Re:Without remorse there is no rehabilitation.
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 1
It *IS* a trivial difference. Because Mitnick was not doing it for personal profit -- this we KNOW from the evidence and court cases -- and as far as anybody knows, he never did anything significant to cause harm to his targets.
If he had been collecting credit card numbers for illicit profit, or crashing servers, he would have been convicted of doing such. Instead, he was convicted of what -- yet again we KNOW -- to be exaggerated charges that had little to do with what he actually did.
You are acting as though we are supposed to take his word for this, but we don't... it's all in the court records.
Re:Without remorse there is no rehabilitation.
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
First off, you are simply wrong. He does "show remorse". He has clearly and repeatedly stated that he wished he could take back the damage he has done, but cannot. What more do you want? For him to bow down and kiss feet whenever someone mentions his past crimes? Honestly, I don't understand what more you expect him to "show".
Second, there is plenty of evidence that Kevin has changed, you are just refusing to acknowledge it. He has become a highly respected member of a very suspicious industry, and has been now for years.
But again, that's only cardinality. GP was probably incorrect about that. But the magnitude is still provably different, thus the infinities are not "equal"... even if they are of approximately the same order.
To be clearer: infinities can be of different magnitudes, yet still infinite. In itself, this has little or nothing to do with cardinality.
If you select any arbitrary point along an infinite set, it is always possible to define a set (generally via a simple formula, like "times 2") that will generate an infinity that is of a different magnitude, either greater or lesser, than the one under examination.
Cantor's work describes cardinality only, which is a different matter. That infinities can have different magnitudes (and therefore be unequal) has never been refuted.
Which prompts one to ask: are the designers of the vehicle and control systems really idiots?
ANY remote-based location system is subject to error. This is something so obvious that if anyone who designed a system that relied ONLY on a remote connection for its location, I would fire them and send them home, with a report card for their parents showing a grade of F-.
If the mission was truly aborted solely over the failure of GPS, then it was a FAIL, even if it did gain valuable information.
But that makes you the biggest war criminal in the history of the world. Note: for at least decades now it has been an treaty-agreed-upon, international war crime to deliberately put military targets in centers of population.
Your assessment of the past is pretty accurate, but it neglects one very important thing: motivation. In situations where it HAS sent people overseas to conduct war, since WWII the justification has been increasingly thin.
It's not enough to say "Look at what we COULD have done, under other circumstances."
We have to evaluate what we DID do, and what we SHOULD do.
Where in the world did you get the idea that a GPS jammer is "easily countered"?
A strong radio signal is a strong radio signal, and a weak one is weak. You miss the whole point here. It isn't that false GPS signals are being sent, but rather the GPS system is being rendered completely useless by sending much stronger signals in the frequency and pattern of a normal GPS signal. Explain to me how you can "easily counter" that.
There is no such thing as a reliable "counter-jammer". Some schemes might help, but only for a limited time until "the other side" got wind of how they work. And hiding technology from "the other side" is no more than delay of game. Security through obscurity only works for a very short time.
What surprises -- and disturbs -- me is the increasing reliance on GPS to the exclusion of terrain maps. The Tomahawk, for example, can use terrain maps to locate and guide itself. Increasing reliance on a single -- provably jammable -- technology like GPS is the kind of mistake only an idiot would make.
Bravo. There is no more law against "playing both sides" in this situation than there is against selling arms to both nations in a war (the UN bedamned... they are a useless, fractious political organization, not a solution to just about anything).
Guess what? The banks behind our own Fed got much of their money by supplying BOTH sides of wars with cash, and charging interest.
I say: if such an "American" institution as the Fed can do it, so should we all! (Sarcasm supplied free of charge.)
But seriously: there is nothing inherently wrong -- or even unethical -- in some business situations taking advantage of both sides. They are performing a legitimate service to each side. Where the anger comes in, is when one side starts to think they have some kind of moral or ethical "superiority" over the other. But the reality is: it's just a business service, they have no "right" to it, and they can accept it as it is or f*k off.
A truly useful international standard (wake up, US!) would be YYYY-MM-DD.
Also, a lot of people like to try to be cool and emulate "internet" practices by showing phone numbers as "999/999/9999", or even worse, "999.999.9999" when in fact that just causes confusion. Especially when you try to make an overseas call:
+3 040/854.321/6578 ?
What? Huh? What does each of those groups of numbers mean, and why are they listed in a non-standardized manner?
The only politician in the public eye who has been "reexamining" US policy has been Ron Paul... and more recently the other politicos who have been following in his footsteps.
