Defcon 17 suggestions

[HighWiz]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

Sounds like fun. I'd like to see it. However, do you think the hotel might shut the pool down if you tried doing this and they found out about it? I mean water boarding is highly controversial...they might not want it getting out that torture was going on at the their hotel and all. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just imagining the inevitable.

So are you being super sarcastic or are you really that stupid?

[faye]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

Since the pool will be open for us, and we are all about hacking and social engineering as well as education and enlightenment, why don't we have a waterboarding event.

Sounds like fun. I'd like to see it. However, do you think the hotel might shut the pool down if you tried doing this and they found out about it? I mean water boarding is highly controversial...they might not want it getting out that torture was going on at the their hotel and all. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, just imagining the inevitable.

[astcell]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

The record is about 14 seconds, which is about how long one can exhale calmly. It is when you try to inhale that the fun begins. When I said it won't hurt, I meant it is painless. An Indian burn hurts more. But I never said it wouldn't be scary. Personally I'd offer no one more than 2-3 seconds.

If you have inhaled water at a pool or had something you are drinking going down the wrong pipe you know the feeling. But if you do this with your chest at a plane level above your head it gets real freaky.

This reminds me of a guy who almost drowned in a cup of coffee. But I digress.

[shrdlu]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

Since the pool will be open for us, and we are all about hacking and social engineering as well as education and enlightenment, why don't we have a waterboarding event?

It's not exactly fun (if you are a receiver), but it won't hurt you, it will find your breaking point (maybe), it is legal (for now), and it will give you some insight into the whole thing.

Or we can save it for the next person to throw something out the Penthouse window.

Just so you know. Your statement that it won't hurt is incorrect, sir. The risk of heart attack or lung collapse is higher than you realize. I'm all for torture and humiliation (of others), but prefer such niceties as gentian violet and iodine for my amusements.

Hmmm... I wonder where I could get gentian violet. It's been a while since I went looking for it. It's hard to find, anymore, at least for the general populace.

[theprez98]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

Since the pool will be open for us, and we are all about hacking and social engineering as well as education and enlightenment, why don't we have a waterboarding event?

It's not exactly fun (if you are a receiver), but it won't hurt you, it will find your breaking point (maybe), it is legal (for now), and it will give you some insight into the whole thing.

Or we can save it for the next person to throw something out the Penthouse window.

Now that would be interesting.

[astcell]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

Since the pool will be open for us, and we are all about hacking and social engineering as well as education and enlightenment, why don't we have a waterboarding event?

It's not exactly fun (if you are a receiver), but it won't hurt you, it will find your breaking point (maybe), it is legal (for now), and it will give you some insight into the whole thing.

Or we can save it for the next person to throw something out the Penthouse window.

[sintax_error]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

Would it be beneficial to have the speakers provide something like info on getting the most out of the talk. For instance in the program you would have the speaker bio and the presentation abstract and then rather than have a difficulty rating have a section like this:

To get the most out of this talk:
You should have a basic understanding of TCP/IP networking

or

To get the most out of this talk:
You should have intimate knowledge of the DNS standard, strong C++ programming knowledge and a working understanding of x86 Assembly Language.


This way attendees could choose to go to a talk knowing that it is possibly going to cover concepts they aren't familiar with but may still be beneficial to them, or they can pass because it appears to in depth. Conversely if they are interested in the topic and have a strong understanding of the supporting concepts they can migrate toward that talk. This doesn't require any labels such as newbie, intermediate, advanced but rather allows attendees to gauge the talk based on the underlying concepts. Make sense? Shitty idea?

Great idea and makes perfect sense. I think that would add a lot of clarity as to the actual content of the talk as well.

[astcell]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

I thought we had three different tracks that were basically N00b, Advanced, and 1337. Are we ending up with newbies getting high end information because of the speaker's methods?

[Chris]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

It's funny you should say that Chris, that's how I used to list requirements and suggested skills for Mystery Challenge.

Great minds? Or shared dementia?

[LosT]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

It's funny you should say that Chris, that's how I used to list requirements and suggested skills for Mystery Challenge.

[valkyrie]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

Chris's idea is a good one. As he commented, the speakers themselves know what skills or knowledge one would need to get the most out of their particular talk and the attendee gets to decide based on their interest and existing skills whether a talk would be beneficial for them. Why not try that this year and see how well it works?

Nice call Chris.

Regards,

valkyrie
__________________________________________________ ______
sapere aude

[Chris]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

If something like that were to be implemented, it would have to be a very broad "rating" system. Mainly because as DT said, a lot of speakers wouldn't know how to rate themselves on a parallel line of others. What may seem basic to me may seem unconscionably difficult to others, and vice versa. That I think would actually detract from the descriptions a bit, it is up to us what we get out of each talk, but a "rating" system would have to be something ridiculously broad like novice, intermediate, and expert, which are such loose terms that their accuracy would be negligible at best.

Would it be beneficial to have the speakers provide something like info on getting the most out of the talk. For instance in the program you would have the speaker bio and the presentation abstract and then rather than have a difficulty rating have a section like this:

To get the most out of this talk:
You should have a basic understanding of TCP/IP networking

or

To get the most out of this talk:
You should have intimate knowledge of the DNS standard, strong C++ programming knowledge and a working understanding of x86 Assembly Language.


This way attendees could choose to go to a talk knowing that it is possibly going to cover concepts they aren't familiar with but may still be beneficial to them, or they can pass because it appears to in depth. Conversely if they are interested in the topic and have a strong understanding of the supporting concepts they can migrate toward that talk. This doesn't require any labels such as newbie, intermediate, advanced but rather allows attendees to gauge the talk based on the underlying concepts. Make sense? Shitty idea?

[sintax_error]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

If something like that were to be implemented, it would have to be a very broad "rating" system. Mainly because as DT said, a lot of speakers wouldn't know how to rate themselves on a parallel line of others. What may seem basic to me may seem unconscionably difficult to others, and vice versa. That I think would actually detract from the descriptions a bit, it is up to us what we get out of each talk, but a "rating" system would have to be something ridiculously broad like novice, intermediate, and expert, which are such loose terms that their accuracy would be negligible at best.

[Dark Tangent]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

I'd like to see more accurate descriptions of the talks this year. It was hard to tell what some talks were going to be about, let alone how technical they were. I went to quite a few that were over my head (reversing, malware, etc.), and quite a few that were intro talks, at subjects that I am a experienced at. A simple "difficultly rating system" (like newegg's review egg ratings) would be great to help direct myself to the right talks.

I really like that idea, and have been wanting to do that for years. The problem is the speakers themselves sometimes don't know how to rate themselves relative to everyone else.

[Cyphear]

Re: Defcon 17 suggestions

I'd like to see more accurate descriptions of the talks this year. It was hard to tell what some talks were going to be about, let alone how technical they were. I went to quite a few that were over my head (reversing, malware, etc.), and quite a few that were intro talks, at subjects that I am a experienced at. A simple "difficultly rating system" (like newegg's review egg ratings) would be great to help direct myself to the right talks.