KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

10 participants
3253 discussions

Re:
by Luke -Jr 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

On Saturday 19 July 2008, Leo Mauler wrote: > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr <luke(a)dashjr.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote: > > > Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to sever adult from non-adult > > > content ! > > > > 1. Please don't refer to immoral images as "adult"; there are still some > > decent adults left, no matter how many damn themselves with this crud. > > And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography" > while a painting of a nude woman is "art"? This distinction has allowed > people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting > Industry. Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on > half a dozen websites, entirely for free. It seems you need to review the difference between nudity and porn... Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement Main Entry: nude 2 a: devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape b (1): of the color of a white person's flesh (2): giving the appearance of nudity <a nude dress> > Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them. Immoral images are inherently abusive and not appropriate for any audience. > > 2. Standards on how to say "I am porn!" never work because the porn > > industry does not want filters blocking access to them. Not only do they > > *want* children and others to get addicted, they certainly aren't going to > > participate in something any ISP blocks off entirely without user consent. > > Porn filters never work because of the sheer collective lust drive of > teenage boys. There could be 100% acceptance of a porn filter and teenage > boys would still get access to porn. Not if they don't know it exists. Your claim depends on incompetent parents.

4 5

Re: Samba Web Interface
by Billy Crook 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

And the irony is CIFS is quite secure if you tunnel it through SSH, but on any platform where you would have to use CIFS (read: on windows), you can never bind to the local port 445, and can't connect to cifs on any port other than 445. I'd try those two web apps over apache+SSL. in the off chance your requirement of being 'web' is less to do with the user interface and more to do with firewalls, there are several methods of tunnelling arbitrary network traffic over http as valid (proxy and firewall compatible) http requests. See: http://freshmeat.net/projects/corkscrew/ On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 13:54, Mark Gardner <markgard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Is there a specific reason your uploading of files to your home server >> has to have anything to do with samba? > > No, It does not have to do with Samba, any web based file browser will do. > >> If you could use a web site interface to uploading and managing files >> on a webserver, try http://webfilebrowser.sourceforge.net/ and >> http://freshmeat.net/projects/pfb/. Of course, you will probably want >> to set up ssl, and offer those services exclusively over SSL. > > This is exactly the type of things that I've been looking for. Something > that I can upload my files to, and secure down with > Authentication/Encryption > >> >> If it doesn't even have to be 'web', use scp, an sftp client like >> filezilla, or fuse-sshfs. > > > I would prefer a web interface. But yes, I've used winscp, and other sftp > clients > >> >> you could actually use Samba right over the >> net, but it is usually blocked, and isn't very smart for security >> reasons. > > I agree 100% CIFS over open internet is just a bad idea. > > -- > James Thurber - "Women are wiser than men because they know less and > understand more."

1 0

Samba Web Interface
by Mark Gardner 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

Does anyone know of a decent web interface to a samba file system. I would like to be able to securely upload files to my home server via a web interface. -- Rodney Dangerfield - "I worked in a pet store and people would ask how big I would get."

5 4

NIC Promiscuous Mode
by Greg Lawson 20 Jul '08

20 Jul '08

I need to demonstrate the differences of a NIC being in promiscuous mode and when it's not for a college class. Can anyone think of any good shell commands to run "before and after" which show what traffic the NIC can and can't see? Greg Lawson Rolling Hills Consolidated Library 1912 N. Belt Highway St. Joseph, MO 64506

6 7

Re: Flashing the FON device. A question about semi-automating the process if possible.
by Billy Crook 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

Important detail: On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 15:48, Luke -Jr <luke(a)dashjr.org> wrote: > On Saturday 19 July 2008, Billy Crook wrote: >> >> That port would have to be open, and would have to be bound to an IP >> address other than 0.0.0.0. > > On the 2200 FONs, it is.

2 1

Flashing the FON device. A question about semi-automating the process if possible.
by Oren Beck 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

2 or so meetings back there was some demonstration of flashing the FON devices thru the on board serial port. The operation as I seem to understand it has some complexities. One of which is needing to open circuit a lead in the comm path until after a mode change is shown. That indication showing on a terminal screen as a + sign if I recall properly. Based on that having timing issues I have not yet tried a flash here. If someone with better scripting skills than I have could script -Monitoring for that + and thence controlling either a relay or other switching device to make that connection. Hand tapping connectors reminds me conceptually of "Field Flashing" older automotive generators. Which later became obsolete for other reasons. The summary query then becomes- I wonder if a program controlled relay could make and break that serial path for semi-automating the flash process. -- Oren Beck 816.729.3645

