Actually, introverts would probably be "stronger" than extroverts, for the reason that they have more experience with their own minds and would be better at thought-control and reading their own internal state/"being in themselves". Also, yay for "normal" people being exposed to the mind of someone with Autism or Asperger. Or, horrifyingly, psychopathy.
Actually, true mind sharing in GITS is probably only happening during "Ghost Hacking", which is presumably why so few people are able to do it. Think the scene with Motoko and the Laughing Man in the medical clinic in SAC. What's more used is "External Memory", which together with replaceable cyborg bodies can make people lose their identity (but not their selves, their ghosts/souls), which is illustrated by the fact that Motoko who is shown to use remote-control bodies and presumably has a huge external memory/net-data-as-memory always wears that watch on her real body as a reminder.
Actually, the argument more rests on the fact that people will write quality attack software anyway, so there's really no reason not to. And "defense software" is a misnomer, since the idea is to not have any flaws that you have to cover up with software in the first place. If you think about it, the concept of a "stack overflow attack" is really retarded, not to mention things like ARP spoofing. You make the system inherently secure. The current phenomenal cosmic powers of people who knows these "secrets" rests upon basic design flaws that mostly aren't inherent to the concept and purpose of the technology itself.
Anonymous is more like a Far Plane aberration, if you interpret their morality as a group and not just as a large number of people doing their own thing and cooperating or anonymously with each other randomly as their interests or whims align. Kind of like the "Wild Hunt"
The problem is that a corporation is more like an anthill, but the individual ants are people, who do have personhood. Which can be a problem, because blame and praise goes to the group instead of the people actually responsible/guilty.
In one of the mails published, I don't remember which one, someone wrote something to the effect of "his arrogance is getting the best of him again, and we all know how that turned out". I wonder what incident that was referring to? Elsewhere, it seems like he was aware he was really hot-headed and impulsive though. Maybe he has some actual issues, and isn't just a "generic asshole"?
Per definition it's impossible to "properly fix" computer security flaws (in the sense of eliminating them, rather than "whoops, we'll disable that service/firewall that port/switch to this or that scheme") unless you are fully aware of them in a technical sense, and if you are thus, you can exploit them. It doesn't matter if you do or don't, you can. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but this principle seems to hold up to general inspection.
Greg Hoglund would be the rootkit author, and he is a public leading expert on rootkits, no doubts about it. I guess there could be some insane autistic manchild in a Russian basement sniggering at his competence level, but the "computer security research elite/conference cashcows" (which most of the Slashdot crowd seemingly hasn't ever heard about) seems to in general be very competent at what they do. Google his name and read some papers and code if you're interested. He's also written a book on rootkit design that seemed solid; I haven't read it though.
That doesn't qualify as "skilled", not in my eyes at least, and I don't consider myself "skilled". Admittedly, maybe I restrict my definition of hacking ability to technical ability in reversing, exploit writing and general sophistication; but just contacting the admin and fooling him into resetting a password and then grabbing the mail spool and deleting some files I assume is within the ability of 3/4 of everyone here on Slashdot. It isn't rocket science.
On the other hand, it's the results that matter, it's obviously not a skateboard trick contest or some such.
That's really stupid. The reason corporations shouldn't have "people rights" is because treating them as people is a dysfunctional approximation. No matter the context.
I assume it stands for (Greg) Hoglund (something or someone with an initial "B") Gary. This is the third time I would post the same tirade, just google for "Greg Hoglund".
It isn't political correctness per se, it's just that it's the thing keeping their mind off the harsh realities of the world. Of course, people who do face these "harsh realities" seems to often have other mental or emotional flaws.
Intuitively, because creating strong social groups in connection to government in my mind seems like a form of corruption. And you could ask why you should sacrifice the (structural) unity of mankind for the uniqueness of national and tribal characters. Again, I suspect that I somehow lack the ability to intuitively understand "social dynamics" on an emotional level, and in that case I'm selfishly biased towards a society without strong social bonds since it plays to my strengths as a person.
