The news of the earlier hack got me thinking about the unique risk/reward of ubiquitous communication and the challenge of computer security to keep pace. Certainly some say the pace of technological innovation is no longer in step with yesterday's, but that almost begs the question. It's truly ironic that modern computing becomes physically smaller as its footprint on our lives looms ever larger with each new year, yet no one disputes that, lately, electronic progress rests solely within the social stratum these days.
We should ask ourselves, however, the rather basic question of whether this seismic shift in the nature of the changes in technology brings with it an impedimentary effect on our lives, or indeed to wonder to the degree technology has ever been pedimentary when it comes right down to it. Yes, it's certainly
got its foot in the door, but as with feet and doors it's not always possible to know at the moment of impact whether said foot represents opportunity, doom,
or a casualty of a society overeager to shut the door to change.
Certainly the last thing anyone wants is a race to the bottom. Ah, but that's not entirely accurate when one considers the vested interest shoemakers have in most modern day footraces. It suggests that, moving forward, the most important thing to do when evaluating new technology in 2013 may very well be to first identify the shoemakers for that technology. Ask yourself: if I'm already wearing five pairs of socks, do I even need shoes at this point? Odds are, you don't.
I don't think it's something that's prepackaged and easy to install, unfortunately. The principle behind it is here, as implemented on OpenBSD.
For hardware, I guess just a small PC with a wireless network adapter and a wired network adapter. Major thing is to make sure everything is compatible with OpenBSD (or Linux as another option, if it looks like the above process can be tweaked to it). Wireless adapters are a pain for compatibility.
It seems to me as I write this that it'd be really neat if the EFF sold ITX-profile routers preconfigured to create open hotspots that route over TOR.
Typically, you only get one of these around a newly formed star, a T Tauri star, or Herbig Ae/Be star. This discovery really broadens the scope for the types of stars that could yield solar systems like our own, and maybe in turn, the likelihood for finding some sort of extraterrestrial life.
Keep in mind that (with a decent router) you can open your Wi-Fi but route all guest connections through TOR transparently. That might be a fair compromise, along with rate-limiting, capping per-session usage, and setting a hard limit for the month if necessary to prevent yourself from going over your own cap on service.
Open Wi-Fi everywhere actually makes me more nervous for the clients than for the servers. People already don't understand security with Wi-Fi, and need to know that any server they're using can observe their traffic if it isn't encrypted. I guess that's already a concern without open Wi-Fi everywhere, though.
Because there are two worlds colliding here in the mind of the average person.
The school of thought that the victim is always at least partly responsible for being conned. There's a sense of superiority a lot of people get when they hear about scams where, because they themselves would never fall prey to a scammer, anyone who does is deficient or incautious.
Anyone charged with a crime involving a computer for more then Solitaire, porn, and recipe hunting must be guilty.
If science required knowledge of the outcomes before it was performed, ask yourselves: how many of the technologies around us would we enjoy today?
Taking the space program as an example, putting a man on the moon was symbolic, but the payback for the research and development went far beyond that. Even if we didn't reach the moon, we got memory foam, orange drink, and satellites out of the deal.
But too many people are unwilling to pay for R&D if they don't have a 100% guaranteed outcome. Well, science doesn't work like that. The best we can do is speculate about the gains from better and better software-based brain models. Simulated protein folding probably seemed a bit goofy to somebody when it was first proposed. We don't know if we don't try.
That sounds pretty good. I figured there had to be something more to it if 1500+ people were showing up. 18 years in and my imagination with regard to Linux still only goes so far as to web browse, write code, and beg WINE to run games properly. Though I certainly wouldn't turn away automated beer if it came in the next Ubuntu.
I'm assuming installing Linux and using Linux are on the agenda, and drawing a blank on the rest. Disputes over the best distro? Presentation of devices that run Linux that nobody knows run Linux? Competitions to get two sound cards in the same system to work reliably with both ALSA and PulseAudio?
Then you want everything in the same encrypted network and the lion's share of the usage of that network to be legitimate. Although BitTorrent over TOR is currently abusive of the TOR network, it would be better to find a means of making BitTorrent tolerable to TOR (or vice-versa) than to create a separate encrypted filesharing network.