2 1

None
by Leo Mauler 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

--- On Wed, 7/16/08, Luke -Jr <luke(a)dashjr.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Oren Beck wrote: > > Consider how YOU would write a RFC draft to > > sever adult from non-adult content ! > > 1. Please don't refer to immoral images as > "adult"; there are still some decent adults > left, no matter how many damn themselves with > this crud. Well, to be entirely fair "porn" has traditionally included "scenes of beings (human or otherwise) having sex", and us adults were all laughing about a recent posted link to an image of a devil having sex with a penguin. There's also the slight difference between "porn" and "instructional sex videos". Mature adults who want to spice up their home lives might buy the latter while utterly condemning the former, even though the difference between the two is largely semantic. And to top it all off, why is a photograph of a nude woman "pornography" while a painting of a nude woman is "art"? This distinction has allowed people to get away with all kinds of stuff in the Pornographic Painting Industry. Sculpture too, as you can even see "David's" tallywhacker on half a dozen websites, entirely for free. Pornographic paintings have been around for centuries. Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" is actually his first use of a "play within a play", and the outer play involves a drunken tinker who is snuck into a lord's house while the lord pretends that the tinker is actually a lord. The servants are told to provide the tinker with everything that the lord would normally get, and so one servant offers to show the tinker "his" (the lord's) collection of paintings of nude women. Some of those paintings most likely hang in modern museums and are viewed without condemnation as "crud". Immoral images can be adult, its just in how you present them. > 2. Standards on how to say "I am porn!" never work > because the porn industry does not want filters > blocking access to them. Not only do they *want* > children and others to get addicted, they certainly > aren't going to participate in something any ISP > blocks off entirely without user consent. Porn filters never work because of the sheer collective lust drive of teenage boys. There could be 100% acceptance of a porn filter and teenage boys would still get access to porn. "Dilbert" gets a few strips a year from this very topic, where Dilbert can't build a porn filter that a teenage boy can't overcome quickly. Recent News: Schoolboy downs Australia’s $84m porn filter with ease http://tinyurl.com/6m84xa What I find especially funny is that the Australian government, in response to the kid's 30 second porn filter bypass, immediately implemented a much stronger filter. The same schoolboy then bypassed the new "stronger" porn filter in about 45 minutes. However, I can think of a very good reason why the porn industry doesn't want children gaining access to their pornography: MONEY. Every child who gets on a porn website is a child who is using a credit card in an unauthorized manner, which represents the bane of the retail industry: the "refund". Sure, there are unscrupulous "fly by night" websites which don't care if children log into their websites with Daddy's American Excess Card, but established, practically mainstream porn websites aren't going to want to have potential lawsuits on their hands when Billy's parents complain to the Attorney General after Billy wanted to see boobies. They're going to want Billy not to have access in the first place. They're going to want to make him wait until he gets his first college credit card, because then his money is theirs, all theirs.

1 0

Re: Usenet NEWS vs. Bittorrent
by Leo Mauler 19 Jul '08

19 Jul '08

--- On Mon, 7/14/08, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins(a)tarcanfel.org> wrote: > On Monday 14 July 2008 11:18:50 am Leo Mauler wrote: > > > Most of the posts are binary posts... > > What? How do you determine that? Did you download > 20,000 groups and count by hand? Ever since I started quoting NetNews statistics, the source I'm quoting from downloads all the NetNews groups 240 times daily and counts by computer. Of the NetNews daily postings, currently only 0.2% are text-only posts, which is actually a dip in the number of text-only posts (down from 0.3%). Perhaps TWC had more text-only newsgroup users than anyone expected (though that, unlike the NetNews posting statistics, is merely speculation). > I think we've had enough imaginary statistics in this > "discussion". My statistics have never been "imaginary" in this discussion. > If you cite a statistic from here out, cite a source. Jonathan, I've been posting a source since I started quoting statistics, the source I get all my NetNews numbers from. www.newsadmin.org The direct link to the type of messages posted on NetNews is at http://www.newsadmin.org/msgtype.htm. This is updated daily. The current total number of daily NetNews posts is The current percentage of NetNews posts (as of this E-mail) which are text-only is 0.2%. As of this E-mail date and time: The current percentage of jpeg/gif postings is: 50.7% The current percentage of par/rar postings is: 17.2% The current percentage of mp3 postings is: 1.1% The current percentage of avi/mpeg postings is: 0.6% The current percentage of exe/zip postings is: 0.6% Also note that Newsadmin.org does not open RAR files to determine their contents, so the jpeg/gif/avi/mpeg/mp3 numbers could be slightly underestimated.

1 0

NIC Promiscuous Mode Demo
by glawson 18 Jul '08

18 Jul '08

Thanks to all for the suggestions. I ended up just using ipconfig to show the NIC in and out of promiscuous mode, and used tcpdump with and without the -p flag to show the output. It all worked out fine. Greg ------------------------ On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 13:50 -0500, Greg Lawson wrote: > I need to demonstrate the differences of a NIC being in promiscuous > mode and when it's not for a college class. Can anyone think of any > good shell commands to run "before and after" which show what traffic > the NIC can and can't see? > > Greg Lawson > Rolling Hills Consolidated Library > 1912 N. Belt Highway > St. Joseph, MO 64506

1 0

NSFW image totally about the BSD Vs Linux "Dissing" scene - warning- no food or drink in mouth while first viewing the link
by Oren Beck 16 Jul '08

16 Jul '08

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/14/software-licensing-f.html Since this is on Boing Boing it's not too grody by comparison to the New Yorker cover. I will be merciful and list the link instead of trying to post the image. Let's just say- The BSD Daemon should have bought Tux flowers and chocolate first. As I said- NSFW and NSFK if you've anything in your mouth when you see the image... -- Oren Beck 816.729.3645

3 2

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG