There are several devices for this, from the $20 monocular to a $300 laser rangefinder.
The $20 version simply has markings, similar to a rifle scope, where the user simply matches the height of the pin to the markings and reads the result. The farther away, the smaller the pin.
A $20 version that uses no batteries is often far better suited for most golfers, imho. The only time it's not as useful is when the pin is missing or non-standard size.
That'd be about the worst situation I can imagine. Just what we need, more regulation on the Internet. Did you not learn from past legislation that was unconstitutional that you would actually WISH a congresscritter would attempt more laws for the online world?
Remember, Legislative branch just makes up a bunch of laws to justify a job. Executive branch executes those laws whether they are good or bad. If anything, it'd be better for someone in the executive branch to be affected so that they'd try to enforce the laws better, not make up new crap.
In other words, this guy could not only have given a black-eye to the county, but he could even go to jail for it.
If the information lost can be linked to a crime against one of the kids (no matter what age), he better have a good attorney. Gross Negligence and Reckless Endangerment come to mind.
Typically, information-gathering is a significant part of a targetted compromise. (Ignore the opportunistic compromises using automated script-kiddie worms.) To attack a specific target, you would spend way more than 3 seconds figuring out the knock sequence.
Mathematically, this poses no challenge whatsoever. But practically it adds to the complexity, and is like the hiker putting on sneakers to outrun his partner when he heard a bear. It makes someone else more attractive to attack.
Calling something more secure is misleading. It's also more secure to shut off all ports for 2 seconds per day, and this is very much along those lines.
How much more secure is it? is the real question. It stops a cursory scan, and that's about it. It fails on an attack that knows anything about the network, since all users have to have extensive knowledge of how to access it. It also can cause a denial of service, because a scan occurring while you're trying to knock would garble your own knock.
The article is slashdotted, but from what I gleen here, it fails horribly on a busy network, too, where the ports will be opened often.
An interesting method would be to assign each user a "password" of ports, and it would only allow that person to login. You could even implement a one-time secret knock, such as the challenge-response hash s/key, so that the knock would be different each time. It would be both a one-time password, and a highly obfuscated method (covert channel) of delivering the password.
How long until we see "spiders" that eschew illegal content and just shuffle bits around, to raise the percentages of legal content? You could easily do something like that with a screensaver like SETI@home.
How long until the RIAA does the same with infringing material? They can legally copy such infringing material because they hold the copyrights, but still claim it's hosted illegally and that host sent out 1 million copies (pinky to mouth).
Did anyone catch the cool stuff about possibly streaming music to your PC? I pay for digital music, and would love to get this sent to my pc instead of upstairs on the tube. I pay for the digital tv stuff, and would love to get that on my pc instead of just the standard cable channels fed as input to my ati all-in-wonder.
This whole thread is sounding like all those spurious arguments for gun-control. "Oooo, uncapping is illegal, and this allows people to do it, therefore this software should be illegal." Cry me a frikkin river, it's also illegal to drive drunk so maybe we should outlaw cars? There are plenty of potential legal uses for hacking the modem, and I'm really surprised the/. crowd is merely concentrating on uncapping the bandwidth and buying into the alarmist hype like a bunch of RIAA apologists.
The court will order the ISP to divulge the information if the case has merit, and then the person would know when they become penned in as the defendant.
I've heard of summary judgements due to failure for the defendant (john doe) to show, but the defendant can probably get it heard again.
These designs aren't necessarily trying to protect themselves, but make it more difficult for someone to experimentally do something nasty. It's like locking up a bicycle -- it won't stop a determined thief.
Recently a couple teens were arrested for photocopying $5 bills and trying to pass them. This technology would stop the idiot that doesn't really belong in jail, from being more of an idiot.
One other thing it does: it makes it more easily prosecutable. If the counterfeiter had to go through many hoops to create the fake currency, there's much less chance there will be any doubt as to intent.
