We have to remember there is a large sub-culture in the US/Canada and Europe who still think that evolution is a myth, and the world was created 6,000 years ago.
They make YouTube videos as well.
Just because they can use tech doesn't mean they grok tech.
Fabric can resist damage - but the concussion waves (especially lethal in water explosions) will still cause damage.
As an example, there are current studies on the link between multiple concussive explosion attacks on soldiers - a higher proportion of US soldiers in Iraq may in fact develop Parkinsonian diseases as a result of multiple exposures to blasts from car bombs and other similar attacks.
So, this will help with shrapnel and some damage, but will not solve the total risk factor.
1. Mac Mini with higher scale monitor at educational discount - $600 plus $249. 2. Full install of all WoW expansions by a techie friend or servatron at the U Bookstore - $50 or free (depends). 3. Purchasing a 3D snowglobe of your WoW character from an obsessive biochem grad student - $100 or free (depends).
4. Realizing you have $4000 or more to pay goldfarmers and jerks who loot guild vaults so you have the twinkiest WoW experience - PRICELESS.
Plus the largest demographic of players are housewives. Quite frankly, who wants to spend there life at a job?
Interesting. I remember when a WoW player tried to steal a guild I created from me, using gkick to kick everyone out and trying to trick me into making him GM, and using his officer ability to take 1 gold from the guild bank. Then, he said "If you can't win at WoW, you'll never win at life."
It's a game, people. If you can level to 70 in six days, you have no life.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people actually do things, not just play games.
But, online at night, it does seem to be a lot of housewives.
Like the kind of people that flock to these types of social networks give two shits about privacy. They'd probably give it up for a tootsie roll in-between clicking on the dancing monkey banners.
There are no dancing monkey banners on Facebook, unless you add them to your own page.
It's easy to have a hard password that's easy for you to remember.
Let's say you speak a foreign language. Just take a word that doesn't exist in that language and "translate" it from your primary language into that language, and put digits or symbols somewhere in the string.
Fairly simple, but it defeats all dictionary lookups.
Do that for both the public browsing password and for the more private passwords.
What they want to prevent is the long string of flag-draped coffins streaming home that is sure to undermine public support for the broader mission.
Well, naval burials at sea make sea battles a bit more palatable.
However, even though Canadian popular support for the War in Afghanistan has gone down as a result of the flag-draped coffins which are more prominently shown on Canadian TV, it's still a lot higher than support here in the US where we basically ban national coverage of dead bodies or flag-draped coffins beyond the local news.
Basically, even though we choose to live in fear, it doesn't increase popular support. And, since you're in a country where people basically feel safe and are not used to living in fear, one could easily argue that that basic attitude probably has a lot to do with why there is more popular support, given the Canadian military being the bulk of the forces in Afghanistan, while most US forces are in Iraq.
Regardless, more interesting are the original article's commentary of Bruce Schneier's answers on privacy and the Net, especially public cameras and password security, IMHO.
Well, as a former Army Sergeant, I have to agree with you.
The concept of force protection arose from the objective of battle - the imposition of chaos on the enemy and the reduction of chaos on our own military and economic supply train. But there is no cost effectiveness analysis used, sadly.
Sometimes we need to realize that overreaction, and overprotection, are the wrong responses.
Is it truly worth the time delays and economic disincentives we impose on air travel to screen everyone? Is it worth the disruption to the system from a few networks that don't screen roaming IP wireless users properly to include them? Should we not instead choose more limited and more effective measures instead? For example, let's look at rogue wireless spammers. Why not just ban them until they fix their own routers - or only permit them to receive IP traffic but not send it? We could even screen the outbound IP traffic based on the origin, or insist they use try IPv6 secure traffic, so that we can impose more strict restrictions on just those networks that cause 80 percent of the problem.
I found his comments on terrorism - A. Refuse to be terrorized - and cameras to be fairly well thought out.
We choose how we live.
We can live in fear and magnify risks that are, in reality, very minimal, or we can realize they're minimal and stop worrying about them.
I'd rather live free from fear.
And the answers about passwords were fairly good. When I was a regional security officer, I came up with similar concepts, based on the real threats that actually existed. When on a public site, with low real risk (e.g. public web, no linked account) it's better to have a common (but hard) password, and save more secure passwords for sites where you have real financial risk instead.
Ten Years from now, Security will be IPv6 plus ...
on
Security in Ten Years
·
· Score: 1
The thing is, ten years from now, we'll have Gigapop Internet in the USA (already installed at most major universities and colleges), and IPv6 will be in large-scale usage, but most of the security features will have been disabled by commercial interests, who care little about consumers.
It's not difficult to make sure gateways restrict mobile-based IPv6 traffic to more stringent anti-spam anti-viral measures, but unlikely that big business will let that happen, as that would impact their ability to sell software and hardware to deal with the problem, and might restrict the type of mobile devices allowed to use the Net to communicate.
