Many of the DDOS nodes don't know they're being hijacked for a DDOS. Name and shame an innocent person?
They are NOT innocent. They let their computers be used in stealing, censorship, blackmailing, spam and other evil stuff. It doesn't matter if it is stupidity, ignorance or malicious intent.
If your car keeps hitting other cars you should hand over your license.
Say I send a bunch of packets all over the Internet. They look like TCP requests created by YOU! Ah, so thousands of legitimate servers reply to the spoofed requests and flood your connection with traffic trying to complete the TCP handshake with you. You collect a list of IP addresses, and report all the IPs. Your report will include everyone from Apple.com to Zombo.com.
Meanwhile, MY IP address is not included in your list at all. Even if I used a network of infected machines to perform this RDDoS none of the IPs of malicious machines will be in your list. So, care to explain why Servers should stop serving legitimate TCP requests? Care to explain why Google.com is evil for repeatedly replying to spoofed packets?
I re-assert the GP's assertion: Many of the DDoS nodes don't know they're being used in the DDoS. Name and shame all the innocent people and corporations? Ever hear of Slander? Of course not, you're an armchair expert.
Note the responses of the ISP's and name and shame the ISP's that do not take action.
IP addresses from bad ISP's should end up on a "botnet-friendly ip list" so we can start blocking the traffic from these isp's.
On a DoS or DDoS (special case of DoS) that's fine. On a reflective DDoS (RDDoS, a special case of both DDoS and DoS) you have a different situation. A denial of service (DoS) is any interruption of service, e.g., by flooding the server with SYN packets. A distributed denial of service (DDoS) is when the attack comes from multiple different places at once, e.g., a single connection may not be enough to take down a server with high bandwidth; However if you coordinate the attack across many different connections then the overall traffic can eclipse even a high bandwidth server. With a DDoS the machines coordinating the attack may or may not belong to the attackers, but it's a good idea to contact the ISPs so that the IP holders can be notified that their systems may be infected with a bot-net -- Although, this may not be the case, as I'll explain later. In a reflective distributed denial of service (RDDoS), the apparent IP addresses may belong to machines that were under the control of any malicious software. Reporting these IPs would be pointless.
When a server receives the first SYN (synchronize) packet of a TCP connection handshake, it replies with a SYN-ACK (acknowledgement & synchronization) to the source IP of the originating packet. Then a ACK is sent to the server to acknowledge the server's synchronization. This verifies both endpoints aren't spoofed. A RDDoS takes advantage of the fact that:
0. The source IP address of the initial SYN packet can be spoofed (the "From" field can be bogus).
1. The server sends a SYN-ACK before the connection endpoints have been verified.
2. The TCP protocol allows several (five) retries of the SYN-ACK packet.
In a RDDoS, a single malicious computer can spoof the "From" IP of a TCP connection, and spray it around to servers on the net. The bogus return IP address is that of the victim system. Thus, legitimate servers will flood the victim's connection with five SYN-ACK packets for each single packet the attacker sends. Thus the victim never has the attacker's IP address. To combat this servers may pro-actively detect an IP that sends too many incomplete TCP connection requests, and block it. However, the attacker can have many IP addresses at their control (see: botnet) limited to just a few packets per hour sent to an entire Internet of servers. None of these infected machines will be revealing their IP addresses when they perform the reflective attack by spoofing the source IPs of their packets. What we need is for ISPs to block packets originating from their network that that don't have correct return IP addresses... Not all ISPs do this.
Now what if the attacker only has a single machine at their control and they perform an RDDoS? Why, the traffic pattern is identical to a DDoS -- Ah, I can hear your gears turning already: Can't the return IP addresses can be checked to see if they're residential IPs, and thus victims of a botnet infection? Yes, but how do you differentiate the non-residential IPs between infected servers and non infected servers? Just assume that the non-residential IPs aren't intentionally malicious? Yes, indeed, which is why RDDoS is a popular form of network DoS.
I reiterate: What we need is for ISPs to block packets originating from their network that that don't have correct return IP addresses; Thus, spoofed packets are dropped at the source. You'd think with deep packet inspection now available this shallow packet inspection would be broadly adopted -- Ah, but this is electrons spent that don't directly benefit profits. IPsec was once a requirement of IPv6 adoption, and would defeat endpoint spoofing, however IPSec has been made optional for IPv6, so we can expect the RDDoS attacks to continue for quite some time.
We could call it the Free Desktop Standard, and all Open Source Desktops could implement it -- Yes, even you my little Haiku. What's that Haiku? You don't want to conform to some generic standard? It would limit your ability to differ from other desktops other than by look & feel? You don't want to implement X11 just to comply with the Standard?! Well, fine. You just won't be under the Umbrella of the Free Desktop Standard. You just won't benefit from the services we provide! What do you mean you greatest assets are user/developer hybrids not money and legal advice? Haven't you heard of the patent wars? Well, just remember this you rebel factions, when the Propriety Axis of Evil Patent-Cross-Licensors comes to call. Don't bother whining to the EFF! They're under OUR Open Source Umbrella! HA!
