Make no mistake, China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software. They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons. They use one until it's discovered and patched, then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.
When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an "undisclosed source" on new vulnerabilities, it's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise. It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systems. For now they are content to quietly steal data and technology, but we're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious. They have the power to level the US financial systems, military supply lines, utilities, etc which would quickly ruin the US. The reason they have not? It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front. They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.
One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?" The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters? Sounds like a CRT in most respects. But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.
It also implies bringing back all of the alignment issues of CRTs and rear-projection TVs. This really sounds like a step backwards, regardless of any power savings (which in an LCD or LED monitor is mostly from the backlight anyway).
You said "The law defines broadband...", which any normal person might interpret to mean there is a law on the books defining the term broadband.
Sure. That makes sense. There is something with the force of law somewhere that explicitly states what "broadband" is according to the federal government.
So when you said "the law defines", were you referring to a specific law or piece of legislation? Or were you blowing smoke? I thought perhaps you meant the Recovery Act since that's what provides the funding commitment and tasking for the broadband plan.
You had the nerve to call me a liar when I simply asked what law you were referring to, claiming that you never mentioned a law.
I wouldn't put it past us Navy folk. A guy in my A School class tried to megger between his nipples.
A megger does have much more voltage than a simple ohmmeter. Most units I've seen had pretty low currents, but you could still give yourself a nice shock.
My iPhone charger delivers 5 watts and it takes hours before it's charged.
While the charger may be rated at 5 watts output, the phone battery isn't charging at a full 5 watts if its taking hours. The battery in the iPhone is rated at 5.7 watt-hours (3.7 volts, 1500 mAH). Even if we estimate the charging process at only 75% efficient, that should charge it from zero to full in 1.5 hours. Here is a picture of a replacement Apple 3G battery showing the specs. http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/28/688/L12455938.jpg
Still, I agree that 5-watts is a little low for some devices. I would have preferred they aimed to match the USB 3.0 spec of 9 watts.
Personally, it would be interesting to see internet access become a utility. It wouldn't matter how it's delivered, and would be a fixed price for a fixed bandwidth. Put it back on the service providers to deliver it however they want. That would leave them with profits on the easy to service customers, and taking losses on the hard to service customers. That's how phone service works. If you live in the boonies, they don't charge you extra monthly costs. They don't charge any different if they have to install poles down the street or just punch down the right wires in the basement of the apartment complex.
On the down side, the Telcos have figured out how to monopolize this and screw the customer. It would also discourage anyone but larger companies from delivering Internet connectivity, and put a damper on inovations in new methods of delivering that service. Similar to how a local community well becomes a public utility once you're service more than x number of homes.
It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+% of the population than 100%.
If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.
300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.
That's the entire reason for this plan. A fair percentage of the US consumers don't have a viable option for high-speed internet access. Being in a remote location can certainly rule out DSL, cellular, cable, or even satellite. Satellite internet access is probably the easiest to deploy in remote locations, but its pricey with upfront equipment costs and high monthly fees.
Proximity to emergency services isn't really related. As an example, so you live a mile outside of town in a sparsely populated area in a hilly area. The telco probably hasn't upgraded their CO for DSL since they'll never get enough users to pay back the equipment cost. Cable won't go out that far for the same reason. Cell service might be non-existant. Satellite might not be workable due to a poor view of the southern sky.
The heart of this debate is the definition of "broadband", which has become such a widely abused term. You're hung up on associating it with bandwidth, whereas I'm being anal and pointing out that it's a misuse of the term based on the conventional (or historic) meaning of the term. At the technical level versus the consumer level, they still use the term correctly.
You said "The law defines broadband...", which any normal person might interpret to mean there is a law on the books defining the term broadband. Since the Recovery Act was previously mentioned, I looked and found no definition. So naturally, I asked what law you were referring to. How does that make me a liar again?
