Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Congress Authorizes Offensive Use of Cyberwarfare
smitty777 writes "Congress has recently authorized the use of offensive military action in cyberspace. From the December 12th conference on the National Defense Authorization Act, it states, 'Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to: (1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and (2) the War Powers Resolution.' According to the FAS, 'Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant military conflict.'"
may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend
You see nothing wrong with this. Then you wonder why the world hates you.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The military-industry complex isn't just war profiteering and lobbying; a warmongering populace is also a critical part of the complex.
Clear and present danger?
What could possibly go wrong?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
"Debate continues on whether using the War Powers Resolution is effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in decisions that might get the United States involved in a significant military conflict."
I read the War Powers Resolution is also effective as a means of assuring congressional participation in Internet censorship .
Time for the voting public to purge this misguided house of government of all its privilege and narcissism.
To the penchant for destabilising democratically elected governments and installing puppet dictators in order to acquire resources and dominate regions militarily.
Deleted
and (2) the War Powers Resolution
Let's drop the charade. If robotic aerial bombardment doesn't constitute "war", then sending strings of ones and zeros through a series of tubes certainly doesn't count as "war". There is effectively no congressional oversight because cyber-warfare does not fall under the purview of "war" according to the executive branch. There's also no way for congress to cut funding for cyber-warfare since all the computers and networks are already paid for, and there's very little operational costs to waging a cyber war.
Cyberwarfare is fiction.
This will be my first motion for all forms of government and associated militaries to be permanently banned from the internet.
Do I hear a second?
I am John Hurt.
Come on, they've been doing this sort of thing for a while now. This is just to legalize their previous actions.
Would this give the citizens of America the right to form a Cyber militia and the right to bear Cyber arms under the constitution?
Yeah, who needs SOPA when you have the US military to enforce royalty payments!
Yes, it's a new age of intellectual property imperialism! Except instead of the huge royal navies of England and France fighting pirates and collecting royalties on trade routes, we'll have the DoD DDoS attacks taking down all parties that don't pony up!
It's suiting for the US, much of whose wealth and economy is now based on imaginary assets, like patents and copyrights on, well, just about anything having to do with "popular" culture or business processes. What better way to make money for nothing than to have a piece of legal paper that says that people have to pay you money for doing ${thing}s? And then having a bunch of other people fund your military, the largest in the world, to enforce those payments?
Subjugation! Success!
"Interests" is an interesting term. We have well defined (codified in law) ideas of who our allies and what our nation is, but interests can range anywhere from democracy to oil to bombing airplane manufacturing plants in Brazil and China to protect our (civilian) areospace industry.
Diplomatic cables have already revealed that we lean pretty heavily on our allies to buy Boeing and Locheed Martin products, both civilian and defense oriented. If anyone needs a reminder, we just "convinced" Japan to buy 150+ still on the drawing board F-35 stealth fighters, (things yet to fix: major fire hazards, lack of stealth, weak airframe, buggy software, bad aerodynamics) rather than the EuroFighter earlier this week, right after Kim Jong Ill died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
http://www.washingtonpost.com/japan-to-pick-lockheeds-f-35-as-new-stealth-fighter/2011/12/13/gIQAbuYUrO_story.html
moox. for a new generation.
We already take aggressive actions willy-nilly, with little oversight. What's another platform to perform it on going to matter?
I suppose I'm a bit cynical.
We, the people, should be finding some way to control some of this unwarranted, aggressiveness from our government. Vote the chickenhawks out.
And.... the internet was supposed to be a neutral utopia for spreading ideas and knowledge.
Yet somehow we made it a battlefield.
So wasn't there a Star Trek TOS episode where they fought their wars in their computers? Congress should be ashamed of stealing Prior Art.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
http://www.internettrafficreport.com/history/graphs/tr_249_r1.gif
But the latency in Ontario is 0ms!!!
