?

Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
newdefault
Posted on 2005.11.07 at 19:55
Mood: goodgood
Music: rolling stones - sympathy for the devil
sold my 3rd car today. fat deal. $710 commission. wooha.

---

not sure how i feel about this. the libertarian in me says "f*** you, it's my internet and i'll share it if i want to", but as an ex-IT guy i realize the danger inherent in anonymous access. do i like the idea of "you're responsible for any attacks that originate from your open network"? not sure there either, but it seems closer...

bip-hop and indie fans will dig the palm software available from minimusic.

tivo users will dig that you can now schedule recording from yahoo.

design junkies will dig philips' new line of led lighting (concept only, unfortunately).

---

alright, that's enough self-congratulation and tech-dorkiness for one night.

Comments:


Things Gone and Things Still Here
jette at 2005-11-08 04:00 (UTC) (Link)
1. whoo hoo!

2. wtf. my neighbors would have to go to jail.

3. The LED lighting is beautiful. I wonder how it does energywise.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2005-11-08 04:58 (UTC) (Link)
3. The LED lighting is beautiful. I wonder how it does energywise.

pretty fucking good.
(Anonymous) at 2005-11-08 05:08 (UTC) (Link)
Nice.

A Quark of A Different Spin.
adameros at 2005-11-08 04:15 (UTC) (Link)
I've often wondered how if communities offer free wi-fi, how they can catch "bad people" doing "bad things".
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2005-11-08 04:59 (UTC) (Link)
mac address? though i suppose that's not helpful if someone has a laptop and a few throwaway wifi pc cards...
icenine
ice_9 at 2005-11-08 18:08 (UTC) (Link)
spoofing a MAC address is fairly trivial.
Ms. Anne Thrope
disincarnate at 2005-11-08 05:04 (UTC) (Link)
oo the pretty blue lights
ahem, anyway..
betternewthings at 2005-11-08 05:34 (UTC) (Link)
the wifi ban is definitely good news to me.

the encouragement of stupidity in the land of the yuppies is to my benefit.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2005-11-08 05:38 (UTC) (Link)
i agree that the intent is to fix a problem.

but is it really the right solution?
betternewthings at 2005-11-08 06:33 (UTC) (Link)
certainly. this sort of heavy-handed and ill-concieved regulation is necessary in small doses.

we need idiots passing stupid laws in counties to serve as examples to prevent idiots passing stupid laws in cities.
icenine
ice_9 at 2005-11-08 18:09 (UTC) (Link)
goddammit, let's do this in a county that's nowhere near me, please.

idiots.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2005-11-08 19:45 (UTC) (Link)
well i just reread the article- and it looks like their requirements will be satisfied by your average soho netgear router-

Such a firewall, used to block intrusions from outside the local network, would be required

which i guess makes the law more ineffectual than anything else...?
icenine
ice_9 at 2005-11-08 20:01 (UTC) (Link)
yeah, it's easy to buy the required equipment, but to make it illegal to have it set up "incorrectly" sets a dangerous precedent.

i like to leave my wireless access point open to the public - i have a separate firewall behind it to protect my machines, but i'm happy to share my net access with anyone passing by. i think it should be the user's choice to allow or deny public access.

apart from that, my mom, who is a perfectly capable human being with multiple graduate degrees, doesn't know how to set up a wireless router. under this law, if i'm reading it correctly, she could be cited if she fails to set it up with "acceptable" security. fuck that.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2005-11-09 03:48 (UTC) (Link)
she could be cited if she fails to set it up with "acceptable" security. fuck that.

call me a cynic, but i'm betting any such lawsuit would be quickly countersued to the manufacturer for not providing such a setup by default.
Colonel Angus
scosol at 2005-11-08 07:38 (UTC) (Link)
hahah yeah right
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2005-11-08 07:42 (UTC) (Link)
...regarding?
Previous Entry  Next Entry