That vulnerability 'basically allowed you to take over the account of one individual,' he said.... However, the attack described by the FBI would be extremely hard to pull off, Todd said.
Oh it's difficult! (^_^) Good, then it probably wont be exploited.
It is possible to talk on a cellphone and pay attention to the road.
Unfortunately, the evidence of this article, the Mythbusters show, and other studies, claim that the attention of normal human beings is greatly impaired.
Perhaps yours is not. Perhaps mine is not. Perhaps we're not normal. =P
How ironic to think that perhaps (just perhaps) a game developer, or movie director, who isn't at all racist, wasn't at even thinking about race, may have created something based in a certain country. And in that country they just saw people as "people".
And then, the players of a game, or viewers of a movie turn out to actually place more of a distinction on "races" than the developer. They see the skin color, or different shaped eyes, and it becomes an issue to "them" where it wasn't to the creators. They start screaming "racist" and "bigot", when in fact they scream it at people more innocent then them.
Perhaps things like this are rare, but I've seen similar things in my own life. People who I know aren't even thinking about distinctions between so called "races" getting yelled at by people who are.
Racism in any form should not be tolerated. But we should be sure that there's a blanket, derogatory emphasis placed on someone simply because of their group, and not the content of their personal character.
It's always the debate between personal liberty and overall safety. Personal liberty to be responsible and say, "hold on a sec, I'm merging", and overall safety to not get hit by the idiot who doesn't say that.
In my opinion, the "idiot on phone in car" -to- "responsible person on phone in car" ratio has too many on the "idiot" side at the moment. So, I'd rather give up my personal liberty in this case.
And I'll feel better knowing there's less of a chance that my child will get smacked into, maimed or killed by an idiot on a phone. (After all, half of the people involved in accidents are actually driving correctly.)
Hopefully in the future, there will be less idiots on phones in cars or more safety features so we can allow using them in cars. But too many people simply can't handle talking on the phone while driving right now.
Centuries ago, when many were illiterate, forms of accurate measurement were closely guarded trade secrets. Now the information is so widespread, it seems silly that people once guarded it.
Everyday tasks on the computer will eventually be in the same boat. "What?!? People used to pay for word processors?!? To listen to music?!? To watch movies?!?"
How many people reading here can easily program and reproduce the game "Pong"? I'm sure Atari guarded that knowledge back in 1972.
Literacy and the printing press was the first innovation making technology reproducible quicker. The internet is doing the same thing now. My guess is when cheap 3d printers can reproduce electronics instead of just plastic figures, we'll see the next jump.
Of course! 1969 is the first time Arnold entered the Mr. Olympia competition! But he didn't win.
You see, Skynet has the power to go back in time. So it sent a terminator back to 1969 to do some work on the orbiting satellites and give sentience to them before they achieved sentience naturally.
By the following year (1970) the satellites were ready to intervene in the competition and he won. Hence giving him the extra fame he needed to launch his acting career, and announce to the world Skynet's true intentions.
If you're communicating about war a lot, chances are every other email has a word or 2 that may reference weapons, tactics, troop movements, etc., even if it's not explicitly stated. This is not the kind of information you want people pouring over to try and figure out, since any time dots are put together, military and political enemies will better know what to expect and how to counter.
But you still want to be free to talk about current situations. I'm guessing not all staff wrote their emails with the thought that someone other than the recipient would read them.
On July 30th, 2007 (10 years after Skynet became aware), CrunchGear runs an article about MojoPac, a program that "Puts Your Desktop On A USB Drive". The very type of interface the DoD now sees as a threat. In the article they state that when you use MojoPac, "...the host computer is oblivious to anything going on."
Foxnews reported the DoD attack on November 20th, 2008. On the same day, the music news magazine, named "Mojo" (following suit with the "MojoPac" software name), ran a snippet saying, "Gun's and Roses are currently previewing all the tracks from Chinese Democracy via their MySpace page." MySpace is an obvious front for Skynet to keep tabs on the younger generations that may pose a threat in the future.
However, the Mojo article about "Chinese Democracy" was Skynet's way of mocking us in an ironic way that only Skynet finds funny. You see, Arnold Schwarzenegger visited China meeting with "700 Special Olympics athletes... to focus world attention on the Special Olympics World Summer Games... held in Shanghai in 2007." Here we see 2007 again, representing the 10 year anniversary of Skynet's sentience, along with Arnold, the celebrity that announced it's existance.
I like to work, because I get what I want from it.
Psychologists have found that we are at our happiest when working on something that is at our correct level of challenge (not overwhelming or tedious). Actually, video games are this theory in practice.
Most people today distinguish work and play, but they are truly the same thing. The only difference is usually that someone has told you to do "work" and you have chosen to do your hobby (or "play") yourself.
