I had no idea how efficient nature was at selecting positive traits and weeding out the bad ones. I figured that really only went for things that were grossly or moderately detrimental to the organism.
Yep, I neglected to think of cost efficiency. Thanks for pointing that out.
I do not know how cost efficient it might be to engineer a bacteria that poisons its environment though with something that doesn't kill its host but disrupts other parts of the food change or something that would stop nitrogen from re-entering the soil or something. (may be impossible)
I would wager the cost to make oil devouring bacteria is probably close to the cost it would take to make an organism purely for disruptive purposes.
It depends on the booze also. Some booze is pretty flammable, but honestly I doubt they sell it in large quantities in an airport, maybe at a semi decent bar if your lucky to find a shot of it. But some booze will light if sprayed from your mouth on a flame, the flame is usually produced by cloth on a stick soaked in said booze already ignited at the appropriate temperatures for ignition. Ive seen it in person.
It wouldn't make an effective weapon though, theres better options. Maybe moderately useful as a distraction prior to a real practiced unarmed blow.
I can second this, its not easy to bring down some people. Some people have a blind rage and once you injure them, your response is not shock. Unless that injury is massive and going to kill you in seconds anyway.
Thats not necessarily true. There some pollutants that stick around for a good while. Some of those could be mixed into a bioengineering bacterium that would stick around for awhile in the environment as well. Again its all unpredictable, but you could really screw up an ecosystem for decades by using 1 pathogen targeted at the right environment with the right payload.
DDT is a chemical that comes to mind. Something like that wouldn't be as dramatic as zombies but would definitely make for a devastating affect over a long. Really great if you planned for a war of attrition and wanted the enemies food supply to become unreliable.
Its funner to transmit retreat over and over since WWwhatever in code. They probably have been given an order to transmit it and forgot why they were doing it, no one knows why and they just don't because they will carry out their order till the end of time.
Heck I can envision galactic space-fairing dictatorships rising up fantastically to carry on the sacred coded retreat order given millennium ago. Broadcasting it throughout all of the known universe. The human race is good like that.
Also the reason you have not been murdered yet probably has more to do with your general niceness, averageness, location (not in a slum) etc.. but I know nothing about you to make such assumptions, the law has a lower bearing then many factors on whether you get murdered or not =P
I guess the better question then is. Should banks have more priorty with law enforcement hunting DDOSers then netflix. Or a single youtuber?
In my opinion all 3 parties should have the same priority. The best argument you could make for changing that priority is severity of attack as in how damaging it is to how many parties. In this case your argument for special protection rings true, but it should also ring true if those DDOSers are targeting something other then a bank. So the fact that it is a bank by its very nature should not arbitrarily bump its priority. It should require an evaluation that is egalitarian and just.
Those are smaller more petty bureaucrats or police with less international leverage then higher level military ranking officials with special official positions only given out to single people and probably attachment to the French version of 3 letter agencies though. So in this case the guy is probably out of luck and must comply or else.
Heck the whole premise of EULA's are legally questionable anyway, and at first were terms of service, if you violate them the worst that could happen was your account was suspended. At which point you could get in trouble for circumventing that suspension through hacking. Never needed a EULA to enforce that. Just to not get sued for discontinuing someones monthly access to something.
The internet use to be a place were you were responsible to look after yourself. And to some degree will always be. Even the creators of the internet had some certain expectation that if they had something plugged in, it was accessible by "the enemy" and they had very little legal recourse against civilians, especially those outside their jurisdictions. This is why SIPRnet is totally off line from the real internet.
Now we've grown up and realized that money can be made here and families have taken over the internet and it has become a public space. The law is just for the recourse of non-net-warriors of old. As it should be, but in my opinion its being taken farther then it needs to be. They should govern the violation of computer systems not the content freely published on the web.
Violation of a EULA is not violation of a computer system though. EULA's are not protocols, or encrypted programs or security measures, or hardware designed to authenticate identity. Therefore it should be covered under civil court. And probably the less then 50$ maximum penalty kind (which does not exist).
Yet people get murdered every day. It's a shame. But the deterrent for murder applies generally equally to all, or at least thats the principle. Technically grandmothers have no more deterrent applied to them then 30 year old single males.
Then why do we need to deliberate on new rules in this regard? What is so special about banks that we need to codify how they go about this? Is this new rule going to give them special permission to violate computer systems to collect this data?
Thanks for the clarification of the title, How come thats not legal already. AFAIK know and after working in the IT industry and with software like SNORT publishing blacklists with comments like "spammer, ddosser" is perfectly legal for anyone.
As far as your right to want the money you invested in your great gambling casinos of the new world order, great for you, I have a differing opinion, and I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on that. I never believed banks were for security when I was a kid, and after watching the world for 30 years still think banks are an insecure means of holding wealth. Better to own stock or property, rather then a piece of paper that can be traded by people with vastly more power then you.
