My point was serious: The outside world contains people who are mean. Whether they come from real actual asshole teenagers or asshole adults pretending to be teenagers, any responsible parent or netadmin should take it as inevitable that spoofed packets and mean messages are going to arrive.
If you're going to go running an exploitable service such as a teenage girl's heart on an open connection, then you should make damn sure her inputs have been sanitized, and that malformed data isn't going to crash her.
At the very least you should source-verify anything coming from an untrusted host.
If some MySpace data from a stranger was enough to cause a Denial-Of-Service against this girl's life, then there were some serious deficiencies in her mental firewall.
Has anyone asked what her network administrators' role was in all this? They really ought to have been keeping their daughter running more stably to begin with.
What if, instead of being a conniving, bitchy neighbour lady, the messages had instead come from an asshole teenage boy who e-dumped her in an equally mean way?
Since she didn't realize it was all a hoax, she wouldn't know the difference and we can safely assume the suicide would have happened in the same way.
I say just use the 3 middle buttons, and map 'em to a diatonic scale. The whammy bar can control your accidentals (or bends even!) and musicians get a more intuitive scale at the expense of a bit of redundancy.
Rather than straight binary representations, there's this neat body of theory about hamiltonian paths on the edges of N-hypercubes. It's all a big pain in the ass to read about, but the gist is that you can enumerate the button positions in an order such that any two adjacent positions differ by only one button.
But this might not be the best plan either. A mapping of buttons to notes could be dictated entirely by adjacency, or it could instead be based around harmonic relationships. Maybe instead of an instrument where it's really intuitive to play a scale, I want an instrument where it's really intuitive to, say, traverse a circle of fifths.
US Criminal Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > Â 1030 (a)2(C):
(a) Whoeverâ"
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtainsâ"
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
--- shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
IANALbutAFAIK, this is the law prohibiting civilians from intercepting and cracking each other's crypto. I think the argument is that cryptography is a clear indication of what kinds of access the user didn't intend to authorize.
Slashdot Mirror
Aw, c'mon. Troll?
My point was serious: The outside world contains people who are mean. Whether they come from real actual asshole teenagers or asshole adults pretending to be teenagers, any responsible parent or netadmin should take it as inevitable that spoofed packets and mean messages are going to arrive.
If you're going to go running an exploitable service such as a teenage girl's heart on an open connection, then you should make damn sure her inputs have been sanitized, and that malformed data isn't going to crash her.
At the very least you should source-verify anything coming from an untrusted host.
"nonzero probability" != "will happen in a feasibly short number of human trials"
Planck's Constant: The Nyquist frequency of, well, everything.
Gary Glitter? Is that you?
If some MySpace data from a stranger was enough to cause a Denial-Of-Service against this girl's life, then there were some serious deficiencies in her mental firewall.
Has anyone asked what her network administrators' role was in all this? They really ought to have been keeping their daughter running more stably to begin with.
Oh jesus.
What if, instead of being a conniving, bitchy neighbour lady, the messages had instead come from an asshole teenage boy who e-dumped her in an equally mean way?
Since she didn't realize it was all a hoax, she wouldn't know the difference and we can safely assume the suicide would have happened in the same way.
Would that also be murder?
don't you worry. the MySpace AUP provides for all that.
Okay everyone, be honest.
How many of us only know or care about this because we really liked Cryptonomicon?
Haha.
I don't have any mod points right now but nevertheless I declare the above comment to be the winner of this thread.
me too! And apparently we suxor?
You can bet that'll be the first site to mysteriously succumb to foreign botnet attacks.
I bet for 11 mill I could root your machine too.
Multitouch with LCARS.
QFT
PhonebookFS provides this functionality for Linux.
http://www.freenet.org.nz/phonebook/manual.html
or, if YOU can't prove there ISN'T one, they keep the notebook.
Hey, you must be from the 90s! A lot has changed around here in the wild-and-crazy Era of Terror. Let me show you around.
You'd expect to see low-entropy chunks of cleartext then. Big fields of zeroes, mangled pieces of filenames, things like that.
note the emphasis on "or". I'm suggesting that sea and land is the only way to do it.
You know Sudan's on a whole other continent, right?
I say just use the 3 middle buttons, and map 'em to a diatonic scale. The whammy bar can control your accidentals (or bends even!) and musicians get a more intuitive scale at the expense of a bit of redundancy.
Rather than straight binary representations, there's this neat body of theory about hamiltonian paths on the edges of N-hypercubes. It's all a big pain in the ass to read about, but the gist is that you can enumerate the button positions in an order such that any two adjacent positions differ by only one button.
But this might not be the best plan either. A mapping of buttons to notes could be dictated entirely by adjacency, or it could instead be based around harmonic relationships. Maybe instead of an instrument where it's really intuitive to play a scale, I want an instrument where it's really intuitive to, say, traverse a circle of fifths.
US Criminal Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > Â 1030 (a)2(C):
(a) Whoeverâ"
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtainsâ"
(C) information from any protected computer if the conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication;
---
shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
IANALbutAFAIK, this is the law prohibiting civilians from intercepting and cracking each other's crypto. I think the argument is that cryptography is a clear indication of what kinds of access the user didn't intend to authorize.
But every other website operator will have to do the same.
Charter's blown $500K, and VeriSign makes....
OH MY GOD I THINK I CRACKED THE CONSPIRACY_
But I'm paying for my free net connection with Charter's adver-..
HEY WAIT A SEC.
So a rainbow file of 64k keys is all it takes? ...EEK.