Long ago, email was controlled at the "ISP" on arpanet (even though Gore hadn't yet invented the Internet). Email was a privilege, and required special permissions. Today, ISP's don't generally care what you send through their services, but often give "opt in" abilities to filter your email. I see cellphones in a similar state as the arpanet of old, and it's been taking off these past couple years.
This agreement among the Cellphone Providers should help cut spam, among other things such as parental complaints. In addition to this, there should be ways to enter a list of numbers that can be dialed from the phone, and so on.
There DOES need to be an opt-out provision, but it's unlikely to happen. That's the only thing that makes this policy bad, is the impossibility of competition and the fact that a minor paying for his own phone is screwed. The companies can simply cite "go to a competitor that will provide it without proof of age" where there really is none (having a monopolistic agreement amongst each other); and unlike the Internet, you have no recourse to find another provider.
SCO: you infringed on our code, we're suing IBM: prove it SCO: no, you prove it!
wtf? How did they get this far? I rarely root for the 800 lb gorilla, but it appears the strategy for SCO is just to tie this up in litigation as long as possible.
There is a different issue here... this has nothing to do with copyright infringement anymore, it is political maneuvering of consumer views. But, I'm preaching to the choir at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm.... that, with a .50BMG, would definitely make golfing more interesting.
There are several devices for this, from the $20 monocular to a $300 laser rangefinder.
The $20 version simply has markings, similar to a rifle scope, where the user simply matches the height of the pin to the markings and reads the result. The farther away, the smaller the pin.
A $20 version that uses no batteries is often far better suited for most golfers, imho. The only time it's not as useful is when the pin is missing or non-standard size.
That'd be about the worst situation I can imagine. Just what we need, more regulation on the Internet. Did you not learn from past legislation that was unconstitutional that you would actually WISH a congresscritter would attempt more laws for the online world?
Remember, Legislative branch just makes up a bunch of laws to justify a job. Executive branch executes those laws whether they are good or bad. If anything, it'd be better for someone in the executive branch to be affected so that they'd try to enforce the laws better, not make up new crap.
In other words, this guy could not only have given a black-eye to the county, but he could even go to jail for it.
If the information lost can be linked to a crime against one of the kids (no matter what age), he better have a good attorney. Gross Negligence and Reckless Endangerment come to mind.
Typically, information-gathering is a significant part of a targetted compromise. (Ignore the opportunistic compromises using automated script-kiddie worms.) To attack a specific target, you would spend way more than 3 seconds figuring out the knock sequence.
Mathematically, this poses no challenge whatsoever. But practically it adds to the complexity, and is like the hiker putting on sneakers to outrun his partner when he heard a bear. It makes someone else more attractive to attack.
Hey, don't knock it until you try it! ... or vice versa.
Calling something more secure is misleading. It's also more secure to shut off all ports for 2 seconds per day, and this is very much along those lines.
How much more secure is it? is the real question. It stops a cursory scan, and that's about it. It fails on an attack that knows anything about the network, since all users have to have extensive knowledge of how to access it. It also can cause a denial of service, because a scan occurring while you're trying to knock would garble your own knock.
The article is slashdotted, but from what I gleen here, it fails horribly on a busy network, too, where the ports will be opened often.
An interesting method would be to assign each user a "password" of ports, and it would only allow that person to login. You could even implement a one-time secret knock, such as the challenge-response hash s/key, so that the knock would be different each time. It would be both a one-time password, and a highly obfuscated method (covert channel) of delivering the password.
How long until we see "spiders" that eschew illegal content and just shuffle bits around, to raise the percentages of legal content? You could easily do something like that with a screensaver like SETI@home.
How long until the RIAA does the same with infringing material? They can legally copy such infringing material because they hold the copyrights, but still claim it's hosted illegally and that host sent out 1 million copies (pinky to mouth).
