Forgot your password?

Comment: Wireless security (Score 4, Informative) 35

by ledow (#47792921) Attached to: Wi-Fi Router Attack Only Requires a Single PIN Guess

Is it just me that hates shit on my router?

- WPS (a.k.a. turn your massive password into a four-digit number): turned off on every router I've ever used, since day one of installation.

- UPnP (a.k.a. let anything open any port to anywhere without authentication): turned off on every router I've ever used, since day one of installation.

- WPA/WEP (a.k.a. half-arsed encryption that we never really thought through): turned off on every router I've ever used, since day one of installation.

- Guest networks (a.k.a. let random strangers use your Internet connection without you knowing): turned off on every router I've ever used, since day one of installation.

- Remote administration (a.k.a. let random strangers on the Internet sit and brute-force your passwords with no way to tell it's happening): turned off on every router I've ever used, since day one of installation.

And, in fact, on anything BUT my actual wireless router of choice (e.g. any Internet router supplied by my ISP):

- wireless (a.k.a. give people another way into my network and hinder all my other - wanted - wifi connections by flooding the airwaves): turned off on every router I've ever used, since day one of installation.

Seriously, people, just turn this shit off. And layer VPN over the top of it, if you can. Seriously. There's zero impact on always VPN'ing over your wireless connection to a machine that has a fixed line to your actual Internet connection. Then even if WPA2 is broken, you're still secure. And yes, you can game. I've done it with OpenVPN over my wireless for years - for EVERY packet - that goes over the wireless.

Wireless is the leaky, draughty hole of your network. Seal that fucker up and treat it like an Internet connection, even to your local network.

Comment: Re:Remote management (Score 4, Informative) 118

by ledow (#47791151) Attached to: Reformatting a Machine 125 Million Miles Away

Not really...

The chances are that "reformat" isn't what we think and includes one of more of:

1) Rewriting cells and allowing wear-levelling and sector-replacement to take place, and make bad sectors as bad.
2) Write-testing and manually avoiding those sectors that don't perform as expected.
3) Rewriting all the critical storage functions to avoid the already-known bad sectors.

It's the kind of thing that anyone can play with. Not saying it's not risky on a remote device, but BadRAM etc. patches have been in places for years and that's a way to run Linux on machines with faulty ***RAM****, not just long-term storage.

Many years ago, a bad sector on your hard drive was something you found out with scandisk (or previous tools) and then it was marked as bad and that was the end of that. Your PC wouldn't use it and so long as it wasn't the boot sector, that was the end of that. It was only the "creeping" bad sectors, where you got more bad sectors over time, that would really worry anyone.

I imagine that it's not at all difficult to make sure that multiple boot sectors were in place if you really wanted to but why bother? The chances are billions to one. Chances are this hardware has MUCH better fault tolerance and multiple hardware watchdogs, firmware, and boot attempts to make sure it eventually gets back up SOMEHOW.

There's a reason that even FAT stores two copies of the allocation table, why Linux ext filesystems store multiple copies of the superblock, etc. They come from a legacy where the occasional bad sector wasn't a problem and where 20Mb of hard drive cost more than the computer did so it was better to cope with the fault than just tell people to buy a new one. And their predecessors were (and still are) mainframes with hardware that's just that fault-tolerant in the first place anyway.

It's not at all hard to write a filesystem that can cope with not only damage, but even recurring damage. You've seen PAR files presumably? The same could easily be done on a filesystem-level basis (and I imagine, somewhere, already is for some specialist niche).

It's not that big a deal once they KNOW that's the problem. The biggest problem is that they only "suspect" that's the problem.

Comment: Re: Say what you will but this is cool (Score 1) 52

by ScentCone (#47787217) Attached to: Google Testing Drone Delivery System: 'Project Wing'

So where does the liability lie when these things fall out of the sky, or collide with helicopters, planes, trains or automobiles? How will they "innovative" around that?

Where does the liability lie when a UPS truck backs over a baby stroller, or a FedEx delivery person loses control of a handtruck full of boxes and breaks someone's ankle? Where's the liability when an aircraft flown by DHL crashes short of the airport and burns a row of houses to the ground?

You make it sound like small plastic/foam flying wings with four battery-powered motors are the first dangerous thing that business has ever considered operating, and that there's no such thing as the liability insurance industry. Which means you're clueless about the real world, or just trolling. Or both.

