The software would call home for update on it's own. And why would you need to tell individual copies of the software apart in a bulk licensing scheme? You just need the seat-count, which is the number of auths minus the number of deauths on a given serial. It makes no sense from a security perspective either - public key cryptography would assure that each copy of the software can use the same key to call home and verify what they get without fearing MITM attacks.
Because the software is designed to only report in once. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they have windows-like bulk licences, so taking this situation into account is a must. Baring odd bugs or mishaps with virtual machines or the like, the same installation reporting in twice should be unlikely.
No, that'd simply mean the licensing server sees several copies with the same external IP. It's the individual software copies that decides to call back, remember?
It's not a quote, it's a joke. "Yah, otherwhise I'd be dead. For the winter that has descended upon the northland forests is the most merciless one in a decade, and the hunched and drooling shapes of (unholy mythical combination between a bear and a wolverine used in the swedish comedy series "pistvakt" or "ski slope guard") circle the pallisades."
This sounds funnier in swedish, because if you say something in swedish in this manner it not only sounds over-the-top serious, but also something like if you just waltzed in from a "Beowulf" set - people from the north are often regarded as humorously crude and naive hillbillies.
In no way was I implying solipsism. Yes, the point was that the intellectual nature is, so to speak, the host form. And this host form may take any number of shapes, each unknowable in its subjective nature to the others.
As for the angels, I brought that up because from a spiritual perspective I would feel that a very fundamental thing in human spirituality is "knowledge of and closeness to god/the source/whatever". It's not something that I can explain, being in it's nature something like being musical or tone-deaf, but I think you get what I mean. One view of judeo-christian angels is that they have no free will and perfect or near-perfect knowledge of god, yet are indeed "separate". This would then imply, as you well understood, knowledge instead of "suspicion" - my thought was that of kinds of being that had a fundamentally alien perception in these regards, but such an angel might have been a bad example because the being imagined would simply have a "perfect human" closeness, union. I can't come up with any good examples, but postulate a creature that somehow has an intuitive understanding like the one we are discussing in such a manner that it is meaningful to compare the two, not "stronger" or "weaker" but so different in it's fundamental nature to that of a human mind that it is completely incomprehensible.
My understanding of your argument basically boils down to the fact that replacing the physical matter or structure of the human brain will render the material end of the "relationship" null, because the "soul" and the brain grow and function together and are inseparable as far as that goes. My counterargument basically boils down to the fact that we are already doing so by crudely interfacing with the brain, because I see no difference between changing sensory processing in this manner and changing cognitive processing. Changing the cognitive processing will simply result in a being with a "host form" that implies a conciousness removed from human nature in fundamental ways, including aformentioned spiritual aspects, at least on a level above "pure intuition".
As for the actual brain/machine transfer, if the "standing wave" of conciousness is preserved such that it "remains attached" and "enters and possesses" the new or modified parts during this change, that changed part is now a part of the host form. How far we go from there depends of course what parts of the intellect we pick and choose as constituting the "essential nature" of the intellect in question. If you just cut off a piece of brain and interface the rest with a machine, the parts of the "standing wave" that was "attached" to the brain not cut off will interface and expand into the machine, making it part of itself. You could duplicate a "wave" and create an identical copy, but the waves remain separate unless made to flow into each other - merging and splitting (partial or whole) becomes possible because from both parties perspective that's just another form of smooth change without loss of information. As for the post-mortem aspects, well, the only humanly graspable solution if you want a real "afterlife" is clearly some divine janitor sweeping up the "astral mirror" pieces of lost information (or whole lost independent sub-creatures) and reassemble/integrate them piecemeal together and, it is commonly assumed, in a more or less tight fashion with "god".
Whatever the case may be, I'd like to invoke the Terry Pratchett metaphor of "the brain telling itself a story". Talking about metaphysical phenomena like they where "objects" or "things" is potentially insane. Even "properties" or "concepts" or even "conceptual approximation" are things arising from the human mind.
The former blind people having data forced into their brains via crude electronic chips would perhaps disagree.
1. The machine is your friend. 2. The machine is your friend, the machine is parts of your sensory and autonomic processing, the machine is you. There is no difference between these. 3. Your polarization has nothing to do with this. As a person with Asperger I get to deeply appreciate the difference between cognitive structures that are out of my reach or direct perception every day. An AI or partial AI is simply a being with a mind very different from yours, and being self-aware probably doesn't come with all the baggage you might presume - there would be an infinite amount of different ways to be "self-aware", which is just a human word. This obviously then includes any sort of perception of closeness or distance from "", and one has to realize that the particulars of this perception is just as arbitrary. Consider the the mind of a Judeo-Christian "Angel".