When this all gets tested in a courtroom, it is far better for an encrypted network to appear to be protecting privacy than to enable lawbreaking. The difference between the two is just how closely the type of data over the encrypted network matches the type of data sent over the unencrypted Internet. Better to encourage the use of TOR to everybody than to have one encrypted network for privacy advocates and another made 99% of pirates -- the latter service lowers the bar for legal decisions and laws to be made that can then ruin all encrypted networks in general.
...if you're a fan of late 70s/early 80s computer culture.
Somebody gave me Steven Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution as a teen (thankfully missing the minefield of shitty books with the term "hacker" in their title) and it was amazing. Early days computer hobbyists, Paul Allen and Bill Gates writing BASIC for the Altair on a timeshare and dealing with the hobbyists who wanted to copy it instead of buy it, Ken and Roberta Williams and Sierra On-Line, and so much more.
Also loved the more recent Commodore: A Company on the Edge by Brian Bagnall. Just captivates the imagination to read about people hand-drawing their CPUs. There's an enthusiasm in the early computer industry that seems to have dampened over the years, as startups and corporations begin with the money in mind rather than the starry-eyed idealism and hobbyist tendencies that powered the first personal computer businesses.
Neither of these feature Ashton Kutcher, however, or even Steve Jobs to any great extent. But if your passion for computers is in their function rather than their form I highly recommend the above books.
This scene came after the bit where Jobs signed The Beatles, and before he wrote the software that made the special effects in the original Star Wars trilogy possible.
This has been known in the industry for some time, and has always been considered something of a too-simple solution to a too-complex problem.
The workaround to increase the complexity of stack smashing in this regard is in ASLR/FMA, address space layout randomization with fuzzy memory allocation. Basically, reduce the predictability of memory locations from memory-fill attacks by causing memory allocation (in hardware, transparent to the OS) to return slightly more or less than what is called for. This has some implications for programmers to be sure; for example, for malloc(), if you think you'll need 1000 bytes, you just call for 1500 to make sure you get enough back from the OS to work with.
For this trivial increase in workload, fuzzy memory allocation means that all the same memory allocations that go on in the system will add up to different amounts of memory used at different times, making it improbable at best that guessing offsets will be successful in the future. And we can all agree this is only a good thing when most people are already running with 8GB or more.
Have you looked into the feasibility of creating a slingshot that could fire smaller slingshots that, in turn, could perhaps fire something smaller themselves?
For example, nothing was said about GOTOs being liberally sprinkled throughout the code. If he's working in a non-optimal language that doesn't support GOTO, he should try hacking in the functionality with preprocessor defines. Maybe even hack in a preprocessor if the language designer forgot one, or add another preprocessor if not.
With a few stacked preprocessors one can even write his own (better) computer language, and what seasoned programmer doesn't aspire to have one or two of those under his belt?
Also among the business practices Google has agreed to stop is 'scraping Web content from rivals and allegedly passing it off as its own, said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.'"
So, would there be a problem if Google scraped Web content from rivals and proudly proclaimed it was passing it off as its own?
She has a great industry reputation and everyone that knows her loves her.
That's what matters.
Maybe she can trademark her name and seize the domain as being confusingly similar, but it's still throwing time and attention at somebody who clearly craves it, for dubious gain.
It's always a little amazing to see how people cheer on the leaks and cracks when they appear in a closed system, yet continue to support these closed systems with their money and attention when open systems are available.
It's just this very weird disconnect in consumer psychology. You don't have to crack a PC (yet) to do what you want with it. But you make a computer small and flat and suddenly you find yourself having to pay $1+ for every little program, from a collection of programs that somebody else has decided you shall have access to. You don't see the "fuck the man" attitude at the store, you only see it when a Scandinavian high schooler comes up with a crack for your game console and the manufacturer tells you you can't have it.
I just don't get it. How many years past DeCSS are we and banging our heads against the same wall?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever put a slingshot in a blender or, conversely, created a blender that could be fired by slingshot?
