I think they underestimate the scale of their task, the size of the network that would be required, and just how much of a target their "fake nodes" will be for DDOS.
You may be right about the size of the network required, but you are wrong about the DDoS part. The whole point of this project is that there's no way to tell a real node from a fake one. In a good P2P system, all nodes are potentially equal; the only difference between them is that nodes with a lot of bandwidth get supernode status. There is no way to tell which nodes are operated by real users, and which nodes are operated by Macrovision. Thus, you can't selectively DDoS them.
I wonder if this could conceivably expose them to charges of fraud?
Meh... hypothetically, you're right. However, in practice, who is going to sue them ? The only organization powerful enough to sue them with any hope of victory would be EFF, but, even still, I doubt they'd win.
Remember: P2P networks are only used by pirates, child pornographers, and terrorists. If you want to defend them, you're a terrorist too, or possibly a pornographer, and you should be locked up in the Freedom Zone (tm) until further notice.
In theory it would not work with Bittorrent...You download a piece from someone else, hash it, then compare to the trusted hash. If it's different it's dropped (and some clients ask if you want to continue downloading from that source).
Yes, that's the idea. What Macrovision wants you to do is to waste a lot of time and bandwidth downloading fake pieces from their nodes, and dropping them. This way, you will be swamped with fake pieces, unable to download the coveted copyrighted file.
Hash spoofing? We've had this discussion before. I call shenanigans on this.
It's not what you think. Macrovision makes it clear in their patent that they are not going to try and create fake files whose hash matches the legitimate hash.
They are doing something much simpler -- returning fake files, complete with fake hashes, as search results. They are also thinking of returning real hashes in the search results, and making the results point to fake files.
When a legitimate client tries to download such a file, it will report it as corrupt, because its actual hash will differ from what Macrovision reports. However, the legitimate client would have already wasted some of its resources to download this fake file.
With enough fake clients returning fake files, Macrovision is hoping to essentially DDoS the network -- especially if some of their fake clients gain supernode status.
* Set up a bunch of fake P2P clients that look just like real clients (down to a faked version number, presumably). Give them a variety of IPs to appear as though the clients are widely distributed all over the globe. * Give these clients enough resources so that at least some of them become supernodes.
And this is what the fake clients will be doing:
* Intercept search requests, and consult with their own private server before sending a reply. * If the search includes a result for one of the copyrighted files on their blacklist, interfere with the results as follows:
o By removing the file from the list of search results
o By returning a fake search result that points to a nonexistent node as the source for the file
o Same as the above, but return a link to a functioning node that serves white noise * If needed, the fake search results will include fake file hashes, or even true file hashes gleaned from the rest of the network. Any attempt to actually download the files pointed to by the search results will still fail, but it will consume valuable resources of legitimate P2P users.
In addition, Macrovision is thinking of somehow isolating certain legitimate nodes from the network -- by surrounding them with fake nodes "on all sides", as it were.
Essentially, Macrovision's plan is a DDoS on the network; or, rather, a way for the network to DDoS itself (by flooding it with fake search results and fake nodes). I don't know much about how BitTorrent or ED2K are actually implemented, but it seems like this attack would work, especially if Macrovision's fake clients manage to become supernodes.
Now, I know that in the human there is a system that will be feeling fear.
How do you know that ?
One way you might answer this is, "well, in the human's brain there's a certain subsystem that releases these chemicals that are all tied up with feeling fear". Fine, but I could point to the Chinese Room, and show you which rulebooks/pencils/whatever serve the same function there.
Or, you might respond with, "because I know what it's like to know fear". But that doesn't let you know what other human beings are feeling, unless you're telepathic, which I suspect you're not.
It seems that you don't really know what other humans are feeling, you can only infer that, from their behavior. If the Chinese room behaves as a human does, I don't see how you'd be logically justified in assuming that it does not feel fear -- without resorting to faith, of course.
