Hate to break it to you, this isn't about hackers, it's about spying, political, commercial and military. Putin is clearly trying to reign in control of the internet and what his people can see. Read the back story and what Putin actually SAYS he's doing this for... "the laws are needed to fight "extremism" and "terrorism." which follows his claim that the internet is a CIA tool to distribute propaganda.
This is Putin preparing for conflict with the west, if not an all out war.
Russia has a legislative system which isn't in the pockets of the evil capitalist corporations since these laws were implemented without any input from the ISPs.
Yea, they pretty much pass any law Putin tells them to instead of listening to the lobbyists hired by industry. Like that's SO much better.
There's no "sorta" about it. COBOL was still being *actively developed in* as late as 2013. People are going to be supporting COBOL for generations at this rate.
No, COBOL isn't dead, but the burial plot has been paid for, the grave stone ordered, the undertaker paid, and the hole is being dug. We are just waiting for it to stop breathing so the doctor can sigh the paperwork. Which is why I put "sorta" on that post.
Not exactly true, we do roll them back every so often.... We pretty much ended hostilities with Japan and Germany, both of which where under US trade sanctions previously... Then there is South Africa, we sanctions them previously but restored relations when they came around. Same with Iran and Turkey, we dropped sanctions on them in the past, even if we've cycled back to having them of late.
Except for one notable case, when has a large conflict started a "sneak attack"? Even Pearl Harbor wasn't really all that sneaky looking back... But you are correct, the ability to launch attacks with no warning is a problem, I just don't think it's as bad as you might think.
I would note that missile subs DO roam close to the advisories shores from time to time. A Russian sub spent a few months in the Gulf of Mexico last year according to Moscow, and I'm sure we returned the favor. We've been doing this to varying degrees for decades and although it doesn't look stable, it's apparently worked so far.
A Wild Weasel and a properly tuned HARM missile from the 1970's might work fine. But in this case a GPS guided JDAM or two would be about all you need once you could get the location fixed.
Well said, stealth is abut controlling RF return and IR emissions and using your knowledge of your weapon system and the advisories ability to find you to your advantage. It's about having tactics to give you the most advantage out of what the technology gives you.
Maybe so, but try to point and shoot a missile at a 600 MPH target using a weather radar that updates every 2 min. Can we say, not going to hit anything? Then figure that a weather radar station is pretty darned big and if anything goes boom it will be the transmitter.
Gee, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the USA didn't already take such technology into account, like they didn't know or expect that changing the frequency of the radar might make detection of "stealth" aircraft possible. The F35 isn't going to be doing missions where this will matter anyway. I'd be more worried about the F22 and B2 platforms.
Having even traditional stealth like the F35 is known to have is a tactical advantage in the realms and missions they are planning to be used for. It's obvious to me that the F35's being used in close air support roles will have an advantage over the F18's used now which have radar cross section of a flying tractor trailer truck. Not to mention that in MOST places, they are not going to have the newfangled technology that defeats stealth anyway. Certainly it's going to be a long time before the guy on the ground with the shoulder fired weapon will have this radar (Not that he needs it as most of that stuff is IR guided anyway).
So, if you really want to complain about something, drop the F35 and get ready. I'm guessing we are going to be replacing the B2 over this. Strategic bombers are really expensive and complicated programs. Of course it would be cheaper to go the missile route, but I'm guessing we won't due to treaties we are in.
I do not think there is much debate that the long-term effects on human civilization will be profoundly negative.
!=
"Civilization is a bad thing"
Even though they are actually your words, not mine, they seem pretty similar and logically equivalent to me. But OK, if you want to think my argument claiming that something hasn't been bad in the past, so there is no reason to think it will be in the future doesn't apply, that means you think it has or will change from good to bad as time progresses.
Are you trying to make a distinction between the "past" of civilization and the "future"? Civilization was good in the past, but is already or in the future will become bad? OK, When? When is the switch from good to bad on the time line and what causes the switch?
But wait.... Remember that you already admitted that we are really bad at predicting what will happen in the future, and you are then claiming that we will get better at forecasting the future as time goes on. So I claim that based on your argument, you cannot make your claim about civilization's eventual effect, because where we may become better at predicting the climate and weather, there is no way you can know what the over all effect of human civilization will be.
I do not think there is much debate that the long-term effects on human civilization will be profoundly negative.
Which sums up nicely what this is *really* all about, human civilization and the perception that human activity is *always* negative, or to put it another way, change is bad.
If you believe in Darwin's theories, then apply them here. Life will adapt as it has in the past and if humans cannot adapt, they will die and civilization with it. Why are you worried about that? Evolution is a good thing, right? I say this with tongue firmly in my cheek, to illustrate how absurd this all is in the grand scheme of things and how your world view has shaped your perceptions of what is good and bad.
You correctly say, we don't know what is going to happen and cannot predict it with any assurance of our accuracy, then you turn around and assume that the future only holds bad things and we need to fear it. WE DON'T KNOW, but fearing the unknown is a common trait in humans and I contend that there are those who use that trait to gain power and influence over others. They play on fear, hype the "bad" possibilities and gain control of others though the process. I contend that this is what most of this is about. This issue is more about politics than science, and more about control than prevention.
Think about the ultimate destination of your thought processing... Where does this whole thing end up in the end. If civilization is "profoundly negative" what do you suggest we do about it? The only thing that I can come up with is abandoning civilization up front, but surely you don't mean we should just volunteer for mass extinction? Do you? Remember that it is your contention that civilization is only going to result in really BAD things.
IMHO you are wrong in your assessment of civilization's future and I point to the past as evidence. It's always been a rocky road and we will continue to have bumps and failures, but in general, we've come a long way. It's not time to just chuck it all and "Global warming" (or whatever it's called today) is a *really* poor reason to consider it.
Not even close... The people down in Club GITMO where ALL afforded trials according to military rules. They had representation, evidence was presented and they where given the opportunity to defend themselves. You may not like the process used, but it is fair, legal and backed by centuries of precedent and there is no indication the results where not fair. Detainees are afforded the rights and privileges required by the Geneva conventions (rules of war) as a minimum (actually better than required) and like it or not, what was done at GITMO was legal by international law.
Whistle blowing does not give one the right to break the law. Snowden didn't even attempt to use the process afforded to him for that purpose, but when straight to the "break the law" acts which you are NOT afforded protection from as a whistle blower. There where a bunch of things he could have done short of breaking the law to garner attention to his case, but he choose to foolishly rush into committing an act that many consider treason. That a trial's verdict is a foregone conclusion for most, does not make it so, nor does it mean it is an unfair process.
Snowden knew what he was doing, the law he was breaking, what he was risking, what the consequences might be, yet he did it anyway. Now you are going to bitch that the system is unfair because a trial would likely find him guilty? You are complaining about the WRONG thing. It's not the courts which are the issue you should be fighting, it's the law itself... And in this case, I'd bet it's not the law that Snowden broke that you'd have issues with, but the legal justification used by the NSA to do what they do. Now THAT's something we can logically discuss, but this "he cannot get a fair trial" position is a stinking pile of garbage, twice removed from the *real* issue here.
Actually I think I'm being kind to him by calling him a coward because I'm saying he didn't intend for this to end up this way, he soft of fell into it and is now running scared. If you don't think that's the case, then he s a stupid immature short sighted lying traitor who flees in the face of danger, deserving of severe punishment at the hands of the government he betrayed.
Slashdot Mirror
wtf is the point?
They will have to drink TEA to stay awake now.... It's evil genius!
It's not even a law, but an executive decree.
You mean that they have pens and phones in Russia too?
Hate to break it to you, this isn't about hackers, it's about spying, political, commercial and military. Putin is clearly trying to reign in control of the internet and what his people can see. Read the back story and what Putin actually SAYS he's doing this for... "the laws are needed to fight "extremism" and "terrorism." which follows his claim that the internet is a CIA tool to distribute propaganda.
This is Putin preparing for conflict with the west, if not an all out war.
Russia has a legislative system which isn't in the pockets of the evil capitalist corporations since these laws were implemented without any input from the ISPs.
