The 0day black market has been thriving for over a decade; I remember being 13-14 years old, spent every day and night reading and learning about computer security. It was a different world in hacking back then; the reason was because the lines between a secure system and an insecure system were more blurred. Most machines/network one would target had a vulnerability that was exploitable, it was just a matter of spending enough days reading to discover it. It was an incredible time in the Internet's young life, but it is long gone. By the time I was 16 years old, I had joined my mentors in writing white papers relating to security, pen-testing, and trying to maintain integrity within the game. Technology moved faster than any of us had imagined, and we all moved on to our own specializations in computer science. Hacking was so open, so possible: it just took the right amount of knowledge to do it, and everyone who would do anything to not be a skiddie was busting their ass every day.
We have moved on to different times. The line in the sand is so broad and sharp; you're either an advanced black hat, an advanced white hat, script kiddie, or nothing. Although I miss the old days, it is nice to see how far computer security has come. I'm proud to say that I am an "newer old school" hacker because with that area-of-specialization comes a unique set of skills that new-age "hackers" don't have. There are still the real old school hackers though, and I could only imagine the nostalgia they feel everyday and have been feeling for decades.
Hacking is just not what it used to be, but this article (and the post I'm replying to) echo the faint sounds of the old days when we used to discover 0days, share them with our friends, protect them honorably, use them when necessary, and end up selling them out to their victim's companies to make the internet just a little bit safer.
Doesn't it suck? I remember teaching my younger sister how to drive. She was particularly good for her age... and for being a female.. (sorry, but it's true). I would've rather driven with her than most of my friends/family who were driving for years.
I always said to her: Don't think I'm nitpicking and being annoying, it isn't you I don't trust, it's the rest of the world.
You began by seemingly advocating the unlimited distribution of copyrighted work for the sake of selling more products. You ended by advocating a powerful (but optional) path to popularity, a useful business model, and consequently increased sales. In my opinion, I would consider the debate ended due to mutual understanding finally peeking over the horizon.
My problem was with someone saying, "oh no! This is good for the writers; give it out for free and they'll sell more," rather than, "it should be the artist/writer's choice whether to use a business model incorporating 'freebies' that is capable of increasing sales in the future, and this is a good avenue for them to do it." As a ghost writer by profession, I agree with the latter but disagree with the former. Feel me?
I neglected to mention another thing I'm thinking. I understand where you're coming from -- give something out for free, get the recognition, and be able to sell more... IN THE FUTURE. Giving something away gives people no incentive to purchase that specific product. Giving something away would, perhaps, give people the incentive to purchase a product released by you for sale in the future. I agree with this, but to stand by this argument through hell and high water is to imply that every aspiring New York Times best selling author should release their first work for free, in full. Fundamentally, this theory is somewhat contrary to the structure of the IP industry and capitalism in general.
I specifically put the word financially in there knowing this would be the first response. This isn't about popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. This is about the money side of things, and I'm asking why any professional writer who lives by selling his written work would make a decision to give his work to the world for free.
Who said these rights must be exclusive to Google? Aside from the Slashdot community having a general pro-Google bias, I believe it doesn't matter whose company's name is in the story, it's about the freedom of information.
If only the rest of the world believed what you do, it might work. The problem is that not even a majority of the world believes that; in fact, they believe quite the opposite. Care to elaborate on some real-world circumstances and applications, rather than spewing ideology?
PS: I agree with you; once again, playing devil's advocate to learn a bit more from the people posting here.
First off, let me say that I agree with your post; however, for argument's sake, I'll play devil's advocate.
How can putting my "hard work" online for anyone to view at their leisure benefit me financially?
True, but that does not mean a comedian can not make a solid philosophical observation. Are you implying Carlin was wrong about the whole "steering wheel spike" idea?
Your first couple of sentences echo one of the most tired arguments in the book. "The robot works under ideal spec'd [sic] conditions". What is that supposed to mean? That it only works on rough terrain if it's part of a controlled experiment? that it can only carry 400 lbs in the laboratory?
Have you even researched Big Dog? The technology Boston Dynamics has pioneered in the creation of Big Dog is incredible, and it is not to be taken lightly or dismissed so quickly. These machines are created and tested against elemental outliers, or conditions that are fundamentally similar but substantially more extreme. They do this rigorous testing at Level 90 because most of the work it will do in the field is ranked at Level 50. These last few decades have led to absolutely crucial machinery such as Big Dog, and it really shows upon spending more than five minutes doing research.
...though I took it more in a geeky sense. Like "wow, I haven't the slightest use for any of these, but they're calculators... on Slashdot.. so I'll read."
Just because there's no rational/root key on the keyboard, that doesn't mean there's not a keyword that can be typed to denote the function or operator. It's definitely possible. Annoying? Yes, but definitely possible.
The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.
You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.
I can't believe this for some reason. If it is my own ignorance... would someone elaborate? Why is a device's computing/processing power only able to simulate the particles it is made out of?
