Sitwon

When you say "PC" are you referring to Microsoft? So tell me how you feel about Secure Boot.

I agree with the sentiment of teaching computer literacy earlier on. However teaching programming languages as a requirement is a bag of worms. For example, which language should we teach to them? And how young? Should we teach C/Python/Ruby? Should we teach Scheme/Lisp? Should we teach Smalltalk/Scratch/EToys? Should we teach Factor/Joy/Forth? Should we teach APL? I think it's more important to teach students about linguistics more broadly and expose them to different human languages. In particular, I find that many schools only offer Spanish or French as a foreign language. A few offer German, a few offer Latin, but very rarely do you see Mandarin or Japanese or Arabic or Navajo. And on a slightly different tack, I would argue that all students in the USA should learn ASL from a young age.

Care to elaborate on this? C was designed by the some of the same people who wrote Unix, but it wasn't designed _just_ for Unix. It was specifically designed to be a portable language that could be used on different computer systems. Unix was rather famously the first OS written in C, but Windows is also written in C and C++ (not in VB or even VB.Net).

You presume that they don't know how to spell because they don't spell words the way they are defined in a dictionary. However, the are managing to encode their messages in a way that is completely comprehensible to their peers and intended audience. Isn't that the point of spelling? To the extent that their words are recognizable and understood by their audience I would argue that the spelling is "correct" for their scope. English phonology has always been an ugly hack. Our alphabet doesn't accurately map to the sounds we use (which itself varies by country and region). The application of letters and spelling rules is haphazard and inconsistent. Pronunciation in several cases has become a matter of taste. To "properly" spell words, you're essentially memorizing an arbitrary sequence of symbols. So our written form of language was already broken to begin with. Think of the homophones we have in our language. Is it "its" or "it's"? Notice how an "'s" normally indicates possession, as in "Dot's Diner", but in the case of "it's" it instead represents a contraction of "it is" forcing you to use "its" to indicate possession. However both word sound the same, so why do we bother to represent them differently when we write? Or take "there", "their", and "they're". They're all pronounced the same way and we don't encounter ambiguity in meaning when these words are used in verbal communication, so why do we get so stressed out when someone types the wrong one by mistake? Was their sentence unclear? Were we not able to interpret the intention based on the context? In professional or formal writing we may find ourselves writing for a much broader audience and thus we must make a greater effort to express our message according to a stricter set of standards to be sure that the other party will be able to decode it accurately. However, among a narrower audience I don't see any harm in the optimization of vocabulary and grammar which naturally occurs in such groups. This is really not that different from the use of jargon or specialized language in many professions. For example, the language used by teenagers in their SMS messages is not fundamentally any different from the radio codes and jargon used over HAM and CB. We all use different language in different contexts. The challenge for parents and teacher is the same as it has always been; to convey the wisdom to recognize the appropriate language for any given context, and prepare them to apply that language effectively.

Sorry about not getting back to you on this sooner. So what I dug up is that nearly all the guides out there currently are written for the pre-2.0 version of fwknop. That isn't necessarily a big deal, because the config files are almost identical (and generally well commented) but the building part is a bit different now. With fwknop-2.0 you need to 'apt-get install build-essential' and do "./configure && make && sudo make install" to build and install. By default it will drop everything in /usr/local/ so you'll need to adjust paths slightly from what the guides you'll find recommend. You'll also probably need to write your own init script, it doesn't seem to install one and I didn't see on for Debian/Ubuntu in the source tree (didn't look too hard to see if the examples they had would be suitable, but it isn't hard to write init scripts).

Chillax, man. Despite fluff journalism to the contrary, this kind of linguistic short-hand has existed for centuries, if not longer. Over many generations of its use it has not caused our language or our society to collapse or significantly decay. The reason it because, as you demonstrated, you were able to clearly interpret the intended contents of the message. It was a simple message that was encoded in a form that your friend expected you would be able to understand. It may not be pedantically correct, but such pedantry is rarely necessary (or desirable) in informal speech. I wouldn't get too worked up about it unless you see someone writing like that in a professional or formal context.