As far as I can tell, the FCC is the one running with the definition of broadband to mean above a specific bandwidth and/or certain methods of delivery that bandwidth. I suppose it makes sense to do this because the average consumer thinks 'broadband" is anything better than dialup.
I should clarify then. The signal sent on a fiber is usually a single frequency unless you are multiplexing (ie WDM, DWDM or CWDM). The term broadband has many connotations, but it generally doesn't apply to a single frequency signal
Modems using speeds 4800 and up are indeed using a wide frequency range, versus a pair of FSK frequencies like the original Bell 300 baud standard.
You do have a point about "high speed". We just need to look at USB specs for an example of that. FTTH (fiber to the home?) can indeed use multiplexing.
Which law are you referring to as the Recovery Act doesn't define broadband, but just refers to boradband service. FCC has defined broadband http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadband.html.
Google got all the hip going for this phone, and probably thought that only the "super geek" would get it. Now that Ma an Pa Bell are getting this phone, and don't know how to enter in the information for looking onto the cell phone network, or how to send text message, google will find out how "smart" the average american is:)
I think you hit the nail on the head. Most of the gotta-have-it types I know, really are not as tech savvy as they think. If it isn't idiot proof, you gotta plan for lots of tech support. Even Apple whose products are relatively user friendly has to do a ton of hand holding.
Broadband is supposed to mean across a wider frequency range. Typical fiber use is a single frequency/wavelength unless you're doing multiplexing. A modem could actually be considered broadband as is uses a spread of frequencies.
So wikipedia says broadband is better than dialup, but FCC says better than 768k. Why can't these folks simply use far more accurate term "high-speed"?
Do you allow DNS on your network? OpenVPN-over-UDP-over-IP-over-DNS isn't lightning fast but it does the job most of the time. It's a neat way to (ab)use commercial WiFi hotspots too. You can't stop a determined power user except maybe with a whitelist of a small set of whitelisted remote hosts.
If you're talking about abusing an open port 53 at the firewall, I think you need your network to allow port 53 udp outbound, and either established returning sessions or traffic from port 53 udp inbound. If you've got that allowed, you've got a security problem with your network. Forcing internal DNS lookups through your server and blocking inbound DNS requests is the fix.
Or are you saying you can trick the internal DNS servers into passing the traffic for you, in the form of creative lookups/responses. That would be damn slow given the udp packet size limitations. I would also set off some IDS systems as a denial of service attack in progress against an outside dns server.
And again, I believe that is crossing the line from a casual violation of reasonable use into actively trying to bypass network defenses. If your use is business related, just ask the network admins.
Some of the rules and legalities change when it's federal systems involved. If you interpret the US laws strictly, doing anything that you haven't specifically been authorized to do is considered exceeding your authorized access. Being a govt facility also means I don't have much sway in whether charges are pursued, just some discretion in what I report.
There was more to this story that I can't discuss, but this was definitely not casually accessing the internet or even just visiting inappropriate sites. It was using computers he wasn't even allowed to use, deliberately installing software, compromising the security of the local computer, attempting to defeat network protections, and attempting to use that software to enter the network from home.
Would the Feds have pressed charges if this was the only offense? Probably not. Depending on the employee it would have ranged from a minor reprimand up to a possible termination. Usually when I see inappropriate web sites or software being installed, I just discreetly let the user know that it is being monitored, why its a problem, and it never happens again. This case was definitely much more involved than joe user thinking he knows better than the system admin and trying to remotely access his home computer.
You missed the "other reasons" part. Read more thoroughly next time. The real reasons for his firing included a felony stalking charge and bringing a loaded handgun onto the premises.
It also was not just "listening to music". It was installing hacking software and attempting to bypass the firewall in both directions. The threat of computer charges was just icing on the large hole this guy dug himself. Ironically, we could not make that charge stick as HR lost the form he signed about proper computer use.
So, just tunnel SSH over SSL, and buy yourself a proper certificate.
