
the server keep locking within minutes because of so many accesses with the default password.
Yep, that's consistent with my observations as well, DECADES AGO even. FIREWALL NEEDED.
10515 publicly visible posts • joined 1 May 2015
TigerVNC: A Spinoff of TightVNC with TLS, actually looking good!
and generally, TigerVNC has better support for X11, such as GLX support, something that Mate (and apparently gtk3 in general) needs. It's why I switched to it a couple o' years ago, yeah.
I haven't tried the TLS though. And yeah self-signed certs with openssl are built-in except Windows, but I'd just use Cygwin or a Linux or BSD box to generate them for W, so there ya go.
But even with TLS I'd rather firewall it. Mentioned already, the daily poundings on VNC's listening port range by automated crack-bots makes it NOT worth having attached to teh intarwebs'. SSH login attempts are bad enough [but fail2ban helps with that, yeah]
I'd still do the tunnel. It's been my experience that things _like_ VNC aren't trustworthy enough on their own, and it would just be simpler if you always use them via SSH and NEVER expose their ports to 'teh intarwebs'. It's kinda like "safe surfing". No amount of anti-virus or similar things will stop the daily pounding on the expose ports, nor prevent a 0-day exploit. Use SSH and firewall it.
VNC into a KVM seems to work ok for me and I've used it a LOT actually... but usually by setting up an ssh tunnel so I'm listening on a specific IP address [usually localhost] on whatever machine I want to access it from. To make that work you can have a headless (Linux or BSD) VM that makes an ssh connection onto another machine (let's say a server) and directs incoming "server:xxxx" to "vm:22" for ssh. Then, just do something like "ssh server xxxx" to access it. That's how I've been doing it, anyway.
THEN, for VNC access, you use something _like_ TigerVNC server to actually run the desktop, and set up VNC tunneling via the ssh connection [same basic idea] and VOILA! you open VNC and you now have the full desktop. (you can also do this on an RPi that's headless to access its desktop via VNC).
This works exceptionally well when you want to have KDE on your Mate machine, or if you want to do X11 debugging from a GUI [so you run the debugged program in a VNC session, which is a different X server and isnt going to lock up on you if you break in the middle of certain libX11 calls...].
Anyway, ssh + sshd tunneling magic works fine. A bit tricky at first, but there are many examples in duck-duck-go-land
So it looks like if you are using it on linux, you will have to change to something else
oh, so THAT is what happened! [I don't use Win-10-nic and haven't VNC'd with a windows box in FOREVER... so that is probably why I had to switch to Tiger VNC for BSD and Linux - lack of current X11 support etc.]
windows-only. THAT is @#$%^ *DISAPPOINTING*.
I've been using Tiger Vnc which is a fork of TighVNC... because for quite a while it seemed out of date and wouldn't handle certain GLX things that Mate and other systems needed support for. So I switched.
from the article:
600,000 public-facing machines offer VNC access
These people exposing "known port" VNC connections MUST understand it's a security risk already... what, does VNC protocol's pathetic password protection actually HELP? do ya think? yeah, should be obvious, right? I wonder how many OTHER firewall logs have shown a zillion daily attempts at banging on ports 5900-5999 looking for VNC...
(they should be using a VPN and ONLY listen on private addresses at the very least and NOT exposing those ports to 'teh intarwebs')
But then again, WINDOWS machines are INFAMOUS for "listen on *.*.*.*" so there you have it. Unless you explicitly put a firewall between 'teh intarwebs' and your windows boxen, you're insecure (apparently) by DESIGN.
Sure, putting ANY windows on a public IP is just STUPID these days. So, at least firewall it with a LINUX box, at the VERY least! [you could even use an RPi to do it if you add a 2nd network adaptor or make it a WiFi access point]
And when you need VNC access from 'teh intarwebs' you should use a VPN or ssh anyway. It's just common sense.
it's always going to be difficult to keep up with careful (read: tricky and malicious) use of DNS
A 301 "moved permanently" response could be cached. It could return a small graphic, like a logo, but re-direct to a unique URL that identifies you, like "http://tracker.example.com/" re-directing to "http://tracker.example.com/alphabet-soup-identifier". Making that URL consistent every time might simply involve your IP address, the web browser's cache, and a few other minor details. And if the DNS records for each of those web sites point to the SAME set of IP addresses, and the web server supports virtual hosting, there's now a way to have a "single point of tracking" for a LOT of web sites... and nothing can really stop that UNLESS you have a black list of tracker sites.
