normally, if a packet hits a closed port, a RST or FIN packet will be sent back to the source to indicate that there is nothing expecting the packet. However, for slow links, firewalls are recommended and used to simply DROP packets to closed ports.
Generally speaking, spoofing requires some pretty specific constraints to work at all, and tends to not be a real issue. Well, here is the issue. When a legitimate host fails to respond to its end on an invalid connection.... you have half of the required conditions for spoofing to work well.
Add to that the ability to see incoming traffic to that host....and you have the other half. Make sure they are unencrupted, and there is no way to figure out where the reciever is located....and you have really done it good.
The rest of it pretty logically follows from there. They built exactly what you would expect them to build, either intentionally or due to dumb luck of connections, did it in Africa. Good luck finding them.
A saw a video recently that took this a setp further. Instead of stopping the bag from opening, he took a cable lock, and attached everything in the bag to the cable lock, either directly, or with zip ties. Then any small things were put in another bag, zip tied, and added to the loop.
This way the bag could be opened and inspected, and if they cared enough to cut zip ties, they could look inside the smaller bags, but.... nothing would be easy to just grab and toss in a pocket quickly.
Its just like those new justice department rules on warrants, as long as its us saying it, and not the legislature mandating it....we can publically state the policy today, then secretly change it tomorow; no harm; no foul.
Of course he also didn't say whether or not he asks for permission to keep the photos. Seems like a bit of an unwarranted assumption to leap right from "I keep a dump" to "I keep a copy whether they like it or not".
I like him, of anyone I could want for president, he would probably be at the top of the list.
Thing is, I am just done with this broken system. I don't even want another President at all, I want to see the entire federal level eliminated and maybe re-created from scrtach....maybe just left dead.
Been re-watching Voyager and Enterprise recently. Many of the episodes have some lame sort of moral to them, usually designed from the ground up to push a moral agenda or question. Then we come to Tuvix.... where they just end the episode with Janeway taking personal control of the transporter and murdering him in cold blood. Didn't get much of a moral or political message other than maybe the most real one "Ideals are all well and good, until the people in charge decide they might be the ones to suffer loss for them".
Thats not the whole story though. It depends on which regulatory regieme. When threatened by ONE, they may do this.
However, when they are threatened by many different ones simultaneously (say the individual states of the US) then they see an even bigger threat than regulation.... differing regulations. Nothing fucks up the bottom line like having to duplicate effort for incompatible procedures.
So they do that sure, but they also begind direct lobbying for higher level regulations, since they only want to have to bribe one agency, not 50.
So, maybe if a handful of states could draft very different and stifling regulations.....
Policy? No, it should not be a "policy", if they want any legitimacy at all it should be a FELONY to not do so. Policy doesn't cut it for this kind of power with such difficult or impossible real oversight.
> In a pretty well sealed facility like this, the insects really don't have much place to live. There's no soil, so they can't live in the soil,
Not all pests require soil, some are quite happy on leaves/stems, or even in bare roots.
Just off the top of my head, thrips live in soil before they become adults and move up to the leaves. They have been observed to thrive on hydroponic crops just fine.
Of course, we already have the answer on this....they do a sanitary cleanout.
Shit, I know a guy who doesn't do that, and uses no pesticides. He manually inspects every leaf, every day, and manually kills any bugs he finds. Works great. Doesn't scale very well to crops where you can't call 1 room full of plants your full time job.
If you have no pest problems, and you are not using pesticides, I don't care how sealed your facilities are, you must not be keeping continuous crops for long periods.
I did specifically qualify it as "without a sanitary cleanout". 20 days is most certainly not shorter than the life cycle than most plant pests, but is enough to keep them from establishing a colony so yah that would work.
However, i do wonder how much of this significant amount of work is being considered when saying its so much more efficient.
In many ways a closed environment can be worst than open air because open air crops attract both pest and pest predator, closed environments are far more resistant to predator establishment than pest.
Ok, main place I started being skeptical was the LEDs vs the SUN. Now, MAYBE its possible that the LEDs are efficient enough that the electricity cost of running them is offset by the decreased water, other energy needs, but....
The sun is a lot of energy and plants convert light to sugar.... they need light, so converting it to something else and back has to be less efficient than letting it shine on them directly. But....