Yea, they pretty much pass any law Putin tells them to instead of listening to the lobbyists hired by industry. Like that's SO much better.
The president needs to turn off the speech recognition on his blackberry.... Especially when he's meeting with the Joint Chiefs....
Darn open mics anyway....
And the countermeasure is - block access to Russian Porn?
That vile Putin fella... Doesn't he know he's going to be savaged on Slashdot for doing that?
There's no "sorta" about it. COBOL was still being *actively developed in* as late as 2013. People are going to be supporting COBOL for generations at this rate.
No, COBOL isn't dead, but the burial plot has been paid for, the grave stone ordered, the undertaker paid, and the hole is being dug. We are just waiting for it to stop breathing so the doctor can sigh the paperwork. Which is why I put "sorta" on that post.
THIS might kill Java (tm).
Oracle is Blocking Downloads to Russian IP addresses? Is there anybody who thinks this will in anyway help?
Not exactly true, we do roll them back every so often.... We pretty much ended hostilities with Japan and Germany, both of which where under US trade sanctions previously... Then there is South Africa, we sanctions them previously but restored relations when they came around. Same with Iran and Turkey, we dropped sanctions on them in the past, even if we've cycled back to having them of late.
Except for one notable case, when has a large conflict started a "sneak attack"? Even Pearl Harbor wasn't really all that sneaky looking back... But you are correct, the ability to launch attacks with no warning is a problem, I just don't think it's as bad as you might think.
I would note that missile subs DO roam close to the advisories shores from time to time. A Russian sub spent a few months in the Gulf of Mexico last year according to Moscow, and I'm sure we returned the favor. We've been doing this to varying degrees for decades and although it doesn't look stable, it's apparently worked so far.
A Wild Weasel and a properly tuned HARM missile from the 1970's might work fine. But in this case a GPS guided JDAM or two would be about all you need once you could get the location fixed.
Well said, stealth is abut controlling RF return and IR emissions and using your knowledge of your weapon system and the advisories ability to find you to your advantage. It's about having tactics to give you the most advantage out of what the technology gives you.
Maybe so, but try to point and shoot a missile at a 600 MPH target using a weather radar that updates every 2 min. Can we say, not going to hit anything? Then figure that a weather radar station is pretty darned big and if anything goes boom it will be the transmitter.
As a ham, I'm not so sure I want to share HF spectrum with Megawatt stations... All the lids and out of band 11 meter guys are bad enough.
Gee, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the USA didn't already take such technology into account, like they didn't know or expect that changing the frequency of the radar might make detection of "stealth" aircraft possible. The F35 isn't going to be doing missions where this will matter anyway. I'd be more worried about the F22 and B2 platforms.
Having even traditional stealth like the F35 is known to have is a tactical advantage in the realms and missions they are planning to be used for. It's obvious to me that the F35's being used in close air support roles will have an advantage over the F18's used now which have radar cross section of a flying tractor trailer truck. Not to mention that in MOST places, they are not going to have the newfangled technology that defeats stealth anyway. Certainly it's going to be a long time before the guy on the ground with the shoulder fired weapon will have this radar (Not that he needs it as most of that stuff is IR guided anyway).
So, if you really want to complain about something, drop the F35 and get ready. I'm guessing we are going to be replacing the B2 over this. Strategic bombers are really expensive and complicated programs. Of course it would be cheaper to go the missile route, but I'm guessing we won't due to treaties we are in.
FORTRAN has it's place, it's just not usually my tool of choice.
I programed in a language called ATLAS once a long time ago.... Now THAT is dead, as is Vulcan, the OS it ran on. (He's dead Jim)....
So in your logic:
I do not think there is much debate that the long-term effects on human civilization will be profoundly negative.
!=
"Civilization is a bad thing"
Even though they are actually your words, not mine, they seem pretty similar and logically equivalent to me. But OK, if you want to think my argument claiming that something hasn't been bad in the past, so there is no reason to think it will be in the future doesn't apply, that means you think it has or will change from good to bad as time progresses.
Are you trying to make a distinction between the "past" of civilization and the "future"? Civilization was good in the past, but is already or in the future will become bad? OK, When? When is the switch from good to bad on the time line and what causes the switch?