Legislation might help fix it, as long as PROSECUTIONS HAPPEN and they happen PROMINENTLY, with VERY STIFF FINES against the violators. And, it MUST be OPT-IN ONLY to be tracked.
yeah, and obviously a physics constant.
The quote in the article suggests that he should have said BANDWIDTH [for the modulation] and not "super-fast wavelength" implying "speed", but people who don't understand modulation won't get it, probably. [People in here probably WILL get it]
Whenever you modulate a carrier, you generate frequencies that are equal to the modulation frequency[ies] plus or minus the carrier frequency. In the case of FM, FSK, QAM, and other modulation methods, you have to include harmonics as well, and in theory, the harmonic output goes out to 'infinity' in both directions around the carrier frequency. [in practice it's limited by filters]..
16khz bandwidth (+/- 8khz) would be typical for an AM broadcast, up to ~8khz audio freq in the modulation. This gives you reasonable quality audio, good for voice [hence news/talk formats typical on AM].
+/- 75Khz bandwidth is typical for a wide-band FM broadcast. A total bandwidth of 75khz would have too much harmonic distortion (think 'missing information'). In the USA, there is a 200khz 'in between' frequency range between stations to allow for sufficient bandwdth without side-channel interference.
for QAM and FSK and spread spectrum and other digital modulation methods, you have a much higher bandwidth requirement, and 'frequency hopping', and things like that. Wifi, cell phones, digital radio and TV signals, all use something _like_ this. And of course, their bandwidth is in Mhz and not Khz, and can take up a pretty big chunk of the available spectrum. Hence, it's transmitted in the Ghz range where this kind of thing makes more sense.
Anyway, what the quoted marketeer was apparently TRYING to say is that wider BANDWIDTH means you can transmit MORE DATA at a higher DATA RATE.
but yeah he got it wrong in the details, concepts, and presentation.
I just didn't find this one all that funny.... and I usually can't stop laughing when I read the BOFH stuff.
Maybe you should have had Simon push the irritating 'boss' out the window the moment he mentioned "the environmental stuff", and spent the rest of the time on covering it all up and cracking jokes about it with the PFY?
I see Simon as a logical guy that doesn't like extra work, and would instinctively take issue with governments and regulations and that whole 'climate change' thing...
VNC viewer, maybe? It's been around for EVAR. And it's still supported, last i checked.
I use VNC servers on headless Linux boxen sometimes. Tiger VNC is probably the easiest to set up.
You should probably NOT expose VNC's port to the outside world as-is, though. Instead you should use a VPN or ssh tunnel to access it from teh intarwebs.
(but yeah that's not as convenient as using some monolithic 'google print' thing or remote PC service)
/me points out that, with a little configguring, you can easily set up an Xorg desktop to do these things. you can even run X11 applications remotely though performance across 'teh intarwebs' is a bit pathetic sometimes. Still POSSIBLE though, as I've done this before, mostly for the lulz. Through ssh tunnels, of course.
SpaceX say they were testing "to the max" and that the result was "not entirely unexpected".
good point. back in the day we called this sort of thing 'hydrostatic testing'. Normally weren't expecting it to blow up but just in case, better during the test than during operations. So you pressurize with water and run it up to maximum expected levels. In the case of a catastrophic fail, something cracks and pressure drops significantly due to it being water.
In THEIR case, however, they had to use fuel, probably due to cryogenic temperatures. At cold temperatures of cryo-fuels (like LOX) metals become EXTREMELY brittle. And if their fracture toughness isn't quite right, you end up with, uh, an "anomoly".
For all we know, it was the welding process or something like it, that was responsible. It can happen. In WW2 a liberty ship broke in half during construction due to bad welds and brittle fracture.
well, any animosity aside, a catastrophic fail in the test phase is part of the process. It's just that SpaceX can't do this without people seeing it and laughing a bit.
Who out there has NEVER let the blue smoke out of a component? I most recently had that happen to me when someone handed me a 12V power supply that REALLY turned out to be a 24V power supply, with the same connector, and I plugged it in without reading the @#$% label... blue smoke and arcs and OH CRAP and I repaired the board but the fried regulator managed to take the CPU with it...
(fortunately the CPU was TQFP, unfortunately had trouble soldering it with $CLIENT's tools, nearly had to bring it home to fix it, then managed to blob-and-wick some solder onto a questionable-looking CPU pin, then all good)
I somewhat recently got a Ryzen CPU (6 core) and motherboard to build a new workstation. All good so far, running FreeBSD 12-STABLE on it, "all ZFS" system. Hyperthread gives me 12 'cores' and makes compiles go very very fast.
