The correct term for this air-gap horseshit is called a Tempest Attack, and we've been doing it for years... 20 years? 30 YEARS???
No, it isn't. This is something completely different. (Not to mention that Tempest never didn't very well unless you had a boatload of expensive equipment. Amateur rigs sometimes worked, even through a wall... but no more than a couple of feet away.)
This "air-gap" communication is INTENTIONAL transmission and reception of data. With Tempest, the transmission is unintentional.
Regardless, before this particular demonstration it was done before at least once with sound.
Come back when you've done the research and can back up your bias with evidence, thats the only way people can come to a reasoned decision about anything
Better yet, come back... somewhere else. OP's attempt to establish new and different rules for a Slashdot discussion is probably doomed to failure.
No, it doesn't. Signing in is optional. If you don't sign in you'll get the same map you're getting now. If you're signed in you'll get additional personalized information.
No, if you're signed in you will get your own information back, in the new map. The only party that gets "additional" information this way is Google.
That wasn't rooted in climate change, rather it was the result of poor agricultural processes. Even your wiki link says so.
It was caused by severe drought, which was aggravated by not using good dryland farming techniques. Which is not terribly strange, since many "good" dryland farming techniques we use today were unknown at the time.
I'm aware that it wasn't "rooted in climate change". My point though, was that even though it might not have been exactly what you were talking about, or whether it was natural or man-made (it was a bit of both), it was a long-term "weather event" with huge economic consequences.
If you want to talk about real, long-term climate change, just look at areas of the Middle East and Persia that we have written records of being lush and fertile, which are now arid desert. Whole civilizations moved away from their once-friendly lands.
But I grant you: we don't have any modern equivalents of that, at least of which I am aware.
The creator of the latter doesn't even know its final behavior. That programmer wrote a schema that allows for classification of information, which the end user trains, and exactly what it ends up doing depends on the subset of an incomprehensibly huge problem space it gets to see up to any particular decision it makes.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote earlier.
Back in the 1980s, I programmed my calculator to do something called "Markov Chaining" of English words. You put some text in, and it output more text based on probabilities gathered from the input.
It could output long passages of intelligible text, which occasionally actually made sense. You'd swear it was a person that typed it out, albeit maybe a young or rather addled person.
And it was all based on about 100 lines of simple code. (In a modern language it would be maybe 20 lines.) It just followed a few simple rules. Despite the intelligent-seeming behavior, it was far stupider than any cockroach, much less honeybee.
Don't misunderstand me: I basically agree with what you say above. But one of the reasons the alarmist climate nonsense has been believed by so many people, is precisely because they are unfamiliar with climate history.
The 1937-1937 were FAR hotter than today, across almost the whole United States. (I'm not claiming it was global.) While that might not be "global climate change" it puts any of today's "extreme weather events" to shame.
While the Dust Bowl might not have lingered long enough to be called "climate" by modern climatologists, that made utterly no difference to the displaced and the poor.
Is it just me or does this not look good from any angle? On one hand you have duopolies becoming a monopoly, on the other hand, the city is demanding free shit from said monopoly.
Sure sounds like it.
Comcast and TWC should not be allowed to merge. Period. No concessions, none of this other crap.
Only 10 short years ago, the very idea would have been laughed at. It still should be.
The only discrete piece of information that I got out of the article that seems unambiguous is: it appears that for a long time detectors were detecting certain properties of an electron, rather than the electron as a whole, but nobody knew what that meant.
888 bytes can hold a LOT of very dangerous information.
Not only that, but people are misled by comments such as this by OP:
and the chip is readable up to 10 centimeters, though it is possible to boost that distance
Nonsense. The chip is readable at any arbitrary distance, dependent primarily on your ability to build a big enough antenna.
Security researcher Christopher whats-his-name showed, even before NFC was very common in phones, that $200 of equipment, concealed on your person, can read sesitive NFC data from chips in phones from several feet away... including intercepting financial transactions.
My point was that, often when discussing Libertarian principles, people get the party confused with the republicans who seem to support some of these principles when they suit their agenda. For example they'd like to free us from big government but seem to have no problem with control by big business.
Pretty much this. The problem is that many people who talk about Libertarians wouldn't know an actual Libertarian principle if it bit them on the ass, because the other parties have deliberately distorted what those principles are.
