Throttle new connections from luserland by default. Sysadmins with connection-heavy applications can keep the throttle off their systems, and focus on the traditional "advanced" methods of virus protection: secure systems, regular patches, diligent auditing, &c.
How could you "trick" the throttle, though? The design seems to be pretty straightforward: Either you're trying to initiate an inordinate number of connections in a very short period, or you're not.
In the first case, the throttle is not tricked into allowing these connections without user approval. In the second case, it's probably not a virus. And if it is, the spread will be painfully slow, and the AV manufacturers will have ample time to deal with it. The design appears to be too simple to spoof, really. Am I missing something?
I watched the movie again last year. It struck me as being bigoted, xenophobic, pessimistic, and sensationalistic.
I remember reading the book some years ago (when I was much younger), and taking it pretty seriously. I'd try reading it again, just to see if the movie's misrepresented his point, but I'm terrified I'd only get about halfway through it before either the laughter or the embarassment killed me.
Other than A Case of Need and The Great Train Robbery, Crichton has certainly earned his place on the NYT Bestseller List. And that's not a compliment.
Re:Troll or no? Re:Reasearch quality in Crichton..
on
Electronic Life
·
· Score: 2
Well, Gibson and Crichton are doing different things, aren't they? Crichton focuses on tracing a line from Today to Tomorrow, with a plot about hubris as a substrate in which to suspend the results of his research. He is also obviously weak at character development, and it's generally quite obvious that the plot (man vs. technology or whatever) is subordinate to the story (how today's technology came to be, or how today's technology becomes tomorrow's technology). Airframe is an excellent example of his preference for research data over character development.
Gibson, meanwhile, belongs to that group of SciFi writers who prefers to focus on how individuals and societies might be changed by some future technology, and never mind how the tech got there or how it works. For my taste, Gibson is also much better at developing interesting characters--so much so that the "Virtual Light" trilogy took me a little while to warm up to. It was very character focused, and the blinkenlights were kept more in the background than I was used to. Nowadays, though, my fave "SciFi" author is Iain (M.) Banks, whose stories are all people/societies, and when the tech comes up at all it's usually just handwaving on the order of "here's a glossy brochure about technobabble, but let's set that aside for now and talk about the characters some more".
Awsome! I'd love to be downtown gawking at a fire in a high-rise office building, when suddenly--BOOM! And a small safe comes rocketing out from the 13th floor and craters spectacularly in the middle of the street.
On second thought, maybe a dumbwaiter-style quick-release elevator shaft that shot the safe down to a foam-filled chamber in the basement might be safer (heh) for rubberneckers and firefighters.
Theft also carries the implication that you DEPRIVE the original owner of the item or service in question. Piracy doesn't do that.
"Piracy" does exactly that, in fact. Copyright violation has never been congruent with traditional definitions of piracy. Making the two terms synonymous is an egregious neologism.
Would you be willing to explain your reasoning behind the statement "evolution explains morality"?
Its inability to do exactly that always struck me as evolution's weakest link. I'd be happy to learn that I haven't fully considered the issue, if you're willing to instruct me:)
(Caveat Emptor: I will most likely debate your points, so if you're not interested in the possibility of lively discussion, you may not want to reply. I promise to be civil and open-minded, though.)
first off the common man can afford to buy and fly an airplane. you can buy a used 2 seater aircraft for $29,000 to $49,000 and a nice piper Warrier 4 seater sedan for a little over $100,000.
What is your definition of "common man", and who is your crack dealer?
The prices you quote are for luxury items that have little or no ROI for the "common man". For the kind of money you're talking about, I could maybe justify buying a high-end SUV, on the grounds that it's arguably useful.
Sure, I could probably scrape together enough cash and loans to buy a plane, but then what? Me and my family live on ramen noodles for the next five years while we pay off our cars, home, student loans, and the airplane? I'd have to find a second job, which would leave me no time for flying lessons, which would be another expense anyway. And without lessons, I can't get certified (another expense), which means I can't even use this 5-digit folly that you tell me I can "afford".