Intel can't compete with that price-wise. Looks like they actually stopped trying!
like every OTHER "The Cloud" thing of the week, is this going to be another case of "Over Hype, Under Deilver" ???
Throwing cash at it does not make it 'great' nor 'relevant'.
I was mostly curious. Now I'm underwhelmed....
I wasn't aware of the HMS Surprise at the downtown pier in San Diego, though. I should have a look at it next time I'm there, lunch break on jury duty maybe (no other reason to go downtown, really).
a) underwhelming
b) as exciting as a MUZAK concert
c) as attention-grabbing as watching paint dry (reminds me of a movie I read about on El Reg...)
d) Ben Stein looks like a Dallas Cheerleader by comparison when he does his deadpan 'Wow.'
And if this means that MS is ONCE AGAIN trying to SHOVE the development world towards MONO and/or ".Not Core" for cross-platform, I'll just have LAUGH AT THEM and remind them that Java has been cross-platform from the beginning, so where have THEY been???
That, and Python GTK. And guess what's looking REALLY good in the TIOBE index right now?
"Most UX specialists are abject morons who have abolute no concept of whizz-bang-shiny. I should know, my thesis was on User Interfaces..."
since you brought it up... the whole "User Experience" thing (vs a 'User Interface') is one of those "new agey" "feelie" phrases that cause me nausea every time I think about it, so I tend to ignore it to keep my lunch from explosively leaving out one end or the other...
Instead, I'll just say that it reminds me of a joke:
Q: How many people from Silly Valley does it take to change a light bulb?
A: It takes at least 3. One to change the bulb, and at least 2 to "share in the experience"
And I think my point has been made, now.
it does not detract, I think, from the idea that MS is basically issuing PROPAGANDA again... with respect to "the future" and their 'offerings' etc..
What, Silverlight was excluded? heh.
Perhaps less on the detail, and more on the concept. And it's ok to laugh at subtle jokes.
(it's my opinion that creative-minded people generally don't like 'inspector/detail' types and usually don't get along with them...)
a 'qualified' agreement with your explanation, but not the topic in general.
I would say that there's ALWAYS a future for writing applications to target the native UI, especially if they're performance-related.
However, in the case of ".Not" UWP and all of that *CRAP*, it's not "the native UI" and should *NEVER* *BE*! Win32 *is* the Windows API, and it should REMAIN that way!
Otherwise, Micro-shaft will be SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN BOTH FEET if it ever is NOT.
ack.
And (everyone) *PLEASE* *STOP* *CALLING* *THAT* *UI* *MODERN*!!!. ('that' is to 'modern' as '70s disco' is to 'music', or 'etch-a-sketch' is to 'art', etc. and don't even get me started on the 'FLUGLY'...).
I'm sticking with Win32 API for windows applications, and the (older) MFC framework, compatible with Windows 7, and NEVER tie my application into ".Not". NEVER CLR nor anything that requires it.
If Micro-shaft DEPRECATES Win32, it'll be at their OWN PERIL (with devs - if you do not believe me, check out the TIOBE index with respect to UWP and ".Not" and C# and VB.NET and other such things, as compared to C, Java, C++, and even Python!!!)
Perhaps NASA should have been willing to shell out more money initially, in order to attract more contract providers...
SOCIALISM isn't fixing this, by the way... (doing it THAT way would wheel spin us in "development" of "the next system" which would be a moving target and a cash pit at many times the current cost, as history would indicate)
However I think this will work out just fine. There are a few snags remaining, they didn't launch a ball of flame with dead astronauts coming back to earth, they've put caution and safety FIRST, and it delayed things. Well, so what. We're *SO* close to having this now, I'm sure it'll work.
And yeah, I'm in favor of UPPING the budget for NASA, not for the ISS so much, but because NASA dollars spent on rockets and R&D result in jobs, jobs, jobs. It's the *kind* of Keynsian economics that works, because you PAY PEOPLE TO WORK and GET SOMETHING IN RETURN. And technology always improves with these kind of government contracts, and it all pretty much 'trickles down' into the REST of industry, as history demonstrates.
It's all good. Apollo 1 was a disaster. And a couple of shuttles. But there was a 'stand down' each time, and some re-evaluation, and we fixed it, focused on safety, and moved forward. NASA is doing it right, I think, but more money approved for contracts would help.
copyrights are also subject to the concept of "fair use".