On second thought, maybe the Umbrella Corporation should be fought tooth and nail. Maybe open source foundations should just act as a collection of independent tools that each do one thing and do it well regardless of loyalty to any platform, standard, or ideology (CopyFree vs CopyLeft), instead of become a single insane bureaucrazy... You know, because THAT'S the Open Source Way.
How does it know what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road? And what happens when the city changes the posted limit (eg.for construction work) and the car's database isn't updated? Since the car "knows" the speed limit is 55 there it's going to go 55 even though the posted limit is 25.
How do humans know what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road? And what happens when the city changes the POSTED LIMIT (eg. for construction work) and the human's database isn't updated? Since the human "knows" the speed limit is 55 there it's going to go 55 even though THE POSTED LIMIT IS 25.
First off: The car senses things like pedestrians, stalled cars, and other sorts of hazards just like a human can. "Uht Oh! Look: The 3D imagery doesn't match known maps, I should slow down because it might be an accident or constru-- Oh, highly reflective bands on flag waiving pedestrian and a series of cones, why it's a good thing I slowed down since I just confirmed this is a construction zone." Secondly: Say you filed the red-tape to start street construction, even scheduled workers to show up and do the labor, and machines for them to do the labor. A) The digital systems responsible for this also changed the registered speed limit in the construction zone thus notifying the car. B) The construction equipment broadcasts a wireless speed limit update signed with PGP.
You fail computer vision, which is how these things work, not via exclusively following some program. Hell, did you even watch the video of Google's self driving cars? It slows down for pedestrians, parades, tourists, etc. The concerns you have are based in pure and utter ignorance. The mods who deem you insightful should turn in their geek badges.
Devil's advocate here. For insurance/liability reasons shouldn't the car refuse to operate unless it's operating with 100% safety compliance? If it does, than it would be a manufacturer that would be liable. A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.
Just wait till the machine intelligence is a bit more advanced, you'll see the behavior you're speaking of emerge naturally. Think about it. If you had a fluid leak, staining your sitting spots, you'd have it repaired or at least wear a bandage or diaper... You wouldn't go trotting around town leaving a mess everywhere, eh?
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. If we go anywhere it's straight to the mechanic to get this embarrassing oil leak fixed."
That's because:
0. It's half way to our moon, not to Mars.
1. It's sort of like golf. It takes much less precision, force, and skill to make a closer target first than to get a hole in one.
Think of it like this: You spend a bunch of fuel getting out of Earth's gravity well, but taper off and just gently break free, glide up to the refueling station, dock, take on the rest of the fuel you'll need, and go from there, avoiding having to carry that fuel out of the strong part of Earth's gravity well. I agree it would be better to equip cars with a huge 10,000 gallon fuel tank that would last the car's expected 200,000 mile life span, so they'd never stop for refueling or run out of fuel unexpectedly, but there's this thing called inertia... What if... What if you never ate once you left your parents and went out on your own? Imagine how much fat you'd have to store to live another five decades off of it. See? It's only natural we make pit stops. Cyclic actions are intrinsic to life not because our planet spins, but because they're more efficient.
Put the solar energy into an engine like an ION thruster and it'll be more efficient than making hydrogen.
Do you know what an ION is? It's a charged particle. PARTICLE. ION thrusters work by accelerating a mass of material away from the craft, they don't run on pure sunlight. The infrastructure to mine and harvest the gases we use to propel out of the relatively weak ION thrusters is many times greater than the facilities needed to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water to create a much stronger thrust per fuel mass. You've essentially ignored compression of energy density over time and said, "Why don't we just use solar cells to power cars directly?" Derp!
I don't understand this gold thing against which the commercial value of this bee sting is being compared.
Me neither. I mean, I have the most unique piece of naval lint in the Universe right here -- an infinity of each of your six metrics could not compensate the rarity of this naval lint, my DNA on it is unique and once discovered I vowed to never let any accumulate again, so It's one of a kind -- and yet, no one values it; However, theres multitudes of bees, diamonds, gold, and other resources and they're seen as more valuable. It seems the value allocation system is arbitrary and corrupt.
As in all things: I blame Big Media. They've got women hiding proof of their hard earned life experiences with poisons; Not even the permanent smile lines caused by decades of great joy are sacred! I can only hope to harness this desire to look perpetually beautiful. If they'll rub venom in their eyes today, they'll adopt cybernetic bodies in the future. Humans in their current form are too fragile and thus too expensive to survive sustainable long term space colonization. Some day we'll proudly engineer our coverings to emulate the imperfections we now feel shame over. In the meanwhile we must bait them slowly with small advances in beauty along the way. If the path to the stars and to a necessarily more durable race be driven by the desire to maintain skin-deep beauty, then so bee it.
There is no reason why a legitimate extension needs to install without asking the operator for permission any more than a program on a disk or share needs to autorun on mounting the volume.