I look forward eagerly to the day when the common man can trivially own and operate a luxury vehicle such as an airplane, yacht, or whatever. But it is the considered opinion of my budget that this day has not yet come. You are grossly mistaken, both about the common man, and about the amount of crack you smoke on a daily basis.
You may not comprehend how huge the U.S. really is. Believe me, calling someone who lives 3,000 miles away, in what is culturally another country altogether, a "compatriot", or "fellow citizen" is a pretty weird experience. Blowing up buildings in New York has very little practical impact for over two thirds of the country. Seriously. Aside from the news coverage, and the sudden proliferation of flags and National Guardsmen, the West Coast was business as usual by the end of the day. I don't presume to understand the mindset of the UK, which is a nation roughly the size of my state. Why do you (wherever you live) presume to tell me what it's like to be an American?
As far as the anthrax goes, neither I nor anybody else I know expressed any concern at all about it. You probably read the international edition of Time magazine, and promptly assumed that everybody here was in a panic about it. I'm here to tell you it's not like that at all.
I never said that that U.S. is not susceptible to terrorist attacks--just that I suspect it's not susceptible. This suspicion is based largely on the problem of getting "Americans" in San Francisco to relate to or empathize with the problems of "Americans" in New York. You can't terrorize the west coast by bombing the east coast. They're just too far apart, geographically and culturally.
Like I said, it's not my favorite game, mainly for the reasons you've mentioned.
I guess I got confused by some of your terminology: In my schema, "deathmatch" means instant respawns, where you re-enter the round and attempt to rack up more points before the end. AA does what I think of as "mission-based" scenarios, where you don't respawn until the mission is over.
I guess there's a lot more overlap than I thought. I actually liked a lot of the training stuff (which is where the uniqueness mainly seems to be), just... not to play.
So yeah, I guess I can totally see the "AA is unique in the way it sucks" point of view. I hope the Bradley trainer works out better for you;)
I, meanwhile, was rather surprised to discover that I had no real connection at all to the attacks. I wish I could've justified some of that "association"; maybe it would've helped me come up with some emotion suitable to the event. As it is, I began to suspect that this country is simply to big and too heterongenous to be properly susceptible to terrorist attacks.
I think you'd have to be a very big, very powerful, very secret organization, in order to impact enough Americans quickly enough to really strike terror in the heart of the nation. And as far as I know, the only very big, very powerful, very secret organization capable of doing this is already running the country.
It sounds like you may have missed the whole point: America's Army was designed explicitly as a realistic squad tactics simulator. There was never any intention of creating single-player scenarios, or long scenarios, or deathmatch scenarios, or whatever.
I've never played CS, so I don't know how much overlap there is, and I can't say AA is my favorite game or anything, but if you do a little research, you may discover that AA occupies a pretty unique space in the FPS genre.
Have you seen From the Earth to the Moon? Undoubtedly, the astronauts have a 2-hour checklist already prepared for unclogging the toilet. It's highly likely that it's initiated automatically upon completion of the "eat freeze-dried chili" checklist.
The company I work for is publically traded. The CEO and the other executives take their fiscal responsibility to their shareholders very seriously. In fact, the CEO was hired specifically for his financial expertise. His mandate from the board was to cut spending drastically while increasing revenue.
For the last two years, he's been diligently carrying out this mission. The result? Massive growth, increasing investment in IT infrastructure, high morale has gotten even higher, employee satisfaction and performance metrics are up, costs have gone down by several million dollars, and revenue has gone up by several million more.
"Making money for shareholders" doesn't automatically mean "trashing the long-term viability of the company" or "treating your employees like shit". The system is fine. The problem is that there are few executives qualified to manage a company well, so there's a lot of companies with no-talent ass-clowns in charge. They're short-sighted because they're stupid, not because short-sightedness is built into the system.
My company, meanwhile, has repeatedly shown that when you make your employees your top priority, your customers and your shareholders end up being extremely happy too.
It's not that the cycle is vicious, it's that most executives apparently combine the rapacity of a shark with the intellect of a teletubby.
