Check the UIDs: bryonak registered long before I did, and for the record, I don't play dirty like trolls do: everything I do on this site is connected to this single account, be it a good or bad thing, and I responsibly take all replies and karma-deltas for what I do and say.
However, it's not hard to notice that the replies are all the same, word-for-word, and all are attacks directed against my person, not against my points. As such, they carry no weight, only noise.
"Troll" moderation? Oh please, if anything, this is "Offtopic", but certainly not trolling. The summary is badly written, a grammatical wreck, there's no denying that. There's no denying that there are editors, either. And there's also no denying that as editors, verifying the accuracy, correctness, sources, and presentation of the summaries posted is their responsibility in the end. In this case, they failed their job, and I'm right to call attention to that.
As for your ad hominem attacks, you're going to have to do better than that to even faze me. Try going to logical, coherent arguments, and skip that part about the redundancy of language due to context, bad grammar is bad, redundancy or not.
Holy hellbore, editors! At least read through the summary before letting it out onto the page teeming with grammatical errors. It reads like it was written by a grade schooler.
Although I haven't watched any of the Khan Academy videos, I suspect they're sort of a crash-course, designed to bring the viewer up to speed about topics fast, and give them a working knowledge. University education, on the other hand, aims to give the student in-depth knowledge to enable him/her to do scientifically rigorous, groundbreaking work in their field. The two are on fundamentally different levels, while both are teaching, and equally legitimate. Just for different purposes ("emergency" knowledge VS. scientific knowledge).
Of course, both sections were written way before the internet became a reality (the Hungarian one was drafter circa 1970). However, like I said, the word "taking" implies that the rightful owner no longer possesses the "stolen" object, just like the Hungarian version [elvenni] does. That is why I make the point that copyright infringement is not theft as such, not matter what the content industry spokespeople say, and this is why people are tried under a different heading.
Before you (and everyone else reading this) gets me wrong: I am NOT a legal EXPERT. I am more of a legal expert than a developer. Not a lawyer as such, but I have studied international law extensively and have touched upon other legal areas during my studies. Therefore I dare say I am more qualified than most people here to comment upon legal issues. And before everyone takes offense, I'll admit that most people here are infinitely more qualified to comment upon programming and most other technical matters!
I'm not rationalizing, I'm just calling attention to the fact that "copyright infringement" is not "theft". Let me quote something from the Hungarian Penal code (Section XVIII - Crimes against property):
316 (1) He who takes a foreign object from another to illegally misappropriate it, commits the crime of Theft [Aki idegen dolgot mástól azért vesz el, hogy azt jogtalanul eltulajdonítsa, lopást követ el.]
Let's parse this sentence grammatically, or rather, focus on one word: "take [vesz el]"! In both Hungarian and in English, the word in question has one significant connotation: that what you take from another becomes yours, and ceases to be theirs. This is all dandy and fine, as long as we assume that there can only be one instance of the object in question. And we know by experience that this is not the case with the binary blobs we transfer over BitTorrent. Therefore, copyright infringement, while criminalized in itself, does not fall under the heading of theft, since the rightful owner remains in possession as well.
Or let me bring an example from a tad more powerful jurisdiction: United States penal code, TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY, CHAPTER 31. THEFT:
Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
To parse this one, we need to take a look at the definitions section at the beginning of the chapter:
"Deprive" means: (A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; (B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.
Now let us compare this with BitTorrenting: "to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner" - Negative, I can still play the movie I'm seeding to 17,569 other people, so the enjoyment is not obstructed; and the copy is an exact copy of the original, therefore no loss of value occurs. "to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation" - Negative, the owner remains in possession of the data, therefore I cannot restore it upon payment of reward "to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely" - Negative, for the above reasons.
Therefore, we have conclusively proved that using BitTorrent, or any other form of piracy or such, is not theft. Also note that I am not saying this makes it legal, as copyright infringement itself is an offence punishable by law, I am only saying that calling it theft is baseless and factually and legally incorrect.