But a Marxist says that I should work even though I will get nothing. That's a self-loathing, life hating approach to life.
Most people we consider "geniuses" worked on things because they found it interesting. They often also used it to make a living. But once their basic needs were met, their goal was to continue the work that interested them. It's not self loathing. It's often self love and love to improve yourself and things.
It claims that my desire for material things is bad, and I should pretend not to want them. But I want what I want and there's not anything wrong with that. Even if it was bad, I'd rather be the bad person I am than pretend to be a good person I am not.
No, it's not "bad". But psychology has shown, time and time again, that once your needs are met, you will be happier if you are working on things that develop you or are part of a cause you believe in. It brings people a satisfied life, where they are happy with themselves and generally happy overall. If you work for material things, you get spikes of happiness followed by low plains of being unsatisfied, bored, frustrated because you want something else, etc.
The fact that the aliens would need to be next to or in our solar system for any signal to be anything other than white noise, and that this is the type of signal SETI is looking for, blows me away.
SETI is an extremely poor allocation of resources and taxpayer money.
You are obviously smart, but for whatever reason you're defending an incorrect hypothesis. You might want to look at: Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas
Unless you're saying you don't get side-stream from people smoking in open air... Then yes you're right, unless you're close to the cigarette.
But if you are in any type of room, it is very easy for someone in this field to determine with reasonable accuracy, how much circulating air the room gets per hour, how the smoke disperses over the entire room (gas does this fairly easily), and thus determine how much smoke one person is breathing in the opposite corner of the room of a smoker.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that smoking in closed spaces (restaurants etc) should be banned (unless you have separated smoking areas).
Air conditioners, for example, cause a high turnover rate of air. You're constantly getting new air. Still, gas spreads quickly, and even with air conditioners, air filtration, etc, a sizable amount of smoke is dispersed throughout a large room if a few people are smoking. The people on the other side of the room are breathing a harmful amount.
Smoking areas do little to nothing in reality. We're dealing with gas here. People believe the notion that a small wall or divider is going to stop gas because they see a visible divider. Tell that to an army chemical weapons department! =P
If they wanted that information protected they wouldn't have given it to a 3rd party in the first place.
In order to live in a society, it is necessary to give your information to 3rd party businesses. (ie: Credit cards, cell phones, your address so furniture can be shipped, etc.)
The government writes and enforces the laws that give power to said contracts...and unless you have spent the last 8 years under a rock everyone should know how meaningless that is these days when the government demands that information. Government demanding that information also includes judges forcing them to reveal it to other 3rd parties (Viacom vs Google anyone?).
The government has the ability to govern. This includes a balance of liberties of both personal and what is good for the public. (ie: The personal freedom to kill and steal is inhibited for the good of society.) Our freedom to give out other people's information is also curbed because it can infringe on their freedom to live a peaceful, safe life.
The government has various powers. The judicial has the ability to obtain and use certain information in court cases if they deem there is just cause (ie: Viacom vs Google). Viacom does not have the right to use that information outside of court.
The way our government is designed, there are checks and balances. The judicial branch has to enforce the laws the legislative makes. If the legislative makes a law saying the courts cannot get our information this way, they have to abide by it. We are the ones that elect the legislative branch. If there is a big enough push from the public to change this law, we have the power to raise awareness and elect lawmakers who coincide with our views.
It is a slow process, but it was designed so that each branch has powers with checks and balances that ultimately lead to the us, the public to change what we don't like.
I have not read Google's privacy policy, and chances are that it is worded to actually allow for slip-ups like this. In that case, we are the ones that agreed to it (whether we read it or not) and are ultimately responsible for how our information is disseminated. If it is not included in the privacy policy, Google broke the law. A law that the judicial branch enforces, that the legislative branch makes, and that we are responsible for, because we elect the legislative branch.
If you'd like to change the law to allow names to not be considered personal information, or if you'd like to change how personal information can be used, please raise awareness, write to congressmen, and try to get congressmen elected that agree with you.
But complaining about how people react when laws are broken and asking them to be quiet about it will only create a more lax society, and allow more cases of government officials using & abusing power because it goes uncontested. I don't believe this is your intention.
You're right that this probably won't have huge consequences.
Course, maybe there is something here I am ignoring.
In all of the examples you gave, you are intentionally giving your information to an individual or group by your choice. You can be the judge of the respectability of who you give it to. You are in control of who gets the information. If they add fine print to something you sign but don't read, that's your fault. If they turn around and allow access to your information to someone else without your consent (which is what happened here), that's theirs. Their action taken without your consent has the possibility to cause you harm.
We are ultimately in charge of who gets our information. No one else has that right. Namely because, stupid dissemination of seemingly insignificant information can and has caused harm.