Assuming that the AC is "schizoaffective", I've seen people write like that when they're on their meds; apparently they don't just pop you back to normal in many cases. And sometimes a valid point gets lost in the garble. Had an interesting discussion once where the situation slowly slid more and more from programming logic into "symbolic logic", with no discernible snapping point. Fascinating, but horrible.
Sure, that'd be horrible. And effectively, that's the situation the Zimbabweans find themselves in. Are you saying that you'd let my hypothetical kid get beaten up if you could prevent it?
Suffering can gain you strength as a person by toughening you, and gives you the ability to understand the reality of it, but all I have seen suffering do to groups of people is weld them together, and I don't really consider that a good thing since it leads to tribalism and nationalism. "Us" vs. "Them" thinking. While I think I don't actually understand what the words even mean, I don't think "social solidarity" is a necessary or even good thing in society.
Don't generalize. I'm Swedish, and I think most people just don't want to think about stuff like that, so they adopt whatever principles that's most convenient to them, and get defensive when they are challenged since they are forced to think about horrible things. Developing an intellectually coherent morality isn't something that comes automatically - and notably, in Swedish society at least, flaunting views like this based on pure emotion is considered something very profane and impolite.
If that's true, they're mentally torturing him as a punitive measure. I can't imagine that it's out of fear of him leaking anything else, that's just stupid, you wouldn't have to stick someone in a signal-proof bunker for that. Even if he allegedly did the leak partly to somehow get back at his superiors, and planning to just dump out all that potentially life-critical information was really irresponsible and childish, that's just excessive.
But this isn't a government the way you and I would think about it. If you harassed it, you would be ignored or shot. Or do you mean harassing my own government/citizenry to take action?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, introverts would probably be "stronger" than extroverts, for the reason that they have more experience with their own minds and would be better at thought-control and reading their own internal state/"being in themselves". Also, yay for "normal" people being exposed to the mind of someone with Autism or Asperger. Or, horrifyingly, psychopathy.
A shame, you seemed an honest man
And all the fears you hold so dear
Will turn to whisper in your ear...
And you know what they say might hurt you
And you know that it means so much
But you don't even feel a thing...
Actually, true mind sharing in GITS is probably only happening during "Ghost Hacking", which is presumably why so few people are able to do it. Think the scene with Motoko and the Laughing Man in the medical clinic in SAC. What's more used is "External Memory", which together with replaceable cyborg bodies can make people lose their identity (but not their selves, their ghosts/souls), which is illustrated by the fact that Motoko who is shown to use remote-control bodies and presumably has a huge external memory/net-data-as-memory always wears that watch on her real body as a reminder.
Actually, the argument more rests on the fact that people will write quality attack software anyway, so there's really no reason not to. And "defense software" is a misnomer, since the idea is to not have any flaws that you have to cover up with software in the first place. If you think about it, the concept of a "stack overflow attack" is really retarded, not to mention things like ARP spoofing. You make the system inherently secure. The current phenomenal cosmic powers of people who knows these "secrets" rests upon basic design flaws that mostly aren't inherent to the concept and purpose of the technology itself.
Anonymous is more like a Far Plane aberration, if you interpret their morality as a group and not just as a large number of people doing their own thing and cooperating or anonymously with each other randomly as their interests or whims align. Kind of like the "Wild Hunt"
The problem is that a corporation is more like an anthill, but the individual ants are people, who do have personhood. Which can be a problem, because blame and praise goes to the group instead of the people actually responsible/guilty.
In one of the mails published, I don't remember which one, someone wrote something to the effect of "his arrogance is getting the best of him again, and we all know how that turned out". I wonder what incident that was referring to? Elsewhere, it seems like he was aware he was really hot-headed and impulsive though. Maybe he has some actual issues, and isn't just a "generic asshole"?
Per definition it's impossible to "properly fix" computer security flaws (in the sense of eliminating them, rather than "whoops, we'll disable that service/firewall that port/switch to this or that scheme") unless you are fully aware of them in a technical sense, and if you are thus, you can exploit them. It doesn't matter if you do or don't, you can. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but this principle seems to hold up to general inspection.