At which point, you've crossed the line from causally surfing when you should be working into actively trying to subvert network defenses. That's the line that will get you fired instead of simply told to get back to work. Surfing porn or other "inappropriate" sites will also get you fired pretty quick.
Besides, I happen to watch for unusual stuff like SSL sessions open for long periods of time to address ranges belonging to cable modems and Verizon DSL subnets. Had a guy last month get fired for other reasons, and reviewing the logs and seeing that he was trying to tunnel out to his home music library simply added to the justification for firing him. He was a dipshit and has no recourse as we threatened him with a federal charge of hacking govt computers by trying to install tunneling software.
This is exactly the avenue the Feds took to get a ad-hoc National ID in place. Using financial incentives, the fed govt has basically bribed the states into having the same set of required elements and data contained on each state's drivers license. Almost all of the states (a few refused the money - I don't recall which ones) are also using the same contractor to house and maintain the database. The fed govt gets indirect access to this database via the same contractor using symantec's like "we don't have access to the data", yet they have contractors who can "provide reports from this data".
Don't believe me? Go look up the requirements for allowing a state drivers license to be used as a passport for driving across the border.
Congratulations. He now has an addiction. Probably not too bad, more along the lines of needing coffee in the morning. The good news is that he'll probably tire of it within a few months.
Now you have to teach him self control to go with this new addition. Start with something simple like if he gets his chores done first, only then he can play on the computer. That's a pretty basic life skill in my opinion.
If you tell me he's too young to have chores, I'm going to politely tell you that he's too young to be on the internet alone.
"Roberson’s subpoena was nothing more than a politely worded request"
So basically this Sheriff lied and misrepresented himself in order to trick Blizzard into revealing personal data? That is illegal in itself, btw. Or was there an actual court issued subpoena involved? I which case the court probably overstepped its authority.
I guess the cop also isn't as internet savvy as he thinks, since an IP address doesn't necessarily located a physical address.
Talbert explained that this online manhunt isn’t the first time his department has ventured onto the Internet to track down a suspect. Earlier this year, sheriff’s deputies used a phone number look-up Web site to find a man in North Carolina who was wanted on charges in Howard County. In that case, authorities found their suspect through an online classified ad on Craig’s List.
Wow. They discovered how to google a phone number! Are they really bragging about coming out of the dark ages?
I'd be surprised if they weren't aware of it. Still it's those annoying differences that make OO a poor drop-in replacement for anyone who is used to the Office products. As someone who uses both (and OO on nix and windows), I constantly struggle with silly things that I normally don't have to think about, like control-a doing something completely different. Despite claims to the contrary, moving files between OO and Office is not seamless and my files frequently get "tweaked" or rearranged.
Do you really need an IT guy for every 16 employees? Unless you are an IT company or suport a heavy web presence, I'd say you either have very incompetent employees or you're grossly overstaffed in the IT department.
Because OO isn't compatible enough. If it doesn't look 100% the same, and I mean 100%, it's not good enough.
It's not that it isn't 100% the same. Its that OO tried so hard to make a clone of MS Office and only got it about 80% the same. If you're going to be a blatant rip-off of an existing product, at least try to implement the same features in the same manner. Nothing like having almost identical menus, except the shortcut keys are slightly different.
Slashdot Mirror
Make no mistake, China is agressively attacking foreign systems and common software. They are stockpiling these zero-day exploits as potential weapons. They use one until it's discovered and patched, then wait until they have another high priority and then unwrap the next one.
When you see Symantec or Microsoft reporting an "undisclosed source" on new vulnerabilities, it's usually our own government that reported it after investigating a compromise. It's damn scary just how far the Chinese have wormed into the US corporate and military systems. For now they are content to quietly steal data and technology, but we're in deep shit if China decides to turn malicious. They have the power to level the US financial systems, military supply lines, utilities, etc which would quickly ruin the US. The reason they have not? It's not that they're scared of the US retaliating in kind - they clearly have the upper hand on that front. They need us to continue leeching our dollars and tech.