Regarding your first question, I think you may have misunderstood something. If you're writing a script you start the script with "#!/usr/bin/expect" on the first line so that the shell knows to run the commands inside the script through the expect interpreter. However on the command-line you should not try to invoke !/usr/bin/expect, because in the shell any command that starts with ! is a history command. You basically told it to search the history for a matching command, but since none exists it gave you an error. You probably meant to execute /usr/bin/expect (no !), but there's no reason to do that, since as you demonstrated it's already in your $PATH so you can call it without using the full path.

Not to bash on Moxie, because I understand his point and it is valid, but those heavyweight interpreters are themselves implemented in "'unsafe' languages like C", and they are certainly larger code bases to audit than libpcap. I haven't used knocknock, however I have been using fwknop for quite a while and I trust it. Michael Rash has always been extremely responsive and his talk at HOPE was sufficiently full of technical detail to both bore me to tears and convince me that he knows what he's talking about. (Which is not to say that Moxie doesn't, he is also an impressive and competent developer.) I will break out an Ubuntu VM tonight/tomorrow so I can work up some example configs and instructions to get you started with fwknop (since that's the one I know) unless you're set on on using knockknock.

Why knockknock rather than fwknop? I've been using fwknop's Single Packet Authentication (SPA) for over 5 years to protect my public-facing SSH servers.

Is the NHA a better chipset than the NH? Does it support ad-hoc mode in Linux? (Neither the H nor the NH support ad-hoc.)

http://www.amazon.co...HCFW4KF/ http://stackoverflow...-guide-and-list

Yes, but The Glitch is better because JP is awesome. Backed.

Your IP address is NOT the only means they have of identifying you. Try your luck: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

http://en.flossmanuals.net/basic-internet-security/index/

Yagi antennas are directional antennas, just as precise as parabolic antennas are. Your best bet is just a large antenna like the one that came with your Alfa. Those are considered omni-directional antennas. If you pump in enough power they can get you quite a long distance.

Have you actually tried gaming on Linux? Wine does a better job with most games than many people realize.Also, the real problem isn't lack of games (there are quite a few native Linux games available already), it's that display drivers generally suck on Linux. Steam getting ported won't solve that, we still need AMD and Nvidia to make their shit not suck so much in comparison to the performance that Windows users enjoy.

OpenPGP (which is PGP and GnuPG) is pretty much the gold standard for email encryption. It can be used for file encryption as well, though TrueCrypt is becoming a bit more popular for that.In addition to public-key cryptography, GnuPG also implements a number of symmetric algorithms. I get the feeling that Darren is working up to covering PGP and GnuPG in a future episode.

nice.

I don't know that there's any such thing as a "best" encryption software. All encryption software falls into one of two categories: A) The ones that are broken and we know it, and B) The ones that are broken and we don't know it yet. That said, GnuPG is pretty trusted.

Personally, I love using Slackware. I've been running Slackware since version 7.1 (so over a decade). I've tried a lot of other distributions out there, and professionally supported many of them, but for myself I always come back to Slackware. It's the elegant simplicity and rock-solid dependability that I love the most. Of course, Slackware does have a well-earned reputation for being a little more challenging for desktop users. It doesn't do as much hand-holding as the more popular distributions. But if you really want to learn how Linux systems work (and the first step to hacking them is understanding them) then Slackware could be a very good place to start. As for GUIs, Linux is Linux is Linux. You can have any GUI you want on any Linux distro you want, it's just a matter of installing packages and configuring the system.

Are you assuming that the end-user will not have an application that is capable of opening and viewing a Word document?

IIS (Internet Information Services) might be installed but not running, or available to be installed.

Probably just 'ngrep'. Once you've got all the traffic, you don't need to use anything fancy.

From the description, it sounds like the problem is not at the client end but at the ISP. One of the upstream routers between him and his destination has a bad route. Contact your ISP and insist on talking to an engineer and explain the problem, show them the traceroute logs, they should be able to help you out (or contact the person who can help you out).

Did you guys look at any of the resources they recommend instead of W3Schools? W3C was only one of several, and they weren't even recommending the W3C specs, they were recommending the tutorials posted on their Wiki. I'm glad you guys were thorough enough to actually read the page before jumping to conclusions about it. Is that how you form all of your opinions? Here's the TL;DR. http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/1-introduction-to-the-web-standards-cur/#toc http://code.google.com/edu/submissions/html-css-javascript/ http://reference.sitepoint.com/css http://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Training https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs