I would like to add, the same technology that created this problem ( DDoS attacks ) can be put to use to solve the problem.
When a website is under a DDoS attack, it is essentially receiving more packets than it can process and respond to. Even under this condition, the website can send out packets, because upstream bandwidth is still available.
If a website ( or node if you prefer ) is under attack, it could send a message to the upstream ISP that says "Hey, ip address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX is attacking me, can you please block it from connecting to me at the source ?" The ISP would then forward this upstream until it reaches the attacking nodes ISP, at which point a filter entry would be created, preventing AttackNodeA from sending packets to WebsiteB. This request could expire after whatever period of time was required to quell the attack.
A technology based solution like the one above, would let websites simply hang up on attackers, much as any of us would simply hang up on a crank or unwanted phone call. If we continued to get the call, we would contact the phone company and they would filter it.
Of course, I realize the hardware and protocols for this are not in fact currently deployed, but if they were, then college students who DDoS a website in protest wouldn't need to have their lives ruined by the penal system, and the websites who they chose to attack wouldn't have their business interrupted.
Seems to me to be the least cost path for society to resolve the issue.
15 years sounds like an extremely harsh punishment given the circumstances. In fact, since its just some stupid rock bands website, I wouldn't expect justice to include any jail time at all.
The draconian measures that have been written into law concerning "computer crimes" versus any other type of crime, seem to me to be a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is/was beyond the means of the legislators ability to deal with it. As a result, they passed a special law concerning computer crime, that could have been framed within the context of any other number of already existing laws.
A fair and reasonable society and justice system would meter punishment proportionate to the offense, such that, no side of the equation is imbalanced.
Do I agree with the current state of legislation concerning "computer crimes?"... not at all. Do I think people should be given free rein to to interfere with the internet and other peoples computer systems just because they have a script programmed for the task ? Again, not at all.
Well, I respectfully disagree and argue that it is indeed spot on.
Lets say you are a hacker, and you belong to the organization that puts on the HackerCon2011 event. You only charge an admission fee designed to recover the expenses required to conduct the event... the advertising, the hotel conference rooms, the hotel rooms for those who stay overnight, any organized transportation, the lighting and sound equipment, the power bill and networking, etc. such that you are operating in a not-for-profit capacity. The expense and time and resources are your "medium" required to deliver your "message."
The same is true of people who communicate via the internet. The network infrastructure on both ends of a conversation, and the interconnections between are the "medium" by which the "message" is delivered.
Both are "commercial" activities, as opposed to say, an informal gathering where no financial transactions are conducted. Interference with either event, your event of HackerCon2011 by say, a group of radical RIAA members who crash your event and wreak havoc such that they have ruined the mediums ability to deliver the message, or the website operators and customers event, by an outside party who ruins their mediums ( http sessions ) ability to deliver the message ( website usage / browser usage ) would be equally illegal.
Thats an interesting analogy. If the event were being held a public place, say, a county owned park, I would imagine that no, it is not illegal for the protesters to boo down the Nazis.
However, if the event were being held in a private venue, and the protesters prevented the Nazi's and the people who paid money to hear them speak conduct their event without interruption, then I would have to say yes, it is in fact illegal.
In this case, Mr Simmons was paying to host his website, and his fans and customers were paying to access his website, which makes denying Mr Simmons the ability to broadcast his website, and his fans the ability to receive that broadcast, an illegal activity.
The loss to the KISS artist was estimated to be in the tens of dollars
How much is the right to free speech worth ? Mr Simmons, asshole or not, appears to have had his rights to free speech violated by the attackers who prevented his website from functioning.
Did he deserve it for being a karmically challenged ? Probably. Does the exercise of free speech come without consequences ? No, there are normally consequences. But if we hold the right to free speech sacred as a society, then everyone deserves protection when denied that right.
There's no "expense" in your IP being transferred to China
You live in a dream world.
In the real world, the US government borrows $1 billion from China in the form of T-bills, and pays a government contractor $1.5 billion to develop the IP that China then steals and uses for free. The resulting hemorrhage is patched by gimmicks like quantitative easing, which inflates the price of the food in your kitchen.
Wake up little girl. The world isn't about video games and masturbation. It has real consequences.
It seems that the real problem isn't that the data has been taken, but that it has been kept from achieving it's full humanitarian potential by keeping it secret.
Awesome.
Post your address so I can liberate the food in your kitchen so that the rest of humanity can benefit at the expense of you being able to feed your children.
Hand over your humanitarian potential. All your base belong to us.
You are failing to take into account the simple fact that a single piece of paper, digital or real, can contain information that cost billions to obtain.
There is no reason to assume what is being stolen was created within a single calendar year.
and now that I contemplate this more, it seems like this announcement is Nvidia's attempt to win back people like myself, and convince everyone to use CUDA instead of OpenCL. Much like the DirectX vs OpenGL thing Microsoft pulled off, but perhaps with less chance of success.