But keep in mind that unlike the others, Paul as ALWAYS been saying these things, for 30 years, while those others are just trying to get your vote, then will do whatever the hell they want if they get in office. Kind of like Obama.
Apple wants to build the kind of building that Apple wants to build. And OF COURSE some architect who was NOT awarded the job is going to have some criticism, in order to massage his own ego.
I used to live not far from there. Did it even occur to him that the employees DO NOT WANT to see much that is beyond the campus? That being there, and isolated, might actually afford a sense of relief?
Let me try to clarify, in order to avoid confusion over my use of "beyond reasonable doubt".
The 5th Amendment proscription against forcing people to testify against themselves applies even if the authorities have probable cause to search. Because probable cause might be grounds to search, but you need more than mere probably cause to override someone's clear Constitutional right protecting them from self-incrimination.
Therefore, a more stringent standard must be applied than mere probable cause. Very strong, actual evidence, such as the testimony of those two customs agents -- not just probable cause -- is required in those cases. (And in a case like this, unlike lots of other situations, their testimony can be called strong evidence because once the archive was opened up it was trivially easy to verify whether the agents were telling the truth.)
Look up the court cases. There was another one just recently.
You cannot be forced to give up a password, or combination, or decrypt encrypted information in order for the authorities to conduct a search. Doing so would be forcing you to testify against yourself. The courts have upheld this principle again, and again, and again. There is ample precedent and the rulings have been very consistent.
Searches, in general, are covered by the 4th amendment and probable cause. But a court still cannot force someone to violate the 5th amendment, in order to allow them to conduct a search. And that is the situation I was describing.
The guy at customs was the rare case in which a judge ordered someone to give up their password. But that was not even really an exception to the rule. Because they already knew that it contained illegal material, he could not be said to be incriminating himself.
Slashdot Mirror
It *IS* a trivial difference. Because Mitnick was not doing it for personal profit -- this we KNOW from the evidence and court cases -- and as far as anybody knows, he never did anything significant to cause harm to his targets.
If he had been collecting credit card numbers for illicit profit, or crashing servers, he would have been convicted of doing such. Instead, he was convicted of what -- yet again we KNOW -- to be exaggerated charges that had little to do with what he actually did.
You are acting as though we are supposed to take his word for this, but we don't... it's all in the court records.
First off, you are simply wrong. He does "show remorse". He has clearly and repeatedly stated that he wished he could take back the damage he has done, but cannot. What more do you want? For him to bow down and kiss feet whenever someone mentions his past crimes? Honestly, I don't understand what more you expect him to "show".
Second, there is plenty of evidence that Kevin has changed, you are just refusing to acknowledge it. He has become a highly respected member of a very suspicious industry, and has been now for years.
Just my opinion, but I think you're a nutcase.
But again, that's only cardinality. GP was probably incorrect about that. But the magnitude is still provably different, thus the infinities are not "equal"... even if they are of approximately the same order.
To be clearer: infinities can be of different magnitudes, yet still infinite. In itself, this has little or nothing to do with cardinality.
If you select any arbitrary point along an infinite set, it is always possible to define a set (generally via a simple formula, like "times 2") that will generate an infinity that is of a different magnitude, either greater or lesser, than the one under examination.
Cantor's work describes cardinality only, which is a different matter. That infinities can have different magnitudes (and therefore be unequal) has never been refuted.
Argue with the people who were talking about cardinality. Not me.
Cardinality is not the same as equality. I mentioned equality only.
Precisely. Mod parent up. There are different classes of "infinity", and they are provably not equal.
Which prompts one to ask: are the designers of the vehicle and control systems really idiots?
ANY remote-based location system is subject to error. This is something so obvious that if anyone who designed a system that relied ONLY on a remote connection for its location, I would fire them and send them home, with a report card for their parents showing a grade of F-.
If the mission was truly aborted solely over the failure of GPS, then it was a FAIL, even if it did gain valuable information.
But that makes you the biggest war criminal in the history of the world. Note: for at least decades now it has been an treaty-agreed-upon, international war crime to deliberately put military targets in centers of population.
Your assessment of the past is pretty accurate, but it neglects one very important thing: motivation. In situations where it HAS sent people overseas to conduct war, since WWII the justification has been increasingly thin.
It's not enough to say "Look at what we COULD have done, under other circumstances."
We have to evaluate what we DID do, and what we SHOULD do.
"When has that ever stopped the US?"
Actually, it used to, back in more rational times.
If you don't like that, start paying attention to Ron Paul, who is the only one likely to change that, anytime soon.
To make what I was saying clear: it isn't that they were trying to fool the GPS system. Rather, they simply made it non-functional.