So while its your right to lobby for the protection of your FDIC banks and your tax money to be spent that way its my right to call it a bullshit way of doing business. Especially for the little people who get swept under the rug as regimes and currencies change, lookin at European banks right now. Brazil and or Argentina last 2 decades ago... I would rather my tax money not go to giving banks more protection. They need to harden up and play fair with the rest of the world if they want business as usual.
I think they are trying to be the least repressive option in a repressive regime. Kudo's to them. But the solution to "freedom of information" is not through google in the end, it is to create a private citizens network that supersedes government regulation. Perhaps governing itself or being anarchistic, the model has yet to be developed for it.
I stand corrected, Joint Operations was a good series when it first came out and was after the quakes and unreals. But that was still not published by EA.
I'm still playing quake, no good fps has been released since quake 3 and unreal 2
All other genres have been the same since, BG, and fallout.
Dues Ex was novel and good, but its successors have all been shadows to the originals charm and character.
EA hasn't been on my radar for ever.
Until someone comes up with a spiritual successor to BG, quake, or dues ex thats not a total rip off and watering down of the depth of game play to "easily balanced" or "mass marketable" levels. I will not be buying any more "tactical simulations".
Their loss in sales is not 100% because of piracy. I won't even pirate the crappy EA titles that are out now.
Yes, and the same goes for U.S. citizens. In fact we would happily give you over to the Chinese government for a minor offense in order to garner a political favor if you were a nobody and wouldn't make the news. Meaning the Chinese payed for your quiet secret extradition in the middle of the night.
Now you thought the world was just, fair and, egalitarian? Psssh prole...
No matter how justified that deterrent is made (by creating it as a law). To stop the most determined people from doing what they will do.
Should banks be protected from attack? I would say in a perfect world were banks were innocent and served a purpose other then gambling on your own investment into them. Maybe.
But as it stands now, banks should be left out in the cold to defend themselves, and in ways that don't violate our laws. They need no more special justifications placed in our society for them.
Slashdot Mirror
I had no idea how efficient nature was at selecting positive traits and weeding out the bad ones. I figured that really only went for things that were grossly or moderately detrimental to the organism.
Thanks for enlightening this layman.
Yep, I neglected to think of cost efficiency. Thanks for pointing that out.
I do not know how cost efficient it might be to engineer a bacteria that poisons its environment though with something that doesn't kill its host but disrupts other parts of the food change or something that would stop nitrogen from re-entering the soil or something. (may be impossible)
I would wager the cost to make oil devouring bacteria is probably close to the cost it would take to make an organism purely for disruptive purposes.
It depends on the booze also. Some booze is pretty flammable, but honestly I doubt they sell it in large quantities in an airport, maybe at a semi decent bar if your lucky to find a shot of it. But some booze will light if sprayed from your mouth on a flame, the flame is usually produced by cloth on a stick soaked in said booze already ignited at the appropriate temperatures for ignition. Ive seen it in person.
It wouldn't make an effective weapon though, theres better options. Maybe moderately useful as a distraction prior to a real practiced unarmed blow.
I can second this, its not easy to bring down some people. Some people have a blind rage and once you injure them, your response is not shock. Unless that injury is massive and going to kill you in seconds anyway.
Thats not necessarily true. There some pollutants that stick around for a good while. Some of those could be mixed into a bioengineering bacterium that would stick around for awhile in the environment as well. Again its all unpredictable, but you could really screw up an ecosystem for decades by using 1 pathogen targeted at the right environment with the right payload.
DDT is a chemical that comes to mind. Something like that wouldn't be as dramatic as zombies but would definitely make for a devastating affect over a long. Really great if you planned for a war of attrition and wanted the enemies food supply to become unreliable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/washington/02anthrax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Seems like biowarfare researchers make just as solid scapegoats as crazy nuclear physicists and MIT computer nerds.
I thought as much ;p You are a gentleman and a comedian!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_station
Its funner to transmit retreat over and over since WWwhatever in code. They probably have been given an order to transmit it and forgot why they were doing it, no one knows why and they just don't because they will carry out their order till the end of time.
Heck I can envision galactic space-fairing dictatorships rising up fantastically to carry on the sacred coded retreat order given millennium ago. Broadcasting it throughout all of the known universe. The human race is good like that.
Also the reason you have not been murdered yet probably has more to do with your general niceness, averageness, location (not in a slum) etc.. but I know nothing about you to make such assumptions, the law has a lower bearing then many factors on whether you get murdered or not =P
Awesome link. Its a shame. But this seems to be the modus operandi of people with power like this.
I guess the better question then is. Should banks have more priorty with law enforcement hunting DDOSers then netflix. Or a single youtuber?
