(translation of the other explanation) You can't write a program which can catch all the bugs in another program with perfect accuracy. A lot of programmers believe this means they can never be replaced by a machine but never stop to think that they themselves are subject to the exact same rules.
Given your low userid I'm going to assume you're familiar with the old slashdot spam checklist. run down through that list and check all that apply since it's a closely related problem.
The botnets can communicate any way you can so any system which restricts or filters how they can communicate also restricts how you or any users can communicate. Any inspection of traffic has to inspect your communications too... which is of course open to blatant abuse.
Imagine if doctors had said, "we can't force medical treatment on people against their will"
I'm thinking of some cases where people have been required to provide data that's only in their heads like passwords.
You have the right to avoid self-incrimination. You apparently do not have the right to not provide data stored on some media you own to the police when ordered to by a court. With a moderate amount of slippery slopiness and easy technology the brain could start to be considered just another data storage device.
Thing is (away from anything about this being government mandated or not etc) that putting an AV on every machine won't achieve much of anything at all.
The malware industry is organised and capable. The kids who used to write viruses that made your mouse pointer into a penis and played sex noises over the speakers have grown up. Now they're professionals who aren't going to do anything unless there's cash in it for them.
0-day exploits can be sold for fairly large sums of money. Botnet herders have embraced outsourcing. They employ coders who are often just as capable as anyone working for the AV companies.
If anything a mandated AV system would be worse since then they have one standardised target to attack. (The more capable botnets also act as AV systems to clean their competitors off the machines they infect, gotta cut out the competition after all)
If you want a virus free internet you need to require everything be coded in the style of qmail which has it's own massive downsides(reduced functionality, increased dev time,massively increased cost, etc etc).
malware is here to stay. Writing laws that say everyone has to have a copy of norton on their machine won't do much of anything to help.
I'm more worried that once we get that kind of tech there will be no legal safeguards to protect people from being read against their will.
"the defendant clearly dreamed about stabbing the victim while in police custody"
Or even worse: you make a recording of your dreams and they break laws like possession of obscene material- I can imagine someone being prosecuted for possession obscene material in the form of recordings of thier own memories or dreams.
Or to go even creepier: If the brain starts being considered just another data storage device might they start issuing warrants for information stored on it? Could your memories of your girlfriend when you were in highschool get you charged for possessing "child porn" on the storage medium that is your brain?
There's a lot of horribly possibilities and I'd like to see legal safeguards being put in place long before we start to really really need them.
Police won't be so bothered if we forbid them to read peoples minds against their will now than 50 years down the line when it's helping their conviction rate.
I honestly believe there's plenty of things the government is better suited for(less incompetent at) than private enterprise.
and no evidence of general competence
Individuals can prove reasonably general competence. Organisations I'm less trusting of.
In what way is the government 'not handling the Internet?'
I don't think anyone can without destroying elements of the net I like. I prefer the current internet even with the botnets, the trolls, the scammers, the spammers etc over what it's being turned into by governments in countries who try to take control of the net with results very similar to what you get when a fat man tries to control an ant colony with a sledgehammer.
To police the internet they have to understand it enough to control it. If it is allowed to constantly change and develop with new layers of abstraction and technology as it has for the last few decades then it becomes harder or even impossible to understand enough to control. I fully expect one of the early steps to policing the internet to be attempts at outlawing or regulating(outlawing) darknets and other layers of abstraction which are hard to police or control.
Lets say you create an original and creative work.
I make a program which parses it and uses it to create a new work. Is this a derivative work? what if I use as input all your creative work in aggregate and not just one piece? has the programmer done anything creating the tool making it's output his or does it all belong to the creator of the inputs?
do you have any rights to the output of the mathematical function that is my program?
Now a few years ago I would have just read the word "AI" and sort of mentally fitted a "magic creative box" labeled over it and accepted that the products of an AI could be.. well intelligent. Now I wonder more about the nature of creativity, design, strategy, etc....
We like to assume that machines are nothing more than math engines but we also like to assume that we ourselves are not subject to the same rules.
I remember trying to explain to someone who had recently learned about the halting problem that we ourselves are just as subject to its implications as any perl script.
But you won't accept any evidence that the government is not incompetent.
You're making up conversations in your head.
I only dismissed the retarded and persistent myth that the US government built the internet.
Running the Internet is not the same as helping create it.Or putting a man on the moon. Or running the world's largest armed services. Or the planet's largest road network.
Absolutely true. Those are very different tasks.
None of those things are any evidence of competence to you.
Being able to run a military is evidence of reasonable competence at running a military. Being able to build a lot of roads is evidence that the road building department is competent at building roads.
So, I think we can reduce your argument to "Everyone I don't like is incompetent and nothing will change my mind." Well, I don't think you are competent to judge, you've shown yourself to be someone who makes judgments a priori and refuses to accept evidence counter to your beliefs.
huh. about 90% of this conversation seems to have taken place only in your head. Either provide a transcript or seek psychiatric help.