Where in the world did you get the idea that a GPS jammer is "easily countered"?
A strong radio signal is a strong radio signal, and a weak one is weak. You miss the whole point here. It isn't that false GPS signals are being sent, but rather the GPS system is being rendered completely useless by sending much stronger signals in the frequency and pattern of a normal GPS signal. Explain to me how you can "easily counter" that.
There is no such thing as a reliable "counter-jammer". Some schemes might help, but only for a limited time until "the other side" got wind of how they work. And hiding technology from "the other side" is no more than delay of game. Security through obscurity only works for a very short time.
What surprises -- and disturbs -- me is the increasing reliance on GPS to the exclusion of terrain maps. The Tomahawk, for example, can use terrain maps to locate and guide itself. Increasing reliance on a single -- provably jammable -- technology like GPS is the kind of mistake only an idiot would make.
Mod parent up as informative. Part of the GPS signal is "public", but another part is encrypted for military use. The more accurate part.
It is probably impractical to even think about spoofing the encrypted GPS signal, real-time.
It has to be binary because that is the way the satellite equipment was designed, at a cost of billions of dollars.
I'm not defending that position. If you have a better system, you can probably become a very rich person in a few short years.
"If one write's one's own research paper, there is no need to check for plagiarism."
If one writes one's own paper, there is no possibility of plagiarism, which is defined as the deliberate use of someone else's work as your own.
Mod parent up. Beyond 5.
Bravo. There is no more law against "playing both sides" in this situation than there is against selling arms to both nations in a war (the UN bedamned... they are a useless, fractious political organization, not a solution to just about anything).
Guess what? The banks behind our own Fed got much of their money by supplying BOTH sides of wars with cash, and charging interest.
I say: if such an "American" institution as the Fed can do it, so should we all! (Sarcasm supplied free of charge.)
But seriously: there is nothing inherently wrong -- or even unethical -- in some business situations taking advantage of both sides. They are performing a legitimate service to each side. Where the anger comes in, is when one side starts to think they have some kind of moral or ethical "superiority" over the other. But the reality is: it's just a business service, they have no "right" to it, and they can accept it as it is or f*k off.
A truly useful international standard (wake up, US!) would be YYYY-MM-DD.
Also, a lot of people like to try to be cool and emulate "internet" practices by showing phone numbers as "999/999/9999", or even worse, "999.999.9999" when in fact that just causes confusion. Especially when you try to make an overseas call:
+3 040/854.321/6578 ?
What? Huh? What does each of those groups of numbers mean, and why are they listed in a non-standardized manner?
The only politician in the public eye who has been "reexamining" US policy has been Ron Paul... and more recently the other politicos who have been following in his footsteps.
But keep in mind that unlike the others, Paul as ALWAYS been saying these things, for 30 years, while those others are just trying to get your vote, then will do whatever the hell they want if they get in office. Kind of like Obama.
Apple wants to build the kind of building that Apple wants to build. And OF COURSE some architect who was NOT awarded the job is going to have some criticism, in order to massage his own ego.
I used to live not far from there. Did it even occur to him that the employees DO NOT WANT to see much that is beyond the campus? That being there, and isolated, might actually afford a sense of relief?
No, they're not "equally" infinite. They are just all infinite. Aleph Null != other "degrees" of infinity.
Let me try to clarify, in order to avoid confusion over my use of "beyond reasonable doubt".
The 5th Amendment proscription against forcing people to testify against themselves applies even if the authorities have probable cause to search. Because probable cause might be grounds to search, but you need more than mere probably cause to override someone's clear Constitutional right protecting them from self-incrimination.
Therefore, a more stringent standard must be applied than mere probable cause. Very strong, actual evidence, such as the testimony of those two customs agents -- not just probable cause -- is required in those cases. (And in a case like this, unlike lots of other situations, their testimony can be called strong evidence because once the archive was opened up it was trivially easy to verify whether the agents were telling the truth.)
By the way: you can look up some of the court cases on the EFF website, because they have followed a number of those cases.
Look up the court cases. There was another one just recently.
You cannot be forced to give up a password, or combination, or decrypt encrypted information in order for the authorities to conduct a search. Doing so would be forcing you to testify against yourself. The courts have upheld this principle again, and again, and again. There is ample precedent and the rulings have been very consistent.
Searches, in general, are covered by the 4th amendment and probable cause. But a court still cannot force someone to violate the 5th amendment, in order to allow them to conduct a search. And that is the situation I was describing.
The guy at customs was the rare case in which a judge ordered someone to give up their password. But that was not even really an exception to the rule. Because they already knew that it contained illegal material, he could not be said to be incriminating himself.