The news of the earlier hack got me thinking about the unique risk/reward of ubiquitous communication and the challenge of computer security to keep pace. Certainly some say the pace of technological innovation is no longer in step with yesterday's, but that almost begs the question. It's truly ironic that modern computing becomes physically smaller as its footprint on our lives looms ever larger with each new year, yet no one disputes that, lately, electronic progress rests solely within the social stratum these days.
We should ask ourselves, however, the rather basic question of whether this seismic shift in the nature of the changes in technology brings with it an impedimentary effect on our lives, or indeed to wonder to the degree technology has ever been pedimentary when it comes right down to it. Yes, it's certainly got its foot in the door, but as with feet and doors it's not always possible to know at the moment of impact whether said foot represents opportunity, doom, or a casualty of a society overeager to shut the door to change.
Certainly the last thing anyone wants is a race to the bottom. Ah, but that's not entirely accurate when one considers the vested interest shoemakers have in most modern day footraces. It suggests that, moving forward, the most important thing to do when evaluating new technology in 2013 may very well be to first identify the shoemakers for that technology. Ask yourself: if I'm already wearing five pairs of socks, do I even need shoes at this point? Odds are, you don't.
Or, apparently, Raspberry Pi. I really have to get around to buying a couple of those.
I don't think it's something that's prepackaged and easy to install, unfortunately. The principle behind it is here, as implemented on OpenBSD.
For hardware, I guess just a small PC with a wireless network adapter and a wired network adapter. Major thing is to make sure everything is compatible with OpenBSD (or Linux as another option, if it looks like the above process can be tweaked to it). Wireless adapters are a pain for compatibility.
It seems to me as I write this that it'd be really neat if the EFF sold ITX-profile routers preconfigured to create open hotspots that route over TOR.
Typically, you only get one of these around a newly formed star, a T Tauri star, or Herbig Ae/Be star. This discovery really broadens the scope for the types of stars that could yield solar systems like our own, and maybe in turn, the likelihood for finding some sort of extraterrestrial life.
Keep in mind that (with a decent router) you can open your Wi-Fi but route all guest connections through TOR transparently. That might be a fair compromise, along with rate-limiting, capping per-session usage, and setting a hard limit for the month if necessary to prevent yourself from going over your own cap on service.
Open Wi-Fi everywhere actually makes me more nervous for the clients than for the servers. People already don't understand security with Wi-Fi, and need to know that any server they're using can observe their traffic if it isn't encrypted. I guess that's already a concern without open Wi-Fi everywhere, though.
Because there are two worlds colliding here in the mind of the average person.
The school of thought that the victim is always at least partly responsible for being conned. There's a sense of superiority a lot of people get when they hear about scams where, because they themselves would never fall prey to a scammer, anyone who does is deficient or incautious.
Anyone charged with a crime involving a computer for more then Solitaire, porn, and recipe hunting must be guilty.
If science required knowledge of the outcomes before it was performed, ask yourselves: how many of the technologies around us would we enjoy today?
Taking the space program as an example, putting a man on the moon was symbolic, but the payback for the research and development went far beyond that. Even if we didn't reach the moon, we got memory foam, orange drink, and satellites out of the deal.
But too many people are unwilling to pay for R&D if they don't have a 100% guaranteed outcome. Well, science doesn't work like that. The best we can do is speculate about the gains from better and better software-based brain models. Simulated protein folding probably seemed a bit goofy to somebody when it was first proposed. We don't know if we don't try.
Fwoooooooooooosh. Fwoooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. KWEEEOW. Fwooooooooooooooosh.
Nah, just edit once and have the other 4999 machines fetch through Gnutella with a batch file. It's not like this isn't a solved problem.
That sounds pretty good. I figured there had to be something more to it if 1500+ people were showing up. 18 years in and my imagination with regard to Linux still only goes so far as to web browse, write code, and beg WINE to run games properly. Though I certainly wouldn't turn away automated beer if it came in the next Ubuntu.
I'm assuming installing Linux and using Linux are on the agenda, and drawing a blank on the rest. Disputes over the best distro? Presentation of devices that run Linux that nobody knows run Linux? Competitions to get two sound cards in the same system to work reliably with both ALSA and PulseAudio?