Yo! You don't know who I am, and I'm not sure how I got your number, but there's this thing going down in the internal networks of a few dozen hospitals here, and we're tracing it back to a site in your country. Our expert will soon be on it (god willing, assuming we can find them and brief them and give them access to the binaries) but the code obfuscation and anti-reversing features are like acts of god almighty, and amusingly treated as such by the insurance companies. Could you please help us catch these crazy bastards for interrogation about the stopping key... pulling the plug? That won't work, it's a self-contained virus, bricking shit like a startled soviet-era comedian. Talk to my boss? Well, I'm not sure he knows how to deal with this... or for that matter which one of my bosses I'm supposed to call...
As (potentially) opposed to:
*calls the kr3ml1n h4x0r bünk3r (actual official name) from the American Cyber Command (actual official name)*: Hello, we've got a massive self-replicating attack on our internal networked hospital equipment, much like the scenario we discussed a few months ago. We can't break the obfuscation, and IDA Pro gets eaten up from the inside by trying to analyze it, but you guys might have more luck with the binaries we've managed to capture. Also, some versions of the code communicates with a site in Russia - it's probably botnet nodes, but the "scary men in helicopters" protocol you spoke about using internally might work anyway.
Not to talk about the difference in reaction speed between the two.
Not really, not if you're not talking about just pulling the plug. And in any case you still need to take the measures necessary to do so. Remember that McKinnon got access to a subcontractor's (I think it was) internal network by using a password cracker and a public RAT. That's incompetence, you say. Fine, but regardless of it's form or shape it's still a security problem, period.
That's a bit sentimental. In my view, achieving those three things require a lot more subtle "information management" than just plain lying. What you're talking about is more like "openness".
I do not question the need for military secrecy and I have no hand in Wikileaks, but as a civilian I will certainly apply my own judgment to any information I come across. It's not a question of thankfullness. You may have insight into your chain of command and related "environment", but how on earth am I supposed to trust something so remote and complex? It basically boils down to the fact that knowing wether or not wikileaks is a good or bad thing depends on the effect of the released materials - either "true" safe whistleblowing (potentially very good) or some asshat deciding to release 50.000 documents as revenge on his superior officers (potentially very bad.) Thus, from my perspective, Wikileaks is a morally ambigious entity that can affect your life as a soldier in both good and bad ways. Besides, the primary responsibility lies on the person who leaked the material in the first place - it's not like wikileaks is some sort of commando hacker team stealing the data from under your nose. I am Swedish and thus not a citizen of the U.S., but given that the U.S. forces are the backbone and bulk of NATO forces...
It is to your benefit to be honest if there's a good chance others also play by the rules. There's also the fact that international diplomacy probably isn't so much one "game" as a lot of complicated games wrapped into one (not sure about how game theory works, but I think you get it.)
This. I'm not an intel guy but from what I've read about russian warfare and intelligence they're basically the ultimate pragmatists - if they somehow can use the wikileaks situation to their favour they will. And the FSB has apparently expanded a lot under Putin.
Nojå, annars vore jag död. Ty vintern som lagt sig över de norrländska skogarna är den mest obarmhärtiga på tio år, och bjärvarna hukar dreglande utanför pallisaderna.
Personally, I think that what should be strived for is acting in a "pragmatic" manner towards people without dehumanizing them, wether that means running them over with tanks or playing political games towards the masses. The world is from a human moral perspective very, very, very broken - if such a word can even apply. But most people seem to either blind themselves to the suffering of their fellow man, or make up silly morality like "war is always evil" (compare "guns are evil") that means they are absolved from making hard choices, alternatively falling into apathetic moral relativism. Conversely, those who accept these parts of reality seems to have a tendency to devolve into frothing amoral survivalism, banding together in fear-fueled in-groups. That is equally irrational. The only "sane" mindset capable of dealing with this harsh world in a good and just manner is therefore unfortunately one where you can lie, backstab and even shoot someone in the face because of your sense of right and wrong, without dehumanizing them. This means you have to wager on your own internalized morals being correct, obviously, but for practical purpouses who doesn't?
My point was that the instincts of human language has no regards for the finer points of naming. If reverse engineering is a major activity in your life, you're going to get the title reverse engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
People perhaps cling to the illusion that clones would somehow inherit the originals personality.
scaly-foot gastropod Crysomallon squamiferum, a species of snail with a foot reinforced by scales made of iron and organic materials
"A Dire Snail appears! Run away Y/N?"
