn't mean you have permission to access through whatever means you please. Granted, you probably had a case where you could have been reimbursed some money, had you paid specifically for wireless Internet access. But it's very important to realize that you are placing yourself at serious risk if you attempt to force access to the network without explicit permission to do so. Furthermore, I will suggest that it certainly isn't ethical, on the grounds that two wrongs don't make a right, but I won't go so far as to say that it is completely unethical, unless of course you had prior permission to do so. In which case, I'd say go for it. You didn't mention that you had asked and been granted permission, so I assume you didn't have permission to break into their network. Or, the crazy
Here's the software.
Here's the hardware compatibility list.
Try it out on your home wireless network if you want to see what little protection WEP actually provides.
Do not break into any equipment that you do not own. *insert standard "I cannot be held liable" disclaimer here*
Possibly not illegal
Not completely unethical
Probably not "necessary"
Breaking WEP is trivial for someone who wants to break into it, knows how, and has the proper equipment, which is what makes it useless from a security standpoint when it's the only method you are using to secure your wireless network. Further complication is added by the fact that not all wireless cards allow you the appropriate level of hardware access to initiate packet injection, which is the primary step in breaking into a WEP network speedily and with any decent probability of success without having to retry in between possible rekeying. WEP is possible to break without packet injection, and with only one computer, but the standard (super speedy) setup involves two machines; one for injection and one for listening to the response.
Here's an article to get started:
http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1824/
None, I'd wager. Mainly because "spiced ham" doesn't have an N in it.
Your churlish use of "M$" obviates any intelligent conversation we could be having about this.
I don't know anything about being an American?
I was born in Detroit and I live in Chicago. I don't mind getting modded as flamebait, though my comment was intended to be humerous. The humor hinges on whether or not anyone in the conversation knows that I am an American, but explaining it detracts from the humor, so I didn't.
Given all that, there should be nothing that lead you to the conclusion one way or the other, so you made an assumption and ran with it. Right into a wall.
I agree that technologies like these are useful tools to put in the hands of parents. On the other hand, it seems completely unnecessary for the government to get involved in, but its a not an issue for me as the government seems to be wasting its time on far useless projects, or implementing truly invasive technologies that require attention much more than this little project merits. The headline to this, "To Screen All Content" is misleading and sensationalist, implying that the censorship is somehow automatic and compulsory. Furthermore, the reason the article itself gives for the implementation of this article uses quite specious logic to justify the legislation, "Since the content viewed by children is no longer restricted to TV or radio, Sen. Mark Pryor feels that the new law is necessary", which only fans the flames to make this otherwise insignificant issue appear to be notable.
It seems to be quite a challenge to find an valid argument that could possibly portray this in a bad light. I agree that the law doesn't seem necessary, but the effect of having the FCC overview the creation and implementation of a new V-Chip standard doesn't exactly sound too particularly Orwellian for my tastes.
I am pretty sure you are missing some words or punctuation or something.
That is ridiculous and it's definitely not the norm in any of the circles that I run in. Software Update Services is the solution to that problem, and I'd wager that it is probably in place at most companies with over 200 computers. From the client side it appears that the computer is just downloading software and security updates from microsoft as usual, but really they're being downloaded from an internal server. Furthermore, WSUS allows you to approve or deny updates, allowing your tech support or whoever to test them before they bork your cnc machine's software and whatnot.s px
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.a
Well, it's settled. You're an American.
Here's a link to the list that I think you were referencing. It lists A Wrinkle In Time at 22.k s/100mostfrequently.htm
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlin
Why I find this humorous is that when I was in 6th grade, some 15 years or so ago, my elementary school had a list of books that we were required to read and write book reports and be generally harassed until they were sure we understood the meaning of the content. Julie of the Wolves and A Wrinkle In Time were among the books that we were required to read, and also appear on the list that I linked to above, in positions 38 and 22 respectively. It's also worth noting that this was a Catholic elementary school that I attended, and I believe it was 1993 when I was in 6th grade. I say all this because I am trying to build a mental time line for when this would have been considered normal reading material to becoming listed on a frequently challenged reading material list dated 1990-2000. I don't know what happened, but something went terribly wrong somewhere along the way.
Dismayed to find it and many other titles on that list would be an understatement. (Damned that foul mouthed and filthy minded Mark Twain)
That's all fine and well, but IIRC Randi wasn't suing him for fraud, but trying prevent people from becoming mindless followers of Randi and buying into his hokey pseudo-religion. Secondly, it is debatable whether or not "people know magic is fake". Crossing Over, Faith Healers, Scientology, or most aspects of religion that people seem to get most caught up in, altogether garner the support and beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people. Randi is more or less concerned with protecting these damned fools from themselves, or at least providing them with an rational alternative from which they can choose.
If you've ever followed the details regarding incidents involving Geller that have happened over the past few decades you'd realize how what he does can be a dangerous thing.
Way to read TFA he linked to.
Ok, so you don't take issue with the fact that it's useless and ridiculously expensive, but you think people are complaining about it a little too much than you think they should be? I can think for myself, and I meter my outrage of different issues as I see fit.
Secondly, your last line of the argument blatantly uses circular logic to prove itself.
Thirdly, I am purposefully avoiding the red herring about the Internet and security that you through out there. Just thought I'd let you know.
You expected it to be bad? I thought it was going to be great, and I wasn't disappointed. But then again I thought that the ELO episode of the previous season, Love and Monsters, was the best one... so what do I know? They're similar episodes in the respect that they take the focus almost completely off of what the Doctor and friends are doing, and focus on someone else. I hope Davies does one more like it in next year's season.
Should I call the police because my mother is trying to hide her graying hair?
My Terminator 3 experience was completely different. I was on vacation visiting my brother out of town when it came out. At the time he was dating a real stiff of a girl who was 12 kinds of snobby. Her and I never really got along that well, mostly because she was too uptight for my tastes so I used to antagonize her. In this moment of brilliancy I decided that one of the things that I absolutely had to do while visiting them while I was in town was take them to go and see Terminator 3. Sadly, this was the last time I was to ruin another night of her miserable existence, as they broke up about 6 months after that, so now I can only look back at that film with fond memories.
Actually he doesn't have to admit that your opinion is valid, and you declaring that it must be so makes you sound retarded. What the poster was implying is that the position that the gentleman held required little to no knowledge of algorithms, and apparently that is about the _only_ thing that the CS expert was knowledgeable in. A lot of people that I know whom have doctorates are strange fellows, several of them requiring a healthy daily dose of petting their egos. On the other hand, a few of the other doctorate students I know that are without these issues are the most entertaining folk to be around. It appears that either getting your doctorate makes you crazy, or one has to be crazy in the first place to want one, even after becoming fully aware of the torment that is required to obtain one. I'll tell you this little secret though. I think he sounded retarded too, but for different reasons. I think it mostly has to do with whining about having a job.
Hanlon's Razor comes to mind:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
1940's? He said 50 years.
The 1990's are over man, get over it.
And if you don't believe that some things have gotten worse, please tell me where you live.
If it's true, I may just move there.
Wait, what? I am not particularly fond of any of the three entities that you mentioned in your post, but I think you should expound on your belief. I can't really tell how the RIAA, MPAA, and Disney could have forced WorldCom to commit massive accounting fraud. Believe me, I would like to see the RIAA, MPAA, and Disney, as well as quite a few others go away, but blaming them willy-nilly for things that they don't really have connection to is detrimental to the cause.
Prevent idiots from watching stupid movies doesn't stop them from being idiots.