And as I said, the OpenCL driver I downloaded from Nvidia a week ago, doesn't support CPU's as a target. This is not to say CUDA isn't capable of doing this at some point or with some 3rd party addition, just that the capability currently doesn't exist, or at the very least, isn't being provided by Nvidia.
Given the choice of a vendor-neutral platform, or a vendor-supplied platform ( where the odds of CUDA having support for AMD GPU's is near 0 )... as a developer, which would you choose ?
Hence my prediction, OpenCL will win ( the hearts and minds contest ). It's already won mine. I wouldn't touch CUDA for fear of being locked into Nvidia products versus the open, broad support, of OpenCL. I even ordered an AMD video card, so I can ditch the Nvidia only driver entirely.
imho... OpenCL is a much better path, because it can execute code on a CPU as well as a GPU. It can even target FPGAs for executing the parallel operations on reconfigurable hardware, as well as sharing output paths with OpenGL for visualization.
The Nvidia driver ( at least for linux ) currently seems to only support Nvidia GPUs as a target, but the AMD driver supports AMD GPUs as well as the host systems CPU. Again, on linux at least, you can install both AMD and Nvidias drivers if you want to utilize your CPU ( via AMD driver ) and Nvidia GPU ( via Nvidia driver ) at the same time, although there are some minor framework related hoops to jump through to get parallel execution across multiple device platforms concurrently.
These features seem to indicate native CUDA is pretty much a dead platform ( looking forward ).
"Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone"
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
C GNU gcc 1.00 1.00 1.00 [1.02] 1.26 1.65 3.24
C++ GNU g++ 1.00 1.00 1.01 [1.07] 1.29 1.72 4.31
Java 7 averaged 1.05 1.05 1.24 [1.47] 1.94 2.04 2.04
Java 7 -server 1.11 1.11 1.36 [1.65] 2.04 3.07 5.94
The [] bracketed numbers are the median of all the tests.
The C and C++ average is 1.02 + 1.07 = 2.09 / 2 = 1.045
The Java 7 averaged and Java 7 -server average is 1.47 + 1.65 = 3.12 / 2 = 1.56
The average performance ratio of Java/Server vs C/C++ is 1.56 / 1.045 = 1.492823... or in other words... 49.2823 % slower.
My original statement was
Which is at least 50% slower on its best day, than C/C++ on it's worst day.
Which is not what you remembered incorrectly and then misrepresented it to be as
the best Java program will be half as fast as the worst C++ program is false.
So in summary, my comment was within a 2% margin of error accurate, based on statistics you presented as valid, and you suck at reading comprehension and math, and you post falsehoods as a result. The evidence bears this out, no need to kill the messenger.
.If someone tells me "no VM can execute code on its absolute best day with performance that's half as good as C++ on C++'s worst day
I never said that. You just think I said that, because you are as emotionally attached to Java as you are challenged when tasked with reading comprehension.
What I said, verbatim, was "Which [Java] is at least 50% slower on its best day, than C/C++ on it's worst day." in response to your claim that "JIT technology is pretty advanced these days. (It's good enough for Java, anyway.)".
Furthermore, in an additional post I stated very clearly "As for JIT, it's a non-issue.... It's the VM part that kills performance." to which you replied "You don't seem to understand how a JIT works." further failing to comprehend or address the actual subject matter.
Be honest with yourself first, and then you can be honest with others.
If all it took was a TOS and a third party doing the collection don't you think the government would have been using that loophole long ago?
Well, first, it is the carrier who is collecting the data. CarrierIQ is providing tools and/or support to the carrier. The TOS is an agreement with the carrier, who is free to meet those obligations via subcontractors. The 3rd party is the FBI ( and other law enforcement agencies, as well as, advertising companies, product vendors, etc etc etc ).
Second, they *have* been doing this for decades. With credit card statements and phone billing summaries.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to add, the same technology that created this problem ( DDoS attacks ) can be put to use to solve the problem.
When a website is under a DDoS attack, it is essentially receiving more packets than it can process and respond to. Even under this condition, the website can send out packets, because upstream bandwidth is still available.
If a website ( or node if you prefer ) is under attack, it could send a message to the upstream ISP that says "Hey, ip address XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX is attacking me, can you please block it from connecting to me at the source ?" The ISP would then forward this upstream until it reaches the attacking nodes ISP, at which point a filter entry would be created, preventing AttackNodeA from sending packets to WebsiteB. This request could expire after whatever period of time was required to quell the attack.
A technology based solution like the one above, would let websites simply hang up on attackers, much as any of us would simply hang up on a crank or unwanted phone call. If we continued to get the call, we would contact the phone company and they would filter it.