AccountKiller
Upon reflection, I realize now that the military is sick and tired of IEDs, and would prefer to spend all day raiding, in front of a monitor.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
somebody in the u.s. hasn't been reading the geneva convention. if the U.S. is hell-bent on linking the words "cyber" and "warfare", then the U.S. had better be ready for the consequences. the consequences of "declaring war" on another country are very very simple: under the Geneva Convention, a declaration of war legitimises and grants the right for any citizen of the country being attacked to immediately take offensive action, no matter where they are, against citizens and against all soil of the aggressors.
in other words, should the United States respond with physical force against another country's citizens just because a computer which was wide open to the world (with 3 letter passwords), that is an "act of war", and the citizens of the country being attacked are automatically granted the right to take immediate offensive violent action against any United States Citizens or against any United States "property" and soil.
in other words, this is an incredibly stupid thing for the United States Government to be doing. especially given that many people in the United States Military have absolutely no idea what constitutes a cyber attack, and they certainly don't understand that 3 letter passwords are an invitation to go "cooeeee! i 0wn youuu!"
madness. absolute madness.
Network connectivity doesn't change human nature. When you move civilization onto the internet, you don't get a utopia, you just get better data transfer.
Visit the
The Constitution does not give Congress authority to delegate their war-making powers to ANYONE else, including the President.
If this can legitimately be considered "warfare", then there is no question whatever that it is unconstitutional. The "War Powers Act" notwithstanding... it is unconstitutional, too. You can't use one unconstitutional law to justify another.
If Congress hasn't declared war, then it's not a Constitutional (legal) war. Period. And that means we haven't had a legal war in over 60 years.
The moment nations - any nations, US included - decided that the Internet was territory that could be owned rather than a virtual complex of ideas where data merely happened to reside in certain machines at certain times and where wiring merely happened to be the transport of choice for now, cyberwarfare was inevitable. That the Internet has adopted a spanning tree topology in many places, rather than a mesh topology, has worsened things. It's very easy to set up roadblocks on a spanning tree, it's much much harder to shut down a mesh.
(If you can't own it and can't prevent others using it, then you have nothing you can fight over. Ownership and conflict are only possible where resource denial is possible. Which is fine for end-points, I've no problem with end-points being owned and governed, but it should never have become fine for the backbone.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
yum install skynet
if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
The nationalization and segmentation of Internet has begun. It was a nice place with no borders and equal for everyone. But of course, old power-greedy bastards has awoken and now want to subjugate everyone under their rule, claim "territories" that they own and build armies to fight with each other. And common folks as always are blinded with "patriotism" propaganda, while really are just used as a resource for some self-proclaimed sociopathic "leaders". Since the dawn of ages. Humanity, will you ever learn?
Don't know what it means, but sounds great.
bjd
Those cutting edge Senators and Representatives have a hunch that China and others may one day consider developing such a cyberwar capacity, and want the USA to be the first to develop it.
Gently reply
Local, direct connection based. Back to the present day equivalent of BBS's. They were around for a reason and haven't really died, just become less noticeable in the great "interweb" hype.
And part of human nature seems to be to frame everything as a kind of "war". But this can backfire. Back in 1964, here in the US, President Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty". Quickly, millions of poor people started asking where they could go to surrender. That war was quietly shelved soon thereafter.
We just need to find as clever a way to respond to the US government declaring war on the Internet. Is there a good way to make us all look like opponents, so we can surrender and get funds for reconstruction?
Anyone got any good ways to phrase this?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Uh.. neutral utopia for spreading ideas and knowledge? I'm pretty sure that (D)ARPA had no intention of neutrality in terms of who was "supposed to" benefit from the communication.....
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Oops.....We just Hacked Ourselves, destroyed our own prosperity, and captured our own freedom. Now that's a victory for self defeat.
If only they'd declared a war on pirating....
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
If only they'd declared a war on patenting....
Fixed it for you.
I think the term human nature is thrown about too carelessly. Human nature would imply it's in the genes. Sure, the genes allow for war and all bad things, but how about the power of culture? I think the world of today is shaped more by culture and ideas, than by genes. We are not just monkeys. We can do what we think is right.
The powerful shape the world in a way that benefits them, but humanity as a whole wouldn't want this mess, I think. It's not the genes. It's history. The history of power, money and ideas, more than it is human nature. Culture and ideas we can change. Nature, not so much.
We can overcome any genes for rape, murder an oppression with some ideas of doing the right thing. Ideas will evolve. And the Internet should help accelerate that evolution.