Slashdot Mirror
Robert Jordan, meanwhile, simply adds a new book to his first story every time he clones a character, either one of his own someone else's.
Please. Gun-toting FBI agents are sooo 1999. These days, you can expect drama-toting CTU agents.
How about this:
Throttle new connections from luserland by default. Sysadmins with connection-heavy applications can keep the throttle off their systems, and focus on the traditional "advanced" methods of virus protection: secure systems, regular patches, diligent auditing, &c.
How could you "trick" the throttle, though? The design seems to be pretty straightforward: Either you're trying to initiate an inordinate number of connections in a very short period, or you're not.
In the first case, the throttle is not tricked into allowing these connections without user approval. In the second case, it's probably not a virus. And if it is, the spread will be painfully slow, and the AV manufacturers will have ample time to deal with it. The design appears to be too simple to spoof, really. Am I missing something?
1) enraging /. readers to a frenzy
2) proving that crime DOES pay.
3) profit!!!
Or something.
I remember reading the book some years ago (when I was much younger), and taking it pretty seriously. I'd try reading it again, just to see if the movie's misrepresented his point, but I'm terrified I'd only get about halfway through it before either the laughter or the embarassment killed me.
Other than A Case of Need and The Great Train Robbery, Crichton has certainly earned his place on the NYT Bestseller List. And that's not a compliment.
Gibson, meanwhile, belongs to that group of SciFi writers who prefers to focus on how individuals and societies might be changed by some future technology, and never mind how the tech got there or how it works. For my taste, Gibson is also much better at developing interesting characters--so much so that the "Virtual Light" trilogy took me a little while to warm up to. It was very character focused, and the blinkenlights were kept more in the background than I was used to. Nowadays, though, my fave "SciFi" author is Iain (M.) Banks, whose stories are all people/societies, and when the tech comes up at all it's usually just handwaving on the order of "here's a glossy brochure about technobabble, but let's set that aside for now and talk about the characters some more".
Awsome! I'd love to be downtown gawking at a fire in a high-rise office building, when suddenly--BOOM! And a small safe comes rocketing out from the 13th floor and craters spectacularly in the middle of the street.
On second thought, maybe a dumbwaiter-style quick-release elevator shaft that shot the safe down to a foam-filled chamber in the basement might be safer (heh) for rubberneckers and firefighters.
I can see it now: "Excuse me, tens-of-millions of people who drive between California and Oregon every year, do you know what a joke is?"
I dunno:
1. Load a traincar full of terrorists with explosive-laden duffel bags.
2. Wait until train passes under WTC.
3. ???
4. Profit!
"Piracy" does exactly that, in fact. Copyright violation has never been congruent with traditional definitions of piracy. Making the two terms synonymous is an egregious neologism.
As the ugliest plane or the prettiest plane?
My vote is "both".
Would you be willing to explain your reasoning behind the statement "evolution explains morality"?
:)
Its inability to do exactly that always struck me as evolution's weakest link. I'd be happy to learn that I haven't fully considered the issue, if you're willing to instruct me
(Caveat Emptor: I will most likely debate your points, so if you're not interested in the possibility of lively discussion, you may not want to reply. I promise to be civil and open-minded, though.)
What is your definition of "common man", and who is your crack dealer?
The prices you quote are for luxury items that have little or no ROI for the "common man". For the kind of money you're talking about, I could maybe justify buying a high-end SUV, on the grounds that it's arguably useful.
Sure, I could probably scrape together enough cash and loans to buy a plane, but then what? Me and my family live on ramen noodles for the next five years while we pay off our cars, home, student loans, and the airplane? I'd have to find a second job, which would leave me no time for flying lessons, which would be another expense anyway. And without lessons, I can't get certified (another expense), which means I can't even use this 5-digit folly that you tell me I can "afford".
I look forward eagerly to the day when the common man can trivially own and operate a luxury vehicle such as an airplane, yacht, or whatever. But it is the considered opinion of my budget that this day has not yet come. You are grossly mistaken, both about the common man, and about the amount of crack you smoke on a daily basis.
And that, of course, is the end of the discussion.
"You guys", is it?