Comment: Re:Discrimination (Score 1) 546

by jedidiah (#47784409) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

> I had no idea that people still thought that being a woman made it impossible to be physically strong,

Not impossible. Just more difficult. Women are built differently. That's an objective fact you cannot escape from. That will cause the best male athletes to be better than the best female ones.

Although SKILL may alter the situation for sports where that can be a factor.

Comment: Re:Obvious Reason (Score 1) 546

by jedidiah (#47784307) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

> I mean, face it, men are just more willing to be the trolls and make life miserable for each other. Women see that and avoid the whole issue altogether.

Are you kidding? Women love politics and backstabbing. In fact, they are much better at it than men are. They just like to pretend that they are better. If anything, all of this committee nonsense sounds like the sort of thing fueled by women rather than something they would flee from.

Comment: Re:Say what you will but this is cool (Score 1) 52

by ScentCone (#47783909) Attached to: Google Testing Drone Delivery System: 'Project Wing'

Because everyone knows they just wouldn't work in our current world, let alone the laws that would prevent its flight.

But we have laws, passed by the legislature, that mandate the FAA publish new rules specifically covering the integration of this sort of thing into the NAS by 2015. The Obama administration has said, though, that they won't comply with the law, and are taking every opportunity to hinder this sort of thing. There's a reason that outfits like Google are now spending money, hiring, and testing in other countries: because those countries are less hostile to ventures like this.

There's absolutely NO reason in the world why the tests that Google is doing in Oz couldn't be done with farmers just like those in the article, but living instead in rural Iowa or Ohio or California. But no, the administration keeps releasing increasingly bizarre, increasingly punitive, increasingly job-killing "interpretation" of the 2012 law, with spin that runs exactly counter to the plain language and intent of congress. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for chasing ever more innovation and growth out of the country.

Comment: Not really related... (Score 1) 136

by Junta (#47783853) Attached to: Microsoft Releases Replacement Patch With Two Known Bugs

about Microsoft's ability to support Windows 9's expected rapid update pace."

I don't think this stuff is expected to go any faster. To be fair to microsoft, the frequency of updates is already pretty respectable (latency and quality on the other hand...). The rumors are that MS will start mixing in functional changes more. Of course this seems like a mistake, their competitors really aren't mixing it up much on the fundamental level anymore (Google churned pretty hard because they needed too, but Jelly Bean seems to have marked where they broke out the functcion).

Microsoft is only bested on the 'faster' (latency and frequency) front by Linux Desktop distros, and see how much that has made people in the wider market care. It's a shame because Android updates are pretty infrequent *and* get deployed extremely slowly. This means a great deal of mobile Chrome browsers continue to have SSL vulnerabilities, mitigated somewhat by most reputable servers having addressed it on their end. If MS was botching a security update that badly the community would be all over them. Though again, the wider market doesn't really care except to be pissed at having to deal with frequent update related interruptions (where again I think linux desktop distros seem to have the right balance of availability but not being so heavy handed).

Comment: The problem with beaurocrats. (Score -1, Troll) 208

by jedidiah (#47780111) Attached to: Canada Tops List of Most Science-Literate Countries

Before you can pay for it or get it for free it's got to be authorized first. While actually being responsible for yourself can be a burden it also allows you to take command of the situation. That's something that is typically overlooked by people rushing to worship nanny state polices.

See the VA.

Comment: Re:Soon? (Score 1) 299

by ledow (#47775949) Attached to: WikiLeaks' Assange Hopes To Exit London Embassy "Soon"

Charge of resisting arrest.

It's a charge. He did it, by his own admission. We can confidently charge him. The charge will, more than likely, make it through a court successfully given that he was - a) under arrest and then b) knowingly resisted it. Resisting arrest is an offence, like any other. However, notice that although he was arrested on the Swedish request, there has been no CHARGE whatsoever. He's being extradited for questioning. That's not a problem. You can do that. That's how the system works. Because an allied country asks you to detain someone (arrest them), it does not mean that that it's up to you to charge them yourself, or determine what Swedish charges he should face. You arrest them, you extradite them. Petty thief or war criminal.

However, the initial arrest would not necessarily have resulted in any charges whatsoever, especially if the Swedish case is so weak as people try to make out. And the UK, in case you haven't noticed, made Sweden go back SEVERAL TIMES to ensure their reasonable cause for wanting to question him was proper and above board and lawful.

You might absolutely hate it. But it's all above board. And if you make "resisting arrest" not a crime, then you have a lot more problems on your hands than some moron costing the UK millions of pounds JUST SO they can send him to Sweden at great expense, after taking through the UK courts at great expense and finding NOT A SINGLE legal get-out clause that means they aren't obligated to do just that.