"no pesticides"....no way. None to start maybe but, plant pests will get in and they will require pesticides to remove. Might get your first crop or two pest free, but without pesticides or a complete sanitary cleanout between crops, its not going to last.
Except what they are paying for is only available to them because the government has decided to license it to them. License, as in, they pay for it, its still not fully theirs, and it can come with terms. Hell already does.
Whao there, isn't NBC one of the companies entrusted with a section of the public airwaves? The same airwaves that the poster you are responding to is prohibited from broadcasting on, such that they may have the privilege of doing so, for commercial benefit, but also to benefit us all, as they are our shared resource?
Seems a government subsidized company would be a valid target for some criticizm for the messages they choose to carry or not on our medium.
Well you know, its nice when they actually sign their name to it. No really.... the fantastically brilliant marketing campaign for his personal consulting business was to use the school network to email a joke to a massive list of his closest friends, with his ad as the email signature.
Oh totally fooled me, you must really just have a million friends that you never emailed before this day....right..... I am sure they all opted in too.
If its any consolation, I was once involved in keeping a mail server under heavy spam load working and shutting down the incoming spew.... which did actually result in someone being taken away by the police and the last words the network engineer heard as they walked away was "you are lucky you are not in handcuffs".
Admittedly it has nothing to do with the FTC and actually involved someone at the University who was intentionally misusing resources to spam in the most bone headed way (from his own desktop in his own assigned office!)....but....it still makes me smile.
This. Spoofing is so overblown. Spoofing is generally not the real issue with almost anything.
The bigger issue is that people don't need to spoof, they just use someone else's machine. Getting malware installed on a machine is easy, getting it installed on hundreds or thousands of machines is easy.
FFS my mother gets calls on the phone from people halfway across the world trying to trick her into giving them access to her machine (I find them fun, she hands them to me now...trick is to act very concerned and play along, pretend to have system issues, and keep asking them to hold while you "try to fix it")
This list of IPs is like a "list of IPs of home machines that are or once were infected, and may not even be assigned to the same machine anymore"
Actually, any government employee can get that protection since under the Westfall act, with the certification of the AG, they can say the employee acted as part of his duty and substitute the government itself as a defendant.
Course, that isn't so likely in a criminal case since it would basically be the same people filing the charges as excusing him.
Continuing to project the notion in the world that you (being any group at all) deserve and are worth attacking. Blowing things up is a pretty useless act, there are not many reasons people do it, and if you could limit the sense of doing it by say....not attracting it, its generally pretty rarely an issue.
Course, when you go around dropping bombs on human beings and sending arms to opressive regiemes that do deserve it....well....guess what happens?
Well actually, I would say he plays to a broad demographic of uneducated, mostly poor, white people. He is, and always has been, playing a public character. His public character started when he inherited his fortune and spent the next decade or two pretending to be a shrewd business man just because he is rich.
Like most politicians, his words have no meaning, and his real backers know that. They know what side he will be on when the decisions come, and, its the same side all the other candidates are on.
It really has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism, these are just words in the current politics. There is no ideology in a big tent parties, you can't maintain a large tent and actually stand for anything at all.
Fact is, Trump plays to both Republican and Democrat interests because he helps force people into the big tents by increasing the percieved danger of defectors, because defectors from the big tents are the only people who pose any danger to them.
Should be an interesting test of the Supreme court. As I understand the Roe V Wade decision had some pretty similar arguments. A lot of it came down to an issue of standing and it was determined that, while by normal standings rules, a person denied an abortion would not have standing to bring a case until injured, but if a pregnancy was life threatening, that would be an effective denial of right to sue.
This seems very little different to me....it is effectively a denial of right to redress of grievance if a person must prove standing in order to grieve while simultaneously needing to grieve in order to prove standing.
Not much different, seems to me they have to rule on the side of standings. I don't see why the government itself should be considered as an entity which cannot be compelled to self incriminate, it is not a person; and it is the entity which all such rights are intended to protect against the abuses of.
I would say a guilty government has a DUTY to self incriminate.
When a technicality of law provides an otherwise guilty individual to walk, that really is justice. Because the very principles of justice are about keeping state power in check.
When the technicalities of law are used to prevent citizens from challenging state power, that is an absolute perversion of the spirit of the principle. That is NOT justice.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally speaking, spoofing requires some pretty specific constraints to work at all, and tends to not be a real issue. Well, here is the issue. When a legitimate host fails to respond to its end on an invalid connection.... you have half of the required conditions for spoofing to work well.