I am not a developer, true, I'm more of a legal expert. But let's imagine I'm a dev, and my product was "stolen", to put it this way. I check my hard drive, yep, source still there, binaries present, everything's accounted for. The problem isn't that something is gone, the problem is that there's now two of it, one not under my control. Nothing was taken per se, and hurting my commercial interests is quite another thing, not covered by theft. So yes, the way you put it, "everything is great. Right.". What's not "totally fine" is what you don't emphasize: not paying for it (assuming I wanted payment in the first place), but that is not covered by the meaning of 'theft'.
But not theft, neither of those is theft, legally speaking. And they usually call hacking... well, hacking. Or computer fraud, or misuse of (unauthorized) access. Usually along these lines, emphasizing access, not gains or similar.
This is not theft. Theft means you take something from the victim, something he will no longer possess. In all such cases, the victim will remain in possession of the 'stolen' object, therefore one can argue that no actual theft has taken place. As the often-repeated analogue goes, it's like someone stole your cat overnight, but in the morning, you'd still have it.
I'm only going to reply to one point, since the others require no response, other than a "Thank you, now I know more!".
I click inside the table, move my mouse to make the text bold and underlined, and I suddenly see my table doing a Dom Cobb as another table is inserted into the cell
I don't see how that is possible since the Table Design ribbon (which it changes to when you are inside a table) does not even remotely look similar to the Home ribbon (where formatting options are) and the functionality you describe (Insert Table) is only available on the Insert ribbon which you have to explicitly select, yourself, for it to be visible. Or are you seriously making the claim that you click on a 16x16px icon from muscle memory alone?
Okay, now you're just nitpicking. I started up Word 2010 just to get everything right, so let me make some corrections: instead of underlining the text, the same spot on the interface makes my table a snazzy blue-white color scheme from the simple black-white grid I started with. Better? As for clicking a 16x16 icon without looking, are you seriously claiming I can't? Maybe not all the icons, but the ones I use most often, I can certainly locate relative to my focus, without actually looking at them. Therefore I wouldn't notice that the ribbons changed, and I'm now recoloring the table instead of formating the header. To do some nitpicking of my own, it's not so much a question of muscle memory but of proprioception (much like point shooting).
It is harder to use, for me. I want to be certain that whenever I move my mouse, the function under the pointer doesn't change. With 2003's static toolbars and menus, I can point to a place in the text, and without looking away, move my mouse and format it. With 2007/10, I understand they were trying to be helpful to have Word offer up the Tables ribbon when I click inside the table, but I'm still going to scream "Go F4 yourselves!" when I click inside the table, move my mouse to make the text bold and underlined, and I suddenly see my table doing a Dom Cobb as another table is inserted into the cell, because Word 'helpfully' offered up the table functions, and where ten milliseconds ago was the bold button, now it said "Insert table". I also have a custom toolbar of functions I like to have at my disposal at all times: inserting footnotes, word counts, insert symbol, etc. My bibliography software (now deprecated, for the time being), RefWorks, also added a toolbar of its own. AFAIK, you can't do the same under the ribbon-interface.
Whenever possible, I try to use my own laptop, which has Win7 x64 running Office 2003. Sacrilege it may be, it's what works best for me.
Agreed. I still use 2003, that was the last one with a sane UI (I never could stomach the ribbon interface of 2010), and AFAIK, it actually has more features than 2010. And now that 2013 will be Metro-compatible, there will be no reason to upgrade there either. I view Metro as something that is kick-ass on a tablet (seriously, the best tablet UI I have ever seen), but on a PC, it is utterly and irrevocably broken.
Your problem is targeted ads? Seriously? Do you even look at them? If your problem is that they make money by the clicks on their ads, I still see no problem, they're not making any money off of me: I've been bombarded by these ads since I was like eight (and that was the time of the flashing neon pink-and-yellow ads, mind you...), my mind just filters them out. I barely even see them there. I suggest you get yourself a nice mental AdBlock, stop noticing the ads, and quit complaining.
As for personal information, don't publish anything you don't want to publish. I freely admit I entered a lot of stuff into my profile: address, emails, phone number, favorite books, movies, music, etc. Why? Because I don't particularly care if a friend can see my phone number or mail address, I'd give it to them anyway. I just set the sensitive stuff to friends-only, and I don't add any random John Doe, only people I actually do know. "Oh noes, I forgot to set my likes to private, now you found out my latest favorite band is Alstroemeria Records!" Well good for you, now you can blackmail me by threatening to expose my taste for electronic Japanese remixes of anime game theme songs. Except last time I checked, there were no laws against liking that kind of music, and it wasn't anything socially stigmatizing either.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with entering personal details on Facebook, as long as you don't let stalkers access them. And the Facebook dev team are not stalkers, since they won't come after you to your private address.