In my opinion all 3 parties should have the same priority. The best argument you could make for changing that priority is severity of attack as in how damaging it is to how many parties. In this case your argument for special protection rings true, but it should also ring true if those DDOSers are targeting something other then a bank. So the fact that it is a bank by its very nature should not arbitrarily bump its priority. It should require an evaluation that is egalitarian and just.
Thanks I learned a great deal on slashdot today. I will always hold this knowledge in a special place in my heart.
Those are smaller more petty bureaucrats or police with less international leverage then higher level military ranking officials with special official positions only given out to single people and probably attachment to the French version of 3 letter agencies though. So in this case the guy is probably out of luck and must comply or else.
Thats were the "just" part comes in.
Heck the whole premise of EULA's are legally questionable anyway, and at first were terms of service, if you violate them the worst that could happen was your account was suspended. At which point you could get in trouble for circumventing that suspension through hacking. Never needed a EULA to enforce that. Just to not get sued for discontinuing someones monthly access to something.
The internet use to be a place were you were responsible to look after yourself. And to some degree will always be. Even the creators of the internet had some certain expectation that if they had something plugged in, it was accessible by "the enemy" and they had very little legal recourse against civilians, especially those outside their jurisdictions. This is why SIPRnet is totally off line from the real internet.
Now we've grown up and realized that money can be made here and families have taken over the internet and it has become a public space. The law is just for the recourse of non-net-warriors of old. As it should be, but in my opinion its being taken farther then it needs to be. They should govern the violation of computer systems not the content freely published on the web.
Violation of a EULA is not violation of a computer system though. EULA's are not protocols, or encrypted programs or security measures, or hardware designed to authenticate identity. Therefore it should be covered under civil court. And probably the less then 50$ maximum penalty kind (which does not exist).
Yet people get murdered every day. It's a shame. But the deterrent for murder applies generally equally to all, or at least thats the principle. Technically grandmothers have no more deterrent applied to them then 30 year old single males.
Then why do we need to deliberate on new rules in this regard? What is so special about banks that we need to codify how they go about this? Is this new rule going to give them special permission to violate computer systems to collect this data?
Whats the catch22... or the article is just B.S.
Thanks for the clarification of the title, How come thats not legal already. AFAIK know and after working in the IT industry and with software like SNORT publishing blacklists with comments like "spammer, ddosser" is perfectly legal for anyone.
As far as your right to want the money you invested in your great gambling casinos of the new world order, great for you, I have a differing opinion, and I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on that. I never believed banks were for security when I was a kid, and after watching the world for 30 years still think banks are an insecure means of holding wealth. Better to own stock or property, rather then a piece of paper that can be traded by people with vastly more power then you.
So while its your right to lobby for the protection of your FDIC banks and your tax money to be spent that way its my right to call it a bullshit way of doing business. Especially for the little people who get swept under the rug as regimes and currencies change, lookin at European banks right now. Brazil and or Argentina last 2 decades ago... I would rather my tax money not go to giving banks more protection. They need to harden up and play fair with the rest of the world if they want business as usual.
I think they are trying to be the least repressive option in a repressive regime. Kudo's to them. But the solution to "freedom of information" is not through google in the end, it is to create a private citizens network that supersedes government regulation. Perhaps governing itself or being anarchistic, the model has yet to be developed for it.
I stand corrected, Joint Operations was a good series when it first came out and was after the quakes and unreals. But that was still not published by EA.
I'm still playing quake, no good fps has been released since quake 3 and unreal 2
All other genres have been the same since, BG, and fallout.
Dues Ex was novel and good, but its successors have all been shadows to the originals charm and character.
EA hasn't been on my radar for ever.
Until someone comes up with a spiritual successor to BG, quake, or dues ex thats not a total rip off and watering down of the depth of game play to "easily balanced" or "mass marketable" levels. I will not be buying any more "tactical simulations".
Their loss in sales is not 100% because of piracy. I won't even pirate the crappy EA titles that are out now.
Yes, and the same goes for U.S. citizens. In fact we would happily give you over to the Chinese government for a minor offense in order to garner a political favor if you were a nobody and wouldn't make the news. Meaning the Chinese payed for your quiet secret extradition in the middle of the night.
Now you thought the world was just, fair and, egalitarian? Psssh prole...
No matter how justified that deterrent is made (by creating it as a law). To stop the most determined people from doing what they will do.
Should banks be protected from attack? I would say in a perfect world were banks were innocent and served a purpose other then gambling on your own investment into them. Maybe.
But as it stands now, banks should be left out in the cold to defend themselves, and in ways that don't violate our laws. They need no more special justifications placed in our society for them.
Long before any gravitation effect.
And realistically the cop should have due cause and can either ignore the comment or reply "anything I can get you on sweetums"