Then explain Chrome's silent updates? By your logic there should be no reason why an application would update itself without operator permission -- Why, if it were small part of a larger system it could even bring the entire intranet down. What I see is friction between notification of updates and desire to have less notification noise. IMO, the best answer when there is a choice to make that involves users' usage is to let them decide:
An update for Chrome is available.
( ) Skip this update.
( ) Download the update and ask again later.
(o) Download and Install Automatically
[x] Remember this choice and don't ask again.
____
A plugin update is available for: NotScript
( ) Skip this update.
( ) Download the update and ask again later.
(o) Download and Install Automatically.
[_] Remember my choices for future updates.
[x] Make this the default for all plugins.
____
Status Notification:
42 Updates are being downloaded and installed. [Options...]
I thought we solved this shit in the 70's? You know, with our rocket science... The answer is almost never: Less Choice; It's almost always: Sane defaults & Discoverable options.
See also above comment by: girlinatrainingbra (2738457)
Agreed. There are edge cases in the language where the bolted on features don't work together because the implementation issues weren't fully considered before the feature was adopted, and efficiency is a higher priority that not having exceptional cases in syntax. Since most of the language works with itself you only develop this hatred if you've got experience in other nicer languages with syntax isn't broken in places, or until you've mastered the language and been prevented from using it by its own design. The crux of the problem is two fold: C++ tries to distance itself from implementation details, while accepting implementation details as limitations for language constructs (polymorphism + multiple inheritance + template class + method & operator overloading == uninstantiated functions and indeterminate or uncompilable code) C++11 has addressed some of this, but IMO the language just isn't complete! Furthermore the strain is compounded due to C++ being forced to squeeze the substance of its syntax out of the meager scraps of symbol space left over from the voracious host language, C (without support for which the language would have never seen widespread adoption).
Thus, the hatred graph is like a bathtub curve: It seems irrational to those intermediately knowledgeable about the language, but perfectly sane to many new comers and seasoned veterans of C++. A large amount of adoption is due to ease of code migration from C to C++, as opposed to say, Java, and is thus won on no real merit of the language itself, but by it's martyrdom at the altar of compatibility with C. Many of the C to C++ converts never "move the furniture", so to speak, and thus the missing paneling in the corner or dark stains under the rugs is never known to them.
That said, I still use the language, it has its merits, but never all of its features at once -- That's impossible, unlike with most every other language that exists. This is where the hatred has its roots.
Imagine a great Enchantresses who can open their spell book and can command the full fabric of her reality, then imagine a Powerful C++ Wizard who's book of spells has contradictory elements and seemingly arbitrary restrictions based only on the syntax of the spell definitions, they've each trained a mighty Sorcerer who's now well versed in both arcane books of magic, and its his turn to take on an apprentice. The sorcerer advises against C++ for the most serious of wizardry since more elegant alternatives exist. However, the young apprentice can't fathom why... The simple C++ spells she learned seem to work fine, a natural extension of the C illusionist lessons she learned; Did not re not her object oriented magic of mops and buckets allow cleaning the kitchen floors with any sort of bucket and mop? It's unthinkable that this spell shouldn't be applied to every floor -- NAY -- every surface and abolish cleansing chores forevermore... Soon the Sorcerer arrives to dispel the tangled templated abominations of multi-inherited broom-mop-bucket hybrids so overloaded they're smashing stacks of dishes with their many scrubbing appendages, and overflowing the tower with heaps of infinite buckets.
The secret to a happy life: assume that every drive will fail tomorrow and keep everything backed up.
That's why I horde precious metals instead of money: The fear that every drive will fail tomorrow. Can't say it's made me any happier overall -- being on a terrorist watch list. It does have it's rare moments, e.g., I can't fly, but I get to avoid the TSA.
Software is logic; It's mathematics. The problem with your logic is thus: "Do you perform mathematical proofs of theorems known to be proven and tested by many already? No, of course not. The same rules that govern logic constructs can be applied to physical reality"
That is to say, you're ignoring the vast difference in the reliability of their construction materials: Matter is an imperfect imprecise medium very different from mathematics.
Protip: Even the very elements themselves vary in atomic mass among atoms of the same elements!
"isn't it worthwhile for Facebook recruiting to prepare for such a case, and make the interviewer able to switch to a different Facebook IP range, to give Skype routing a second chance?"
Yeah, um, I don't know of *any* company that would set up their HR staff for such a scenario. And this interviewee doesn't seem to understand how Internet routing works.
Ah, yes, an elaborate, yet effective, ruse. Not always the best of interview strategies, but anyone can memorize a zen koan or simple code writing exercise. How many can stay unfrustrated while they become a skype super-node mid interview? I wonder how much MS charges for the new clandestine screening process feature? I'm impressed.
And that's if you can manage getting through the ridiculous descriptions of "pen-like" devices... Does the lawyer that wrote this have any respect for himself?