Maybe I just didn't get the message, but what draws heat away from the die itself? This setup probably does away with thermal paste and similar junctions...
The other thing is that hydrodynamic bearings are only self-supporting and quasi-frictionless after a threshold RPM is reached. Before the whole setup is spinning fast enough for hydrodynamic effects to take over, it's going to grind against the chip die, and unless they came up with something good, it's going to destroy it on startup...
You can crack a pattern lock by looking at the glass and noting the path the finger travels across the grid. For a PIN, you have 4-8 or more distinct points on the screen, with no indication of the order. That means you're looking at at least 24 (4!) different combinations, and most phone OS-es lock out after 3-5, for increasing periods. So it frustrates cracking attempts more than a pattern unlock.
Unless they manage to squeeze in a high-resolution thermal imager too, to verify that the face is indeed living (and maybe map out the veins, but that would require a rather sensitive imager), no face-unlock will be 100% secure. Bit higher on the scale than a slider or a pattern unlock, but waaaay lower than a PIN/password lock.
I'm not saying that! What I'm saying is that since terrorists don't count as combatants, they are not subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention, and therefore, soldiers have who encounter one have no obligation whatsoever to spare his life, like they do with regular enemy combatants. Even civil uprisings and irregular combatants are afforded more protection given that they fulfill the required criteria (relaxed version of the regular combatants' criteria).
Ideally, there's no time for the enemy to become paranoid. Should everything go according to plan, and should the plan survive first encounter, a war like this would be a literal "They don't even know what hit 'em", and should be over in less than a week with an unconditional surrender.
I'd say that cyberwarfare is a sort of 'supplementary warfare', designed to shorten a war and lessen casualties by causing enough confusion and chaos that the enemy can't mount an effective defense and is forced to surrender.
If you are able to spread a virus that attacks critical infrastructure like the electric grid, water supply, hospitals, etc., you can unbalance the civilian population, which means fewer resources can be devoted to a military response -- it's a lot harder to maintain an army when your own population is starving, in the dark, or cannot receive medical treatment. I wouldn't say it's as "supplementary" as nuclear weapons. Sure, you might not let one off the chain everytime there's a problem, but having the capability constrains the number of options the enemy has.
That's exactly what I meant by supplementary: it doesn't (usually) kill on its own, it just weakens the enemy force, hopefully enough to force a surrender.
That's a rather good analogy, but with a significant flaw: states know the size of other armies almost exactly...
It wasn't always that way. It's not like satellites have been around since war was invented. Just because the technology and methodology has changed doesn't mean that principles behind control of terrain, force multipliers, offense versus defense, etc., are any less valid.
True, war was not always an almost-fully informed game. However, while some of the tactics and strategies discussed by Sun Tzu are still valid, most have been superseded: terrain is no longer a constraint when you can air-lift your troops into position and conduct air strikes and bombardment over strategic ranges, the traditional maxim of "Defenders are at advantage" of castles no longer stands when a single attack fighter carries enough firepower to reduce any medieval castle to rubble, just as knight were supplanted by crossbows and firearms, cavalry was supplanted by armor and small infantry squads shadowing the armor. Soon, even airspace may become irrelevant as nations will drop troops and supplies from orbit, completely bypassing enemy defenses. Technology changes more than just the methods used to wage war, a new tool in the arsenal changes the very priorities and doctrine used, it can change everything about warfare.
That's not the point of cyberwarfare. When done correctly, you attack with conventional forces while their systems lock up and crumble, and strike into the chaos for a quick win.
Slashdot Mirror
Check the UIDs: bryonak registered long before I did, and for the record, I don't play dirty like trolls do: everything I do on this site is connected to this single account, be it a good or bad thing, and I responsibly take all replies and karma-deltas for what I do and say.