Seems like a bit of an over complex solution when you could High volume+ effeceint: 1: encrypt the drive. 2: encrypt the drive with some deniable style system like truecrypt.
lower volume high secrecy: 3: carry around a USB key full of your holiday snaps.... and hide an encrypted drive in the least significant bits of the photos.
Challenge : List 10 actions other than sitting at home alone very quietly with your hands on the table that could not in some way theoretically impact someone else or their property or their enjoyments of their sensory input in some way shape or form.
if that approach is followed then it gives you the right to complete control of every single aspect of my life, bar none.
All because you are too much of a pussy to deal with having something you don't find athsteticly pleasing where you can see it.
And how often do HOA boards prosecute themselves? Theory and application. Know the difference.
Just because it negatively effects your property value doesn't mean it will stop. In that situation the cause of the problem is the structure built to try to prevent a vaguely similar problem.
You start with trying for balance. 10 years later a few control freaks have things tied up and they have no goals in life other than ensuring that everyone in the area keeps their lawns between 2.3 and 2.45 inches high because "THAT'S THE WAY WE DO THINGS!!!".
Since they HOA isn't going to outlaw the HOA there is nothing to keep any kind of balance and as such you end up at the far end of the stupidly controling scale.
You can be sure that every member of the HOA board is convinced, utterly convinced that they're just holding the line, keeping the balance, preventing the advance of chaos in the form of people with mail boxes which are the wrong color rather than going off the deep end of the control freak scale.
Then list 10 thing which wouldn't be covered by your real philosophy assuming it's being enforced by a dickhead who is also an utter control freak. (ie an average HOA board member)
Slashdot Mirror
(translation of the other explanation)
You can't write a program which can catch all the bugs in another program with perfect accuracy.
A lot of programmers believe this means they can never be replaced by a machine but never stop to think that they themselves are subject to the exact same rules.
Given your low userid I'm going to assume you're familiar with the old slashdot spam checklist.
run down through that list and check all that apply since it's a closely related problem.
The botnets can communicate any way you can so any system which restricts or filters how they can communicate also restricts how you or any users can communicate. ... which is of course open to blatant abuse.
Any inspection of traffic has to inspect your communications too
Imagine if doctors had said, "we can't force medical treatment on people against their will"
I'm thinking of some cases where people have been required to provide data that's only in their heads like passwords.
You have the right to avoid self-incrimination.
You apparently do not have the right to not provide data stored on some media you own to the police when ordered to by a court.
With a moderate amount of slippery slopiness and easy technology the brain could start to be considered just another data storage device.
Why lobby their local council to exile me of course.
It's the "democratic" way.
Thing is (away from anything about this being government mandated or not etc) that putting an AV on every machine won't achieve much of anything at all.
Even the best AV programs have an estimated 20% hit rate(not miss rate):
http://webtorque.org/wp-content/uploads/malware_biz.pdf
The malware industry is organised and capable.
The kids who used to write viruses that made your mouse pointer into a penis and played sex noises over the speakers have grown up.
Now they're professionals who aren't going to do anything unless there's cash in it for them.
0-day exploits can be sold for fairly large sums of money.
Botnet herders have embraced outsourcing.
They employ coders who are often just as capable as anyone working for the AV companies.
If anything a mandated AV system would be worse since then they have one standardised target to attack.
(The more capable botnets also act as AV systems to clean their competitors off the machines they infect, gotta cut out the competition after all)
If you want a virus free internet you need to require everything be coded in the style of qmail which has it's own massive downsides(reduced functionality, increased dev time,massively increased cost, etc etc).
malware is here to stay.
Writing laws that say everyone has to have a copy of norton on their machine won't do much of anything to help.
I'm more worried that once we get that kind of tech there will be no legal safeguards to protect people from being read against their will.
"the defendant clearly dreamed about stabbing the victim while in police custody"
Or even worse: you make a recording of your dreams and they break laws like possession of obscene material-
I can imagine someone being prosecuted for possession obscene material in the form of recordings of thier own memories or dreams.
Or to go even creepier:
If the brain starts being considered just another data storage device might they start issuing warrants for information stored on it?
Could your memories of your girlfriend when you were in highschool get you charged for possessing "child porn" on the storage medium that is your brain?
There's a lot of horribly possibilities and I'd like to see legal safeguards being put in place long before we start to really really need them.
Police won't be so bothered if we forbid them to read peoples minds against their will now than 50 years down the line when it's helping their conviction rate.
It's called being a cynic.
I honestly believe there's plenty of things the government is better suited for(less incompetent at) than private enterprise.
and no evidence of general competence
Individuals can prove reasonably general competence.
Organisations I'm less trusting of.
In what way is the government 'not handling the Internet?'
I don't think anyone can without destroying elements of the net I like.
I prefer the current internet even with the botnets, the trolls, the scammers, the spammers etc over what it's being turned into by governments in countries who try to take control of the net with results very similar to what you get when a fat man tries to control an ant colony with a sledgehammer.