Of course, I realize the hardware and protocols for this are not in fact currently deployed, but if they were, then college students who DDoS a website in protest wouldn't need to have their lives ruined by the penal system, and the websites who they chose to attack wouldn't have their business interrupted.
Seems to me to be the least cost path for society to resolve the issue.
15 years sounds like an extremely harsh punishment given the circumstances. In fact, since its just some stupid rock bands website, I wouldn't expect justice to include any jail time at all.
... not at all. Do I think people should be given free rein to to interfere with the internet and other peoples computer systems just because they have a script programmed for the task ? Again, not at all.
The draconian measures that have been written into law concerning "computer crimes" versus any other type of crime, seem to me to be a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is/was beyond the means of the legislators ability to deal with it. As a result, they passed a special law concerning computer crime, that could have been framed within the context of any other number of already existing laws.
A fair and reasonable society and justice system would meter punishment proportionate to the offense, such that, no side of the equation is imbalanced.
Do I agree with the current state of legislation concerning "computer crimes?"
Well, I respectfully disagree and argue that it is indeed spot on.
... the advertising, the hotel conference rooms, the hotel rooms for those who stay overnight, any organized transportation, the lighting and sound equipment, the power bill and networking, etc. such that you are operating in a not-for-profit capacity. The expense and time and resources are your "medium" required to deliver your "message."
Lets say you are a hacker, and you belong to the organization that puts on the HackerCon2011 event. You only charge an admission fee designed to recover the expenses required to conduct the event
The same is true of people who communicate via the internet. The network infrastructure on both ends of a conversation, and the interconnections between are the "medium" by which the "message" is delivered.
Both are "commercial" activities, as opposed to say, an informal gathering where no financial transactions are conducted. Interference with either event, your event of HackerCon2011 by say, a group of radical RIAA members who crash your event and wreak havoc such that they have ruined the mediums ability to deliver the message, or the website operators and customers event, by an outside party who ruins their mediums ( http sessions ) ability to deliver the message ( website usage / browser usage ) would be equally illegal.
Thats an interesting analogy. If the event were being held a public place, say, a county owned park, I would imagine that no, it is not illegal for the protesters to boo down the Nazis.
However, if the event were being held in a private venue, and the protesters prevented the Nazi's and the people who paid money to hear them speak conduct their event without interruption, then I would have to say yes, it is in fact illegal.
In this case, Mr Simmons was paying to host his website, and his fans and customers were paying to access his website, which makes denying Mr Simmons the ability to broadcast his website, and his fans the ability to receive that broadcast, an illegal activity.
SCO was famous for this. $5,000 minimum support contracts, with $1,000 per incident fees, whether they fixed it or not.
"Thank you for calling SCO may I help you ?"
"Yeah, my manufacturing plant just shut down because your kernel panic'd."
"We're sorry to hear that, but you have the newest version, so there are no updates you can apply to resolve the issue. ($1,000 cha ching)"
The loss to the KISS artist was estimated to be in the tens of dollars
How much is the right to free speech worth ? Mr Simmons, asshole or not, appears to have had his rights to free speech violated by the attackers who prevented his website from functioning.
Did he deserve it for being a karmically challenged ? Probably. Does the exercise of free speech come without consequences ? No, there are normally consequences. But if we hold the right to free speech sacred as a society, then everyone deserves protection when denied that right.
There's no "expense" in your IP being transferred to China
You live in a dream world.
In the real world, the US government borrows $1 billion from China in the form of T-bills, and pays a government contractor $1.5 billion to develop the IP that China then steals and uses for free. The resulting hemorrhage is patched by gimmicks like quantitative easing, which inflates the price of the food in your kitchen.
Wake up little girl. The world isn't about video games and masturbation. It has real consequences.
It seems that the real problem isn't that the data has been taken, but that it has been kept from achieving it's full humanitarian potential by keeping it secret.
Awesome.
Post your address so I can liberate the food in your kitchen so that the rest of humanity can benefit at the expense of you being able to feed your children.
Hand over your humanitarian potential. All your base belong to us.
If I stole the production plans for the Boeing 747, it wouldn't be of value because I do not have the means to build 747s.
The story, and the world, don't revolve around you.
You are failing to take into account the simple fact that a single piece of paper, digital or real, can contain information that cost billions to obtain.
There is no reason to assume what is being stolen was created within a single calendar year.
And that is how we get out of debt! Either that or World War III.
I can live with either one more readily than doing nothing and taking it UTA.
+1 - Thank you for speaking the truth, even if it isn't popular.
Looks like the US gets to add $500 billion worth of tariffs to imported Chinese products now.