One commenter asked the same question I am asking -- "How thick is this?" The notion of a beam or beams scanning over a phosphor surface that is treated with cells and filters? Sounds like a CRT in most respects. But to have scanning beams, there should be some distance travelled which implies some thickness issues.
It also implies bringing back all of the alignment issues of CRTs and rear-projection TVs. This really sounds like a step backwards, regardless of any power savings (which in an LCD or LED monitor is mostly from the backlight anyway).
You said "The law defines broadband...", which any normal person might interpret to mean there is a law on the books defining the term broadband.
Sure. That makes sense. There is something with the force of law somewhere that explicitly states what "broadband" is according to the federal government.
So when you said "the law defines", were you referring to a specific law or piece of legislation? Or were you blowing smoke? I thought perhaps you meant the Recovery Act since that's what provides the funding commitment and tasking for the broadband plan.
You had the nerve to call me a liar when I simply asked what law you were referring to, claiming that you never mentioned a law.
I wouldn't put it past us Navy folk. A guy in my A School class tried to megger between his nipples.
A megger does have much more voltage than a simple ohmmeter. Most units I've seen had pretty low currents, but you could still give yourself a nice shock.
My iPhone charger delivers 5 watts and it takes hours before it's charged.
While the charger may be rated at 5 watts output, the phone battery isn't charging at a full 5 watts if its taking hours. The battery in the iPhone is rated at 5.7 watt-hours (3.7 volts, 1500 mAH). Even if we estimate the charging process at only 75% efficient, that should charge it from zero to full in 1.5 hours. Here is a picture of a replacement Apple 3G battery showing the specs. http://cdn.overstock.com/images/products/28/688/L12455938.jpg
Still, I agree that 5-watts is a little low for some devices. I would have preferred they aimed to match the USB 3.0 spec of 9 watts.
This is an urban legend, btw. Usually it's a Navy sailor in the tale.
free luxuries you don't enjoy.
I think that's part of the problem. Internet access is quickly becoming a necessity rather than a luxury.
Personally, it would be interesting to see internet access become a utility. It wouldn't matter how it's delivered, and would be a fixed price for a fixed bandwidth. Put it back on the service providers to deliver it however they want. That would leave them with profits on the easy to service customers, and taking losses on the hard to service customers. That's how phone service works. If you live in the boonies, they don't charge you extra monthly costs. They don't charge any different if they have to install poles down the street or just punch down the right wires in the basement of the apartment complex.
On the down side, the Telcos have figured out how to monopolize this and screw the customer. It would also discourage anyone but larger companies from delivering Internet connectivity, and put a damper on inovations in new methods of delivering that service. Similar to how a local community well becomes a public utility once you're service more than x number of homes.
It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+% of the population than 100%.
If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.
300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.
That's the entire reason for this plan. A fair percentage of the US consumers don't have a viable option for high-speed internet access. Being in a remote location can certainly rule out DSL, cellular, cable, or even satellite. Satellite internet access is probably the easiest to deploy in remote locations, but its pricey with upfront equipment costs and high monthly fees.
Proximity to emergency services isn't really related. As an example, so you live a mile outside of town in a sparsely populated area in a hilly area. The telco probably hasn't upgraded their CO for DSL since they'll never get enough users to pay back the equipment cost. Cable won't go out that far for the same reason. Cell service might be non-existant. Satellite might not be workable due to a poor view of the southern sky.
The heart of this debate is the definition of "broadband", which has become such a widely abused term. You're hung up on associating it with bandwidth, whereas I'm being anal and pointing out that it's a misuse of the term based on the conventional (or historic) meaning of the term. At the technical level versus the consumer level, they still use the term correctly.