Aren't we in the midst of a great "evolutionary leap"? It just doesn't show in our genes. It's our collective consciousness that is getting more saturated with truth. Some powerful players are of course against all this truth, but humanity can prevail, I think.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Yeah, but we are just monkeys. Just because some people have the ability to do what they think is right has no bearing on what most people actually do. Plus, what people think is right is subjective. Do you live alone on an island, in a vacuum? I've read excellent arguments stating that rape is not a bad thing. Cite empathy and destructive repercussions all you like, but rape may have saved the human race from extinction. Good, evil, whatever... It is all subjective.
I'm pretty sure that (D)ARPA had no intention of neutrality in terms of who was "supposed to" benefit from the communication.....
It might be informative (and maybe enlightening) if we can get people to look back at what (D)ARPA actually had in mind back in the 1960s and 1970s when they were funding the development that led to the Internet. Their original documents mostly talked in terms of just the sort of "warfare" that people are getting so upset about now.
An important part of the design was multi-path routing that could be rapidly modified, as an enemy found and took out your routers. The idea was that as long as a path existed between two points, the routing system would find it and keep those two points in communication, despite the best efforts of the enemy.
Of course, in current terms, most of the Internet would consider the US government (along with various others in China, Iran, wherever) as "enemy", since people in the US government are talking openly about actively interfering with our communication without knowing or caring who we might be.
One of the major failures in the current Internet is that multi-path routing has been pretty much nixed by the ISPs. How many data paths do you have out of your home or office? 99% of us have only one, which is a blatant violation of the original design. You should try using traceroute to list the machines along the path to a remote site. Do it several times, and see if the same path comes up each time. If so, then you are a victim of single-path routing, and that path can be taken out at any time by an enemy who has access to any of those machines along the route. Or, even worse, they can make a copy of every packet between you and that site, without you knowing that they're doing this . The original ARPA/Internet design was specifically to avoid such security risks.
If we want to keep the Internet safe from "cyber warfare", maybe we should be looking seriously at what the military people are doing with it in their private networks. And we should implement the parts of IP that have been ignored in favor of a fragile design that provides mostly single-path routes.
Then we might be safer from not just the US's perceived enemies, but also from the US government itself.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Huh? The Internet was an interconnected collection of arpnets. It was meant to be a partisan system for low security information to pass between the US military and their contractors.
The internet has been demilitarized with time.
Torrent and other P2P. All sorts of web 2.0 technologies. Fast connections. Very little port blocking.
I think the internet is at least as open as it was 20 years ago.
"We can do what we think is right."
what we 'think' is right. thats a far cry from what IS right. as for what is right, i still haven't figured that out yet.
if you think hot and cold water and electricity is what is right then there is a whole lot of wrong in the world, i know it's not that simple, so instead we say it's 'needed in an civilized world' and say that there are nations or regions that deserve certain things and places that don't.
i'm reading wizards first rule, terry goodkind. and the storyline brings in a whole lot of good, bad, and ugly from the real world planted into a fantasy realm that doesn't simply make everything seem magic or whatever. the storyline has a slant to it, that the bad guy is immortal and can do whatever he wants and everyone else is 'good' even if they eat human flesh, bring magic into a no magic zone etc. and i'm halfway in the first of a series of 11 books.
my point is simple here some things are right and some are wrong, but as humans we will not always get it right. there is no way to get everything right. there is no human so pure as to be right all the time... and even if you live to the letter of the law you will still find that you made mistakes which is okay. they expect you to make mistakes, especially when you make them often. especially when they are the same mistakes you made before, because after all it is much harder to change yourself than to blame your problems on others. especially when you are aware that right and wrong are easily blurred lines.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
They are already disconnecting foreign sites on general domains that are in the way of their market interests. What is it if not an aggressive action?
thr o t t l i n g
And, who exactly is this "we" you speak of? Perhaps you are unaware that China has an ongoing mission, to probe any and all possible sources of intelligence and/or Imaginary Property held by the United States government and/or corporations?
So, in the face of attacks that have been going on for a decade or more, what would you propose?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
HTTP-over-Torrent is hell. (It's basically what the whole Freenet concept works on. And Freenet makes molasses look high-speed.) Nonetheless, you are correct that this can be done. However, the ports can be blocked or degraded. That's what the whole deal is with biased traffic shaping*.