I assumed someone would say this, and while it's a logical response from someone with no experience, a bit of time dedicated to personally comparing the two networks will prove different.
Trust me, I try putting up with Fox News a lot, eagerly looking forward to hearing a news network with a solid conservative bias. But they take politics beyond the true politics and into the realm of stupidity. MSNBC's mistakes end with apologies or lost jobs, Fox's mistakes are well-formulated in order to go directly over the heads of their following. Even if the whole rest of the world can see through it, they're successful because those who they've won over feed off of the bull.
I agree fully. My main use for this would be browsing the internet and (since monitors do not strain my eyes) I would also use them to read on the couch and have much more massive personal library available for 'dedicated reading'.. When I need a more diverse range of applications I will go to command central and do work where my work is best done. It would just be nice to have a decent tablet capable of full web browsing capabilities and touch screen. Reading takes up such a large portion of my day that this would be invaluable and I would be willing to pay well over $200 for it.
Absolutely. I can't believe the masses of people who believe Fox has anywhere near the integrity of MSNBC; it's outrageous the amount of deceptive spin and bias that characterizes Fox. Yes, MSNBC has a very noticeable liberal/democratic/"left" bias, but it is OBVIOUS and a politically-right viewer can still watch MSNBC for legitimate political coverage. A viewer who leans to the left can NOT watch Fox without being overwhelmed by absolute bullshit, and the conservatives/republicans who watch Fox are sadly roped in and held hostage by the out-of-context propaganda.
Right, right, but his complaint does make sense. I believe in WoW one may have multiple characters per account; one his character's has the ability to "cut gems" and the others have different abilities. As of now, both he and his friend know the account password; when his friend isn't around, he logs in to the account using the shared password and uses the gem-cutting character. If WoW was to implement the fobs/mobile authenticators as a default and mandatory security measure, he would no longer be able to share the account with his friend and it would become far more difficult to use his friend's abilities on a whim. It's an understandable concern (whether WoW account sharing is encouraged or discouraged) because it is very popular for friends to share accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn straight it is.
The 0day black market has been thriving for over a decade; I remember being 13-14 years old, spent every day and night reading and learning about computer security. It was a different world in hacking back then; the reason was because the lines between a secure system and an insecure system were more blurred. Most machines/network one would target had a vulnerability that was exploitable, it was just a matter of spending enough days reading to discover it. It was an incredible time in the Internet's young life, but it is long gone. By the time I was 16 years old, I had joined my mentors in writing white papers relating to security, pen-testing, and trying to maintain integrity within the game. Technology moved faster than any of us had imagined, and we all moved on to our own specializations in computer science. Hacking was so open, so possible: it just took the right amount of knowledge to do it, and everyone who would do anything to not be a skiddie was busting their ass every day.
We have moved on to different times. The line in the sand is so broad and sharp; you're either an advanced black hat, an advanced white hat, script kiddie, or nothing. Although I miss the old days, it is nice to see how far computer security has come. I'm proud to say that I am an "newer old school" hacker because with that area-of-specialization comes a unique set of skills that new-age "hackers" don't have. There are still the real old school hackers though, and I could only imagine the nostalgia they feel everyday and have been feeling for decades.
Hacking is just not what it used to be, but this article (and the post I'm replying to) echo the faint sounds of the old days when we used to discover 0days, share them with our friends, protect them honorably, use them when necessary, and end up selling them out to their victim's companies to make the internet just a little bit safer.
How about explaining your comment when it is so stupid?
Doesn't it suck? I remember teaching my younger sister how to drive. She was particularly good for her age... and for being a female.. (sorry, but it's true). I would've rather driven with her than most of my friends/family who were driving for years.
I always said to her: Don't think I'm nitpicking and being annoying, it isn't you I don't trust, it's the rest of the world.
You began by seemingly advocating the unlimited distribution of copyrighted work for the sake of selling more products. You ended by advocating a powerful (but optional) path to popularity, a useful business model, and consequently increased sales. In my opinion, I would consider the debate ended due to mutual understanding finally peeking over the horizon.
My problem was with someone saying, "oh no! This is good for the writers; give it out for free and they'll sell more," rather than, "it should be the artist/writer's choice whether to use a business model incorporating 'freebies' that is capable of increasing sales in the future, and this is a good avenue for them to do it." As a ghost writer by profession, I agree with the latter but disagree with the former. Feel me?
I neglected to mention another thing I'm thinking. I understand where you're coming from -- give something out for free, get the recognition, and be able to sell more... IN THE FUTURE. Giving something away gives people no incentive to purchase that specific product. Giving something away would, perhaps, give people the incentive to purchase a product released by you for sale in the future. I agree with this, but to stand by this argument through hell and high water is to imply that every aspiring New York Times best selling author should release their first work for free, in full. Fundamentally, this theory is somewhat contrary to the structure of the IP industry and capitalism in general.
Yes, please point out what is wrong with my implication.