I couldn't help but smile, after reading their mission statement:
The mission of the Aspen Institute is to foster enlightened leadership and open-minded dialogue. Through seminars, policy programs, conferences and leadership development initiatives, the Institute and its international partners seek to promote nonpartisan inquiry and an appreciation for timeless values.
And who says dot-coms are dead ? Just when I'd thought I'd never see empty matketspeak like this again, the Aspen group steps in and reassures me that the well of bullshit is far from empty. Thanks, Aspen !
I'm afraid Searle still has no reason to think there is any understanding of Chinese going on.
The neurons in your brain don't speak Chinese any more than the man in the room does. Your entire brain, however, does speak Chinese (or whatever language it is that you speak), just as Searle's entire room does.
You can translate that 50 ways from Sunday but without understanding the language - understanding what makes those statements interesting - the machine will lose all their meaning.
Agreed, but I don't see how this proves that the machine can't understand the language in principle, though I grant you that none of our current machines are capable of this.
xcept for the fact that "The pie baked for three hours" isn't good grammar.
Why ? You could say, after all, "The pie baked normally for three hours in the oven, then it started to burn". It's acceptable grammar, but it's a confusing sentence on the semantic level.
The sentence "the pie was baked for three hours" differs in meaning, because it implies that someone was there, actively baking the pie.
Ok, then prove to me that I understand the language. How do you know I am not just a very clever emulator ?
The Chiniese Room argument doesn't work (as you must know), because, while the man in the room may not understand Chinese, the room as a whole does. Similarly, while neither handlebars, nor pedals, nor gears (etc.) are in themselves a bike, when you put them all together, you get a bike. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (or, at least, it's different).
Ultimately, your brain is just a "statistical, probabilistic model based on correlations"; I don't see how a different medium for such a model (electronics vs squishy bits) would make a difference. As I see it, you can only differentiate brains from machines by positing the existence of a soul -- but that's a matter of faith, and can't be used to actually convince anybody.
The article author is right. Software has long passed the stage where programming involved art, or even craft; now, mass production is the mainstream. The software field has matured to the point where it has become mundane -- just as car manufacturing (Ford), cooking (McDonalds), music (MTV), etc. When you have mass production, it makes absolutely no sense to painstakingly build your own solution, where readily available, time-proven copies can be bought off the shelf for cheap.
Innovation (the real kind, not the MS kind) still has a place in software, of course, but it only matters for software companies, and a few highly specialized scientific applications... Basically, innovation only matters for companies who are actively involved in some sort of research (software research, biology research, etc.). For regular companies, pre-packaged solutions for common problems (payroll app, office email app, company webserver, shopping cart, whatever) are much preferable.
Think about it this way: would you rather build your own car from nuts and bolts, or grow and slaughter your own chickens for food, or sew your own shirt from textiles that you made yourself ? No ? Then why write your own software ? Unless it's purely for fun, of course...
Note, however, that Willie Wonka himself possessed none of these qualities.
Honesty: he built what is essentially a giant mousetrap for children, and rigged his own lottery.
Patience: instead of actually doing something to pass on his empire (such as, I don't know, raising kids), he wants to pluck a ready-made perfect heir from the masses.
Humility: you're kidding, right ? He styles himself so far above humanity (literally, too), that he might as well be Apollo. Or Narcissus.
Kindness: here, have some blueberry candy, kids ! Mwa ha ha ha ! j00 d34d f00 !
Charity: see "Patience". He has studied humanity thoroughly; he knows to expect the worst.
Generosity: can we say, "financial empire", "media blitz", and "addiction-fostering ad campaign" ?
Flexibility: he is certainly whimsical, but Willie Wonka's methods are set in stone for all eternity. Feed chocolate to kids until they explode; if it was good enough 100 years ago, it's good enough now.
And that's just what can be gleaned from his relations to other humans ! I am not even talking about his enslavement of an entire alien race.