It would be faster, more reliable and less of a bandwidth hog if the physical topology was meshed. I'm sure you've heard the adage that the Internet could survive a nuclear bomb. Once upon a time, perhaps it might have. If it were mesh-based, it still could be. I'm also sure you've read stories where single fibres being cut have disconnected vast regions - be it an undersea cable, roadside cables, or some such. If a backhoe can destroy connectivity, then anyone controlling either end of that fibre can be just as destructive.
To use a cyberwarfare example, if a pipe carries all the traffic from a region you want to disconnect, you can DDoS the endpoint. Create a hot-spot where that switch/router is no longer able to cope with the traffic. There's nothing that Torrent or Web 2.0 can do to deal with that. That is a design flaw in the infrastructure and that flaw has to be fixed before you can do anything useful.
*Unbiased traffic shaping is certainly possible and is the correct form of it. Basically, dropping packets that would have collided anyway is a form of unbiased traffic shaping, as is dividing available upstream bandwidth according to the fraction of the downstream bandwidth a given pipe has. And so on. Nobody has any serious objection to unbiased traffic shaping.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Is anyone besides me getting chills down their back from the use of the term 'cyberspace' by these officials, let alone what else they are talking about doing?
I really think the older generation doesn't understand that the virtual world isn't just 'virtual', that actions that take place in it really do affect the real world. Actually, I don't think even newer generations understand this either. They simply believe that anything that happens in the virtual world will stay there. When their laptop is broken they can simply by a new one. A simple brute force solution for a very elegant problem.
Cyberwarfare is going to turn into a very messy can of worms. Someone mentioned the Geneva convention a bit up... When do cyber attacks become an act of war? When does it reach a point where you can legitimize morally going to war? When wars used to take place, they were over physical things that happened in real life. If China steals a bunch of secrets from us, how much does that actually mean? When the blueprints for nukes were given to Russia there was a physical piece of evidence to back that up. People were scared crapless of nuclear devices after what they did in WW2, rightfully so. When China steals secrets for the F-35, how are people going to react to that?
Information has very little physical presence until it's actually used and then when it's finally used, it's too late. This really is a very scary sort of this cold war. Not only is there not a physical presence, there is no clear set boundary where you can claim someone has 'crossed the line'. There are no lines!
Honestly the government should play this defensively as possible. I don't mean offensive defensive, I mean separate networks completely out so there is no way for the outside 'internet' to interact with them. I'm sure something like this has already been done, but apparently it's not being done well enough. It could also be social engineering that is leading to such mistakes, where some commander who isn't so technically savy takes his laptop home with super secret clearance and puts edonkey on it. These mistakes should start to clear up as newer tech savvy generations start to take places of power. I hope it happens before the older generations botch things up too badly though, they're doing a pretty good job at their current rate.
China has an ongoing mission, to probe any and all possible sources of intelligence and/or Imaginary Property held by the United States government and/or corporations?
Isn't funny that China keeps America running by buying almost of all it's debt in the form of Treasury Bills, and it also makes CEO's wealthy with their cheap labor for manufacturing goods sold to Americans, yet, the U.S. is moving it's Navy ever so closer to China in a threatening manner, and as a result, China has put their military at full alert. Kind of ironic that this country relies on them so much, yet all this military action. I love being China's slave. It works for me since I'm a Communist anyways. I also have better luck with Chinese women, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus_(film) Well I am!
So how does the US defend or any other Country for that matter against a syn ack or my deep packet inspection back to GCHQ http://www.gchq.gov.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx I don't even work for them, as I am better and they use BT Integrated Accommodation Services Ltd.
That is a company for spying! Nothing you do is private; but can I penetrate as a hacker? Maybe, and If I said I was a CDC member Cult of the Dead Cow and do anything illegal? No. Philosophy states; if I want in as a hacker; you would have never seen me coming and pulling an rm-rf of /var/logs is not where the real log files are stored!
Thanks to my friend fydor http://www.sectools.org/ | might go unseen, but a true hacker... maybe he is spartacus. Remember it only takes 1 to get in! binary finary :P
All cows eat grass!
Funny? I see nothing funny here. We have idiots running the country, and China is taking advantage of those idiots. We also have ignorant "consumers" who buy everything that China puts on the market, and of course China takes advantage of that too.
Some day, it will be time to pay the fiddler. We'll just have to see how that bill is payed. But, it won't be funny. I expect that it will be more tragic than funny.
