80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þis this normality? or should i look somewhere else?þ1045792779ÿ/163.1.162.5þOh HECK. I made the censor work randomly 50% of the time so it messed with that guy's mindþ1045792791ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þrubber????!!!!!þ1045792797ÿ/163.1.162.5þ<img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/grin.gif"> Sorry I programmed this thing in its original setting with some "funny" featuresþ1045792817ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þthe next programme on BBC3 is "cyberwar"þ1045792828ÿ/163.1.162.5þYeah it changed rubber to rubber, as it also changes eszett to diphthongþ1045792839ÿ/163.1.162.5þBBC>3<?þ1045792854ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þBBC2, i meantþ1045792855ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þit changed rubber to rubber? r-r-r-r-ightþ1045792885ÿ/163.1.162.5þLOL you don't know right now... There _is_ a BBC4 in factþ1045792900ÿ/163.1.162.5þit changed t u n g s t e n to rubber (and just be glad I didn't put my next-gen censorship prog on or it'd mess even _that_ up for me)þ1045792928ÿ/163.1.162.5þI'm gonna allow HTML hereþ1045792941ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þcan it cange plastic into plastic too?þ1045792969ÿ/163.1.162.5þ<img src='temp/mallards.jpg'>þ1045792980ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þi know about bbc4, i just don't receive itþ1045792991ÿ/163.1.162.5þAh, much betterþ1045793003ÿ/163.1.162.5þSo do you like this chat thing in comparison to Yahoo yet?þ1045793034ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þquick glimpse of r.j.oppenheimer talking about the a-bomb...and now we're onto hackersþ1045793048ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þi've used a number of different chat set-ups now -- i do go onto things like yahoo chat from time to time, and other suchþ1045793137ÿ/163.1.162.5þStrangeþ1045793147ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þnice ducks. shame about the waterþ1045793158ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þis this thing laggy, or is it me?þ1045793208ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þit's probably me, via ntlþ1045793240ÿ/163.1.162.5þThe page is 16KB, because it's a 100-cell-long table, so it'll take a little while via dialupþ1045793276ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þthey're treating us to a dude in boston who intercepts data-streams from all sorts of sourcesþ1045793298ÿ/163.1.162.5þAlso you'll have to press "refresh" to get new messages (although I've just added a minute-ly auto-refresh)þ1045793302ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þ...and his friends. they call themselves "the L0pht"þ1045793379ÿ/163.1.162.5þauto-refresh doesn't workþ1045793384ÿ/163.1.162.5þOh - heard of themþ1045793392ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þah. refresh. þ1045793417ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þthey seem quite competentþ1045793451ÿ/163.1.162.5þis this a modern program or about 5 years old?þ1045793511ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þhe's just explained it would take about 30 minutes to bring down the internet for a period of timeþ1045793546ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þi haven't seen the copyright on the programme yet, but i'd guess the interview with them at least is old -- maybe mid-'90s?þ1045793603ÿ/163.1.162.5þYeah I might have seen the same program (but again, forgotten most of the details). I'm SURE the internet is more stable in 2003 than it was in 1995. There have been some attempts recenrly at disabling the backbone servers and they haven't worked because it has a lot of redundancyþ1045793666ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þand now some guys from Rand Corp have described how they'd written an article about the vulnerability of anything depending on the web...þ1045793771ÿ/163.1.162.5þ<img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/duckrot.gif">þ1045793780ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þ...and 'someone' came to them and tried to recall all the copies of the magazine, and to classify their work...þ1045793812ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þ...they've stopped writing about it.þ1045793834ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þspot the html-whiz...þ1045793853ÿ/163.1.162.5þOh that's weirdþ1045793870ÿ/163.1.162.5þ<img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/grin.gif"> that wasn't HTML that was an automatically generated smiley from the chars ( ° ) >þ1045793894ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þit was obviously one of the 'black-suit' brigadeþ1045793899ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þahþ1045793914ÿ/163.1.162.5þHow much do you believe is that 'men in black' stuff?þ1045794013ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þwhat do you mean?