The Ukraine isnt exactly known as a technological powerhouse, and yet botnets and malware consistently originate there. (Yes, they are often identified but...)
You dont need massive amounts of technology to wage a cyber war. You need only a small number of very intelligent and very talented individuals, and being from a less developed nation precludes neither. Motivating those individuals can be done in any number of means, ranging from turning them into religious zealots, or threatening their loved ones. Iran would shrink from neither.
Besides, if your argument is that a nation that can build nuclear power plants (or perhaps bombs) cant also fund or organize cyber attacks I'd say you have a long road to convincing most people.
Israel (and Iran for that matter) cannot politically be surgical in the sense you describe. They cannot do what is necessary to end the conflct. Any aggression at a level required to bring the on-going war to a close would be vilified by the rest of the world. It's true in every stage on which hostility is currently being played out. If either side chooses to embrace being the aggressor and finish the engagement in as short a period as is possible (and minimize civilian or infrastructure destruction) as Sun Tzu describes would be wholly condemned for not pursuing "diplomatic" resolution for as many decades as that might require.
There is so much demand that there be no war at precise historic and geographic points on a large scale that we ensure dispersed small scale unending war.
I see. So when Democrats pursue reducing the military budget they are really trying to prolong the wars in which we're engaged, kill more and allow more to be killed, and cash in on their secret contracting investements.
Sun Tzu also stated (paraphrased) that if you find yourself in a position where war is final option, you expend every ounce of your military force from the first moment and crush your enemy absolutely, demoralizing them and ending the conflict forever. The reasoning being that conservative encounters prolong the effects of war, ultimately causing more death and pain for both parties unnecessarily. You kill 1 million on day one to prevent the deaths of another 5 million over time.
But we're evolved enough now to believe in a kinder gentler politically correct warfare that extends for decades, kills millions, an improvrishes many more.
So how do car bombs and suicide bombers specifically targeting non-military non-police at religious centers, markets, restaurants and schools rank on the Fair Scale? Where is that in the Laws of War, exactly? Is this the line from your source?:
People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.
If your neighbor hacking into your computer, stealing your financial information and destroying your critical files, you're going to be as much or more impacted than if he's making his dog shit in your yard and spray painting your car. As a matter of scale the former is ultimately more harmful than the latter.
If a foriegn entity is able to grind your nation's economy to a halt or eliminate communications or cripple your electrical infrastructure you are potentially more screwed than if there are some deaths through violence. And it can be done with relatively minor risk by a very small group.
And this is as much a problem as the overreach of authority by law enforcement.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. " - Ronald Reagan
I know a guy who works out of his garage (workshop) that owns a dozen patents, 2 of which he has successfully defended. He's got another 7 pending applications.
It's not the most friendly process, but far from unattainable.
The new system, Wolfram Alpha, showcased at Harvard University in the US last week, takes the first step towards what many consider to be the internet's Holy Grail – a global store of information that understands and responds to ordinary language in the same way a person does.
...
Computer experts believe the new search engine will be an evolutionary leap in the development of the internet.
Result of the second hit on a Google search for "Revolutionary software invention"
I realize that many of my arguments have leaned toward a depiction of corporations being evil. That is not my intent, and I do not believe it. I use those arguments more as a means of reversing the argument on those who think the little guy would be better off if they were able to eliminate patent law.
The protections of patents rightly protect all parties. It's not a perfect system by any stretch (often promoting the filing of a patent on the 'who knows, someone might actually want this shit someday' line of thinking). But it's better than no system IMO.
...had TCP been patented, there would be no world wide web, no Google, and pretty much all the flashy technology that the news media loves to report on would never have been created.
Sure there would. There would just be a person, a group or a company that made a lot of money on that innovative idea. From our perspective the differences would be impercetable.
Actually, I started the arguments about facebook a little late in its history. 6 days after launching thefacebook.com Zuckerburg was accused of having mislead 3 other people into believing he was going to help them launch a social netoworking site. They accused Zuckerburg of using their ideas to produce thefacebook.com, and what later evolved into Facebook.
A piece of software can easily cost millions in development. Reverse engineering it would cost thousands. My example stands perefectly well.
There are sites for HP and IBM that are almost entirely R&D that each house 1000 to 3000 people, or more. A group might produce a product after an 18-24 month cycle, IF they come up with a workable idea. For every one product that makes it off the manufacturing floor and into the hands of a customer there are another 10 that failed during some part of the product lifecycle. Failure or not, that's investment that someone else need not put money into if they can just steal the workable idea after the fact.
I work with many well-meaning morons. I also work with hard-working beauracrats, backstabbers, and miscreants. I don't care they put in massive effort, if the product of that is at best garbage and at worst cancerous self-service I dont believe reward is what they should recieve.
It's a natural law that those able to overcome are those rewarded with a continuation of their line. As much as the progressives would have you believe that everyone should get a participation award, Darwin would disagree.
If you go to a guy with a massive bankroll, a factory, a staff of engineers and ties to manufacturing, distrubution and marketing, and you show him a design for a brand new kind of widget, why would he make you a millionaire by funding it? You just gave him the idea. He can just start making it.
Slashdot Mirror
More Details On Drug Cartel's Clandestine Communications Network http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/11/12/27/1346220/more-details-on-drug-cartels-clandestine-communications-network If a drug cartel can do it, I'm pretty sure geeks can.
The Ukraine isnt exactly known as a technological powerhouse, and yet botnets and malware consistently originate there. (Yes, they are often identified but...)