You said "The law defines broadband...", which any normal person might interpret to mean there is a law on the books defining the term broadband. Since the Recovery Act was previously mentioned, I looked and found no definition. So naturally, I asked what law you were referring to. How does that make me a liar again?
As far as I can tell, the FCC is the one running with the definition of broadband to mean above a specific bandwidth and/or certain methods of delivery that bandwidth. I suppose it makes sense to do this because the average consumer thinks 'broadband" is anything better than dialup.
Jeez got your panties in a wad eh?
I should clarify then. The signal sent on a fiber is usually a single frequency unless you are multiplexing (ie WDM, DWDM or CWDM). The term broadband has many connotations, but it generally doesn't apply to a single frequency signal
Modems using speeds 4800 and up are indeed using a wide frequency range, versus a pair of FSK frequencies like the original Bell 300 baud standard.
You do have a point about "high speed". We just need to look at USB specs for an example of that. FTTH (fiber to the home?) can indeed use multiplexing.
Which law are you referring to as the Recovery Act doesn't define broadband, but just refers to boradband service. FCC has defined broadband http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/broadband.html.
Agreed. Please, for the sake of your penis, return the laptop if you have one. Take it from me, there's nothing worse than a penis burn.
"An internal microphone wire under the palm rest can short circuit and overheat. This poses a potential burn hazard to consumers."
I don't think you need to worry about burning your penis, unless you keep laying it across the palm rest.
Google got all the hip going for this phone, and probably thought that only the "super geek" would get it. Now that Ma an Pa Bell are getting this phone, and don't know how to enter in the information for looking onto the cell phone network, or how to send text message, google will find out how "smart" the average american is :)
I think you hit the nail on the head. Most of the gotta-have-it types I know, really are not as tech savvy as they think. If it isn't idiot proof, you gotta plan for lots of tech support. Even Apple whose products are relatively user friendly has to do a ton of hand holding.
Broadband is supposed to mean across a wider frequency range. Typical fiber use is a single frequency/wavelength unless you're doing multiplexing. A modem could actually be considered broadband as is uses a spread of frequencies.
So wikipedia says broadband is better than dialup, but FCC says better than 768k. Why can't these folks simply use far more accurate term "high-speed"?
Fiber isn't "broadband". Of course the FCC probably defines "broadband" as any better than dialup.
Do you allow DNS on your network? OpenVPN-over-UDP-over-IP-over-DNS isn't lightning fast but it does the job most of the time. It's a neat way to (ab)use commercial WiFi hotspots too. You can't stop a determined power user except maybe with a whitelist of a small set of whitelisted remote hosts.
If you're talking about abusing an open port 53 at the firewall, I think you need your network to allow port 53 udp outbound, and either established returning sessions or traffic from port 53 udp inbound. If you've got that allowed, you've got a security problem with your network. Forcing internal DNS lookups through your server and blocking inbound DNS requests is the fix.
Or are you saying you can trick the internal DNS servers into passing the traffic for you, in the form of creative lookups/responses. That would be damn slow given the udp packet size limitations. I would also set off some IDS systems as a denial of service attack in progress against an outside dns server.
And again, I believe that is crossing the line from a casual violation of reasonable use into actively trying to bypass network defenses. If your use is business related, just ask the network admins.
Some of the rules and legalities change when it's federal systems involved. If you interpret the US laws strictly, doing anything that you haven't specifically been authorized to do is considered exceeding your authorized access. Being a govt facility also means I don't have much sway in whether charges are pursued, just some discretion in what I report.
There was more to this story that I can't discuss, but this was definitely not casually accessing the internet or even just visiting inappropriate sites. It was using computers he wasn't even allowed to use, deliberately installing software, compromising the security of the local computer, attempting to defeat network protections, and attempting to use that software to enter the network from home.