I hardly think that Wonka is looking for someone "Good". He is looking for someone Gullible enough to take the fall when the SEC probe arrives.
I like what you're saying, but let me just play Devil's Advocate for a moment.
CoH is a game about superheroes. Superheroes (at least, traditional ones) do not generally take chances or rely on "patience, tactics, etc.". This may sound ridiculous, but think about it for a moment. Superman is impervious to all damage (except for Kryptonite); it's impossible to hurt him. He can also fly and throw cars around (after grilling them a bit with his heat-vision). Spiderman's Spidey Sense warns him of imminent danger, and his super-reflexes allow him to cocoon the enemies before they can even think of taking a swing at him. Storm can rain city-wide lightning from the skies. Even Batman has no trouble with most evildoers he comes across: he just hangs them from a roof and keeps going.
Comic-books superheroes can be hurt, but it takes a supervillain to do it. Lex Luthor has his cryptonite, Doc Oc has techno-tentacles, etc. CoH is the same way: regular thugs are pretty much there for you to fry, but Dr. Vahzilok or the Clockwork King are trouble. Storm wouldn't assault Magneto's asteroid fortress (or whatever he has now) without getting support from Professor X and the other X-men; and your character wouldn't come after Dr. Vahz without putting together a strong team. It may not be uber-heroic, but that's the way comics work.
Furthermore, there already exists a game where "a gunshot kills any level character and only the better players survive"; it's called Counterstrike. You'll have to admit, though, that the gameplay there is very different from CoH. Not better, not worse, just totally different. Sure, you could make CoH just like CS, but then it would be a different game.
Wasn't that the point, though ? It never occurred to me to consider that MKI might not be a parody of Enter The Dragon. I mean, come on -- they used practically the exact same leaky boat, and the exact same beach ! Except Enter The Dragon tried to be oh so serious about it all, whereas MKI had Johnny Cage and Sonya Blade making fun of each other. Which is why I like it more.
Hey ! I actually liked the first Mortal Kombat. It was hillarious, and it was obviously not intended as a serious movie. That (as well as and Raiden) made it fun to watch. I think they tried to make a Mortal Kombat II movie, and it failed miserably, but I don't really remember it that well -- and I still remember MKI.
A handful of people, on a leaky boat, are gonna save the world ? -- EXACTLY.
So, essentially, the winning program(s) hacked (or exploited, if you prefer) the game in order to win ? That's pretty clever, but does this count as a true victory ? It's sort of like what Captain Kirk did to rig his Kobiyashi Maru scenario. Sure, he won on a technicality, but in doing so he missed the whole point of the challenge.
Paul Graham wrote an article on the subject, titled Why Nerds Are Unpopular. I find his essay a lot more believable and relevant than this conspiracy-theory-laden underground history mumbo-jumbo (disclaimer: I've read only about 50% of the book, skimmed the rest).
I think the real danger of homeschooling is that it is oh so tempting to homeschool your kid to be a proper little Christian/Muslim/Jew/some other kind of religious fanatic. In other words, many people choose to homeschool their kids not because they want them to receive better education (in science or humanities or whatever), but because they want to indoctrinate them properly against all those godless heathen demon-spawn that our public schools are supposedly filled with. That kind of "education" is worse than none at all; we have enough zealots as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember: P2P networks are only used by pirates, child pornographers, and terrorists. If you want to defend them, you're a terrorist too, or possibly a pornographer, and you should be locked up in the Freedom Zone (tm) until further notice.
They are doing something much simpler -- returning fake files, complete with fake hashes, as search results. They are also thinking of returning real hashes in the search results, and making the results point to fake files.
When a legitimate client tries to download such a file, it will report it as corrupt, because its actual hash will differ from what Macrovision reports. However, the legitimate client would have already wasted some of its resources to download this fake file.
With enough fake clients returning fake files, Macrovision is hoping to essentially DDoS the network -- especially if some of their fake clients gain supernode status.