The worst offenders in that respect are clearly the Democrats, because Libertarians will never, ever, agree with them about big government. In that respect Republicans have at least some overlap of views.
But the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by demonizing Libertarians, because the Libertarians are "on their side", more or less, when it comes to social regulation.
The largest voting block in the United States right now (~ 40%) is "Independent", most of which are Libertarian-leaning to some degree. There are reasons for that. It didn't "just happen"... people are waking up to what the Reps and Dems have been doing. But the Republicans definitely did muddy the waters by swallowing up and then subverting some movements that started out libertarian, like the Tea Party.
To be fair, Dunning makes it clear that his main point isn't that people simply don't know; they're not "ignorant" in the normal sense of the word but actually MISinformed.
Once again, I never asked you to make him a bet. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
Well, pardon me for not reading it carefully. But that's because you've conducted yourself in a way that is impossible to take seriously.
It's bizarre that Jane now insists that this disagreement requires hundreds of lines. Just yesterday, Jane said:
I have the pages and pages of exchanges we had over agreeing on the initial conditions of the experiment. Denying that won't make them disappear.
... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to
It *IS* a pretty straightforward radiation problem. I didn't claim it was complex, I stated that it took a while to be sure we were agreeing on what the initial conditions are.
Once again you display your talent for distorting another person's meaning. The fact that describing the problem would take much more than a simple tweet does not mean -- or even imply -- that it is a particularly difficult problem. It isn't, despite your strenuous attempts to make it so.
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Yes, it is a simple yes or no question. But it doesn't sufficiently describe the problem. For just one example, you haven't mentioned that the walls are being actively cooled. You aren't explaining that the input power to the heater is fixed. You haven't mentioned the geometry or the dimensions of the objects we discussed... on and on and on.
The fact that your proposed tweet is a simple yes-or-no question is irrelevant. It's not the same question.
Jane, my answer is "yes". What's yours? What answer do you think mainstream physicists would give to this simple yes/no question?
Since that wasn't the question I was answering, again this is irrelevant. Far too much is left out. You're really good at these straw-man arguments, but that doesn't make them anything more than straw-man arguments.
And you consistently neglect the fact that it was MY solution to the problem that was quite literally represented the textbook, "mainstream" physics. Not the "khayman80" theory about how it should work.
I repeat: why don't you pick up a textbook and find out for yourself?
Actually, before there were apples and oranges, there were some people cultivating a variety of bushes with barely edible fruit and wondering if there was any way to get them to ripen larger, taste better, and spoil slower. 500+ years later, here we are, comparing apples to oranges (neither of which existed in its current form back then).
This is not even remotely the same thing as modern gene-splicing. People have NOT, for thousands of years, implated jellyfish genes into food crops, and set them loose in the wild. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! You're comparing kittens to fireflies.
Wait! Never mind. They've crossed those, too. (Actually it wasn't fireflies, but some kind of bioluminescent bacteria, if I remember correctly.)
Apples and oranges indeed. Comparing this to gene splicing between unrelated organisms really is more like comparing bacteria to kittens.
I agree with OP's sentiment, but the examples given are not good examples. People actually know the risks of mundane things like obesity and heart disease, because they're around us every day. It is unusual things about which people are terrible at assessing risk.
For example: people in the U.S. and Europe have allowed the government to terrify them about terrorists (sort-of-pun intended), when in fact their risk of death from a fall in the bathtub is many times greater. They have allowed government and media to terrify them about climate change when years of recent scientific evidence suggest it is probably not a danger at all, but at least mostly a political agenda.
As others have mentioned, these things are "unknown" to them, so they suck up any media hysteria that is thrown their way, rather than attempting to rationally assess the risks based on solid statistics and other information. But sometimes the problem is that they just don't have proper information with which to work.
Another example: many people have tended to believe overstated, propaganda claims about gun violence in the United States, when according to the actual statistics, if you aren't a gang member or drug dealer, guns present little if any more danger to you in the U.S. than in any other major Western country.
I could go on and on. But the point is: when people don't know how to assess a risk, or don't actually have good information on which to make an assessment, they tend to believe whatever they are told about it. Heart disease and diabetes are simply not in this category: people do know the risks, but often choose to ignore them. That is a different thing altogether.
One group says that "real" AI needs to pass the Turing test
And we have come to learn that reasonable approximations of the Turing test can be overcome by mere trickery, nothing like anything that could be called real "intelligence".
needs to think like us, needs to recognize its own consciousness, needs the ability to tell a joke
I'm not so sure about #1 and #3, but we have evidence that #2 has some validity.