To be honest, I'd be over the moon if we just charged him with the UK stuff and then the Swedish stuff all blew over immediately. It would prove what a overblown pillock he actually is, and that you don't escape UK law just because you disagree with it.

You don't like UK law, get it changed, or don't come to the UK. Don't come to the UK, break it, and then expect to get away scot-free. And if you're truly fleeing false charges in Sweden, get the fuck out of the UK. They are both in the EU, so the laws are pretty much identical.

Fuck the Swedish crap, you BROKE UK LAW. Quite clearly. In front of the world's press. And then cost the UK millions. Damn right, you should be arrested, charged and banged up for that.

If the UK has problems with Swedish law and their history, that's for the UK to decide. They did. The courts said there was no plausible reason not to hand him over. Several of them. Appeal, after appeal, after appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court. Call it conspiracy. Call it authoritarianism. But it was by the book and the lawyers funded by Mr Bail-me-out-and-I'll-flee couldn't find a single hole in it. In fact, as part of the EU, they don't even really get a choice. And if they did, they wouldn't be handing him over if there was a credible threat.

The UK has a LOT more to lose by fucking up than the Swedish do.

I don't give a shit about what Assange revealed, personally. I don't think it was even worth risking jail time for, and it certainly wasn't worth the media circus. And Snowden and even Manning did INFINITELY more at much more personal risk than Assange ever did.

I'm not an authoritarian, but I am a nut for legal-wranglings and doing things by the book and STILL WINNING over authority. I've personally sued several companies I've used in the past, when I could easily let it drop - there's always a way for someone "in the right" to get through the law system unscathed no matter what's threatened and it's actually entertaining to do. Assange had no case. If he'd gone to Sweden and ANYTHING had happened he'd have the biggest case in history on his hands - the kinds of things that start wars. But it was never going to be. And the legal wrangling stage, I thought he was an idiot to try, but I admired him for trying.

The second he skipped bail, all sympathy left. To hole up in an embassy for YEARS is just taking the piss. He's lost. It's game over. He'll go to jail in the UK no matter what happens in Sweden. He's lost legally, morally, and intellectually.

But, at the end of the day, he skipped bail and is resisting arrest. Game over.

Comment: Re:old but somewhat effective (Score 1) 97

How many times will we hear a claim of "Russia invaded the Ukraine" and have that proven false before people ignore it completely?

So, just out of curiosity, what do you get out of spinning your particular flavor of nonsense? Who benefits from you trying to convince people that - despite what they can see with their own eyes - Russia didn't just annex Crimea? That columns of Russian armor with their insignia painted over didn't just roll across the border into southeast Ukraine? Your contention has to be that those events didn't actually happen, despite untold thousands of witnesses pointing out the exact opposite. So, what's your point? What you're saying is so blatantly false and disingenuous on the face of it that - unless you are actually delusional - even you have to know it, even as you type it. So I'm genuinely curious. Are you getting paid to push propaganda, even as you say that propaganda is bad? Or are you just basically a low-grade troll that assumes his audience is utterly uninformed?

Comment: Re:It's all a matter of energy (Score 0) 140

by ScentCone (#47770159) Attached to: Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

but the actual neutrino's observed then (and until now) were high energy electron neutrinos

I don't know why these observations are being thought of as a big deal. Why go to all the trouble of building some big underground Italian detector when we can see, right here, that passing neutrinos hit the /. servers and cause apostrophes to appear randomly (but due to a quirk of quantum behavior, almost always right in front of the letter 's').

Comment: Re:The death of leniency (Score 1) 601

by ScentCone (#47769343) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

If cops couldn't let thousands of people off per day on minor things, those minor things would cease to be illegal and our legal code would finally have some semblance of sanity.

You're right. If a cop sees you step outside the crosswalk at an intersection, he should have NO choice but to cite you for jaywalking, and generate all of the paperwork and costs involved, whether or not the reason you stepped out of the cross walk was to avoid walking through a big puddle of hydraulic fluid that was just spilled by a trash truck. It's situations like that where a cop's body cam might very well record such an infraction, and in the name of ridding society of any potentially abused judgement calls, we should use that technology to make sure that everyone involved toes the line, literally and figuratively. We can't have judgement calls! Your judgement call that we shouldn't is good enough for me.

The best laid plans of mice and men are held up in the legal department.