Add to that the ability to see incoming traffic to that host....and you have the other half. Make sure they are unencrupted, and there is no way to figure out where the reciever is located....and you have really done it good.
The rest of it pretty logically follows from there. They built exactly what you would expect them to build, either intentionally or due to dumb luck of connections, did it in Africa. Good luck finding them.
A saw a video recently that took this a setp further. Instead of stopping the bag from opening, he took a cable lock, and attached everything in the bag to the cable lock, either directly, or with zip ties. Then any small things were put in another bag, zip tied, and added to the loop.
This way the bag could be opened and inspected, and if they cared enough to cut zip ties, they could look inside the smaller bags, but.... nothing would be easy to just grab and toss in a pocket quickly.
Its just like those new justice department rules on warrants, as long as its us saying it, and not the legislature mandating it....we can publically state the policy today, then secretly change it tomorow; no harm; no foul.
Um, I would, tho, I would want to see them first.
Of course he also didn't say whether or not he asks for permission to keep the photos. Seems like a bit of an unwarranted assumption to leap right from "I keep a dump" to "I keep a copy whether they like it or not".
I like him, of anyone I could want for president, he would probably be at the top of the list.
Thing is, I am just done with this broken system. I don't even want another President at all, I want to see the entire federal level eliminated and maybe re-created from scrtach....maybe just left dead.
Been re-watching Voyager and Enterprise recently. Many of the episodes have some lame sort of moral to them, usually designed from the ground up to push a moral agenda or question. Then we come to Tuvix.... where they just end the episode with Janeway taking personal control of the transporter and murdering him in cold blood. Didn't get much of a moral or political message other than maybe the most real one "Ideals are all well and good, until the people in charge decide they might be the ones to suffer loss for them".
Thats not the whole story though. It depends on which regulatory regieme. When threatened by ONE, they may do this.
However, when they are threatened by many different ones simultaneously (say the individual states of the US) then they see an even bigger threat than regulation.... differing regulations. Nothing fucks up the bottom line like having to duplicate effort for incompatible procedures.
So they do that sure, but they also begind direct lobbying for higher level regulations, since they only want to have to bribe one agency, not 50.
So, maybe if a handful of states could draft very different and stifling regulations.....
Policy? No, it should not be a "policy", if they want any legitimacy at all it should be a FELONY to not do so. Policy doesn't cut it for this kind of power with such difficult or impossible real oversight.
> In a pretty well sealed facility like this, the insects really don't have much place to live. There's no soil, so they can't live in the soil,
Not all pests require soil, some are quite happy on leaves/stems, or even in bare roots.
Just off the top of my head, thrips live in soil before they become adults and move up to the leaves. They have been observed to thrive on hydroponic crops just fine.
Of course, we already have the answer on this....they do a sanitary cleanout.
Shit, I know a guy who doesn't do that, and uses no pesticides. He manually inspects every leaf, every day, and manually kills any bugs he finds. Works great. Doesn't scale very well to crops where you can't call 1 room full of plants your full time job.
If you have no pest problems, and you are not using pesticides, I don't care how sealed your facilities are, you must not be keeping continuous crops for long periods.
I did specifically qualify it as "without a sanitary cleanout". 20 days is most certainly not shorter than the life cycle than most plant pests, but is enough to keep them from establishing a colony so yah that would work.
However, i do wonder how much of this significant amount of work is being considered when saying its so much more efficient.
In many ways a closed environment can be worst than open air because open air crops attract both pest and pest predator, closed environments are far more resistant to predator establishment than pest.
Ok, main place I started being skeptical was the LEDs vs the SUN. Now, MAYBE its possible that the LEDs are efficient enough that the electricity cost of running them is offset by the decreased water, other energy needs, but....
The sun is a lot of energy and plants convert light to sugar.... they need light, so converting it to something else and back has to be less efficient than letting it shine on them directly. But....
"no pesticides"....no way. None to start maybe but, plant pests will get in and they will require pesticides to remove. Might get your first crop or two pest free, but without pesticides or a complete sanitary cleanout between crops, its not going to last.