According to this article posted by Slashdot "Scientists Surprised to Find Earth's Biosphere Booming ", they actually are "appearing", if you mean "flourishing", "reproducing", etc.
Note that:
"...over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%"
&
"Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, fertilizing the biota and resulting in the increased green side effect."
Slashdot Mirror
That vulnerability 'basically allowed you to take over the account of one individual,' he said. ... However, the attack described by the FBI would be extremely hard to pull off , Todd said.
Oh it's difficult! (^_^) Good, then it probably wont be exploited.
Oh...
The recent attacks were conducted by hackers exploiting a security vulnerability in Asterisk software.
There's a very small jump from a working version of this to transmitting words from one brain to another, or at least an earpiece.
Put that in a grant application.
I'd imagine a number of places (DARPA for example) would certainly be interested in seeing how this research progressed.
It is possible to talk on a cellphone and pay attention to the road.
Unfortunately, the evidence of this article, the Mythbusters show, and other studies, claim that the attention of normal human beings is greatly impaired.
Perhaps yours is not. Perhaps mine is not. Perhaps we're not normal. =P
How ironic to think that perhaps (just perhaps) a game developer, or movie director, who isn't at all racist, wasn't at even thinking about race, may have created something based in a certain country. And in that country they just saw people as "people".
And then, the players of a game, or viewers of a movie turn out to actually place more of a distinction on "races" than the developer. They see the skin color, or different shaped eyes, and it becomes an issue to "them" where it wasn't to the creators. They start screaming "racist" and "bigot", when in fact they scream it at people more innocent then them.
Perhaps things like this are rare, but I've seen similar things in my own life. People who I know aren't even thinking about distinctions between so called "races" getting yelled at by people who are.
Racism in any form should not be tolerated. But we should be sure that there's a blanket, derogatory emphasis placed on someone simply because of their group, and not the content of their personal character.
I agree. But...
It's always the debate between personal liberty and overall safety. Personal liberty to be responsible and say, "hold on a sec, I'm merging", and overall safety to not get hit by the idiot who doesn't say that.
In my opinion, the "idiot on phone in car" -to- "responsible person on phone in car" ratio has too many on the "idiot" side at the moment. So, I'd rather give up my personal liberty in this case.
And I'll feel better knowing there's less of a chance that my child will get smacked into, maimed or killed by an idiot on a phone. (After all, half of the people involved in accidents are actually driving correctly.)
Hopefully in the future, there will be less idiots on phones in cars or more safety features so we can allow using them in cars. But too many people simply can't handle talking on the phone while driving right now.
Everyday tasks on the computer will eventually be in the same boat. "What?!? People used to pay for word processors?!? To listen to music?!? To watch movies?!?"
How many people reading here can easily program and reproduce the game "Pong"? I'm sure Atari guarded that knowledge back in 1972.
Literacy and the printing press was the first innovation making technology reproducible quicker. The internet is doing the same thing now. My guess is when cheap 3d printers can reproduce electronics instead of just plastic figures, we'll see the next jump.
Of course! 1969 is the first time Arnold entered the Mr. Olympia competition! But he didn't win.
You see, Skynet has the power to go back in time. So it sent a terminator back to 1969 to do some work on the orbiting satellites and give sentience to them before they achieved sentience naturally.
By the following year (1970) the satellites were ready to intervene in the competition and he won. Hence giving him the extra fame he needed to launch his acting career, and announce to the world Skynet's true intentions.
If you're communicating about war a lot, chances are every other email has a word or 2 that may reference weapons, tactics, troop movements, etc., even if it's not explicitly stated. This is not the kind of information you want people pouring over to try and figure out, since any time dots are put together, military and political enemies will better know what to expect and how to counter.
But you still want to be free to talk about current situations. I'm guessing not all staff wrote their emails with the thought that someone other than the recipient would read them.
The pieces are finally starting to come together...
It's all so clear now.
...the first conviction under a new Canadian law making recoding a movie in a theater a crime.
Damn. Guess I can't use Nero Recode in the theaters anymore. I'll have to go all the way home to start compressing the video I took. What a pain...
I like to work, because I get what I want from it.
Psychologists have found that we are at our happiest when working on something that is at our correct level of challenge (not overwhelming or tedious). Actually, video games are this theory in practice.
Most people today distinguish work and play, but they are truly the same thing. The only difference is usually that someone has told you to do "work" and you have chosen to do your hobby (or "play") yourself.
But a Marxist says that I should work even though I will get nothing. That's a self-loathing, life hating approach to life.
Most people we consider "geniuses" worked on things because they found it interesting. They often also used it to make a living. But once their basic needs were met, their goal was to continue the work that interested them. It's not self loathing. It's often self love and love to improve yourself and things.