This is what Macrovision wants to do:
* Set up a bunch of fake P2P clients that look just like real clients (down to a faked version number, presumably). Give them a variety of IPs to appear as though the clients are widely distributed all over the globe.
* Give these clients enough resources so that at least some of them become supernodes.
And this is what the fake clients will be doing:
* Intercept search requests, and consult with their own private server before sending a reply.
* If the search includes a result for one of the copyrighted files on their blacklist, interfere with the results as follows:
o By removing the file from the list of search results
o By returning a fake search result that points to a nonexistent node as the source for the file
o Same as the above, but return a link to a functioning node that serves white noise
* If needed, the fake search results will include fake file hashes, or even true file hashes gleaned from the rest of the network. Any attempt to actually download the files pointed to by the search results will still fail, but it will consume valuable resources of legitimate P2P users.
In addition, Macrovision is thinking of somehow isolating certain legitimate nodes from the network -- by surrounding them with fake nodes "on all sides", as it were.
Essentially, Macrovision's plan is a DDoS on the network; or, rather, a way for the network to DDoS itself (by flooding it with fake search results and fake nodes). I don't know much about how BitTorrent or ED2K are actually implemented, but it seems like this attack would work, especially if Macrovision's fake clients manage to become supernodes.
This is actually good news. Now, when someone tells you "you hit like a girl !", you can retort with, "oh yeah ? well you hit like a ROBOT !"
One way you might answer this is, "well, in the human's brain there's a certain subsystem that releases these chemicals that are all tied up with feeling fear". Fine, but I could point to the Chinese Room, and show you which rulebooks/pencils/whatever serve the same function there.
Or, you might respond with, "because I know what it's like to know fear". But that doesn't let you know what other human beings are feeling, unless you're telepathic, which I suspect you're not.
It seems that you don't really know what other humans are feeling, you can only infer that, from their behavior. If the Chinese room behaves as a human does, I don't see how you'd be logically justified in assuming that it does not feel fear -- without resorting to faith, of course.
Ha ! I'd like to see a human translator (or a team of human translators) that could do that.
What's the problem ?
The sentence "the pie was baked for three hours" differs in meaning, because it implies that someone was there, actively baking the pie.
Ok, then prove to me that I understand the language. How do you know I am not just a very clever emulator ? The Chiniese Room argument doesn't work (as you must know), because, while the man in the room may not understand Chinese, the room as a whole does. Similarly, while neither handlebars, nor pedals, nor gears (etc.) are in themselves a bike, when you put them all together, you get a bike. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (or, at least, it's different). Ultimately, your brain is just a "statistical, probabilistic model based on correlations"; I don't see how a different medium for such a model (electronics vs squishy bits) would make a difference. As I see it, you can only differentiate brains from machines by positing the existence of a soul -- but that's a matter of faith, and can't be used to actually convince anybody.
In other words, are these eggs any better at predicting the future than a big painted sign on the wall that says "something big is gonna happen !" ?
Innovation (the real kind, not the MS kind) still has a place in software, of course, but it only matters for software companies, and a few highly specialized scientific applications... Basically, innovation only matters for companies who are actively involved in some sort of research (software research, biology research, etc.). For regular companies, pre-packaged solutions for common problems (payroll app, office email app, company webserver, shopping cart, whatever) are much preferable.
Think about it this way: would you rather build your own car from nuts and bolts, or grow and slaughter your own chickens for food, or sew your own shirt from textiles that you made yourself ? No ? Then why write your own software ? Unless it's purely for fun, of course...
- Honesty: he built what is essentially a giant mousetrap for children, and rigged his own lottery.
- Patience: instead of actually doing something to pass on his empire (such as, I don't know, raising kids), he wants to pluck a ready-made perfect heir from the masses.
- Humility: you're kidding, right ? He styles himself so far above humanity (literally, too), that he might as well be Apollo. Or Narcissus.