Did anyone catch the cool stuff about possibly streaming music to your PC? I pay for digital music, and would love to get this sent to my pc instead of upstairs on the tube. I pay for the digital tv stuff, and would love to get that on my pc instead of just the standard cable channels fed as input to my ati all-in-wonder.
/. crowd is merely concentrating on uncapping the bandwidth and buying into the alarmist hype like a bunch of RIAA apologists.
This whole thread is sounding like all those spurious arguments for gun-control. "Oooo, uncapping is illegal, and this allows people to do it, therefore this software should be illegal." Cry me a frikkin river, it's also illegal to drive drunk so maybe we should outlaw cars? There are plenty of potential legal uses for hacking the modem, and I'm really surprised the
Call me amazingly primitive, but I think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
[cybercafes] probably have to maintain an inventory of enter keys just to keep up with the theft that occurs.
Yes, they maintain their inventory from other cybercafes. There exists N cybercafe keyboards, and N-k enter keys.
Isn't there a famous problem about sharing these keys... the Porn-surfing Philosophers or something?
Yes Brain, but where are we going to get a one inch keyboard?
So now we have to write a program to enter bad captchas? You too can spam a spammer.
The last time I installed RHL, I paid for the delivery method (CD-ROM). But what went onto my computer is technically free-of-charge.
If SCO wants something to be installed on the hardware, they should be in the hardware business, not the litigation business.
The court will order the ISP to divulge the information if the case has merit, and then the person would know when they become penned in as the defendant.
I've heard of summary judgements due to failure for the defendant (john doe) to show, but the defendant can probably get it heard again.
Now they want me to pay for the air in the tires?
RIAA first tried to horribly abuse the (horribly abusable) DMCA and issue their own subpoenas.
Filing against John Does is the correct way to do it (from my armchair lawyer stance), if the ISP's won't voluntarily divulge the information.
Hell, I still use that goo on my monitor.
It's simply not there, google isn't doing anything.
You can get a "real" search by adding -lkjadflk to your search string, and google's anti-blog-spamming isn't kicking in.
IT'S CANADIAN!
That's like, what, US$25?
Go to goodwill and pick up a bunch of monopoly sets for that price and save yourself the trouble!
These designs aren't necessarily trying to protect themselves, but make it more difficult for someone to experimentally do something nasty. It's like locking up a bicycle -- it won't stop a determined thief.
Recently a couple teens were arrested for photocopying $5 bills and trying to pass them. This technology would stop the idiot that doesn't really belong in jail, from being more of an idiot.
One other thing it does: it makes it more easily prosecutable. If the counterfeiter had to go through many hoops to create the fake currency, there's much less chance there will be any doubt as to intent.
Long ago, email was controlled at the "ISP" on arpanet (even though Gore hadn't yet invented the Internet). Email was a privilege, and required special permissions. Today, ISP's don't generally care what you send through their services, but often give "opt in" abilities to filter your email. I see cellphones in a similar state as the arpanet of old, and it's been taking off these past couple years.
This agreement among the Cellphone Providers should help cut spam, among other things such as parental complaints. In addition to this, there should be ways to enter a list of numbers that can be dialed from the phone, and so on.
There DOES need to be an opt-out provision, but it's unlikely to happen. That's the only thing that makes this policy bad, is the impossibility of competition and the fact that a minor paying for his own phone is screwed. The companies can simply cite "go to a competitor that will provide it without proof of age" where there really is none (having a monopolistic agreement amongst each other); and unlike the Internet, you have no recourse to find another provider.
If he did, he'd be known as a "banging judge"
SCO: you infringed on our code, we're suing
IBM: prove it
SCO: no, you prove it!
wtf? How did they get this far? I rarely root for the 800 lb gorilla, but it appears the strategy for SCO is just to tie this up in litigation as long as possible.
There is a different issue here... this has nothing to do with copyright infringement anymore, it is political maneuvering of consumer views. But, I'm preaching to the choir at this point.
I would, too, if they implemented:
(-1 RTFA)
(-1 moron)
(-1 utter bullshit)