Of course, I said something similar two or three years before the housing bubble finally burst. I wasn't nearly smart enough to know how tragic that shit would be, but I knew it would be a tragedy. People just don't learn . . .
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
We can overcome any genes for rape, murder an oppression with some ideas of doing the right thing.
Those ideas are backed up by the police force, courts and prison system. Ideas alone are not enough.
It's our collective consciousness that is getting more saturated with truth.
Wow. That's, like, cosmic man.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Americans are war-weary? Legalize the hacking they've already been doing in secret!
how is babby formed?
I agree totally, except for the first 5 words... not human nature. American nature. U.S.
how is babby formed?
Some day, it will be time to pay the fiddler. We'll just have to see how that bill is payed..
Haven't you heard, buying things you can't afford on credit is "the american way" and it is a patriotic thing to do.... for china that is. even the hp laptop I bought online was shipped from china, although hp tried to hide it, it appeared on the shipping slip. Hey, at least my hp laptop didn't have some union neanderthal building it over the course of five days while taking 15 minute coffee breaks every hour, not that any of them know much more about a computer than how to plug it in. I think the guys at the top are doing a great job of screwing this country up the ass. Keep it up, it's fun to watch rich people, welfare queens, and the degenerate american youth complain.
Isn't it about time for this shit to stop? Or are you all a bunch of communist sympathizers?
Naw, Communists don't want sympathy from americans since they have a better quality of life than we do. That just "wierds them out" a little.
---
Sent from my Soviet-Era Tandy
Yeah I've heard about that. And I used to talk about 1 Wilshire which would take most of the internet in LA, Ventura County, Orange County, San Diego and Las Vegas if it went out. That was about 16 years ago. It is likely more redundant now. I think we have a large decentralized mesh up the last mile. In most endpoints you can now get most of :
a) Cable connection
b) Fios
c) T1 over copper
d) Cell phone 3G/4G
e) DS3
which shows the degree of mesh. In terms of last mile most people have broadcast wireless, and we could setup meshes of high speed wireless connections if we had to connecting to those various national systems if people started wanting to mesh more locally. Right now people don't perceive the need because there isn't much censorship.
reminds me of when a high school history teacher discussed the causes of WWI in high-school terms.
One cause of WWI was German imperial ambitions compared to the established bigshot colonial powers.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
"spreading ideas and knowledge?" More like spreading BS and propaganda combined with a liberal dose of advertising and marketing to pay for it all.
Hmm, how do you know and prove it is one nation vs. another or just some independent citizens? Take Stuxnet - was it Israel, the CIA, someone else? Is sabotage an act of war? Seems to me that cyberwarfare is in some ways like gorilla warfare with an unseen enemy. If I set up a remote system in Canada to route my control traffic through before hitting another system in the US and attack China from there, what then? Same with China - there are plenty of places one can get a legitimate and illegitimate account on a server and from there attack Japan, the US, etc.
If it's that critical anyway, why is it connected to the Internet in the first place? Why no air gap?
Well, we can safely assume that no one's in any danger. Apparently, our military is now authorized to do battle in 1980s science fiction ideas. Woohoo! Go for it, boys.
While I agree with the majority of your post, your method for determining single-path-routing is flawed. The routing takes the "best" path, in many cases the "best" path is so much better than any other that it is essentially static. However, if that connection were to go down then other routes would start being used.
Nah; I don't think it's anything especially American. The US population is one of the most "mongrelized" on the planet. There hasn't been nearly enough time for that population to merge into any kind of self-consistent sub-population. So the behavior shown by Americans (even American politicians) is a jumble of the behaviors of all the source populations from other parts of the world.
Visually, the US population looks mostly "white", i.e., European. But the demographers tell us that this really is only skin deep, and hides a lot more mixing than most people would guess. Thus, it's estimated that some time around 1980 (give or take a few years), we reached the point where more than 50% of the US population has black African ancestry. Granted, most of those people are maybe 1/8 or 1/32 African, and look white, but most of them know that they're not "pure". I'm part of the 20-25% that has "Native-American" (the current euphemism) ancestry. I look pure white, but I'm 1/8 Ojibwa, and my father's family has a collection of stories about the treatment of the 1st and 2nd generation hybrids who looked visibly "Injun". I have a daughter who is also 1/8 Injun; her mother had a Comanche great-grandparent. The US population with Asian ancestry is around 15-20% now. And so on.