Greg Hoglund would be the rootkit author, and he is a public leading expert on rootkits, no doubts about it. I guess there could be some insane autistic manchild in a Russian basement sniggering at his competence level, but the "computer security research elite/conference cashcows" (which most of the Slashdot crowd seemingly hasn't ever heard about) seems to in general be very competent at what they do. Google his name and read some papers and code if you're interested. He's also written a book on rootkit design that seemed solid; I haven't read it though.
That doesn't qualify as "skilled", not in my eyes at least, and I don't consider myself "skilled". Admittedly, maybe I restrict my definition of hacking ability to technical ability in reversing, exploit writing and general sophistication; but just contacting the admin and fooling him into resetting a password and then grabbing the mail spool and deleting some files I assume is within the ability of 3/4 of everyone here on Slashdot. It isn't rocket science.
On the other hand, it's the results that matter, it's obviously not a skateboard trick contest or some such.
That's really stupid. The reason corporations shouldn't have "people rights" is because treating them as people is a dysfunctional approximation. No matter the context.
5. Don't hire admins that will let "you" reset your SSH password through an insecure medium without verification that it's actually you.
I assume it stands for (Greg) Hoglund (something or someone with an initial "B") Gary. This is the third time I would post the same tirade, just google for "Greg Hoglund".
Super+X to spawn a VT, rm filen[tab], enter, Ctrl+D.
Ghost in the Shell fans?
It isn't political correctness per se, it's just that it's the thing keeping their mind off the harsh realities of the world. Of course, people who do face these "harsh realities" seems to often have other mental or emotional flaws.
Intuitively, because creating strong social groups in connection to government in my mind seems like a form of corruption. And you could ask why you should sacrifice the (structural) unity of mankind for the uniqueness of national and tribal characters. Again, I suspect that I somehow lack the ability to intuitively understand "social dynamics" on an emotional level, and in that case I'm selfishly biased towards a society without strong social bonds since it plays to my strengths as a person.
Assuming that the AC is "schizoaffective", I've seen people write like that when they're on their meds; apparently they don't just pop you back to normal in many cases. And sometimes a valid point gets lost in the garble. Had an interesting discussion once where the situation slowly slid more and more from programming logic into "symbolic logic", with no discernible snapping point. Fascinating, but horrible.
What, if anything, would have (could have) made a difference? Or does it seem to you like it truly would have gone to hell no-matter-what?
Sure, that'd be horrible. And effectively, that's the situation the Zimbabweans find themselves in. Are you saying that you'd let my hypothetical kid get beaten up if you could prevent it?
Suffering can gain you strength as a person by toughening you, and gives you the ability to understand the reality of it, but all I have seen suffering do to groups of people is weld them together, and I don't really consider that a good thing since it leads to tribalism and nationalism. "Us" vs. "Them" thinking. While I think I don't actually understand what the words even mean, I don't think "social solidarity" is a necessary or even good thing in society.
Don't generalize. I'm Swedish, and I think most people just don't want to think about stuff like that, so they adopt whatever principles that's most convenient to them, and get defensive when they are challenged since they are forced to think about horrible things. Developing an intellectually coherent morality isn't something that comes automatically - and notably, in Swedish society at least, flaunting views like this based on pure emotion is considered something very profane and impolite.
If that's true, they're mentally torturing him as a punitive measure. I can't imagine that it's out of fear of him leaking anything else, that's just stupid, you wouldn't have to stick someone in a signal-proof bunker for that. Even if he allegedly did the leak partly to somehow get back at his superiors, and planning to just dump out all that potentially life-critical information was really irresponsible and childish, that's just excessive.
I wonder how Adrian feels about this?
But this isn't a government the way you and I would think about it. If you harassed it, you would be ignored or shot. Or do you mean harassing my own government/citizenry to take action?
UN peacekeeper troops consists of troops volunteered from the constituent nations armies.