To police the internet they have to understand it enough to control it.
If it is allowed to constantly change and develop with new layers of abstraction and technology as it has for the last few decades then it becomes harder or even impossible to understand enough to control.
I fully expect one of the early steps to policing the internet to be attempts at outlawing or regulating(outlawing) darknets and other layers of abstraction which are hard to police or control.
You say it like that scenario is a bad thing.
I'll take a world with a million script kiddies and 10,000 top class coders over a world with no script kiddies and only 1000 top class coders.
To qualify my above statement:
"Ninety percent of everything is crud"-Theodore Sturgeon
An interesting little question:
Lets say you create an original and creative work.
I make a program which parses it and uses it to create a new work.
Is this a derivative work?
what if I use as input all your creative work in aggregate and not just one piece?
has the programmer done anything creating the tool making it's output his or does it all belong to the creator of the inputs?
do you have any rights to the output of the mathematical function that is my program?
Now a few years ago I would have just read the word "AI" and sort of mentally fitted a "magic creative box" labeled over it and accepted that the products of an AI could be .. well intelligent.
Now I wonder more about the nature of creativity, design, strategy, etc....
We like to assume that machines are nothing more than math engines but we also like to assume that we ourselves are not subject to the same rules.
I remember trying to explain to someone who had recently learned about the halting problem that we ourselves are just as subject to its implications as any perl script.
Ok I've gone into random musing here...
There's no money there and clinical trials conducted in Somalia don't cut it for marketing a drug in the US.
Nice straw man though.
so do 90% of "journalists".
actually it's
"No-one will be issued Press Passes except the people like me who have already been issued press passes"
Ah so lets limit it to an elite and their friends.
Not friends with the right person?
Not born into the right family?
Sucks to be you!
But you won't accept any evidence that the government is not incompetent.
You're making up conversations in your head.
I only dismissed the retarded and persistent myth that the US government built the internet.
Running the Internet is not the same as helping create it.Or putting a man on the moon. Or running the world's largest armed services. Or the planet's largest road network.
Absolutely true.
Those are very different tasks.
None of those things are any evidence of competence to you.
Being able to run a military is evidence of reasonable competence at running a military.
Being able to build a lot of roads is evidence that the road building department is competent at building roads.
So, I think we can reduce your argument to "Everyone I don't like is incompetent and nothing will change my mind." Well, I don't think you are competent to judge, you've shown yourself to be someone who makes judgments a priori and refuses to accept evidence counter to your beliefs.
huh.
about 90% of this conversation seems to have taken place only in your head.
Either provide a transcript or seek psychiatric help.
Seems like a bit of an over complex solution when you could
High volume+ effeceint:
1:
encrypt the drive.
2:
encrypt the drive with some deniable style system like truecrypt.
lower volume high secrecy:
3:
carry around a USB key full of your holiday snaps.... and hide an encrypted drive in the least significant bits of the photos.
Challenge :
List 10 actions other than sitting at home alone very quietly with your hands on the table that could not in some way theoretically impact someone else or their property or their enjoyments of their sensory input in some way shape or form.
if that approach is followed then it gives you the right to complete control of every single aspect of my life, bar none.
All because you are too much of a pussy to deal with having something you don't find athsteticly pleasing where you can see it.
You have no "right" to high property values.
All organisations are incompetent until proven otherwise.
It's not limited to governments.
Feel free.
Of course you're making a significant investment and there's always the chance that I'll do my damnedest to depress your property value right back.
I can afford to wait.
You meanwhile are sitting on 2 houses which are worth less than what you paid for them.
I might just wait for the bank to foreclose on you and follow your plan myself.
And how often do HOA boards prosecute themselves?
Theory and application.
Know the difference.
Just because it negatively effects your property value doesn't mean it will stop.
In that situation the cause of the problem is the structure built to try to prevent a vaguely similar problem.
You start with trying for balance.
10 years later a few control freaks have things tied up and they have no goals in life other than ensuring that everyone in the area keeps their lawns between 2.3 and 2.45 inches high because "THAT'S THE WAY WE DO THINGS!!!".
Since they HOA isn't going to outlaw the HOA there is nothing to keep any kind of balance and as such you end up at the far end of the stupidly controling scale.
You can be sure that every member of the HOA board is convinced, utterly convinced that they're just holding the line, keeping the balance, preventing the advance of chaos in the form of people with mail boxes which are the wrong color rather than going off the deep end of the control freak scale.
In the interest of keeping property values high she will be legally required to get cosmetic surgery until she no longer makes you shudder.
I stand corrected.:D
For more than 10 years I've told people that humans are not 100% proof, and should never be trusted when lives are at stake.
They can have seizures, heart attack, faint or even have mental breakdowns.
But are they listening?
Then list 10 thing which wouldn't be covered by your real philosophy assuming it's being enforced by a dickhead who is also an utter control freak. (ie an average HOA board member)
This needs more insightful mods.
It's just about dead on.