Write a book, keep tight control, make profit on its sales = $X.
Write another book, put it online for free, make profit on its sales > $X.
Is that really what you're saying? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be an idiot.
I specifically put the word financially in there knowing this would be the first response. This isn't about popularity, recognition, fame, fan-base, etc. This is about the money side of things, and I'm asking why any professional writer who lives by selling his written work would make a decision to give his work to the world for free.
So Google Books is only fighting over orphaned works?
Who said these rights must be exclusive to Google? Aside from the Slashdot community having a general pro-Google bias, I believe it doesn't matter whose company's name is in the story, it's about the freedom of information.
If only the rest of the world believed what you do, it might work. The problem is that not even a majority of the world believes that; in fact, they believe quite the opposite. Care to elaborate on some real-world circumstances and applications, rather than spewing ideology?
PS: I agree with you; once again, playing devil's advocate to learn a bit more from the people posting here.
First off, let me say that I agree with your post; however, for argument's sake, I'll play devil's advocate. How can putting my "hard work" online for anyone to view at their leisure benefit me financially?
True, but that does not mean a comedian can not make a solid philosophical observation. Are you implying Carlin was wrong about the whole "steering wheel spike" idea?
Your first couple of sentences echo one of the most tired arguments in the book. "The robot works under ideal spec'd [sic] conditions". What is that supposed to mean? That it only works on rough terrain if it's part of a controlled experiment? that it can only carry 400 lbs in the laboratory? Have you even researched Big Dog? The technology Boston Dynamics has pioneered in the creation of Big Dog is incredible, and it is not to be taken lightly or dismissed so quickly. These machines are created and tested against elemental outliers, or conditions that are fundamentally similar but substantially more extreme. They do this rigorous testing at Level 90 because most of the work it will do in the field is ranked at Level 50. These last few decades have led to absolutely crucial machinery such as Big Dog, and it really shows upon spending more than five minutes doing research.
Pointing out your own irony within moments of completing your post == not funny.
wikiFail...
God, I thought I was the only one...
...though I took it more in a geeky sense. Like "wow, I haven't the slightest use for any of these, but they're calculators... on Slashdot.. so I'll read."
Just because there's no rational/root key on the keyboard, that doesn't mean there's not a keyword that can be typed to denote the function or operator. It's definitely possible. Annoying? Yes, but definitely possible.
Mod this man up; and please, if someone has another good argument, please take the time to post it... for the people.
The problem with this is that you need to be outside the universe in order to do so, you can't calculate the universe from within itself any more than a VMWare can run a machine faster than the host processor.
You'd also need more mass in your computer than exists in the universe, observable or otherwise.
I can't believe this for some reason. If it is my own ignorance... would someone elaborate? Why is a device's computing/processing power only able to simulate the particles it is made out of?
So you're suggesting we add grains of salt to what we hear from NASA? Solid point, solid point.
I will also put money on it. Please let me know if it goes down so I can make some easy paper.
I assumed someone would say this, and while it's a logical response from someone with no experience, a bit of time dedicated to personally comparing the two networks will prove different. Trust me, I try putting up with Fox News a lot, eagerly looking forward to hearing a news network with a solid conservative bias. But they take politics beyond the true politics and into the realm of stupidity. MSNBC's mistakes end with apologies or lost jobs, Fox's mistakes are well-formulated in order to go directly over the heads of their following. Even if the whole rest of the world can see through it, they're successful because those who they've won over feed off of the bull.
I agree fully. My main use for this would be browsing the internet and (since monitors do not strain my eyes) I would also use them to read on the couch and have much more massive personal library available for 'dedicated reading'.. When I need a more diverse range of applications I will go to command central and do work where my work is best done. It would just be nice to have a decent tablet capable of full web browsing capabilities and touch screen. Reading takes up such a large portion of my day that this would be invaluable and I would be willing to pay well over $200 for it.
Absolutely. I can't believe the masses of people who believe Fox has anywhere near the integrity of MSNBC; it's outrageous the amount of deceptive spin and bias that characterizes Fox. Yes, MSNBC has a very noticeable liberal/democratic/"left" bias, but it is OBVIOUS and a politically-right viewer can still watch MSNBC for legitimate political coverage. A viewer who leans to the left can NOT watch Fox without being overwhelmed by absolute bullshit, and the conservatives/republicans who watch Fox are sadly roped in and held hostage by the out-of-context propaganda.
Right, right, but his complaint does make sense. I believe in WoW one may have multiple characters per account; one his character's has the ability to "cut gems" and the others have different abilities. As of now, both he and his friend know the account password; when his friend isn't around, he logs in to the account using the shared password and uses the gem-cutting character. If WoW was to implement the fobs/mobile authenticators as a default and mandatory security measure, he would no longer be able to share the account with his friend and it would become far more difficult to use his friend's abilities on a whim. It's an understandable concern (whether WoW account sharing is encouraged or discouraged) because it is very popular for friends to share accounts.