You dont need massive amounts of technology to wage a cyber war. You need only a small number of very intelligent and very talented individuals, and being from a less developed nation precludes neither. Motivating those individuals can be done in any number of means, ranging from turning them into religious zealots, or threatening their loved ones. Iran would shrink from neither.
Besides, if your argument is that a nation that can build nuclear power plants (or perhaps bombs) cant also fund or organize cyber attacks I'd say you have a long road to convincing most people.
You assume there isn't state backing?
Israel (and Iran for that matter) cannot politically be surgical in the sense you describe. They cannot do what is necessary to end the conflct. Any aggression at a level required to bring the on-going war to a close would be vilified by the rest of the world. It's true in every stage on which hostility is currently being played out. If either side chooses to embrace being the aggressor and finish the engagement in as short a period as is possible (and minimize civilian or infrastructure destruction) as Sun Tzu describes would be wholly condemned for not pursuing "diplomatic" resolution for as many decades as that might require.
There is so much demand that there be no war at precise historic and geographic points on a large scale that we ensure dispersed small scale unending war.
I see. So when Democrats pursue reducing the military budget they are really trying to prolong the wars in which we're engaged, kill more and allow more to be killed, and cash in on their secret contracting investements.
It's so obvious...
Sun Tzu also stated (paraphrased) that if you find yourself in a position where war is final option, you expend every ounce of your military force from the first moment and crush your enemy absolutely, demoralizing them and ending the conflict forever. The reasoning being that conservative encounters prolong the effects of war, ultimately causing more death and pain for both parties unnecessarily. You kill 1 million on day one to prevent the deaths of another 5 million over time.
But we're evolved enough now to believe in a kinder gentler politically correct warfare that extends for decades, kills millions, an improvrishes many more.
People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.
Well duh. Everyone should get a participation award rather than declaring a winner or loser. We dont want to hurt any feelings.
If your neighbor hacking into your computer, stealing your financial information and destroying your critical files, you're going to be as much or more impacted than if he's making his dog shit in your yard and spray painting your car. As a matter of scale the former is ultimately more harmful than the latter.
If a foriegn entity is able to grind your nation's economy to a halt or eliminate communications or cripple your electrical infrastructure you are potentially more screwed than if there are some deaths through violence. And it can be done with relatively minor risk by a very small group.
Probably true, .. but source?
Security built to accomodate laziness pretty much assures compromise.
So to be clear, the EFF filed and FIA request to the FAA about USAF activity.
Omg, wtf?
You should defund the military while you're at it.
I agree. The people granting patents are fucking morons. That's precisely why I said that there is a grey area between everything and nothing.
...Says the Anonymous Coward.
I'd rather my son know that I died for a reason than teach him to be a slave coward.
no need to get into trouble
And this is as much a problem as the overreach of authority by law enforcement.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. " - Ronald Reagan
I know a guy who works out of his garage (workshop) that owns a dozen patents, 2 of which he has successfully defended. He's got another 7 pending applications.
It's not the most friendly process, but far from unattainable.
The new system, Wolfram Alpha, showcased at Harvard University in the US last week, takes the first step towards what many consider to be the internet's Holy Grail – a global store of information that understands and responds to ordinary language in the same way a person does.
...
Computer experts believe the new search engine will be an evolutionary leap in the development of the internet.
Result of the second hit on a Google search for "Revolutionary software invention"
I realize that many of my arguments have leaned toward a depiction of corporations being evil. That is not my intent, and I do not believe it. I use those arguments more as a means of reversing the argument on those who think the little guy would be better off if they were able to eliminate patent law.
The protections of patents rightly protect all parties. It's not a perfect system by any stretch (often promoting the filing of a patent on the 'who knows, someone might actually want this shit someday' line of thinking). But it's better than no system IMO.
...had TCP been patented, there would be no world wide web, no Google, and pretty much all the flashy technology that the news media loves to report on would never have been created.
Sure there would. There would just be a person, a group or a company that made a lot of money on that innovative idea. From our perspective the differences would be impercetable.
Actually, I started the arguments about facebook a little late in its history. 6 days after launching thefacebook.com Zuckerburg was accused of having mislead 3 other people into believing he was going to help them launch a social netoworking site. They accused Zuckerburg of using their ideas to produce thefacebook.com, and what later evolved into Facebook.
If only they had had a patent....
A piece of software can easily cost millions in development. Reverse engineering it would cost thousands. My example stands perefectly well.
There are sites for HP and IBM that are almost entirely R&D that each house 1000 to 3000 people, or more. A group might produce a product after an 18-24 month cycle, IF they come up with a workable idea. For every one product that makes it off the manufacturing floor and into the hands of a customer there are another 10 that failed during some part of the product lifecycle. Failure or not, that's investment that someone else need not put money into if they can just steal the workable idea after the fact.
I failed to respond to that last line...
I work with many well-meaning morons. I also work with hard-working beauracrats, backstabbers, and miscreants. I don't care they put in massive effort, if the product of that is at best garbage and at worst cancerous self-service I dont believe reward is what they should recieve.
It's a natural law that those able to overcome are those rewarded with a continuation of their line. As much as the progressives would have you believe that everyone should get a participation award, Darwin would disagree.
If you go to a guy with a massive bankroll, a factory, a staff of engineers and ties to manufacturing, distrubution and marketing, and you show him a design for a brand new kind of widget, why would he make you a millionaire by funding it? You just gave him the idea. He can just start making it.