Thanks! It’s semi-fully-automatic; right now the generator is running off my laptop as I make tweaks but I plan to set up a cron job shortly. The page will stick around as long as the domain is still up, and I intend to keep it updating, but as it’s something I knocked together over a weekend I make no guarantees.
Selenium leaves trace in HTTP requests, so its use is quite detectable. The authors of PeopleSoft can include Selenium detection in their products, disallowing your automation scripts. Why not use GreaseMonkey instead?
Do you have any more information about this trace in HTTP requests? My understanding was that it was the _browser_ doing the requests; Selenium was just driving the browser.
Professor uses Wacom and Inkscape to draw a picture, which is incrementally transmitted to students' computers. Students, those who have Wacom, may interact. Or just watch. Transmission happens every time the svg file is saved. Transmission requires a RabbitMQ server, which can be easily set up. Basically, a class needs one person who knows Linux, to set up the server.
It is intended for scientific collaboration or teaching in small groups of people. I am now using it for teaching my QFT class, although it only has 5 students. In principle, it should scale, but I have not tried it for large groups...
Drawing with Wacom in Inkscape is a pleasure, once you get used to it. In some sense, it is more convenient than using a physical blackboard. Although, some training is needed...
Drawing with Wacom in Inkscape is a pleasure, once you get used to it. In some sense, it is more convenient than using a physical blackboard. Although, some training is needed...
Right, because computer programming (unlike computer science!) does not take a genius.
It is, basically, a routine work.
Unfortunately, there is a tendency to say the same about fundamental science, for example here: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201... and here : https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/30/we-hai...
This worries me. Without outstanding contributions from individuals, science will turn into waste of human resources. We absolutely need to protect and care about our elites !
It seems that such exploit would require some kind of `network-manager` running. But if `network-manager` is disabled, and all interfaces configured in `/etc/network/interfaces`, then the new malicious interface will be just ignored. It will not come up.
Perhaps a server, when running in development mode, should require a custom HTTP header? This would be a non-simple request, and the browser will refuse.
Would this be a reasonable counter-measure?
The services discussed - memcached, redis, etc - don't use HTTP. The attack is successful because the protocols follow the robustness principle of 'be liberal in what you accept', and simply ignore the HTTP cruft, but still process the command.
A secret value, whether it's called a 'password', a 'key', a 'token', or comes in an 'Authorization' header or 'X-CustomHeader' is always a good countermeasure.
STUN server is not a real solution. It is typically unable to penetrate NAT. Maybe WebRTC will work sometimes, but it is not a reliable solution. It is difficult to come up with alternative to Skype until IPv6 is widely adopted. But when we get IPv6, every computer will have its own address, then yes.
TL;DR: Does the same as STUN but also is able to relay video & audio for hosts where STUN fails.
I'm using it in a Android app of mine for video conference and works really good. You can download something like coturn and drop it in a 5$ digitalocean and run with it.
Though I agree with you that IPv6 will be a boon to P2P networking, your statement is mostly incorrect. STUN can penetrate the most common types of NAT including full-cone, restricted-cone and port-restricted-cone[1]. As the other comments note, TURN can almost always get the job done with other NAT configurations.
The WebRTC API is actually surprisingly robust. It was built with these limitations in mind, so client code can supply a list of STUN and TURN servers, which the ICE framework underpinning WebRTC uses in the order they were supplied. So if setup correctly, WebRTC clients can use TURN as a backup when STUN isn't enough.
Here in Brazil, all NATs are either defective or ``symmetric'' whatever this means I am not an expert sorry. I do not expect STUN to work. As for TURN, this means traffic will go through the server. Then how is it better than Skype? Microsoft can afford, if I understand it correctly, a huge network of TURN servers, essentially. Is this how Skype works?
Academia needs some control mechanisms. Otherwise, the scientific research is at risk of becoming completely chaotic. Selective availability of software is one of those mechanisms. In this case, a closed-source software is made available to a specific group of people controlled by highly competent leaders: the US academic community. This increases the prestige of the group, and indirectly the level of competition needed to get there. Moreover, it increases the prestige of the US universities. This also helps the world-renowned science leaders to have more refined control over the direction of scientific research and science policy.
One of the guiding principles of the academy is academic freedom, i.e. the freedom to pursue research in a free and protected way. So academics aren't inclined to embrace "control mechanisms".
Prestige is the concentration of high quality research (as judged by peers) in one place.
I fail to see how making only some software available to US academics (which seems to be what you are suggesting), in any way enhances their prestige or capacity to influence science policy.
I wonder if NASA would get more funding from congress if we told them they were only allowed to use SAT-solvers in planning space missions.
But the notion that the Simons foundation is somehow trying to make software "selectively available", rather than just increase the availability of one particular piece of software they like, seems far-fetched to me.
"making only some software available in US" --- you slightly missed my point. I meant "software only available in US". That would be impossible to achieve with Sage, as Sage is open source. If you support Sage, you cannot control who gets it. (By the way, North Korea would also be able to use it!) The point, I believe, is to only support those projects which are under control and can be used for control. Maybe I am unfair to Simons. It is just hard for me to interpret this in any other way.
It is not only about software. Academia has other structures serving the same purpose.
Is your original post above meant to be sarcastic? I can't tell. A basic idea in scientific research (especially mathematics) is that we do NOT need "control mechanisms" like you describe that prevent research in order to avoid chaos. Instead, we have peer review, the scientific method, and rigorous proof (in mathematics). Everybody is welcome to try to prove mathematical theorems and do research, and the more widely we make the tools for doing so available, the better. In mathematics, when a group thinks they have solved an interesting problem, they write up the solution, make it available on the internet (e.g., on arxiv.org), and other researchers read it. If the group has correctly and deeply understood the solution to an important problem, then their work becomes more widely known and everybody benefits. I see absolutely no scientific benefit to restricting who has access to mathematical software, mathematics papers, books, etc. And definitely no benefit to making such tools closed source, thus restricting how they can use that software. One of my inspirations for starting Sage was watching a young Manjul Bharghava (who just won a Fields Medal recently, by the way) give a talk in which he explained how his research had been severely frustrated by Magma being closed source, so he couldn't modify it to do what he wanted.
Dear William, thank you for your great work! My post was sarcastic. I completely agree with what you wrote in your comment. But I do believe that my guess about why your proposal was rejected is partially correct.
On the other hand, if by "specific group" you mean the algebraists who happen to use computers in their research, then yes, increasing the availability of Magma may help them to do better research, which may in turn increase their influence within the academy and ultimately their influence on science policy.
The same case could be made for Sagemath of course.
It has control mechanisms. What it doesn't need is precisely what you describe: a self-appointed, self-styled group of "leaders" who followed the wasteful winner-take-all, judgmental, rank and pedigree conscious ethos of their discipline.