However, it's not hard to notice that the replies are all the same, word-for-word, and all are attacks directed against my person, not against my points. As such, they carry no weight, only noise.
Well that escalated quickly...
"Troll" moderation? Oh please, if anything, this is "Offtopic", but certainly not trolling. The summary is badly written, a grammatical wreck, there's no denying that. There's no denying that there are editors, either. And there's also no denying that as editors, verifying the accuracy, correctness, sources, and presentation of the summaries posted is their responsibility in the end. In this case, they failed their job, and I'm right to call attention to that.
As for your ad hominem attacks, you're going to have to do better than that to even faze me. Try going to logical, coherent arguments, and skip that part about the redundancy of language due to context, bad grammar is bad, redundancy or not.
Holy hellbore, editors! At least read through the summary before letting it out onto the page teeming with grammatical errors. It reads like it was written by a grade schooler.
Although I haven't watched any of the Khan Academy videos, I suspect they're sort of a crash-course, designed to bring the viewer up to speed about topics fast, and give them a working knowledge. University education, on the other hand, aims to give the student in-depth knowledge to enable him/her to do scientifically rigorous, groundbreaking work in their field.
The two are on fundamentally different levels, while both are teaching, and equally legitimate. Just for different purposes ("emergency" knowledge VS. scientific knowledge).
Of course, both sections were written way before the internet became a reality (the Hungarian one was drafter circa 1970). However, like I said, the word "taking" implies that the rightful owner no longer possesses the "stolen" object, just like the Hungarian version [elvenni] does. That is why I make the point that copyright infringement is not theft as such, not matter what the content industry spokespeople say, and this is why people are tried under a different heading.
Do explain...
If you're referring to copyright infringers, that's because that in itself is a crime, but under a different heading.
Before you (and everyone else reading this) gets me wrong: I am NOT a legal EXPERT. I am more of a legal expert than a developer. Not a lawyer as such, but I have studied international law extensively and have touched upon other legal areas during my studies. Therefore I dare say I am more qualified than most people here to comment upon legal issues.
And before everyone takes offense, I'll admit that most people here are infinitely more qualified to comment upon programming and most other technical matters!
Which is a synonym for "I'm right.". Since we're talking about law, and law is, you know, 'pedantic'...
I'm not rationalizing, I'm just calling attention to the fact that "copyright infringement" is not "theft".
Let me quote something from the Hungarian Penal code (Section XVIII - Crimes against property):
316 (1) He who takes a foreign object from another to illegally misappropriate it, commits the crime of Theft [Aki idegen dolgot mástól azért vesz el, hogy azt jogtalanul eltulajdonítsa, lopást követ el.]
Let's parse this sentence grammatically, or rather, focus on one word: "take [vesz el]"! In both Hungarian and in English, the word in question has one significant connotation: that what you take from another becomes yours, and ceases to be theirs. This is all dandy and fine, as long as we assume that there can only be one instance of the object in question. And we know by experience that this is not the case with the binary blobs we transfer over BitTorrent. Therefore, copyright infringement, while criminalized in itself, does not fall under the heading of theft, since the rightful owner remains in possession as well.
Or let me bring an example from a tad more powerful jurisdiction: United States penal code, TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY, CHAPTER 31. THEFT:
Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.
To parse this one, we need to take a look at the definitions section at the beginning of the chapter:
"Deprive" means:
(A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner;
(B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or
(C) to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.
Now let us compare this with BitTorrenting:
"to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner" - Negative, I can still play the movie I'm seeding to 17,569 other people, so the enjoyment is not obstructed; and the copy is an exact copy of the original, therefore no loss of value occurs.
"to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation" - Negative, the owner remains in possession of the data, therefore I cannot restore it upon payment of reward
"to dispose of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely" - Negative, for the above reasons.
Therefore, we have conclusively proved that using BitTorrent, or any other form of piracy or such, is not theft. Also note that I am not saying this makes it legal, as copyright infringement itself is an offence punishable by law, I am only saying that calling it theft is baseless and factually and legally incorrect.
I am not a developer, true, I'm more of a legal expert.
But let's imagine I'm a dev, and my product was "stolen", to put it this way. I check my hard drive, yep, source still there, binaries present, everything's accounted for. The problem isn't that something is gone, the problem is that there's now two of it, one not under my control. Nothing was taken per se, and hurting my commercial interests is quite another thing, not covered by theft.