The software would call home for update on it's own. And why would you need to tell individual copies of the software apart in a bulk licensing scheme? You just need the seat-count, which is the number of auths minus the number of deauths on a given serial. It makes no sense from a security perspective either - public key cryptography would assure that each copy of the software can use the same key to call home and verify what they get without fearing MITM attacks.
Because the software is designed to only report in once. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they have windows-like bulk licences, so taking this situation into account is a must. Baring odd bugs or mishaps with virtual machines or the like, the same installation reporting in twice should be unlikely.
No, that'd simply mean the licensing server sees several copies with the same external IP. It's the individual software copies that decides to call back, remember?
Could you elaborate?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool
It's not a quote, it's a joke. "Yah, otherwhise I'd be dead. For the winter that has descended upon the northland forests is the most merciless one in a decade, and the hunched and drooling shapes of (unholy mythical combination between a bear and a wolverine used in the swedish comedy series "pistvakt" or "ski slope guard") circle the pallisades."
This sounds funnier in swedish, because if you say something in swedish in this manner it not only sounds over-the-top serious, but also something like if you just waltzed in from a "Beowulf" set - people from the north are often regarded as humorously crude and naive hillbillies.
In no way was I implying solipsism. Yes, the point was that the intellectual nature is, so to speak, the host form. And this host form may take any number of shapes, each unknowable in its subjective nature to the others.
As for the angels, I brought that up because from a spiritual perspective I would feel that a very fundamental thing in human spirituality is "knowledge of and closeness to god/the source/whatever". It's not something that I can explain, being in it's nature something like being musical or tone-deaf, but I think you get what I mean. One view of judeo-christian angels is that they have no free will and perfect or near-perfect knowledge of god, yet are indeed "separate". This would then imply, as you well understood, knowledge instead of "suspicion" - my thought was that of kinds of being that had a fundamentally alien perception in these regards, but such an angel might have been a bad example because the being imagined would simply have a "perfect human" closeness, union. I can't come up with any good examples, but postulate a creature that somehow has an intuitive understanding like the one we are discussing in such a manner that it is meaningful to compare the two, not "stronger" or "weaker" but so different in it's fundamental nature to that of a human mind that it is completely incomprehensible.
My understanding of your argument basically boils down to the fact that replacing the physical matter or structure of the human brain will render the material end of the "relationship" null, because the "soul" and the brain grow and function together and are inseparable as far as that goes. My counterargument basically boils down to the fact that we are already doing so by crudely interfacing with the brain, because I see no difference between changing sensory processing in this manner and changing cognitive processing. Changing the cognitive processing will simply result in a being with a "host form" that implies a conciousness removed from human nature in fundamental ways, including aformentioned spiritual aspects, at least on a level above "pure intuition".
As for the actual brain/machine transfer, if the "standing wave" of conciousness is preserved such that it "remains attached" and "enters and possesses" the new or modified parts during this change, that changed part is now a part of the host form. How far we go from there depends of course what parts of the intellect we pick and choose as constituting the "essential nature" of the intellect in question. If you just cut off a piece of brain and interface the rest with a machine, the parts of the "standing wave" that was "attached" to the brain not cut off will interface and expand into the machine, making it part of itself. You could duplicate a "wave" and create an identical copy, but the waves remain separate unless made to flow into each other - merging and splitting (partial or whole) becomes possible because from both parties perspective that's just another form of smooth change without loss of information. As for the post-mortem aspects, well, the only humanly graspable solution if you want a real "afterlife" is clearly some divine janitor sweeping up the "astral mirror" pieces of lost information (or whole lost independent sub-creatures) and reassemble/integrate them piecemeal together and, it is commonly assumed, in a more or less tight fashion with "god".
The value of my life is undefined.
Whatever the case may be, I'd like to invoke the Terry Pratchett metaphor of "the brain telling itself a story". Talking about metaphysical phenomena like they where "objects" or "things" is potentially insane. Even "properties" or "concepts" or even "conceptual approximation" are things arising from the human mind.
The former blind people having data forced into their brains via crude electronic chips would perhaps disagree.
1. The machine is your friend.
2. The machine is your friend, the machine is parts of your sensory and autonomic processing, the machine is you. There is no difference between these.
3. Your polarization has nothing to do with this. As a person with Asperger I get to deeply appreciate the difference between cognitive structures that are out of my reach or direct perception every day. An AI or partial AI is simply a being with a mind very different from yours, and being self-aware probably doesn't come with all the baggage you might presume - there would be an infinite amount of different ways to be "self-aware", which is just a human word. This obviously then includes any sort of perception of closeness or distance from "", and one has to realize that the particulars of this perception is just as arbitrary. Consider the the mind of a Judeo-Christian "Angel".