If a copyrighted work contains a loop, and you happen to make a similar loop, even if you SAW the copyrighted work, 'fair use' should allow you to make a "similar loop" anyway, without it being a derived work.
API function names and documentation should be the same way, In My Bombastic Opinion. In other words, you should be able to write YOUR library to implement THEIR API without any copyright violations, even if it is a competing product, assuming you didn't plagiarize a _SIGNIFICANT_ (i.e. NOT fair use) portion of THEIR code.
But, IANAL and this is also In My Bombastic Opinion
I wouldn't go for an entire ban on software patents.
HOWEVER, raising the bar to require the following would greatly reform the trolling problem
a) SPECIFICITY - a specific patent for a specific use.
b) NON-TRIVIALITY - must be WAY more than an obvious/trivial implementation
c) no "algorithms" - NO patenting of a (pure) algorithm. Reserve THAT for copyrights. However, if the algorithm works together with OTHER patentable tech, it could be considered as part of "that tech".
d) no "cosmetic" or UI claims - the use of multi-button presses, square windows, colors, touch, or other such common UI elements/appearance in a software patent claim.
As I see it, a software patent that applies to a particular technology (let's say control software for a particular industrial process that requires the industrial hardware to work), when this has been targeted to the particular implementation, should be fine. [I am actually party to a provisional software patent that is like that].
however, a PURE software patent on an algorithm, a trivial patent that's too obvious, or an 'umbrella' patent that is not specific, should be DENIED categorically.
This way if you invent something, and software is part of the invention (but not ALL of it), you should be able to patent your software WORKING WITH your invention.
but if you come up with an algorithm to calculate something [i.e. pure software], or generically perform some kind of control [let's say GPIO bit flipping or networking, and the hardware isn't patentable] then it should be DENIED.
the latter is probably the most frequent source of patent trolling, non-specific generic algorithm type patents that should NEVER have been granted.
and ESPECIALLY no "cosmetic" or UI claims, unless it's specific to your hardware.
Those of us who have been alive long enough to remember the formation of the EPA and the resulting MASSIVE cleanup of air and water, PLUS those currently living in places like China and India where HORRIBLE POLLUTION chokes the life out of citizens, understand what REAL environmental 'crisis' IS.
In the USA we plant forests after cutting them down (conservation makes economic sense), repair strip mining environmental damage (after we're done mining), put "things" on exhaust systems to limit ACTUAL pollutants (not this CO2 farce, it's NOT a greenhouse gas, infrared absorption spectrum and black body radiation, look it up), and our air and water systems are cleaner than EVER, and it's working, and I'm happy about it. I *HATE* pollution!
That being said, what's being done in the name of [insert environmentalist crisis of the week] is LUDICROUS and MANIPULATIVE and only designed to take away freedom and control people in perpetuity, in a pseudo feudal system of SOCIALISM and GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
SOME government control is needed to stop widespread abuse. THAT much is certain. Anything beyond that is just a POWER GRAB by ELITISTS.
And that ALSO includes the anti-MEAT agenda. However, I'd buy science-meat if it tastes the same and costs the same (or less) than REAL meat. (that means adding FAT to it, where the flavor is!)
"Animal Welfare" - humans are one of the FEW animals that treat their prey in a 'humane' way, for the most part. Most predators just kill and eat them, sometimes BRUTALLY.
I think we should give ourselves some credit for doing as much as we do...
Now - if 'protein sequenced' meat tastes as good as grass-fed or corn-fed beef, and COSTS LESS, I'll buy it at the grocery store. Until then, maybe it has a use in long space flights...
regardless of "FEELINGS" (which are both IRRELEVANT _and_ highly subjective), a job is an exchange of work for money. Any requirement beyond making more money for the hirer than is spent in wages, equivalent savings being a big part of that, is a RIDICULOUS requirement, and might as well be race, sex, or religion with respect to DISCRIMINATION.
that being said, someone who speaks out about politics all of the time in the work environment, and frequently offends people, may be terminated on the grounds that it's creating a "hostile work environment". work is for work. [politics can be 'shared' after hours unless you know it's not a problem].
And that's all that should matter. Too many hypersensitive easily-triggered SJW SNOWFLAKES out there... and THEY need to STFU and be "more accommodating".
the "Cancel Culture" is JUST! PLAIN! WRONG!!!
good observation. Keep in mind ALSO that, unless overseas components are used, every single penny spent by NASA will translate to people's income and purchase of equipment from U.S. based companies. Of course if a UK company were making "a thing" that was compellingly competitive, I'd say "go for it" but I suspect there's an 'America First' requirement in there someplace...