Would the Feds have pressed charges if this was the only offense? Probably not. Depending on the employee it would have ranged from a minor reprimand up to a possible termination. Usually when I see inappropriate web sites or software being installed, I just discreetly let the user know that it is being monitored, why its a problem, and it never happens again. This case was definitely much more involved than joe user thinking he knows better than the system admin and trying to remotely access his home computer.
You missed the "other reasons" part. Read more thoroughly next time. The real reasons for his firing included a felony stalking charge and bringing a loaded handgun onto the premises.
It also was not just "listening to music". It was installing hacking software and attempting to bypass the firewall in both directions. The threat of computer charges was just icing on the large hole this guy dug himself. Ironically, we could not make that charge stick as HR lost the form he signed about proper computer use.
So, just tunnel SSH over SSL, and buy yourself a proper certificate.
At which point, you've crossed the line from causally surfing when you should be working into actively trying to subvert network defenses. That's the line that will get you fired instead of simply told to get back to work. Surfing porn or other "inappropriate" sites will also get you fired pretty quick.
Besides, I happen to watch for unusual stuff like SSL sessions open for long periods of time to address ranges belonging to cable modems and Verizon DSL subnets. Had a guy last month get fired for other reasons, and reviewing the logs and seeing that he was trying to tunnel out to his home music library simply added to the justification for firing him. He was a dipshit and has no recourse as we threatened him with a federal charge of hacking govt computers by trying to install tunneling software.
This is exactly the avenue the Feds took to get a ad-hoc National ID in place. Using financial incentives, the fed govt has basically bribed the states into having the same set of required elements and data contained on each state's drivers license. Almost all of the states (a few refused the money - I don't recall which ones) are also using the same contractor to house and maintain the database. The fed govt gets indirect access to this database via the same contractor using symantec's like "we don't have access to the data", yet they have contractors who can "provide reports from this data".
Don't believe me? Go look up the requirements for allowing a state drivers license to be used as a passport for driving across the border.
Congratulations. He now has an addiction. Probably not too bad, more along the lines of needing coffee in the morning. The good news is that he'll probably tire of it within a few months.
Now you have to teach him self control to go with this new addition. Start with something simple like if he gets his chores done first, only then he can play on the computer. That's a pretty basic life skill in my opinion.
If you tell me he's too young to have chores, I'm going to politely tell you that he's too young to be on the internet alone.
"Roberson’s subpoena was nothing more than a politely worded request"
So basically this Sheriff lied and misrepresented himself in order to trick Blizzard into revealing personal data? That is illegal in itself, btw. Or was there an actual court issued subpoena involved? I which case the court probably overstepped its authority.
I guess the cop also isn't as internet savvy as he thinks, since an IP address doesn't necessarily located a physical address.
Talbert explained that this online manhunt isn’t the first time his department has ventured onto the Internet to track down a suspect. Earlier this year, sheriff’s deputies used a phone number look-up Web site to find a man in North Carolina who was wanted on charges in Howard County. In that case, authorities found their suspect through an online classified ad on Craig’s List.
Wow. They discovered how to google a phone number! Are they really bragging about coming out of the dark ages?
I'd be surprised if they weren't aware of it. Still it's those annoying differences that make OO a poor drop-in replacement for anyone who is used to the Office products. As someone who uses both (and OO on nix and windows), I constantly struggle with silly things that I normally don't have to think about, like control-a doing something completely different. Despite claims to the contrary, moving files between OO and Office is not seamless and my files frequently get "tweaked" or rearranged.
Do you really need an IT guy for every 16 employees? Unless you are an IT company or suport a heavy web presence, I'd say you either have very incompetent employees or you're grossly overstaffed in the IT department.
Because OO isn't compatible enough. If it doesn't look 100% the same, and I mean 100%, it's not good enough.
It's not that it isn't 100% the same. Its that OO tried so hard to make a clone of MS Office and only got it about 80% the same. If you're going to be a blatant rip-off of an existing product, at least try to implement the same features in the same manner. Nothing like having almost identical menus, except the shortcut keys are slightly different.