So yes, the way you put it, "everything is great. Right.". What's not "totally fine" is what you don't emphasize: not paying for it (assuming I wanted payment in the first place), but that is not covered by the meaning of 'theft'.
Exactly.
Copyright infringment? Sure thing.
Fraud? Certainly.
But not theft, neither of those is theft, legally speaking. ... well, hacking. Or computer fraud, or misuse of (unauthorized) access. Usually along these lines, emphasizing access, not gains or similar.
And they usually call hacking
This is not theft. Theft means you take something from the victim, something he will no longer possess. In all such cases, the victim will remain in possession of the 'stolen' object, therefore one can argue that no actual theft has taken place.
As the often-repeated analogue goes, it's like someone stole your cat overnight, but in the morning, you'd still have it.
I'm only going to reply to one point, since the others require no response, other than a "Thank you, now I know more!".
I click inside the table, move my mouse to make the text bold and underlined, and I suddenly see my table doing a Dom Cobb as another table is inserted into the cell
I don't see how that is possible since the Table Design ribbon (which it changes to when you are inside a table) does not even remotely look similar to the Home ribbon (where formatting options are) and the functionality you describe (Insert Table) is only available on the Insert ribbon which you have to explicitly select, yourself, for it to be visible. Or are you seriously making the claim that you click on a 16x16px icon from muscle memory alone?
Okay, now you're just nitpicking. I started up Word 2010 just to get everything right, so let me make some corrections: instead of underlining the text, the same spot on the interface makes my table a snazzy blue-white color scheme from the simple black-white grid I started with. Better?
As for clicking a 16x16 icon without looking, are you seriously claiming I can't? Maybe not all the icons, but the ones I use most often, I can certainly locate relative to my focus, without actually looking at them. Therefore I wouldn't notice that the ribbons changed, and I'm now recoloring the table instead of formating the header. To do some nitpicking of my own, it's not so much a question of muscle memory but of proprioception (much like point shooting).
It is harder to use, for me. I want to be certain that whenever I move my mouse, the function under the pointer doesn't change. With 2003's static toolbars and menus, I can point to a place in the text, and without looking away, move my mouse and format it. With 2007/10, I understand they were trying to be helpful to have Word offer up the Tables ribbon when I click inside the table, but I'm still going to scream "Go F4 yourselves!" when I click inside the table, move my mouse to make the text bold and underlined, and I suddenly see my table doing a Dom Cobb as another table is inserted into the cell, because Word 'helpfully' offered up the table functions, and where ten milliseconds ago was the bold button, now it said "Insert table".
I also have a custom toolbar of functions I like to have at my disposal at all times: inserting footnotes, word counts, insert symbol, etc. My bibliography software (now deprecated, for the time being), RefWorks, also added a toolbar of its own. AFAIK, you can't do the same under the ribbon-interface.
Whenever possible, I try to use my own laptop, which has Win7 x64 running Office 2003. Sacrilege it may be, it's what works best for me.
Agreed. I still use 2003, that was the last one with a sane UI (I never could stomach the ribbon interface of 2010), and AFAIK, it actually has more features than 2010. And now that 2013 will be Metro-compatible, there will be no reason to upgrade there either. I view Metro as something that is kick-ass on a tablet (seriously, the best tablet UI I have ever seen), but on a PC, it is utterly and irrevocably broken.
Personally, I find that few things beat a couple of bursts of liquid air in cooling, even if it doesn't last long...
Your problem is targeted ads? Seriously? Do you even look at them?
If your problem is that they make money by the clicks on their ads, I still see no problem, they're not making any money off of me: I've been bombarded by these ads since I was like eight (and that was the time of the flashing neon pink-and-yellow ads, mind you...), my mind just filters them out. I barely even see them there. I suggest you get yourself a nice mental AdBlock, stop noticing the ads, and quit complaining.
As for personal information, don't publish anything you don't want to publish. I freely admit I entered a lot of stuff into my profile: address, emails, phone number, favorite books, movies, music, etc. Why? Because I don't particularly care if a friend can see my phone number or mail address, I'd give it to them anyway. I just set the sensitive stuff to friends-only, and I don't add any random John Doe, only people I actually do know.