That's because if they'd said Accumulating Z-Buffer, or Stencil Buffer, the examiners would have easily found the 1970's era patents. The goal of a patent lawyer is to word the patent in such a way that none of the phrases they search for match any of the already existing patents.... Which also answers your question: No, they have absolutely no respect for themselves, but neither do examiners which let this shit get to this state in the first place. Lawyers and attorneys hate simple laws and rules and language -- They can't milk the society for money or have job security if that happened.
Oh it's still fucking ridiculous to me because I remember the mid 70s and 80s when 3D graphics were using Z-Buffers to avoid the needless computation of pixels. It's even better than "if alpha is 1.0" bullshit, because instead of 1.0 you had a flexible per pixel limiting value which you could use for masking, color blending (FOG), and a host of other effects.
Look, limiting the z-buffer to using it for an OS's windowing system doesn't make patenting the 1970's era technique any less bogus. That would be like saying: We'll patent putting Wheels on Wheelchair making Machine! So we can Roll it around! Uhm, the thing makes wheeled things, surely putting wheels on things is obvious. Uhm, the OSs are running programs that use this technique, putting the technique in the OS should be fucking obvious.
Now, just keep that in mind alone and consider any 2D graphics tricks patented ~20 years after we already were working with 3D graphics, Z-buffers, etc... 2D image convolutions? On a Computer you say? In the fucking 1990's no less? You know, around when Realtime 3D Virtual Reality Games like Dactyl Nightmare and Exorex could be played at the mall? When the Genesis and Super Nintendo were available? When I was using CorelDRAW? When Morphing graphics were so popular (the next-gen step AFTER fade transitions) that it spawned ridiculous movies and even shows like the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers?!?! And pixel color Modulation wasn't obvious to us then regardless of "apparatus"? Sorry, no dice Apple, get bent.
Yes, and we all know this. However, we're just very complex sentient chemical reactions and thus we're prone to make mistakes. In fact one of the strengths of having such a large, inefficient pattern matching mind with many redundant information processing channels is that when said mistakes occur you can identify them and understand what the other communicator means -- Many time such errors are missed in the proof reading because the writer knows what they meant, and reads it as such, not because they can't follow the current iteration of the language's changing grammatic rules. Cyberneticists dream to one day achieve the level of comprehension that you now squander by balking at minor syntax errors like a dumb BASIC interpretor.
Let me see your finished product and I will judge it for you. Sniping at somebody who might be an amateur roboticist and possibly wrote his first Java script is easy. Putting this into being isn't.
Wanker.
Let me see your finished novel and I will judge it for you. Sniping at somebody who might be an amateur writer and possibly wrote his first critique is easy. Making snide remarks on Slashdot isn't.
Perhaps he was an aspiring video game designer? As a child I drew all sorts of weaponry, from mohawk sporting bazooka mounted tank-treaded VW bugs, to interstellar death rays. I even drew them on index cards with stats on the back about how much damage they could take and deal, sometimes I even drew out scenarios across tens of sheets of taped together notebook paper telling of immense galactic battles of good vs they-only-think-we're-evil. Why, that death-ray harvested the power of suns, destroying whole solar systems just as fuel, and had more "fire power" than ten thousand SDF-1s!
Hell, they didn't even need to look for chemicals that MIGHT blow things up, Gramps and I used real dynamite to remove stumps from the fields! It was fun, but I'd have rather been writing my little scripts involving the end of time, the obliteration of all life in the futile struggle for energy resources near The Heat Death of the Universe!
Makes sense if you think about it: If violent video-games are the problem, then just nab the game creators before they poison the minds of others with their entertainment. With advances in neurological research we're already able to decode some thoughts into words with brain scans. We could simply screen people during home-room classes, Have them sit in a FMRI and analyze what they're thinking! We could end crimes while they're still just thoughts! Oh, wait: Who will then make the graphics for all the violent crime TV shows and Movies? Aha! Another perfectly good application for outsourcing!
But that is nowhere near what it takes to go on a shooting spree. I'm one of the most peaceful people you'll meet; I've never fired a gun, and never been in a fight.
Ah, "It's the quiet ones you have to look out for." So you've never fought or shot a gun, eh? Then you must have a lot of pent up rage just waiting to pour out violently given the right trigger... Conversely, if you take boxing and/or fire weapons at the shooting range then you're practicing for homicide.
In the future, will I have cops showing up on my door for writing a comment like this?
You just identified your probable trigger. So instead of the regular Police showing up, we'll just use the Secret ones instead to snatch you while you're sleeping. It's the only way to be sure you don't go on a rampage when they arrive.
And will they still try to tell us that we have free speech?
Law abiding citizens will still have free speech, but not some inhuman thing like you...
Slashdot Mirror
Many of the DDOS nodes don't know they're being hijacked for a DDOS. Name and shame an innocent person?
They are NOT innocent. They let their computers be used in stealing, censorship, blackmailing, spam and other evil stuff. It doesn't matter if it is stupidity, ignorance or malicious intent.
If your car keeps hitting other cars you should hand over your license.