I was referring to the Metrics of the spam hosting boxen. If we look at those, we note sources such as Brunei and China and so on, and that they are attached to and support Windows boxen.
In China, many people have cracked or broken Win licenses. Not saying this is good or bad, but the case.
When we look at compromised spam-sending botnets (the primary source of spam), we find this is where they come from.
Doesn't matter why it comes from there. Just that it does.
Filters and honeypots only work to a certain point, the nature of the beast adapts to the changing enviro.
IPv6 won't even fix it, as it still permits pop-and-drop wireless computers (which may be cheap connections bought and burned up in one mass usage) to connect.
The only reason we still have a spam problem is zombies running on Microsoft Windows desktop machines. These are sources for the last few incoming spams:
I tried to say the same thing, but the MSFT is God police downmodded me for that.
Actually, some of the filters, like those used by the UW with WebPine, are starting to treat overly-linked emails from the UW Bookstore and computer magazines as spam.
The treatment of the UW-owned UW Bookstore emails as spam by the UW's WebPine is deliciously ironic, of course...
And yet, both the Fox Business News analysts (on the only good Fox News show that is on at 1 am PST) just last night said that, in fact, Apple marketshare is projected to grow as many consumers and business choose both Apple MacOS and Linux systems.
This was also reported in the Wall Street Journal (print edition) over the long weekend as well.
So, we can conclude:
1. People (and business) do not like Win Vista - and if forced to buy Windows, are specifically staying at or "downgrading" to the more efficient WinXP.
2. People (and business) have started giving up on MSFT OS - and are switching to alternatives like MacOS and Linux - in increasing numbers.
3. People want computers that work, not computers that make life difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
btw what does Grok mean...?
Grok - to understand. It's techspeak.
We have to remember there is a large sub-culture in the US/Canada and Europe who still think that evolution is a myth, and the world was created 6,000 years ago.
They make YouTube videos as well.
Just because they can use tech doesn't mean they grok tech.
Fabric can resist damage - but the concussion waves (especially lethal in water explosions) will still cause damage.
As an example, there are current studies on the link between multiple concussive explosion attacks on soldiers - a higher proportion of US soldiers in Iraq may in fact develop Parkinsonian diseases as a result of multiple exposures to blasts from car bombs and other similar attacks.
So, this will help with shrapnel and some damage, but will not solve the total risk factor.
1. Mac Mini with higher scale monitor at educational discount - $600 plus $249.
2. Full install of all WoW expansions by a techie friend or servatron at the U Bookstore - $50 or free (depends).
3. Purchasing a 3D snowglobe of your WoW character from an obsessive biochem grad student - $100 or free (depends).
4. Realizing you have $4000 or more to pay goldfarmers and jerks who loot guild vaults so you have the twinkiest WoW experience - PRICELESS.
Plus the largest demographic of players are housewives.
Quite frankly, who wants to spend there life at a job?
Interesting. I remember when a WoW player tried to steal a guild I created from me, using gkick to kick everyone out and trying to trick me into making him GM, and using his officer ability to take 1 gold from the guild bank. Then, he said "If you can't win at WoW, you'll never win at life."
It's a game, people. If you can level to 70 in six days, you have no life.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people actually do things, not just play games.
But, online at night, it does seem to be a lot of housewives.
Like the kind of people that flock to these types of social networks give two shits about privacy. They'd probably give it up for a tootsie roll in-between clicking on the dancing monkey banners.
There are no dancing monkey banners on Facebook, unless you add them to your own page.
I for one salute our Lunar Overlords and their quick-thinking relocation of their Lunar Attack Base when they saw the Chinese coming!
It's easy to have a hard password that's easy for you to remember.
Let's say you speak a foreign language. Just take a word that doesn't exist in that language and "translate" it from your primary language into that language, and put digits or symbols somewhere in the string.
Fairly simple, but it defeats all dictionary lookups.
Do that for both the public browsing password and for the more private passwords.
What they want to prevent is the long string of flag-draped coffins streaming home that is sure to undermine public support for the broader mission.
Well, naval burials at sea make sea battles a bit more palatable.
However, even though Canadian popular support for the War in Afghanistan has gone down as a result of the flag-draped coffins which are more prominently shown on Canadian TV, it's still a lot higher than support here in the US where we basically ban national coverage of dead bodies or flag-draped coffins beyond the local news.
Basically, even though we choose to live in fear, it doesn't increase popular support. And, since you're in a country where people basically feel safe and are not used to living in fear, one could easily argue that that basic attitude probably has a lot to do with why there is more popular support, given the Canadian military being the bulk of the forces in Afghanistan, while most US forces are in Iraq.
Regardless, more interesting are the original article's commentary of Bruce Schneier's answers on privacy and the Net, especially public cameras and password security, IMHO.
Thus destroying yet another market for RIAA to try to extort money out of.