- Kindness: here, have some blueberry candy, kids ! Mwa ha ha ha ! j00 d34d f00 !
- Charity: see "Patience". He has studied humanity thoroughly; he knows to expect the worst.
- Generosity: can we say, "financial empire", "media blitz", and "addiction-fostering ad campaign" ?
- Flexibility: he is certainly whimsical, but Willie Wonka's methods are set in stone for all eternity. Feed chocolate to kids until they explode; if it was good enough 100 years ago, it's good enough now.
And that's just what can be gleaned from his relations to other humans ! I am not even talking about his enslavement of an entire alien race.I hardly think that Wonka is looking for someone "Good". He is looking for someone Gullible enough to take the fall when the SEC probe arrives.
Whoa, I guess Frank Herbert totally called it on this one. He describes exactly such lenses in Dune. Neat !
When is the PAX DvD coming out ? And where can we buy it when it does ?
CoH is a game about superheroes. Superheroes (at least, traditional ones) do not generally take chances or rely on "patience, tactics, etc.". This may sound ridiculous, but think about it for a moment. Superman is impervious to all damage (except for Kryptonite); it's impossible to hurt him. He can also fly and throw cars around (after grilling them a bit with his heat-vision). Spiderman's Spidey Sense warns him of imminent danger, and his super-reflexes allow him to cocoon the enemies before they can even think of taking a swing at him. Storm can rain city-wide lightning from the skies. Even Batman has no trouble with most evildoers he comes across: he just hangs them from a roof and keeps going.
Comic-books superheroes can be hurt, but it takes a supervillain to do it. Lex Luthor has his cryptonite, Doc Oc has techno-tentacles, etc. CoH is the same way: regular thugs are pretty much there for you to fry, but Dr. Vahzilok or the Clockwork King are trouble. Storm wouldn't assault Magneto's asteroid fortress (or whatever he has now) without getting support from Professor X and the other X-men; and your character wouldn't come after Dr. Vahz without putting together a strong team. It may not be uber-heroic, but that's the way comics work.
Furthermore, there already exists a game where "a gunshot kills any level character and only the better players survive"; it's called Counterstrike. You'll have to admit, though, that the gameplay there is very different from CoH. Not better, not worse, just totally different. Sure, you could make CoH just like CS, but then it would be a different game.
Wasn't that the point, though ? It never occurred to me to consider that MKI might not be a parody of Enter The Dragon. I mean, come on -- they used practically the exact same leaky boat, and the exact same beach ! Except Enter The Dragon tried to be oh so serious about it all, whereas MKI had Johnny Cage and Sonya Blade making fun of each other. Which is why I like it more.
A handful of people, on a leaky boat, are gonna save the world ? -- EXACTLY.
So, essentially, the winning program(s) hacked (or exploited, if you prefer) the game in order to win ? That's pretty clever, but does this count as a true victory ? It's sort of like what Captain Kirk did to rig his Kobiyashi Maru scenario. Sure, he won on a technicality, but in doing so he missed the whole point of the challenge.
18-35 #28a: Dear Sirs, what specifically are your plans to ensure both Iran and North Korea do not obtain nuclear missile capabilities ?
18-35 #28b: Dear Sirs, what is your stance on the defense of Taiwan?
The original combo question is too unfocused to be useful.
Paul Graham wrote an article on the subject, titled Why Nerds Are Unpopular. I find his essay a lot more believable and relevant than this conspiracy-theory-laden underground history mumbo-jumbo (disclaimer: I've read only about 50% of the book, skimmed the rest).
I think the real danger of homeschooling is that it is oh so tempting to homeschool your kid to be a proper little Christian/Muslim/Jew/some other kind of religious fanatic. In other words, many people choose to homeschool their kids not because they want them to receive better education (in science or humanities or whatever), but because they want to indoctrinate them properly against all those godless heathen demon-spawn that our public schools are supposedly filled with. That kind of "education" is worse than none at all; we have enough zealots as it is.