It claims that my desire for material things is bad, and I should pretend not to want them. But I want what I want and there's not anything wrong with that. Even if it was bad, I'd rather be the bad person I am than pretend to be a good person I am not.
No, it's not "bad". But psychology has shown, time and time again, that once your needs are met, you will be happier if you are working on things that develop you or are part of a cause you believe in. It brings people a satisfied life, where they are happy with themselves and generally happy overall. If you work for material things, you get spikes of happiness followed by low plains of being unsatisfied, bored, frustrated because you want something else, etc.
The fact that the aliens would need to be next to or in our solar system for any signal to be anything other than white noise, and that this is the type of signal SETI is looking for, blows me away.
SETI is an extremely poor allocation of resources and taxpayer money.
I think statistical fluke in their data is most likely reason for their conclusion.
No, they're not looking at data.
That's the reason for their conclusion =/
You are obviously smart, but for whatever reason you're defending an incorrect hypothesis. You might want to look at: Why Smart People Defend Bad Ideas
Unless you're saying you don't get side-stream from people smoking in open air... Then yes you're right, unless you're close to the cigarette.
But if you are in any type of room, it is very easy for someone in this field to determine with reasonable accuracy, how much circulating air the room gets per hour, how the smoke disperses over the entire room (gas does this fairly easily), and thus determine how much smoke one person is breathing in the opposite corner of the room of a smoker.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that smoking in closed spaces (restaurants etc) should be banned (unless you have separated smoking areas).
Air conditioners, for example, cause a high turnover rate of air. You're constantly getting new air. Still, gas spreads quickly, and even with air conditioners, air filtration, etc, a sizable amount of smoke is dispersed throughout a large room if a few people are smoking. The people on the other side of the room are breathing a harmful amount.
Smoking areas do little to nothing in reality. We're dealing with gas here. People believe the notion that a small wall or divider is going to stop gas because they see a visible divider. Tell that to an army chemical weapons department! =P
If they wanted that information protected they wouldn't have given it to a 3rd party in the first place.
In order to live in a society, it is necessary to give your information to 3rd party businesses. (ie: Credit cards, cell phones, your address so furniture can be shipped, etc.)
The government writes and enforces the laws that give power to said contracts...and unless you have spent the last 8 years under a rock everyone should know how meaningless that is these days when the government demands that information. Government demanding that information also includes judges forcing them to reveal it to other 3rd parties (Viacom vs Google anyone?).
The government has the ability to govern. This includes a balance of liberties of both personal and what is good for the public. (ie: The personal freedom to kill and steal is inhibited for the good of society.) Our freedom to give out other people's information is also curbed because it can infringe on their freedom to live a peaceful, safe life.
The government has various powers. The judicial has the ability to obtain and use certain information in court cases if they deem there is just cause (ie: Viacom vs Google). Viacom does not have the right to use that information outside of court.
The way our government is designed, there are checks and balances. The judicial branch has to enforce the laws the legislative makes. If the legislative makes a law saying the courts cannot get our information this way, they have to abide by it. We are the ones that elect the legislative branch. If there is a big enough push from the public to change this law, we have the power to raise awareness and elect lawmakers who coincide with our views.
It is a slow process, but it was designed so that each branch has powers with checks and balances that ultimately lead to the us, the public to change what we don't like.
I have not read Google's privacy policy, and chances are that it is worded to actually allow for slip-ups like this. In that case, we are the ones that agreed to it (whether we read it or not) and are ultimately responsible for how our information is disseminated. If it is not included in the privacy policy, Google broke the law. A law that the judicial branch enforces, that the legislative branch makes, and that we are responsible for, because we elect the legislative branch.
If you'd like to change the law to allow names to not be considered personal information, or if you'd like to change how personal information can be used, please raise awareness, write to congressmen, and try to get congressmen elected that agree with you.
But complaining about how people react when laws are broken and asking them to be quiet about it will only create a more lax society, and allow more cases of government officials using & abusing power because it goes uncontested. I don't believe this is your intention.
Course, maybe there is something here I am ignoring.
In all of the examples you gave, you are intentionally giving your information to an individual or group by your choice. You can be the judge of the respectability of who you give it to. You are in control of who gets the information. If they add fine print to something you sign but don't read, that's your fault. If they turn around and allow access to your information to someone else without your consent (which is what happened here), that's theirs. Their action taken without your consent has the possibility to cause you harm.
We are ultimately in charge of who gets our information. No one else has that right. Namely because, stupid dissemination of seemingly insignificant information can and has caused harm.
But plants don't just "appear".
According to this article posted by Slashdot "Scientists Surprised to Find Earth's Biosphere Booming ", they actually are "appearing", if you mean "flourishing", "reproducing", etc. Note that: "...over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%" & "Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, fertilizing the biota and resulting in the increased green side effect."