Except what they are paying for is only available to them because the government has decided to license it to them. License, as in, they pay for it, its still not fully theirs, and it can come with terms. Hell already does.
Whao there, isn't NBC one of the companies entrusted with a section of the public airwaves? The same airwaves that the poster you are responding to is prohibited from broadcasting on, such that they may have the privilege of doing so, for commercial benefit, but also to benefit us all, as they are our shared resource?
Seems a government subsidized company would be a valid target for some criticizm for the messages they choose to carry or not on our medium.
Well you know, its nice when they actually sign their name to it. No really.... the fantastically brilliant marketing campaign for his personal consulting business was to use the school network to email a joke to a massive list of his closest friends, with his ad as the email signature.
Oh totally fooled me, you must really just have a million friends that you never emailed before this day....right..... I am sure they all opted in too.
If its any consolation, I was once involved in keeping a mail server under heavy spam load working and shutting down the incoming spew.... which did actually result in someone being taken away by the police and the last words the network engineer heard as they walked away was "you are lucky you are not in handcuffs".
Admittedly it has nothing to do with the FTC and actually involved someone at the University who was intentionally misusing resources to spam in the most bone headed way (from his own desktop in his own assigned office!)....but....it still makes me smile.
This. Spoofing is so overblown. Spoofing is generally not the real issue with almost anything.
The bigger issue is that people don't need to spoof, they just use someone else's machine. Getting malware installed on a machine is easy, getting it installed on hundreds or thousands of machines is easy.
FFS my mother gets calls on the phone from people halfway across the world trying to trick her into giving them access to her machine (I find them fun, she hands them to me now...trick is to act very concerned and play along, pretend to have system issues, and keep asking them to hold while you "try to fix it")
This list of IPs is like a "list of IPs of home machines that are or once were infected, and may not even be assigned to the same machine anymore"
Actually, any government employee can get that protection since under the Westfall act, with the certification of the AG, they can say the employee acted as part of his duty and substitute the government itself as a defendant.
Course, that isn't so likely in a criminal case since it would basically be the same people filing the charges as excusing him.
Continuing to project the notion in the world that you (being any group at all) deserve and are worth attacking. Blowing things up is a pretty useless act, there are not many reasons people do it, and if you could limit the sense of doing it by say....not attracting it, its generally pretty rarely an issue.
Course, when you go around dropping bombs on human beings and sending arms to opressive regiemes that do deserve it....well....guess what happens?
Kind of like the people who die in custody after "resisting arrest" even though there was no original charge that they were being arrested for?
Well then I guess by your definition of justice, it is something I would never really care too much about, an insignificant and petty thing.
Well actually, I would say he plays to a broad demographic of uneducated, mostly poor, white people. He is, and always has been, playing a public character. His public character started when he inherited his fortune and spent the next decade or two pretending to be a shrewd business man just because he is rich.
Like most politicians, his words have no meaning, and his real backers know that. They know what side he will be on when the decisions come, and, its the same side all the other candidates are on.
It really has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism, these are just words in the current politics. There is no ideology in a big tent parties, you can't maintain a large tent and actually stand for anything at all.
Fact is, Trump plays to both Republican and Democrat interests because he helps force people into the big tents by increasing the percieved danger of defectors, because defectors from the big tents are the only people who pose any danger to them.
Which is of course why I called it a test of the court and not a question for them. I have little faith they will pass.
Should be an interesting test of the Supreme court. As I understand the Roe V Wade decision had some pretty similar arguments. A lot of it came down to an issue of standing and it was determined that, while by normal standings rules, a person denied an abortion would not have standing to bring a case until injured, but if a pregnancy was life threatening, that would be an effective denial of right to sue.
This seems very little different to me....it is effectively a denial of right to redress of grievance if a person must prove standing in order to grieve while simultaneously needing to grieve in order to prove standing.
Not much different, seems to me they have to rule on the side of standings. I don't see why the government itself should be considered as an entity which cannot be compelled to self incriminate, it is not a person; and it is the entity which all such rights are intended to protect against the abuses of.
I would say a guilty government has a DUTY to self incriminate.
When a technicality of law provides an otherwise guilty individual to walk, that really is justice. Because the very principles of justice are about keeping state power in check.
When the technicalities of law are used to prevent citizens from challenging state power, that is an absolute perversion of the spirit of the principle. That is NOT justice.