The other group has given us voice recognition, spam filtering, NetFlix recommendations, Google, and countless other "AI lite" technologies; technologies that might not have the ability to discuss Nietzsche with us, but unlike "real" AI, they actually work.
So do land-line telephones, websites, and Furbies. None of them are "intelligent". The only thing we have to fear from Google is ethical violations (which are a valid concern), not that it will ever become intelligent.
You are really just reinforcing the point: so far no attempts at creating "artificial intelligence" actually work, and the things that actually work aren't anything like artificial intelligence.
No, I found a principle called "conservation of energy" which states that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.
I am familiar with the principle and I made use of it in my calculations.
If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls.
Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Hahaha. You slay me. (Pun intended.) First, you asked me to make him a BET, but you're not willing to do it yourself? Second, you honestly expect a tweet to describe the actual conditions of the experiment? It took us something like 2 days to even agree on that, with hundreds of lines of messages back and forth.
I do not take such things very seriously. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games.
What exactly are you talking about - in good real-world systems - that is more silently corruptible than paper elections?
The very first thing is your assumption that there are any "good real-world systems". Security researchers have found all electronic voting systems to date to be woefully insecure, usually with little trouble. And there are documented instances of them being hacked, even in relatively small local elections.
Solve that one first, and we can go from there. Until it is solved, there is no point in discussing it further.
Slashdot Mirror
The correct term for this air-gap horseshit is called a Tempest Attack, and we've been doing it for years... 20 years? 30 YEARS???
No, it isn't. This is something completely different. (Not to mention that Tempest never didn't very well unless you had a boatload of expensive equipment. Amateur rigs sometimes worked, even through a wall... but no more than a couple of feet away.)
This "air-gap" communication is INTENTIONAL transmission and reception of data. With Tempest, the transmission is unintentional.
Regardless, before this particular demonstration it was done before at least once with sound.
Come back when you've done the research and can back up your bias with evidence, thats the only way people can come to a reasoned decision about anything
Better yet, come back... somewhere else. OP's attempt to establish new and different rules for a Slashdot discussion is probably doomed to failure.
No, it doesn't. Signing in is optional. If you don't sign in you'll get the same map you're getting now. If you're signed in you'll get additional personalized information.
No, if you're signed in you will get your own information back, in the new map. The only party that gets "additional" information this way is Google.
There is a pretty strong correlation to large-scale goatherding and desertification 100 years later. Cause? Historical accident? I really don't know.
That wasn't rooted in climate change, rather it was the result of poor agricultural processes. Even your wiki link says so.
It was caused by severe drought, which was aggravated by not using good dryland farming techniques. Which is not terribly strange, since many "good" dryland farming techniques we use today were unknown at the time.
I'm aware that it wasn't "rooted in climate change". My point though, was that even though it might not have been exactly what you were talking about, or whether it was natural or man-made (it was a bit of both), it was a long-term "weather event" with huge economic consequences.
If you want to talk about real, long-term climate change, just look at areas of the Middle East and Persia that we have written records of being lush and fertile, which are now arid desert. Whole civilizations moved away from their once-friendly lands.
But I grant you: we don't have any modern equivalents of that, at least of which I am aware.
Typos.
"The 1937-1937" should have been "1936-1937".
The creator of the latter doesn't even know its final behavior. That programmer wrote a schema that allows for classification of information, which the end user trains, and exactly what it ends up doing depends on the subset of an incomprehensibly huge problem space it gets to see up to any particular decision it makes.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote earlier.
Back in the 1980s, I programmed my calculator to do something called "Markov Chaining" of English words. You put some text in, and it output more text based on probabilities gathered from the input.
It could output long passages of intelligible text, which occasionally actually made sense. You'd swear it was a person that typed it out, albeit maybe a young or rather addled person.
And it was all based on about 100 lines of simple code. (In a modern language it would be maybe 20 lines.) It just followed a few simple rules. Despite the intelligent-seeming behavior, it was far stupider than any cockroach, much less honeybee.
Crap. I can spell "thief". Really I can.
Relax. It was a joke.
Imagine... a phone you can steal tiny little parts out of, rather than the whole phone. It might be minutes or even hours before anybody even notices.