þ1045794051ÿ/163.1.162.5þWell I dunno. Sometimes you see people on TV programmes like the one you're watching talking about "someone" coming around and suppressing them somehowþ1045794087ÿ/163.1.162.5þand I wondered how much of that you attribute to them being cranks and how much you believeþ1045794105ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þwell, i am quite sure that NSA-types would lean on someone if they thought that person was publishing something that would 'give away' info that the government hoped no one had noticedþ1045794190ÿ/163.1.162.5þhmm yeah I supposeþ1045794215ÿ/163.1.162.5þBRBþ1045794242ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þthe people on here don't seem to be cranks for the most part. they're being quite balanced on the whole. a number of them are academics in fields of computers, some are historiansþ1045794284ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þokþ1045794311ÿ/163.1.162.5þMy problem right now is that I'm most alert at around 1-2am þ1045794493ÿ/163.1.162.5þAnd so I'm rather out-of-syncþ1045794511ÿ/163.1.162.5þI'll have done nothing all day and as soon as it gets towards the evening (in today's instance) I make that galaxies thing and then spoontaneously do THIS.þ1045794547ÿ/163.1.162.5þin about 5x less time than I would have if I'd tried it during the daytime. But the downside is I can't get up in the mornings and have missed most if not all of this week's lectures so farþ1045794583ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þOK -- well, i need to get some sleep tonight myself. i've been out a few nights this week looking at starsþ1045794736ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þbtw the programme was 1997þ1045794749ÿ/163.1.162.5þAh right - I thought it either aired first on C4 or BBC2 (at least the one I saw did)þ1045794781ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þthere were a spate of things on cyber security in the late '90s...þ1045794905ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þi was just on yahoo IM answering your post there tooþ1045794934ÿ/163.1.162.5þHi againþ1045795000ÿ80.7.136.60/62.254.128.5þhide-and-seek in chat-space. oh joy.þ1045795022ÿ/163.1.162.5þBTW I haven't anything between #85 and #90 for you on Yahoo <img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/tounge.gif">þ1045795030ÿ/137.222.10.58þeekþ1045854260ÿ/163.1.162.5þ{John you f00l I now know your IP address}þ1045854486ÿ/137.222.10.58þeekþ1045854503ÿ/137.222.10.58þim so scaredþ1045854514ÿ/137.222.10.58þim not even running a firewallþ1045854533ÿ/137.222.10.58þ<img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/oops.gif">þ1045854588ÿ/137.222.10.58þ<img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/tounge.gif">þ1045854595ÿ/137.222.10.58þ <img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/duckrot.gif">þ1045854607ÿ/163.1.162.5þdum-de-dumþ1047514037ÿ/163.1.162.5þHello Matthewþ1047514094ÿ/163.1.162.5þOh FOUL it's giving us both the same IP address?þ1047514107ÿ/163.1.162.5þbut of courseþ1047514133ÿ/163.1.162.5þwe're both connecting through alastair's lovely NAT thingytþ1047514145ÿ/163.1.162.5þooh, pretty coloursþ1047514152ÿ/163.1.162.5þAlastair's buggered up whatever that NAT thing isþ1047514183ÿ/163.1.162.5þCan I do <strong>strong emphasis</strong>?þ1047514195ÿ/163.1.162.5þWhy?þ1047514203ÿ/163.1.162.5þIt used to be the case that my IP detection algorithm detected both the original computer's IP and the IP of a proxyþ1047514205ÿ/163.1.162.5þToo many computers in college to have 1 outside IP each, so we're all going through one computer to outside worldþ1047514224ÿ/163.1.162.5þit's not a proxyþ1047514231ÿ/163.1.162.5þBut no, I've had some e-mails doing strange things, including "Cannot resolve host nat-kludge-coz-alastair-cant-face-subnet-swap.trinity.ox.ac.uk"þ1047514244ÿ/163.1.162.5þthat's the hostname for 163.1.162.5þ1047514267ÿ/163.1.162.5þYeah OK it's a router then...þ1047514277ÿ/163.1.162.5þBut anyway, on a sensible LAN I'd've thought you'd have a local (internal) IP for the lan and then an internet IP for the routerþ1047514305ÿ/163.1.162.5þWhich is what my script _used_ to pick up <img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/grin.gif">þ1047514326ÿ/163.1.162.5þit can't do that, internal IPs mustn't be picked up on the outside, too risky and silly - and you could still have doubles with two different people on different internal networksþ1047514383ÿ/163.1.162.5þYeah but it raises the question, how can external web services find a unique ID for you?þ1047514447ÿ/163.1.162.5þCookies are one way, but they're really foul in my opinion...þ1047514462ÿ/163.1.162.5þ(And also this makes it REALLY TOUGH to run any sort of server here. Of course Alastair doesn't want that in this instance, but it's not good in general)þ1047514529ÿ/163.1.162.5þtechnically, servers probably break the IT thing we signed, cookies/session ID in URI is about the only wayþ1047514649ÿ/163.1.162.5þor a digital certificateþ1047514655ÿ/163.1.162.5þ<img align="top" src="/forum/smilies/happy.gif">þ1047514671ÿ/163.1.162.5þHmm session ID isn't a bad idea. The other way is to have a database and get users to register I supposeþ1047514716ÿ/163.1.162.5þbyeþ1047514800ÿ213.105.148.87/62.254.128.5þi'm not sure how i got here...þ1075316951ÿfoo
stephenbrooks.org