If only life operated on the sunny side and politicians had spines.
and now that I contemplate this more, it seems like this announcement is Nvidia's attempt to win back people like myself, and convince everyone to use CUDA instead of OpenCL. Much like the DirectX vs OpenGL thing Microsoft pulled off, but perhaps with less chance of success.
And as I said, the OpenCL driver I downloaded from Nvidia a week ago, doesn't support CPU's as a target. This is not to say CUDA isn't capable of doing this at some point or with some 3rd party addition, just that the capability currently doesn't exist, or at the very least, isn't being provided by Nvidia.
... as a developer, which would you choose ?
Given the choice of a vendor-neutral platform, or a vendor-supplied platform ( where the odds of CUDA having support for AMD GPU's is near 0 )
Hence my prediction, OpenCL will win ( the hearts and minds contest ). It's already won mine. I wouldn't touch CUDA for fear of being locked into Nvidia products versus the open, broad support, of OpenCL. I even ordered an AMD video card, so I can ditch the Nvidia only driver entirely.
it may eventually be worth more than oil/gas.
It's already worth more. $1 a liter ( give or take ) for bottled water, and currently gasoline ( here ) is $3.50 a gallon ( $0.92 per liter ).
... for illustrative purposes only)
(take it for what it is, a simplified example
imho ... OpenCL is a much better path, because it can execute code on a CPU as well as a GPU. It can even target FPGAs for executing the parallel operations on reconfigurable hardware, as well as sharing output paths with OpenGL for visualization.
The Nvidia driver ( at least for linux ) currently seems to only support Nvidia GPUs as a target, but the AMD driver supports AMD GPUs as well as the host systems CPU. Again, on linux at least, you can install both AMD and Nvidias drivers if you want to utilize your CPU ( via AMD driver ) and Nvidia GPU ( via Nvidia driver ) at the same time, although there are some minor framework related hoops to jump through to get parallel execution across multiple device platforms concurrently.
These features seem to indicate native CUDA is pretty much a dead platform ( looking forward ).
{facepalm}
The countries with low deforestation rates have already completed their deforestation effort.
I thought the issue was greenhouse gas and climate change ? You mean deforestation doesn't count ?
Because if someone at the UN makes me pay, I'm going to cut down trees and saw them into lumber to raise the money.
errata ... from the website by rgbrenner linked to. We all make mistakes.
"Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone"
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
So based on this chart, the assertion that the best Java program will be half as fast as the worst C++ program is false.
From the website you linked to, found at http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php
C GNU gcc 1.00 1.00 1.00 [1.02] 1.26 1.65 3.24
C++ GNU g++ 1.00 1.00 1.01 [1.07] 1.29 1.72 4.31
Java 7 averaged 1.05 1.05 1.24 [1.47] 1.94 2.04 2.04
Java 7 -server 1.11 1.11 1.36 [1.65] 2.04 3.07 5.94
The [] bracketed numbers are the median of all the tests.
... or in other words ... 49.2823 % slower.
The C and C++ average is 1.02 + 1.07 = 2.09 / 2 = 1.045
The Java 7 averaged and Java 7 -server average is 1.47 + 1.65 = 3.12 / 2 = 1.56
The average performance ratio of Java/Server vs C/C++ is 1.56 / 1.045 = 1.492823
My original statement was
Which is at least 50% slower on its best day, than C/C++ on it's worst day.
Which is not what you remembered incorrectly and then misrepresented it to be as
the best Java program will be half as fast as the worst C++ program is false.
So in summary, my comment was within a 2% margin of error accurate, based on statistics you presented as valid, and you suck at reading comprehension and math, and you post falsehoods as a result. The evidence bears this out, no need to kill the messenger.
.If someone tells me "no VM can execute code on its absolute best day with performance that's half as good as C++ on C++'s worst day
I never said that. You just think I said that, because you are as emotionally attached to Java as you are challenged when tasked with reading comprehension.
... It's the VM part that kills performance." to which you replied "You don't seem to understand how a JIT works." further failing to comprehend or address the actual subject matter.
What I said, verbatim, was "Which [Java] is at least 50% slower on its best day, than C/C++ on it's worst day." in response to your claim that "JIT technology is pretty advanced these days. (It's good enough for Java, anyway.)".
Furthermore, in an additional post I stated very clearly "As for JIT, it's a non-issue.
Be honest with yourself first, and then you can be honest with others.
If all it took was a TOS and a third party doing the collection don't you think the government would have been using that loophole long ago?
Well, first, it is the carrier who is collecting the data. CarrierIQ is providing tools and/or support to the carrier. The TOS is an agreement with the carrier, who is free to meet those obligations via subcontractors. The 3rd party is the FBI ( and other law enforcement agencies, as well as, advertising companies, product vendors, etc etc etc ).
Second, they *have* been doing this for decades. With credit card statements and phone billing summaries.
See my other post concerning this logical fallacy.