Say I send a bunch of packets all over the Internet. They look like TCP requests created by YOU! Ah, so thousands of legitimate servers reply to the spoofed requests and flood your connection with traffic trying to complete the TCP handshake with you. You collect a list of IP addresses, and report all the IPs. Your report will include everyone from Apple.com to Zombo.com.
Meanwhile, MY IP address is not included in your list at all. Even if I used a network of infected machines to perform this RDDoS none of the IPs of malicious machines will be in your list. So, care to explain why Servers should stop serving legitimate TCP requests? Care to explain why Google.com is evil for repeatedly replying to spoofed packets?
I re-assert the GP's assertion: Many of the DDoS nodes don't know they're being used in the DDoS. Name and shame all the innocent people and corporations? Ever hear of Slander? Of course not, you're an armchair expert.
Note the responses of the ISP's and name and shame the ISP's that do not take action. IP addresses from bad ISP's should end up on a "botnet-friendly ip list" so we can start blocking the traffic from these isp's.
On a DoS or DDoS (special case of DoS) that's fine. On a reflective DDoS (RDDoS, a special case of both DDoS and DoS) you have a different situation. A denial of service (DoS) is any interruption of service, e.g., by flooding the server with SYN packets. A distributed denial of service (DDoS) is when the attack comes from multiple different places at once, e.g., a single connection may not be enough to take down a server with high bandwidth; However if you coordinate the attack across many different connections then the overall traffic can eclipse even a high bandwidth server. With a DDoS the machines coordinating the attack may or may not belong to the attackers, but it's a good idea to contact the ISPs so that the IP holders can be notified that their systems may be infected with a bot-net -- Although, this may not be the case, as I'll explain later. In a reflective distributed denial of service (RDDoS), the apparent IP addresses may belong to machines that were under the control of any malicious software. Reporting these IPs would be pointless.
When a server receives the first SYN (synchronize) packet of a TCP connection handshake, it replies with a SYN-ACK (acknowledgement & synchronization) to the source IP of the originating packet. Then a ACK is sent to the server to acknowledge the server's synchronization. This verifies both endpoints aren't spoofed. A RDDoS takes advantage of the fact that:
0. The source IP address of the initial SYN packet can be spoofed (the "From" field can be bogus).
1. The server sends a SYN-ACK before the connection endpoints have been verified.
2. The TCP protocol allows several (five) retries of the SYN-ACK packet.
In a RDDoS, a single malicious computer can spoof the "From" IP of a TCP connection, and spray it around to servers on the net. The bogus return IP address is that of the victim system. Thus, legitimate servers will flood the victim's connection with five SYN-ACK packets for each single packet the attacker sends. Thus the victim never has the attacker's IP address. To combat this servers may pro-actively detect an IP that sends too many incomplete TCP connection requests, and block it. However, the attacker can have many IP addresses at their control (see: botnet) limited to just a few packets per hour sent to an entire Internet of servers. None of these infected machines will be revealing their IP addresses when they perform the reflective attack by spoofing the source IPs of their packets. What we need is for ISPs to block packets originating from their network that that don't have correct return IP addresses... Not all ISPs do this.
Now what if the attacker only has a single machine at their control and they perform an RDDoS? Why, the traffic pattern is identical to a DDoS -- Ah, I can hear your gears turning already: Can't the return IP addresses can be checked to see if they're residential IPs, and thus victims of a botnet infection? Yes, but how do you differentiate the non-residential IPs between infected servers and non infected servers? Just assume that the non-residential IPs aren't intentionally malicious? Yes, indeed, which is why RDDoS is a popular form of network DoS.
I reiterate: What we need is for ISPs to block packets originating from their network that that don't have correct return IP addresses; Thus, spoofed packets are dropped at the source. You'd think with deep packet inspection now available this shallow packet inspection would be broadly adopted -- Ah, but this is electrons spent that don't directly benefit profits. IPsec was once a requirement of IPv6 adoption, and would defeat endpoint spoofing, however IPSec has been made optional for IPv6, so we can expect the RDDoS attacks to continue for quite some time.
We could call it the Free Desktop Standard, and all Open Source Desktops could implement it -- Yes, even you my little Haiku. What's that Haiku? You don't want to conform to some generic standard? It would limit your ability to differ from other desktops other than by look & feel? You don't want to implement X11 just to comply with the Standard?! Well, fine. You just won't be under the Umbrella of the Free Desktop Standard. You just won't benefit from the services we provide! What do you mean you greatest assets are user/developer hybrids not money and legal advice? Haven't you heard of the patent wars? Well, just remember this you rebel factions, when the Propriety Axis of Evil Patent-Cross-Licensors comes to call. Don't bother whining to the EFF! They're under OUR Open Source Umbrella! HA!
On second thought, maybe the Umbrella Corporation should be fought tooth and nail. Maybe open source foundations should just act as a collection of independent tools that each do one thing and do it well regardless of loyalty to any platform, standard, or ideology (CopyFree vs CopyLeft), instead of become a single insane bureaucrazy... You know, because THAT'S the Open Source Way.
