... Thankfully, the more modern movements have wised up.

Thank you. For noticing.

All that said, the only problem with not being ready for war is that it increases the chances that someone will wage it on you.

Ready for war yes, ready to go to war in response, no.

If you go to war you've got to try to win. The only problem with winning a war is that it makes people more likely to wage another one on you later, whether via military force or via terrorist force.

Peace activists argue that there are ways of being ready to cope with war other than by fighting. The benefit being longer term - that you decrease the chances of it happening again. And again.

If we, globally, spent as much on preparing non-violent responses to violent attack as we do on preparing violent responses to violent attack, then, in my opinion, we'd actually have the option of non-military responses that don't exist at present.

If you want to avoid war, get ready for peace.

And, usually, the last people that want to go to war are those that are professional military.

Absoutely so.

River~~

I think you might be surprised at the way many of the barbaric military people feel about the people that wage peace, as it were. The whole point of my service was to try to ensure that people would continue to have the right to do those things that are expressed in our constitutions. The only fault I suppose we see is that many in the peace movement (historically) blame the soldier for the policy of the government. Thankfully, the more modern movements have wised up.

All that said, the only problem with not being ready for war is that it increases the chances that someone will wage it on you. And, usually, the last people that want to go to war are those that are professional military.

... I do have a question, did they

look at the names of the defendants again

attempt to enter the base and damage the vessel or were they using legal action or public demonstration? If it's the latter, why in the world are they in court ?

we entered the dockyards where the boat had been built shortly before handover to the RN. We intended to make certain modifications to the boat (nothing involving the nukes) that would cause the RN to defer delivery. We had not reached the boat so no actual damage. Being on the way to damage something is not close enough in English law to count as an attempt: we'd have had to be actually at the boat for that charge to be made, so not even attempted damage. Hence conspiracy.

And a jury who accepted that we acted to delay a greater wrong, hence acquittal.

River~~

[1] It also sounds that you may have also had RN or RAF possibly in your past as well.

[2] one has to know the ways of the "opposition" in order to defend or at least investigate.

ROFL

[2] explains [1] ;-)

(hint).

I'm very happy to find I'm working together with military people on this project. It is good to find common ground where we can stand together. I hope forces personnel feel the same about my being here...

The hijack is easy enough for anyone en route between thw two boxes - it listens in to existing traffic, then in a later connection expoits what it has learnt by replacing some of the packets in the datastream.

Alternatively I hijack the connection by spoofing the DNS for bakerlab, so that anyone using the spoofed DNS comes to me instead, and I then forward all the packets to bakerlab, reading then as they go through. There are many strategies that can be used in these mitm (man-in-the-middle) attacks.

Where Bill is right is that if someone did that then they would already have access to id number of your computer as it is sent in the outbound packet. To avoid that, every connection would have to be https or equivalent.

I still think the security risk (small tho it is) lies in releasing the internal IP addresses to anyone who does mount that man-in-the-middle attack. This info would not be used to attack boinc but to gain info to attack the firewall. It would potentially be found by shiffing all outgoing packets for teext that looks like an IP address - the same way you'd find a credit card number during a Mitm attack.

River~~

You appear to know things you should not. What do you do in your spare time? Do you have a secret hobby perhaps?

The numbers I refer to are the system numbers assigned by the BOINC program to ID each computer/host.

Okay, I follow what you mean - I just don't buy it as a threat. To get a packet to your computer, someone would have to "hijack" the project's server so that when your host requested something, it would respond with this malware. In that instance, they would _have_ your host ID, as it's in the packet you sent.

BOINC just doesn't "listen" for packets with your host ID, it only receives them as a result of a request. To even send a packet "unrequested", someone would have to have _both_ your host ID _and_ your IP address, and even then I don't see how anything could happen, because nothing on your end would respond.

I'm not a networking or security expert, so I won't swear that you're wrong in your concerns... but there are many networking AND security experts on the various boards, and I've never heard anyone express any issues (other than if a server got taken over) about BOINC.

Regardless, showing or hiding your computers is your decision; the _negative_ to having them hidden is that it severely limits the information we can get to in order to help solve any problems you may have. As long as you're willing to do the research yourself when asked, that's fine.



(Don't panic - look at the source... :-) Just couldn't resist.)

The risk is minimal and would requires someone to fake or insert my number into traffic related to the particular BOINC or known logical port while traffic is going back and forth, it's a long shot but I think it's possible so that is why I prefer to hide the numbers of my systems.

Are you referring to the IP address? Or what "numbers of my systems"? If you have not looked at my computers to see what is visible to others, please do so. I think you are concerned about information being revealed that is _not_ visible to anyone but you, hidden or not.