"Oh noes, I forgot to set my likes to private, now you found out my latest favorite band is Alstroemeria Records!" Well good for you, now you can blackmail me by threatening to expose my taste for electronic Japanese remixes of anime game theme songs. Except last time I checked, there were no laws against liking that kind of music, and it wasn't anything socially stigmatizing either.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with entering personal details on Facebook, as long as you don't let stalkers access them. And the Facebook dev team are not stalkers, since they won't come after you to your private address.
Maybe I just didn't get the message, but what draws heat away from the die itself? This setup probably does away with thermal paste and similar junctions...
The other thing is that hydrodynamic bearings are only self-supporting and quasi-frictionless after a threshold RPM is reached. Before the whole setup is spinning fast enough for hydrodynamic effects to take over, it's going to grind against the chip die, and unless they came up with something good, it's going to destroy it on startup...
You can crack a pattern lock by looking at the glass and noting the path the finger travels across the grid. For a PIN, you have 4-8 or more distinct points on the screen, with no indication of the order. That means you're looking at at least 24 (4!) different combinations, and most phone OS-es lock out after 3-5, for increasing periods. So it frustrates cracking attempts more than a pattern unlock.
Unless they manage to squeeze in a high-resolution thermal imager too, to verify that the face is indeed living (and maybe map out the veins, but that would require a rather sensitive imager), no face-unlock will be 100% secure. Bit higher on the scale than a slider or a pattern unlock, but waaaay lower than a PIN/password lock.
I'm not saying that!
What I'm saying is that since terrorists don't count as combatants, they are not subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention, and therefore, soldiers have who encounter one have no obligation whatsoever to spare his life, like they do with regular enemy combatants. Even civil uprisings and irregular combatants are afforded more protection given that they fulfill the required criteria (relaxed version of the regular combatants' criteria).
Ideally, there's no time for the enemy to become paranoid. Should everything go according to plan, and should the plan survive first encounter, a war like this would be a literal "They don't even know what hit 'em", and should be over in less than a week with an unconditional surrender.
I'd say that cyberwarfare is a sort of 'supplementary warfare', designed to shorten a war and lessen casualties by causing enough confusion and chaos that the enemy can't mount an effective defense and is forced to surrender.
If you are able to spread a virus that attacks critical infrastructure like the electric grid, water supply, hospitals, etc., you can unbalance the civilian population, which means fewer resources can be devoted to a military response -- it's a lot harder to maintain an army when your own population is starving, in the dark, or cannot receive medical treatment. I wouldn't say it's as "supplementary" as nuclear weapons. Sure, you might not let one off the chain everytime there's a problem, but having the capability constrains the number of options the enemy has.
That's exactly what I meant by supplementary: it doesn't (usually) kill on its own, it just weakens the enemy force, hopefully enough to force a surrender.
That's a rather good analogy, but with a significant flaw: states know the size of other armies almost exactly...
It wasn't always that way. It's not like satellites have been around since war was invented. Just because the technology and methodology has changed doesn't mean that principles behind control of terrain, force multipliers, offense versus defense, etc., are any less valid.
True, war was not always an almost-fully informed game. However, while some of the tactics and strategies discussed by Sun Tzu are still valid, most have been superseded: terrain is no longer a constraint when you can air-lift your troops into position and conduct air strikes and bombardment over strategic ranges, the traditional maxim of "Defenders are at advantage" of castles no longer stands when a single attack fighter carries enough firepower to reduce any medieval castle to rubble, just as knight were supplanted by crossbows and firearms, cavalry was supplanted by armor and small infantry squads shadowing the armor. Soon, even airspace may become irrelevant as nations will drop troops and supplies from orbit, completely bypassing enemy defenses.
Technology changes more than just the methods used to wage war, a new tool in the arsenal changes the very priorities and doctrine used, it can change everything about warfare.
That's not the point of cyberwarfare. When done correctly, you attack with conventional forces while their systems lock up and crumble, and strike into the chaos for a quick win.
And I need to re-read my Art of War if I attributed that to Sun Tzu...
Although I'm sure he said something to the same effect too.