*calls FSB major*
Yo! You don't know who I am, and I'm not sure how I got your number, but there's this thing going down in the internal networks of a few dozen hospitals here, and we're tracing it back to a site in your country. Our expert will soon be on it (god willing, assuming we can find them and brief them and give them access to the binaries) but the code obfuscation and anti-reversing features are like acts of god almighty, and amusingly treated as such by the insurance companies. Could you please help us catch these crazy bastards for interrogation about the stopping key... pulling the plug? That won't work, it's a self-contained virus, bricking shit like a startled soviet-era comedian. Talk to my boss? Well, I'm not sure he knows how to deal with this... or for that matter which one of my bosses I'm supposed to call...
As (potentially) opposed to:
*calls the kr3ml1n h4x0r bünk3r (actual official name) from the American Cyber Command (actual official name)*:
Hello, we've got a massive self-replicating attack on our internal networked hospital equipment, much like the scenario we discussed a few months ago. We can't break the obfuscation, and IDA Pro gets eaten up from the inside by trying to analyze it, but you guys might have more luck with the binaries we've managed to capture. Also, some versions of the code communicates with a site in Russia - it's probably botnet nodes, but the "scary men in helicopters" protocol you spoke about using internally might work anyway.
Not to talk about the difference in reaction speed between the two.
Network attacks are very easy to defend against
Not really, not if you're not talking about just pulling the plug. And in any case you still need to take the measures necessary to do so. Remember that McKinnon got access to a subcontractor's (I think it was) internal network by using a password cracker and a public RAT. That's incompetence, you say. Fine, but regardless of it's form or shape it's still a security problem, period.
That makes sense, given that he'd need some kind of control over the assets siezed from the oligarchs.
That's a bit sentimental. In my view, achieving those three things require a lot more subtle "information management" than just plain lying. What you're talking about is more like "openness".
I do not question the need for military secrecy and I have no hand in Wikileaks, but as a civilian I will certainly apply my own judgment to any information I come across. It's not a question of thankfullness. You may have insight into your chain of command and related "environment", but how on earth am I supposed to trust something so remote and complex? It basically boils down to the fact that knowing wether or not wikileaks is a good or bad thing depends on the effect of the released materials - either "true" safe whistleblowing (potentially very good) or some asshat deciding to release 50.000 documents as revenge on his superior officers (potentially very bad.) Thus, from my perspective, Wikileaks is a morally ambigious entity that can affect your life as a soldier in both good and bad ways. Besides, the primary responsibility lies on the person who leaked the material in the first place - it's not like wikileaks is some sort of commando hacker team stealing the data from under your nose. I am Swedish and thus not a citizen of the U.S., but given that the U.S. forces are the backbone and bulk of NATO forces...
It is to your benefit to be honest if there's a good chance others also play by the rules. There's also the fact that international diplomacy probably isn't so much one "game" as a lot of complicated games wrapped into one (not sure about how game theory works, but I think you get it.)
This. I'm not an intel guy but from what I've read about russian warfare and intelligence they're basically the ultimate pragmatists - if they somehow can use the wikileaks situation to their favour they will. And the FSB has apparently expanded a lot under Putin.
Nojå, annars vore jag död. Ty vintern som lagt sig över de norrländska skogarna är den mest obarmhärtiga på tio år, och bjärvarna hukar dreglande utanför pallisaderna.
Personally, I think that what should be strived for is acting in a "pragmatic" manner towards people without dehumanizing them, wether that means running them over with tanks or playing political games towards the masses. The world is from a human moral perspective very, very, very broken - if such a word can even apply. But most people seem to either blind themselves to the suffering of their fellow man, or make up silly morality like "war is always evil" (compare "guns are evil") that means they are absolved from making hard choices, alternatively falling into apathetic moral relativism. Conversely, those who accept these parts of reality seems to have a tendency to devolve into frothing amoral survivalism, banding together in fear-fueled in-groups. That is equally irrational. The only "sane" mindset capable of dealing with this harsh world in a good and just manner is therefore unfortunately one where you can lie, backstab and even shoot someone in the face because of your sense of right and wrong, without dehumanizing them. This means you have to wager on your own internalized morals being correct, obviously, but for practical purpouses who doesn't?
Oscar Swartz is the founder of that company, and seems like a pretty cold guy.
Blog here (swedish): http://swartz.typepad.com/
Moving on to casual dehumanization, are we?
What's worse is that it illegitimizes "thinking of the children" when that's actually warranted.
My point was that the instincts of human language has no regards for the finer points of naming. If reverse engineering is a major activity in your life, you're going to get the title reverse engineer.