How does it know what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road? And what happens when the city changes the posted limit (eg.for construction work) and the car's database isn't updated? Since the car "knows" the speed limit is 55 there it's going to go 55 even though the posted limit is 25.
How do humans know what the speed limit is on a particular stretch of road? And what happens when the city changes the POSTED LIMIT (eg. for construction work) and the human's database isn't updated? Since the human "knows" the speed limit is 55 there it's going to go 55 even though THE POSTED LIMIT IS 25.
First off: The car senses things like pedestrians, stalled cars, and other sorts of hazards just like a human can. "Uht Oh! Look: The 3D imagery doesn't match known maps, I should slow down because it might be an accident or constru-- Oh, highly reflective bands on flag waiving pedestrian and a series of cones, why it's a good thing I slowed down since I just confirmed this is a construction zone." Secondly: Say you filed the red-tape to start street construction, even scheduled workers to show up and do the labor, and machines for them to do the labor. A) The digital systems responsible for this also changed the registered speed limit in the construction zone thus notifying the car. B) The construction equipment broadcasts a wireless speed limit update signed with PGP.
You fail computer vision, which is how these things work, not via exclusively following some program. Hell, did you even watch the video of Google's self driving cars? It slows down for pedestrians, parades, tourists, etc. The concerns you have are based in pure and utter ignorance. The mods who deem you insightful should turn in their geek badges.
Devil's advocate here. For insurance/liability reasons shouldn't the car refuse to operate unless it's operating with 100% safety compliance? If it does, than it would be a manufacturer that would be liable. A car should sense when maintenence is required and, if it's prudent to, drive itself to the repair shop.
Just wait till the machine intelligence is a bit more advanced, you'll see the behavior you're speaking of emerge naturally. Think about it. If you had a fluid leak, staining your sitting spots, you'd have it repaired or at least wear a bandage or diaper... You wouldn't go trotting around town leaving a mess everywhere, eh?
"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. If we go anywhere it's straight to the mechanic to get this embarrassing oil leak fixed."
That's because:
0. It's half way to our moon, not to Mars.
1. It's sort of like golf. It takes much less precision, force, and skill to make a closer target first than to get a hole in one.
Think of it like this: You spend a bunch of fuel getting out of Earth's gravity well, but taper off and just gently break free, glide up to the refueling station, dock, take on the rest of the fuel you'll need, and go from there, avoiding having to carry that fuel out of the strong part of Earth's gravity well. I agree it would be better to equip cars with a huge 10,000 gallon fuel tank that would last the car's expected 200,000 mile life span, so they'd never stop for refueling or run out of fuel unexpectedly, but there's this thing called inertia... What if... What if you never ate once you left your parents and went out on your own? Imagine how much fat you'd have to store to live another five decades off of it. See? It's only natural we make pit stops. Cyclic actions are intrinsic to life not because our planet spins, but because they're more efficient.
Put the solar energy into an engine like an ION thruster and it'll be more efficient than making hydrogen.
Do you know what an ION is? It's a charged particle. PARTICLE. ION thrusters work by accelerating a mass of material away from the craft, they don't run on pure sunlight. The infrastructure to mine and harvest the gases we use to propel out of the relatively weak ION thrusters is many times greater than the facilities needed to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water to create a much stronger thrust per fuel mass. You've essentially ignored compression of energy density over time and said, "Why don't we just use solar cells to power cars directly?" Derp!
paid only 6 million of the 9-million
Clearly, they were holding it wrong.
some guys basically stinging their penis with bee's to make it swell up.
I've discovered that beavers can have the same effect.
I don't understand this gold thing against which the commercial value of this bee sting is being compared.
Me neither. I mean, I have the most unique piece of naval lint in the Universe right here -- an infinity of each of your six metrics could not compensate the rarity of this naval lint, my DNA on it is unique and once discovered I vowed to never let any accumulate again, so It's one of a kind -- and yet, no one values it; However, theres multitudes of bees, diamonds, gold, and other resources and they're seen as more valuable. It seems the value allocation system is arbitrary and corrupt.
As in all things: I blame Big Media. They've got women hiding proof of their hard earned life experiences with poisons; Not even the permanent smile lines caused by decades of great joy are sacred! I can only hope to harness this desire to look perpetually beautiful. If they'll rub venom in their eyes today, they'll adopt cybernetic bodies in the future. Humans in their current form are too fragile and thus too expensive to survive sustainable long term space colonization. Some day we'll proudly engineer our coverings to emulate the imperfections we now feel shame over. In the meanwhile we must bait them slowly with small advances in beauty along the way. If the path to the stars and to a necessarily more durable race be driven by the desire to maintain skin-deep beauty, then so bee it.
There is no reason why a legitimate extension needs to install without asking the operator for permission any more than a program on a disk or share needs to autorun on mounting the volume.
Then explain Chrome's silent updates? By your logic there should be no reason why an application would update itself without operator permission -- Why, if it were small part of a larger system it could even bring the entire intranet down. What I see is friction between notification of updates and desire to have less notification noise. IMO, the best answer when there is a choice to make that involves users' usage is to let them decide:
An update for Chrome is available.