But wait.... Remember that you already admitted that we are really bad at predicting what will happen in the future, and you are then claiming that we will get better at forecasting the future as time goes on. So I claim that based on your argument, you cannot make your claim about civilization's eventual effect, because where we may become better at predicting the climate and weather, there is no way you can know what the over all effect of human civilization will be.
. For portability, it remains the king.
Yea, but for performance, it's still the court jester.. Byte-code!
Then what have I been drinking every morning?
Hot water passed though over cooked ground up Java Beans perhaps?
Hey, COBOL still lives... Sorta
The year of Linux on the desktop has arrived!
No, no... It's projected to arrive tomorrow..
To quote an old adage... Tomorrow never comes.
I do not think there is much debate that the long-term effects on human civilization will be profoundly negative.
Which sums up nicely what this is *really* all about, human civilization and the perception that human activity is *always* negative, or to put it another way, change is bad.
If you believe in Darwin's theories, then apply them here. Life will adapt as it has in the past and if humans cannot adapt, they will die and civilization with it. Why are you worried about that? Evolution is a good thing, right? I say this with tongue firmly in my cheek, to illustrate how absurd this all is in the grand scheme of things and how your world view has shaped your perceptions of what is good and bad.
You correctly say, we don't know what is going to happen and cannot predict it with any assurance of our accuracy, then you turn around and assume that the future only holds bad things and we need to fear it. WE DON'T KNOW, but fearing the unknown is a common trait in humans and I contend that there are those who use that trait to gain power and influence over others. They play on fear, hype the "bad" possibilities and gain control of others though the process. I contend that this is what most of this is about. This issue is more about politics than science, and more about control than prevention.
Think about the ultimate destination of your thought processing... Where does this whole thing end up in the end. If civilization is "profoundly negative" what do you suggest we do about it? The only thing that I can come up with is abandoning civilization up front, but surely you don't mean we should just volunteer for mass extinction? Do you? Remember that it is your contention that civilization is only going to result in really BAD things.
IMHO you are wrong in your assessment of civilization's future and I point to the past as evidence. It's always been a rocky road and we will continue to have bumps and failures, but in general, we've come a long way. It's not time to just chuck it all and "Global warming" (or whatever it's called today) is a *really* poor reason to consider it.
All I can say is Wow, you are jaded... If you live here, you need to move. Perhaps you'd have better luck than Snowden getting into Russia?
>
It's like the Guantanamo prisoners.
Not even close... The people down in Club GITMO where ALL afforded trials according to military rules. They had representation, evidence was presented and they where given the opportunity to defend themselves. You may not like the process used, but it is fair, legal and backed by centuries of precedent and there is no indication the results where not fair. Detainees are afforded the rights and privileges required by the Geneva conventions (rules of war) as a minimum (actually better than required) and like it or not, what was done at GITMO was legal by international law.
Whistle blowing does not give one the right to break the law. Snowden didn't even attempt to use the process afforded to him for that purpose, but when straight to the "break the law" acts which you are NOT afforded protection from as a whistle blower. There where a bunch of things he could have done short of breaking the law to garner attention to his case, but he choose to foolishly rush into committing an act that many consider treason. That a trial's verdict is a foregone conclusion for most, does not make it so, nor does it mean it is an unfair process.
Snowden knew what he was doing, the law he was breaking, what he was risking, what the consequences might be, yet he did it anyway. Now you are going to bitch that the system is unfair because a trial would likely find him guilty? You are complaining about the WRONG thing. It's not the courts which are the issue you should be fighting, it's the law itself... And in this case, I'd bet it's not the law that Snowden broke that you'd have issues with, but the legal justification used by the NSA to do what they do. Now THAT's something we can logically discuss, but this "he cannot get a fair trial" position is a stinking pile of garbage, twice removed from the *real* issue here.
Actually I think I'm being kind to him by calling him a coward because I'm saying he didn't intend for this to end up this way, he soft of fell into it and is now running scared. If you don't think that's the case, then he s a stupid immature short sighted lying traitor who flees in the face of danger, deserving of severe punishment at the hands of the government he betrayed.