mediating among the roaming and the resident

armaze is the right key for mediating the roaming, around the world.

affirm & mediate When people are roaming, their armaze, and the armaze of each area they roam through,

Even a visitor is trackable, to ensure that he/she goes far. If a visitor, who visited your residence, got lost in a neighboring region, without reaching further, that is a case for your attention. Look for that person, and warn the other people who would get through that untrustable neighbor's.

arm transfer

To affirm the rating of a resident, to a remote armaze, is the case, also when transferring an arm-formation, with its explosives, and heavy arms, through other forts, where there are other armazes. A transfer is possible, only after every armaze in that path, has accepted the move. This is not so difficult, especially with the ideas I have discussed about representing. It is easy, and firm. As far as a fort does not have a reason to avoid that kind of transfers, it may authorize a further-level armaze-formation, to authorize them. If, for example, every armaze-formation on a road, authorize the same armaze to verify-and-authorize such transfers, then there is a single request needed for passing through that road. For example, when authorizing trucks of explosives, the armaze that may authorize them may have experts for verifying a variety of concerns about transfers-of-explosives.

able, friendly, ready

The armaze of that area/fort, would let a roamer roam through there, only if

These are increasingly specific.

to affirm, is to rate, or ratify?

Not each region is concerned equally. There are two strategies, in return:

For example, I was aversed/shocked when I saw a police-raid photo in Russia, published in a 1992 Newsweek issue.# To catch the mob, they entered a sauna, and nude men were there. How would the Russian police let such photos? (Was that photo there, after those men allowed that?!?) This is a critical concern in the roaming context. We need to inform the roaming people on what they may find where they go. Otherwise, do not affirm.

Further Reading

recognize or repulse

Star Wars (SDI) and the "warhead-recognition question" In 1985, a critical article. The warhead-recognition question was there, too. Except if for the cost of laser-shot, the remedy is, again, a roaming view. The default is to shoot down, anything, if not recognizeable. If an expert may notice that, that thing is not a warhead, that is not shot. A bird is slow enough to postpone the shot. The only issue is left that, laser-energy may not suffice to shot all. But if the enemy is able to launch a billion warhead/decoy, they also waste a lot of energy. That is feasible,really. (Is a laser shot costlier than a missile? If not, the defense is extra feasible.)

no way out?

U.S. Spending Billions to Stop Iraq IEDs - Yahoo! News "2004 to 2006, some $6.1 billion will have been spent..." And contrast that to the way less expensive "the Defense Department proposes spending $167 million to build new supply roads in Iraq that bypass urban centers where convoys are exposed to IEDs."

The IED (explosive) trouble at Iraqi roadsides. The "human" aspect is absurd. Catch each bomb-maker?!? An expert from any corner of the world, may explain all of that in a video (cartoon-show), how people may build the latest IEDs. The only way left, is the roaming-area differentiation (by the new road they build, for themselves).

once let in, out of control?

In the paper "A Tail, Off to Cities" (plagiary, 2006, in review), I wrote that the armaze affirming a roaming, is resembling the case of a Ph.D. jury. If the jury would license a plagiarist/incompetent type as a "Dr." in that field, the casualties which may ensue (the wasted students of that false "Dr." professor, and the hurt lives, if that is in a critical field), is the same if the armaze people were to let gunful people in, when/where they cannot contain.

nu's week?

Although that Newsweek issue was old (1992), I noticed/thought these in [around early] May 2005. Later, within a month, the Guantanamo-Newsweek scandal was cooked/served. If, as the U.S. government claimed, the scandal was only an urban-legend, then that is the same mechanism -- the laxness -- that lead to the both publications, in Newsweek. Is this only a little co-incidence? (I keep encountering such.)

After that Guantanamo case, though, the Newsweek board announced their policy change.

Concomitantly, the less protested, the publication in Sun (the British tabloid), again that month, of the Saddam photos (as only the USA government protested the latter, they pointed out that, that was being against international p.o.w. law). The standard in that region was low, too -- and/or the antichrist crew were the (copycat) puppet-masters? (I also tipped this to FBI, on Aug.5, 2005. No news, yet. What is their standard?)

The issue of electromagnetic assaults, and puppetization, is the next-of-kin of a walk-in type invasion/assault. The net effect does not change, a lot. Thus, mediating-the-roaming relate to the anti-puppetization strategies.

internet DRDoS flood

For not letting any Distributed Reflection DoS Attack, I think a mediator (that is, the ISP-router, in that internet-DRDoS example) may would reflect whether that inbound (roaming visitor) SYN/ACK is after any SYN that was sent recently? That is resembling the armaze contacting the resident, to learn whether he/she/they really want that visitor in. In this case, the information is told, while the visitor has not arrived, yet. No need to ask. Therefore, this mediator (router at the ISP) would look-up for a recent reverse-path (src-dest IP&port) entry.

To keep this record, would take only a 16-byte record (or, 20, if timestamp, too).

For altruism (or, good-netizenship, if not for your bandwidth, too), to do this verification, vice versa, is fine, too. The router at the ISP would reflect that, a computer of a customer is never supposed to send out a "SYN" packet, with a spoofed (seemingly "remote address") as the source, and not send a "SYN/ACK" if there were no recent "SYN" to request that. A virus/trojan, within the intranet, may have fooled the computers of that LAN/intranet to send out those spurious "SYN/ACK" packets (to commit a DRDoS somewhere) -- and/or sending out the lieful "SYN"s.

The Gibson article is pointing out the difficulty of locating the attacking people -- with the existing internet. A tunneling may help, though. The way armaze may affirm remotely, the "SYN" is through the special tunnel.

Any informaze'ish (heard-from) route, is workable (resembling SMTP hop-list, except that, an informaze is an end-to-end path with a rating/respect for each intermediary). Anti-spoof.

If normally, comm-establishments take way less bandwidth than data, feasible to tunnel "SYN"s.

Forum: . . (Fair Menu . . . . . Fault Report? . . . . . Remedy for your case . . . . . Noticed Plagiarism?)

Referring#: 3.1
Last-Revised (text) on May 11, 2006 . . . that was
mirror for, on Mar. 14, 2009
Written by: Ahmed Ferzan/Ferzen R Midyat-Zila (or, Earth)
Copyright (c) [2002,] 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009 Ferzan Midyat. All rights reserved.