We have not, even one time, seen a case where climate change has caused long term economic damage.
Of course we have: the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930s.
Don't misunderstand me: I basically agree with what you say above. But one of the reasons the alarmist climate nonsense has been believed by so many people, is precisely because they are unfamiliar with climate history.
The 1937-1937 were FAR hotter than today, across almost the whole United States. (I'm not claiming it was global.) While that might not be "global climate change" it puts any of today's "extreme weather events" to shame.
And yes, the damage to land and property, and other economic effects, were downright devastating.
While the Dust Bowl might not have lingered long enough to be called "climate" by modern climatologists, that made utterly no difference to the displaced and the poor.
Is it just me or does this not look good from any angle? On one hand you have duopolies becoming a monopoly, on the other hand, the city is demanding free shit from said monopoly.
Sure sounds like it.
Comcast and TWC should not be allowed to merge. Period. No concessions, none of this other crap.
Only 10 short years ago, the very idea would have been laughed at. It still should be.
The only discrete piece of information that I got out of the article that seems unambiguous is: it appears that for a long time detectors were detecting certain properties of an electron, rather than the electron as a whole, but nobody knew what that meant.
888 bytes can hold a LOT of very dangerous information.
Not only that, but people are misled by comments such as this by OP:
and the chip is readable up to 10 centimeters, though it is possible to boost that distance
Nonsense. The chip is readable at any arbitrary distance, dependent primarily on your ability to build a big enough antenna.
Security researcher Christopher whats-his-name showed, even before NFC was very common in phones, that $200 of equipment, concealed on your person, can read sesitive NFC data from chips in phones from several feet away... including intercepting financial transactions.
My point was that, often when discussing Libertarian principles, people get the party confused with the republicans who seem to support some of these principles when they suit their agenda. For example they'd like to free us from big government but seem to have no problem with control by big business.
Pretty much this. The problem is that many people who talk about Libertarians wouldn't know an actual Libertarian principle if it bit them on the ass, because the other parties have deliberately distorted what those principles are.
The worst offenders in that respect are clearly the Democrats, because Libertarians will never, ever, agree with them about big government. In that respect Republicans have at least some overlap of views.
But the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by demonizing Libertarians, because the Libertarians are "on their side", more or less, when it comes to social regulation.
The largest voting block in the United States right now (~ 40%) is "Independent", most of which are Libertarian-leaning to some degree. There are reasons for that. It didn't "just happen"... people are waking up to what the Reps and Dems have been doing. But the Republicans definitely did muddy the waters by swallowing up and then subverting some movements that started out libertarian, like the Tea Party.
Bennett Hasselhoff, a frequency counter, will be along shortly to provide Insight.
I knew he was a frequent contributor, but I didn't know he was a frequency counter too.
To be fair, Dunning makes it clear that his main point isn't that people simply don't know; they're not "ignorant" in the normal sense of the word but actually MISinformed.
The problem here is that Prof. Dunning's principle could apply to anybody, including college professors.
So how does he know he is correct?
---
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard Feynman
Once again, I never asked you to make him a bet. I'm betting you $100 that Prof. Cox agrees that "electrical heating power" depends on the cooler vacuum chamber wall temperature.
Well, pardon me for not reading it carefully. But that's because you've conducted yourself in a way that is impossible to take seriously.
It's bizarre that Jane now insists that this disagreement requires hundreds of lines. Just yesterday, Jane said:
I have the pages and pages of exchanges we had over agreeing on the initial conditions of the experiment. Denying that won't make them disappear.
... If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to
It *IS* a pretty straightforward radiation problem. I didn't claim it was complex, I stated that it took a while to be sure we were agreeing on what the initial conditions are.
Once again you display your talent for distorting another person's meaning. The fact that describing the problem would take much more than a simple tweet does not mean -- or even imply -- that it is a particularly difficult problem. It isn't, despite your strenuous attempts to make it so.
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls. Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Yes, it is a simple yes or no question. But it doesn't sufficiently describe the problem. For just one example, you haven't mentioned that the walls are being actively cooled. You aren't explaining that the input power to the heater is fixed. You haven't mentioned the geometry or the dimensions of the objects we discussed... on and on and on.
The fact that your proposed tweet is a simple yes-or-no question is irrelevant. It's not the same question.
Jane, my answer is "yes". What's yours? What answer do you think mainstream physicists would give to this simple yes/no question?