Then you want everything in the same encrypted network and the lion's share of the usage of that network to be legitimate. Although BitTorrent over TOR is currently abusive of the TOR network, it would be better to find a means of making BitTorrent tolerable to TOR (or vice-versa) than to create a separate encrypted filesharing network.
When this all gets tested in a courtroom, it is far better for an encrypted network to appear to be protecting privacy than to enable lawbreaking. The difference between the two is just how closely the type of data over the encrypted network matches the type of data sent over the unencrypted Internet. Better to encourage the use of TOR to everybody than to have one encrypted network for privacy advocates and another made 99% of pirates -- the latter service lowers the bar for legal decisions and laws to be made that can then ruin all encrypted networks in general.
Somebody gave me Steven Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution as a teen (thankfully missing the minefield of shitty books with the term "hacker" in their title) and it was amazing. Early days computer hobbyists, Paul Allen and Bill Gates writing BASIC for the Altair on a timeshare and dealing with the hobbyists who wanted to copy it instead of buy it, Ken and Roberta Williams and Sierra On-Line, and so much more.
Also loved the more recent Commodore: A Company on the Edge by Brian Bagnall. Just captivates the imagination to read about people hand-drawing their CPUs. There's an enthusiasm in the early computer industry that seems to have dampened over the years, as startups and corporations begin with the money in mind rather than the starry-eyed idealism and hobbyist tendencies that powered the first personal computer businesses.
Neither of these feature Ashton Kutcher, however, or even Steve Jobs to any great extent. But if your passion for computers is in their function rather than their form I highly recommend the above books.
This scene came after the bit where Jobs signed The Beatles, and before he wrote the software that made the special effects in the original Star Wars trilogy possible.
This has been known in the industry for some time, and has always been considered something of a too-simple solution to a too-complex problem.
The workaround to increase the complexity of stack smashing in this regard is in ASLR/FMA, address space layout randomization with fuzzy memory allocation. Basically, reduce the predictability of memory locations from memory-fill attacks by causing memory allocation (in hardware, transparent to the OS) to return slightly more or less than what is called for. This has some implications for programmers to be sure; for example, for malloc(), if you think you'll need 1000 bytes, you just call for 1500 to make sure you get enough back from the OS to work with.
For this trivial increase in workload, fuzzy memory allocation means that all the same memory allocations that go on in the system will add up to different amounts of memory used at different times, making it improbable at best that guessing offsets will be successful in the future. And we can all agree this is only a good thing when most people are already running with 8GB or more.
Have you looked into the feasibility of creating a slingshot that could fire smaller slingshots that, in turn, could perhaps fire something smaller themselves?
Could muddle it in a different direction and wonder why taxes are being spent on something people have to pay for.
But for some reason, the very smartest guppies had no interest in swimming at all but would just hang around the bottom of the tank, head side down.
For example, nothing was said about GOTOs being liberally sprinkled throughout the code. If he's working in a non-optimal language that doesn't support GOTO, he should try hacking in the functionality with preprocessor defines. Maybe even hack in a preprocessor if the language designer forgot one, or add another preprocessor if not. With a few stacked preprocessors one can even write his own (better) computer language, and what seasoned programmer doesn't aspire to have one or two of those under his belt?
So, would there be a problem if Google scraped Web content from rivals and proudly proclaimed it was passing it off as its own?
I was thinking of this in terms of ICANN's UDRP, not American libel or trademark law.
That's what matters. Maybe she can trademark her name and seize the domain as being confusingly similar, but it's still throwing time and attention at somebody who clearly craves it, for dubious gain.
If the company relied on one programmer to handle everything, beware.
It's always a little amazing to see how people cheer on the leaks and cracks when they appear in a closed system, yet continue to support these closed systems with their money and attention when open systems are available.
It's just this very weird disconnect in consumer psychology. You don't have to crack a PC (yet) to do what you want with it. But you make a computer small and flat and suddenly you find yourself having to pay $1+ for every little program, from a collection of programs that somebody else has decided you shall have access to. You don't see the "fuck the man" attitude at the store, you only see it when a Scandinavian high schooler comes up with a crack for your game console and the manufacturer tells you you can't have it.
I just don't get it. How many years past DeCSS are we and banging our heads against the same wall?