It's hard to sue for damages when the product costs nothing.
Well, as a former Army Sergeant, I have to agree with you.
The concept of force protection arose from the objective of battle - the imposition of chaos on the enemy and the reduction of chaos on our own military and economic supply train. But there is no cost effectiveness analysis used, sadly.
Sometimes we need to realize that overreaction, and overprotection, are the wrong responses.
Is it truly worth the time delays and economic disincentives we impose on air travel to screen everyone? Is it worth the disruption to the system from a few networks that don't screen roaming IP wireless users properly to include them? Should we not instead choose more limited and more effective measures instead? For example, let's look at rogue wireless spammers. Why not just ban them until they fix their own routers - or only permit them to receive IP traffic but not send it? We could even screen the outbound IP traffic based on the origin, or insist they use try IPv6 secure traffic, so that we can impose more strict restrictions on just those networks that cause 80 percent of the problem.
But living in fear never works.
I found his comments on terrorism - A. Refuse to be terrorized - and cameras to be fairly well thought out.
We choose how we live.
We can live in fear and magnify risks that are, in reality, very minimal, or we can realize they're minimal and stop worrying about them.
I'd rather live free from fear.
And the answers about passwords were fairly good. When I was a regional security officer, I came up with similar concepts, based on the real threats that actually existed. When on a public site, with low real risk (e.g. public web, no linked account) it's better to have a common (but hard) password, and save more secure passwords for sites where you have real financial risk instead.
The thing is, ten years from now, we'll have Gigapop Internet in the USA (already installed at most major universities and colleges), and IPv6 will be in large-scale usage, but most of the security features will have been disabled by commercial interests, who care little about consumers.
It's not difficult to make sure gateways restrict mobile-based IPv6 traffic to more stringent anti-spam anti-viral measures, but unlikely that big business will let that happen, as that would impact their ability to sell software and hardware to deal with the problem, and might restrict the type of mobile devices allowed to use the Net to communicate.
You mess with the best, you die like the rest.
... called Fable?
Seriously, though, it would be nice to have games in which one's optional actions showed up with a halo or fiery flames above your head.
Oh, wait, wasn't this an xBox game
It's very simple.
...
1. Buy the spectrum at 699.9 MHz.
2. Buy the spectrum at 700.1 MHz.
3. Put Seattle garage band music on both bands and bleed it to the edge
5. Profit!
Well, now it's sold out.
But it wasn't before we slashdotted them.
And bundled Wii consoles are frequently available (or were until we overloaded them).
I was referring to the Metrics of the spam hosting boxen. If we look at those, we note sources such as Brunei and China and so on, and that they are attached to and support Windows boxen.
In China, many people have cracked or broken Win licenses. Not saying this is good or bad, but the case.
When we look at compromised spam-sending botnets (the primary source of spam), we find this is where they come from.
Doesn't matter why it comes from there. Just that it does.
Filters and honeypots only work to a certain point, the nature of the beast adapts to the changing enviro.
IPv6 won't even fix it, as it still permits pop-and-drop wireless computers (which may be cheap connections bought and burned up in one mass usage) to connect.
The only reason we still have a spam problem is zombies running on Microsoft Windows desktop machines. These are sources for the last few incoming spams:
I tried to say the same thing, but the MSFT is God police downmodded me for that.
But, you're correct.
For want of a secure OS the email was lost.
Actually, some of the filters, like those used by the UW with WebPine, are starting to treat overly-linked emails from the UW Bookstore and computer magazines as spam.
...
The treatment of the UW-owned UW Bookstore emails as spam by the UW's WebPine is deliciously ironic, of course
No, it snowed because of atmospheric seeding from Chinese pollution - I live in Seattle.
Besides, LEDs would be a wiser choice and have no mercury ballasts.
Just do the metrics on where the Zombies are. Yes, mostly Chinese Win boxen.
But a lot of spam tends to be hosted on Win boxen. If you do the metrics.
or Gamestop online.
They all can be bought online and will ship before Xmas if you order now.
As the Windows world shrinks due to people not wanting to use Vista, the opportunity to spread virii decreases exponentially.
Exactly.
Most of our major ports don't even screen until after the ship is unloaded.
And forget about screening at regional ports.
Never send a Red to do a decent security job - only a Blue will do.
And yet, both the Fox Business News analysts (on the only good Fox News show that is on at 1 am PST) just last night said that, in fact, Apple marketshare is projected to grow as many consumers and business choose both Apple MacOS and Linux systems.
This was also reported in the Wall Street Journal (print edition) over the long weekend as well.
So, we can conclude:
1. People (and business) do not like Win Vista - and if forced to buy Windows, are specifically staying at or "downgrading" to the more efficient WinXP.
2. People (and business) have started giving up on MSFT OS - and are switching to alternatives like MacOS and Linux - in increasing numbers.
3. People want computers that work, not computers that make life difficult.