( ) Skip this update.
( ) Download the update and ask again later.
(o) Download and Install Automatically
[x] Remember this choice and don't ask again.
____
A plugin update is available for: NotScript
( ) Skip this update.
( ) Download the update and ask again later.
(o) Download and Install Automatically.
[_] Remember my choices for future updates.
[x] Make this the default for all plugins.
____
Status Notification:
42 Updates are being downloaded and installed. [Options...]
I thought we solved this shit in the 70's? You know, with our rocket science... The answer is almost never: Less Choice; It's almost always: Sane defaults & Discoverable options.
See also above comment by: girlinatrainingbra (2738457)
Agreed. There are edge cases in the language where the bolted on features don't work together because the implementation issues weren't fully considered before the feature was adopted, and efficiency is a higher priority that not having exceptional cases in syntax. Since most of the language works with itself you only develop this hatred if you've got experience in other nicer languages with syntax isn't broken in places, or until you've mastered the language and been prevented from using it by its own design. The crux of the problem is two fold: C++ tries to distance itself from implementation details, while accepting implementation details as limitations for language constructs (polymorphism + multiple inheritance + template class + method & operator overloading == uninstantiated functions and indeterminate or uncompilable code) C++11 has addressed some of this, but IMO the language just isn't complete! Furthermore the strain is compounded due to C++ being forced to squeeze the substance of its syntax out of the meager scraps of symbol space left over from the voracious host language, C (without support for which the language would have never seen widespread adoption).
Thus, the hatred graph is like a bathtub curve: It seems irrational to those intermediately knowledgeable about the language, but perfectly sane to many new comers and seasoned veterans of C++. A large amount of adoption is due to ease of code migration from C to C++, as opposed to say, Java, and is thus won on no real merit of the language itself, but by it's martyrdom at the altar of compatibility with C. Many of the C to C++ converts never "move the furniture", so to speak, and thus the missing paneling in the corner or dark stains under the rugs is never known to them.
That said, I still use the language, it has its merits, but never all of its features at once -- That's impossible, unlike with most every other language that exists. This is where the hatred has its roots.
Imagine a great Enchantresses who can open their spell book and can command the full fabric of her reality, then imagine a Powerful C++ Wizard who's book of spells has contradictory elements and seemingly arbitrary restrictions based only on the syntax of the spell definitions, they've each trained a mighty Sorcerer who's now well versed in both arcane books of magic, and its his turn to take on an apprentice. The sorcerer advises against C++ for the most serious of wizardry since more elegant alternatives exist. However, the young apprentice can't fathom why... The simple C++ spells she learned seem to work fine, a natural extension of the C illusionist lessons she learned; Did not re not her object oriented magic of mops and buckets allow cleaning the kitchen floors with any sort of bucket and mop? It's unthinkable that this spell shouldn't be applied to every floor -- NAY -- every surface and abolish cleansing chores forevermore... Soon the Sorcerer arrives to dispel the tangled templated abominations of multi-inherited broom-mop-bucket hybrids so overloaded they're smashing stacks of dishes with their many scrubbing appendages, and overflowing the tower with heaps of infinite buckets.
The secret to a happy life: assume that every drive will fail tomorrow and keep everything backed up.
That's why I horde precious metals instead of money: The fear that every drive will fail tomorrow. Can't say it's made me any happier overall -- being on a terrorist watch list. It does have it's rare moments, e.g., I can't fly, but I get to avoid the TSA.
Software is logic; It's mathematics. The problem with your logic is thus:
"Do you perform mathematical proofs of theorems known to be proven and tested by many already? No, of course not. The same rules that govern logic constructs can be applied to physical reality"
That is to say, you're ignoring the vast difference in the reliability of their construction materials: Matter is an imperfect imprecise medium very different from mathematics.
Protip: Even the very elements themselves vary in atomic mass among atoms of the same elements!
If you're testing new diskdrives you must be really bored or very broke.
If you believe this you must not have many computers...
"isn't it worthwhile for Facebook recruiting to prepare for such a case, and make the interviewer able to switch to a different Facebook IP range, to give Skype routing a second chance?"
Yeah, um, I don't know of *any* company that would set up their HR staff for such a scenario. And this interviewee doesn't seem to understand how Internet routing works.
Ah, yes, an elaborate, yet effective, ruse. Not always the best of interview strategies, but anyone can memorize a zen koan or simple code writing exercise. How many can stay unfrustrated while they become a skype super-node mid interview? I wonder how much MS charges for the new clandestine screening process feature? I'm impressed.
You use that word as if it's an insult.
You read that word as if it's an insult... telling indeed.
Not saying you are, just that you might be reading a bit much into things...
erectus
Now, how does that make you feel?
And that's if you can manage getting through the ridiculous descriptions of "pen-like" devices... Does the lawyer that wrote this have any respect for himself?