You may not comprehend how huge the U.S. really is. Believe me, calling someone who lives 3,000 miles away, in what is culturally another country altogether, a "compatriot", or "fellow citizen" is a pretty weird experience. Blowing up buildings in New York has very little practical impact for over two thirds of the country. Seriously. Aside from the news coverage, and the sudden proliferation of flags and National Guardsmen, the West Coast was business as usual by the end of the day. I don't presume to understand the mindset of the UK, which is a nation roughly the size of my state. Why do you (wherever you live) presume to tell me what it's like to be an American?
As far as the anthrax goes, neither I nor anybody else I know expressed any concern at all about it. You probably read the international edition of Time magazine, and promptly assumed that everybody here was in a panic about it. I'm here to tell you it's not like that at all.
I never said that that U.S. is not susceptible to terrorist attacks--just that I suspect it's not susceptible. This suspicion is based largely on the problem of getting "Americans" in San Francisco to relate to or empathize with the problems of "Americans" in New York. You can't terrorize the west coast by bombing the east coast. They're just too far apart, geographically and culturally.
So, um, like... fuck off. And stuff. Yeah...
Like I said, it's not my favorite game, mainly for the reasons you've mentioned.
;)
I guess I got confused by some of your terminology: In my schema, "deathmatch" means instant respawns, where you re-enter the round and attempt to rack up more points before the end. AA does what I think of as "mission-based" scenarios, where you don't respawn until the mission is over.
I guess there's a lot more overlap than I thought. I actually liked a lot of the training stuff (which is where the uniqueness mainly seems to be), just... not to play.
So yeah, I guess I can totally see the "AA is unique in the way it sucks" point of view. I hope the Bradley trainer works out better for you
I, meanwhile, was rather surprised to discover that I had no real connection at all to the attacks. I wish I could've justified some of that "association"; maybe it would've helped me come up with some emotion suitable to the event. As it is, I began to suspect that this country is simply to big and too heterongenous to be properly susceptible to terrorist attacks.
I think you'd have to be a very big, very powerful, very secret organization, in order to impact enough Americans quickly enough to really strike terror in the heart of the nation. And as far as I know, the only very big, very powerful, very secret organization capable of doing this is already running the country.
It sounds like you may have missed the whole point: America's Army was designed explicitly as a realistic squad tactics simulator. There was never any intention of creating single-player scenarios, or long scenarios, or deathmatch scenarios, or whatever.
I've never played CS, so I don't know how much overlap there is, and I can't say AA is my favorite game or anything, but if you do a little research, you may discover that AA occupies a pretty unique space in the FPS genre.
A Monty Python nerd?
Have you seen From the Earth to the Moon? Undoubtedly, the astronauts have a 2-hour checklist already prepared for unclogging the toilet. It's highly likely that it's initiated automatically upon completion of the "eat freeze-dried chili" checklist.
Good points, thank you. My assesment was a bit hasty. Still, I'm quite glad that I work for the first kind of company!
You obviously value your sanity too much to succeed as an artist.
The company I work for is publically traded. The CEO and the other executives take their fiscal responsibility to their shareholders very seriously. In fact, the CEO was hired specifically for his financial expertise. His mandate from the board was to cut spending drastically while increasing revenue.
For the last two years, he's been diligently carrying out this mission. The result? Massive growth, increasing investment in IT infrastructure, high morale has gotten even higher, employee satisfaction and performance metrics are up, costs have gone down by several million dollars, and revenue has gone up by several million more.
"Making money for shareholders" doesn't automatically mean "trashing the long-term viability of the company" or "treating your employees like shit". The system is fine. The problem is that there are few executives qualified to manage a company well, so there's a lot of companies with no-talent ass-clowns in charge. They're short-sighted because they're stupid, not because short-sightedness is built into the system.
My company, meanwhile, has repeatedly shown that when you make your employees your top priority, your customers and your shareholders end up being extremely happy too.
:9
It's not that the cycle is vicious, it's that most executives apparently combine the rapacity of a shark with the intellect of a teletubby.
Mmm... sharkotubby...