The purely European part of the US population can't be easily estimated, but may be as low as 25% now. And Europe itself has been rather mongrelized for a long time. Consider the etymology of the term "mongrelized".
So any claim to a separate "American" nature is highly bogus. They're just a jumbled mixture of humans, with all sorts of built-in (mostly culturally-derived) beliefs and behaviors. Treating them as morally superior or inferior to the rest of the world is just incorrect.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Swish, FTW. If our war-mongering Congress and a population--who see the war like a video game and not the experience of war--are this desensitized to it, do we really expect to refrain from cyber warfare?
what we 'think' is right. thats a far cry from what IS right. as for what is right, i still haven't figured that out yet.
If you haven't figured it out yet, then how do you know that what we think is right is a far cry from what is right?
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
[Y]our method for determining single-path-routing is flawed. The routing takes the "best" path, in many cases the "best" path is so much better than any other that it is essentially static. However, if that connection were to go down then other routes would start being used.
Well, yes and no. If you're only interested in speed, you're right. But I've worked on several projects that explicitly and intentionally scattered a connection's packets across as many (reasonably fast) routes as were available. This was done for several reasons. One of them is directly relevant to the topic at hand: Using multiple routes defeats attempts to intercept your packets and collect them. Many encryption-cracking schemes require large contiguous chunks of a message to succeed in decoding the content. If a message's packet is scattered across multiple routes, collecting all of the message's packets (or enough to decrypt it) becomes materially more difficult.
This is, or should be, of interest to anyone with security concerns. And it has been used in military communications. Actually, the projects I did this for had a different primary motive: They wanted to achieve a data transfer rate higher than any single route could provide. We were quite successful at this. But our code was also of interest to the security guys, who wanted it for security reasons rather than speed.
We did run into a problem similar to the famous incident in which all of New England was simultaneously disconnected from the rest of North America. The long-line providers (mostly the phone companies) sometimes managed to map all our connections to a single physical wire, reducing our speed to that wire's speed and making packet collection possible (though still a bit tricky). As usual, this is a primary example of why you don't want the lower layers strictly invisible to the upper layers. Regardless of whether you are doing this for speed or security, you want to know quickly when the physical layer has defeated your multi-routing scheme and reduced it to a single physical route. The people running the physical layer can't be trusted to maintain such separation, even when you've paid for it.
Doing such multi-routing from the application level is tricky. It's usually done by having multiple interfaces with different network numbers. But this can be easily reduced to a single path by the routing system. This can often be detected by using traceroute to report the paths. That, combined with knowledge of which machines have each of the reported addresses can determine that two (application-level) routes are actually one (physical level) route, and raising the appropriate alarm. But this approach has statistical behavior, with a time lag before merging of routes is discovered. Doing better generally requires hooks into the lower levels that most commercial libraries (and OSs) don't provide. This is yet another way in which the current commercial internet has defeated part of the original (military-funded) design of the Internet.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
If by "Wow. That's, like, cosmic man." you mean to put down what I just said, then maybe I wasn't expressing it in a way that caters to your view of how to present an idea, so I'll explain, lest the point be lost because of crappy delivery.
(If you we're just making fun of the way I said it, but not what was said, then feel free to disregard this comment.)
What I meant to say, when the words that said it came out all hippie-like, was that technology and our usage of it is getting better at making a better approximation of truth feel like "the shit" for an increasing number of people. There will be more or less local or global backlashes, but on the whole we're getting more enlightened.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
Even if the rape-gene (if there is one) saved humanity once, that doesn't mean we should go around raping people any more. And that is the whole point. We are not at the mercy of our genes anymore.
We have moved past biological evolution. We can now focus on doing what we think is right instead of doing what we have to do.
Of course, the same genes are still there and we need culture and technology to mitigate any adverse effects the rape- and murder-genes and whatnot may have. We do pretty good all ready. We can do better.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
because i have a frame of reference thanks to the internet that there are a lot of people with a lot of different perspectives. so basically i have made a challenge against what i was taught is right and wrong, and it seems like i was taught has a slant on it, and doesn't care about being right or wrong. the post elaborates a bit as to what i was taught about right and wrong and why i think it is so far from what passes as reality.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Highly interesting, thanks for the insight!
how is babby formed?