Since that wasn't the question I was answering, again this is irrelevant. Far too much is left out. You're really good at these straw-man arguments, but that doesn't make them anything more than straw-man arguments.
And you consistently neglect the fact that it was MY solution to the problem that was quite literally represented the textbook, "mainstream" physics. Not the "khayman80" theory about how it should work.
I repeat: why don't you pick up a textbook and find out for yourself?
s/implated/implanted
Actually, before there were apples and oranges, there were some people cultivating a variety of bushes with barely edible fruit and wondering if there was any way to get them to ripen larger, taste better, and spoil slower. 500+ years later, here we are, comparing apples to oranges (neither of which existed in its current form back then).
This is not even remotely the same thing as modern gene-splicing. People have NOT, for thousands of years, implated jellyfish genes into food crops, and set them loose in the wild. Talk about comparing apples to oranges! You're comparing kittens to fireflies.
Wait! Never mind. They've crossed those, too. (Actually it wasn't fireflies, but some kind of bioluminescent bacteria, if I remember correctly.)
Apples and oranges indeed. Comparing this to gene splicing between unrelated organisms really is more like comparing bacteria to kittens.
Nonsense.
I agree with OP's sentiment, but the examples given are not good examples. People actually know the risks of mundane things like obesity and heart disease, because they're around us every day. It is unusual things about which people are terrible at assessing risk.
For example: people in the U.S. and Europe have allowed the government to terrify them about terrorists (sort-of-pun intended), when in fact their risk of death from a fall in the bathtub is many times greater. They have allowed government and media to terrify them about climate change when years of recent scientific evidence suggest it is probably not a danger at all, but at least mostly a political agenda.
As others have mentioned, these things are "unknown" to them, so they suck up any media hysteria that is thrown their way, rather than attempting to rationally assess the risks based on solid statistics and other information. But sometimes the problem is that they just don't have proper information with which to work.
Another example: many people have tended to believe overstated, propaganda claims about gun violence in the United States, when according to the actual statistics, if you aren't a gang member or drug dealer, guns present little if any more danger to you in the U.S. than in any other major Western country.
I could go on and on. But the point is: when people don't know how to assess a risk, or don't actually have good information on which to make an assessment, they tend to believe whatever they are told about it. Heart disease and diabetes are simply not in this category: people do know the risks, but often choose to ignore them. That is a different thing altogether.
One group says that "real" AI needs to pass the Turing test
And we have come to learn that reasonable approximations of the Turing test can be overcome by mere trickery, nothing like anything that could be called real "intelligence".
needs to think like us, needs to recognize its own consciousness, needs the ability to tell a joke
I'm not so sure about #1 and #3, but we have evidence that #2 has some validity.
The other group has given us voice recognition, spam filtering, NetFlix recommendations, Google, and countless other "AI lite" technologies; technologies that might not have the ability to discuss Nietzsche with us, but unlike "real" AI, they actually work.
So do land-line telephones, websites, and Furbies. None of them are "intelligent". The only thing we have to fear from Google is ethical violations (which are a valid concern), not that it will ever become intelligent.
You are really just reinforcing the point: so far no attempts at creating "artificial intelligence" actually work, and the things that actually work aren't anything like artificial intelligence.
No, I found a principle called "conservation of energy" which states that power in = power out through a boundary where nothing inside is changing.
I am familiar with the principle and I made use of it in my calculations.
If you want me to ask him instead, then I'll send him this tweet:
@ProfBrianCox, an electrically heated plate is in a vacuum chamber with cooler walls. Does heating power depend on the wall temperature?
Hahaha. You slay me. (Pun intended.) First, you asked me to make him a BET, but you're not willing to do it yourself? Second, you honestly expect a tweet to describe the actual conditions of the experiment? It took us something like 2 days to even agree on that, with hundreds of lines of messages back and forth.
I do not take such things very seriously. Either send him an honest and full description of the problem (and I would want to see it to make sure you were being honest, because you haven't always been), or shut up about it. I am tired of your games.
What exactly are you talking about - in good real-world systems - that is more silently corruptible than paper elections?
The very first thing is your assumption that there are any "good real-world systems". Security researchers have found all electronic voting systems to date to be woefully insecure, usually with little trouble. And there are documented instances of them being hacked, even in relatively small local elections.
Solve that one first, and we can go from there. Until it is solved, there is no point in discussing it further.