(this as opposed to funneling the money through bureaucracies into the hands of NON-working people, who would then produce NOTHING in exchange for all that cash - at least with NASA we get rockets and R&D and technological advancement!)
In any case, from the article:
"President Donald Trump's arbitrary 2024 deadline"
Would you have said it "that way" about JFK's "the moon in this decade" speech? Just curious...
I can imagine it now - 'President John Kennedy's *arbitrary* 1969 deadline' - yeah, not so good.
Personally I'm glad there's a deadline. Deadlines mean that you stop farting around with "Research" and BUILD SOME DAMN ROCKETS! And GET RESULTS!
Just like a BUSINESS MAN to GET RESULTS, right?
the idea was to re-sell them overseas at greatly inflated prices. As you pointed out, the genuine Apple product may be worth a LOT more "over there" than "over here", or so I recall from what I heard on the radio.
Being as it is a somewhat local issue (here in San Diego) i heard about it from more local news sources yesterday. And the Apple fans that I know, having purchased them within the last few years, could easily have ended up with fakes in lieu of real ones.
Hopefully this was just restricted to the 'return for repair' scam, so that you don't have a mass recall of iProducts to make sure that no fakes are out there...
"All of their energy ultimately comes from gasoline."
You say that like it was a BAD thing... and it's *NOT*
Electric car means:
a) more expensive
b) does poorly in weather extremes
c) limited range
d) TIME CONSUMING RECHARGES
that kinda says it all. I want a car that is CONVENIENT, goes BLISTERINGLY FAST when I want it to, looks COOL, and lasts for a VERY long time without major maintenance (like 200k miles, current vehicle).
Lemme know in a few DECADES when you got this down, k-thanks.
I would think a "code coverage" analysis might be interesting. If a zillion functions/styles are loaded, but only a handful are used, mark it *BLOATWARE* because it should NOT be cramming a boatload of bloat into the browser EVERY! STINKING! TIME! you load the page.
NO excuses!!
I prefer spaces MAINLY so that no matter what editor or viewer I load, from less and vi to pluma and IntelliJ, my indents remain CONSISTENT in the manner in which they display and, well, indent.
If you wanna "save that byte", consider how cheap storage is, and how EXPENSIVE time and effort are, and the impact of "poor or inconsistent readability" on your time/effort.
"amazing to see what happens on the pad."
As I recall, Saturn V cut the fuel lines at '0' on the count, but ran engines for another 2 seconds before actual lift-off. This is because it was LITERALLY too heavy until it had burned fuel for a couple of seconds, and at that point it SLOWLY started to lift up as fuel was consumed...
So the sequence was kind of like this:
T-5, 4, ignition, 3, 2, 1, 0.. lift off, we have lift off!
I watched many Saturn V launches on TV. They all went like that.
Landing the first stage is becoming boringly regular.
agreed. If it fails, we'll hear about it, like plane crashes. They're infrequent too, so every time you get one, it's front page stuff.
(this says a lot of GOOD THINGS about SpaceX's tail landing ability, which is still pretty sci-fi cool)
I'm convinced that if we're secretly in contact with space aliens, they're TRYING TO HOLD US BACK, and NOT _advance_ our technology. Just sayin'. And I also believe that "certain politics" is the number 1 reason we have not already colonized Mars. In the 1960's, they expected we'd have space stations like in the movie 2001 in, well, 2001. Other "predictions" like graphical displays on computers were actually pretty close and looked good on camera. A HAL computer that has natural language interface, a little early for 2001-ish but these are getting pretty good, too [Watson, Siri, Alexa, etc.).
But our space exploration is PATHETICALLY BEHIND where we COULD be.
Meanwhile, TRILLIONS wasted in government-run social programs... imagine if that was used to purchase cutting edge tech, instead? Jobs, wealth, productivity, national attitude and so on...
hmm... I wasn't aware the F1 wasn't double-wall. Perhaps NASA believed that double-wall wasn't strong/reliable enough. They needed double-wall for the Liquid H engines, but apparently "got away with" not doing that for kerosene engines. They operate at lower temps.
As I recall the double-wall design was intended to preheat fuel and cool the inner wall simultaneously. H2+O2 burns hotter than engine melting point, and that would be why. You could also spray fuel along the inside of the engine to form a laminar boundary layer. Maybe they did that in the F1 ???
In any case it was good enough to get the job done. But yeah "more modern" designs are probably better, more efficient, and so on. We can do that now. In 1960's, maybe not so much... not and meet the deadline of "in this decade".