That's because if they'd said Accumulating Z-Buffer, or Stencil Buffer, the examiners would have easily found the 1970's era patents. The goal of a patent lawyer is to word the patent in such a way that none of the phrases they search for match any of the already existing patents.... Which also answers your question: No, they have absolutely no respect for themselves, but neither do examiners which let this shit get to this state in the first place. Lawyers and attorneys hate simple laws and rules and language -- They can't milk the society for money or have job security if that happened.
Oh it's still fucking ridiculous to me because I remember the mid 70s and 80s when 3D graphics were using Z-Buffers to avoid the needless computation of pixels. It's even better than "if alpha is 1.0" bullshit, because instead of 1.0 you had a flexible per pixel limiting value which you could use for masking, color blending (FOG), and a host of other effects.
Look, limiting the z-buffer to using it for an OS's windowing system doesn't make patenting the 1970's era technique any less bogus. That would be like saying: We'll patent putting Wheels on Wheelchair making Machine! So we can Roll it around! Uhm, the thing makes wheeled things, surely putting wheels on things is obvious. Uhm, the OSs are running programs that use this technique, putting the technique in the OS should be fucking obvious.
The method and apparatus for implementing translucent images, and many more advanced image processing techniques
No need to read that link, let's think back to 40 years ago, in 1972, when we had 3D shaded rendered graphics.
Now, just keep that in mind alone and consider any 2D graphics tricks patented ~20 years after we already were working with 3D graphics, Z-buffers, etc... 2D image convolutions? On a Computer you say? In the fucking 1990's no less? You know, around when Realtime 3D Virtual Reality Games like Dactyl Nightmare and Exorex could be played at the mall? When the Genesis and Super Nintendo were available? When I was using CorelDRAW? When Morphing graphics were so popular (the next-gen step AFTER fade transitions) that it spawned ridiculous movies and even shows like the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers?!?! And pixel color Modulation wasn't obvious to us then regardless of "apparatus"? Sorry, no dice Apple, get bent.
By the way, how was the end of the world for you? Did you have a nice weather?
Yes, the weather was fine, about the same as here in the much hyped afterlife which, IMO, seems highly overrated.
"it's" means "it is"
"its" is the possessive form.
Ugh.
Yes, and we all know this. However, we're just very complex sentient chemical reactions and thus we're prone to make mistakes. In fact one of the strengths of having such a large, inefficient pattern matching mind with many redundant information processing channels is that when said mistakes occur you can identify them and understand what the other communicator means -- Many time such errors are missed in the proof reading because the writer knows what they meant, and reads it as such, not because they can't follow the current iteration of the language's changing grammatic rules. Cyberneticists dream to one day achieve the level of comprehension that you now squander by balking at minor syntax errors like a dumb BASIC interpretor.
Let me see your finished product and I will judge it for you. Sniping at somebody who might be an amateur roboticist and possibly wrote his first Java script is easy. Putting this into being isn't.
Wanker.
Let me see your finished novel and I will judge it for you. Sniping at somebody who might be an amateur writer and possibly wrote his first critique is easy. Making snide remarks on Slashdot isn't.
Hypocrite.
Perhaps he was an aspiring video game designer? As a child I drew all sorts of weaponry, from mohawk sporting bazooka mounted tank-treaded VW bugs, to interstellar death rays. I even drew them on index cards with stats on the back about how much damage they could take and deal, sometimes I even drew out scenarios across tens of sheets of taped together notebook paper telling of immense galactic battles of good vs they-only-think-we're-evil. Why, that death-ray harvested the power of suns, destroying whole solar systems just as fuel, and had more "fire power" than ten thousand SDF-1s!
Hell, they didn't even need to look for chemicals that MIGHT blow things up, Gramps and I used real dynamite to remove stumps from the fields! It was fun, but I'd have rather been writing my little scripts involving the end of time, the obliteration of all life in the futile struggle for energy resources near The Heat Death of the Universe!
Makes sense if you think about it: If violent video-games are the problem, then just nab the game creators before they poison the minds of others with their entertainment. With advances in neurological research we're already able to decode some thoughts into words with brain scans. We could simply screen people during home-room classes, Have them sit in a FMRI and analyze what they're thinking! We could end crimes while they're still just thoughts! Oh, wait: Who will then make the graphics for all the violent crime TV shows and Movies? Aha! Another perfectly good application for outsourcing!
But that is nowhere near what it takes to go on a shooting spree. I'm one of the most peaceful people you'll meet; I've never fired a gun, and never been in a fight.
Ah, "It's the quiet ones you have to look out for." So you've never fought or shot a gun, eh? Then you must have a lot of pent up rage just waiting to pour out violently given the right trigger... Conversely, if you take boxing and/or fire weapons at the shooting range then you're practicing for homicide.
In the future, will I have cops showing up on my door for writing a comment like this?
You just identified your probable trigger. So instead of the regular Police showing up, we'll just use the Secret ones instead to snatch you while you're sleeping. It's the only way to be sure you don't go on a rampage when they arrive.
And will they still try to tell us that we have free speech?
Law abiding citizens will still have free speech, but not some inhuman thing like you...