It is already impossible for ground control to keep track of the position of stealth aircraft. just like a good pilot, the AI should be able to observe it's MOs without reporting on its progress until out of enemy airspace.
"I think the future of unmanned aircrafts will depend on AI. Of course, we're not yet there"
a)how do you know that wer're not yet there?
b)if/when we do get "there" everything else you said is invalidated. you have to realize that AI and ground control are not mutually exclusive.
the plane would not "go down" any more than a human pilot would. in each case the plane and pilot must simply operate without intelligence support. This would be done in the case of a computer pilot with AI.
1), 2):the plane can be made stealth, and emits nothing. There is such a thing as passive radio where you can listen without being detected. Passive radar is up and coming on the next generation of SAMs.
All this talk about intercepting or spoofing control signals is ridiculous.
If electronic infiltration were even a remote possibility with computer pilots it would be almost as doable with real ones, since a human pilot gets targetting info, terrain maps, base and target locations, and mission objectives from ground or satellite locations already.
Of course there is the human element of trust in calling the enemy "charlie" or naming different jets with various adjective/animal/number triplets, but that is just another type of encryption, really. It can't always be cracked by computers (as long as they're still failing the turing test) but enemy humans can crack it pretty well.
A human pilot could of course just use visual imput to complete the mission and get home if he had some reason to doubt ground or satellite info. But so could a computer pilot! If the checksums or codewords or protocols are a bit fishy, of if it sees one ally attacking another, the computer plane can go manual override and just do its own thing. Of course this creates the possibility for a Dr. Strangelove scenario, but the movie shows that humans don't do much good against that.
Personally I plan on getting on the robots' good side now so they'll let me live to do their menial chores once they take over.
Sorry about the paragraph breaks.;) I forgot to set it to 'plain old text.'
Well what you said explains why the Amazonian dot com people should care if PKI is "An Artefact Ill-Fitted to the Needs of the Information Society."
But we're not them. What do most/.ers care if the.com retail monopoly crumbles due to security flaws? I think a lot us might be sort of happy about it, in a sick, Dr. Strangelove kind of way.
POE and all that.
I think that we/.ers largely care about the system intellectually, like Wyndham Lewis says: "machines are our favorite game, we invent them and hunt them down."
It seems to me that you are the one confusing your terms. PostmodernITY is of course not critical of consumerism because it is constitued by the consumerism. But I used the term PostmodernISM. This -ism, whether or not it is appropriately termed 're-cycled sentimental surrealist crap,' had its roots in art and has extended into discussions about ethics, culture and the human race. It is comprised of an acknowledgement of the disintigration of certianty entailed by new technology, consumerism, and consumer culture, and a reaction paired to that acknowledgement. It starts with the question, "what do we do in/about postmodernity," not with the statement "postmodernity is good."
Likewise, modernISM was critical of the victorian and romantic elements of modernITY. What you have done in your post is to conflate the time period with the intellectual reaction to it, confusing the -ITY with the -ISM.
If this seems like yet more 'wannabee trendy journal scouring' to you, let me put this in more easily understandable terms. The shift from the authoritative, absolute trust of SKI to the relativism of PGP is part of a larger trend of a breakdown in certainty that occured in many forms of thought in this century. This breakdown occures because every system that attempts to establish certainty is somehow flawed on its own terms.
Internet conumerism requires a great deal of certainty to be practical, so the intellectuals orchestrating the system for the masses who will use it without understanding it must therefore choose between a flawed system or one that does not support consumerism for these masses.
When you announce "where postmodenity is leading us" you are correct. But as you say Postmodernity is 'after'-'modern,' and in fact a result of the intellectual movement of a modernISM reacting against modernITY. It is fair criticsm, however, that I have been ambiguous by using the word 'Postmodern.' What I should have said is 'Postmodernist.'
how would you buy something in this way? suppose the security is compromised at a mail server, and you end up buying forty pounds of highly perishable strawberries instead of a DVD player.
suppose also that you have reason to suspect that it may be someone with ill intent toward you who caused this error by invading the mail server. the company also suspects e-espionage from activist groups.
so the strawberries decompose quickly on your front lawn. setting aside the issue of scavenging animals, who is liable for the error? is it you in a "buyer beware" situation? is it the company for not providing better authentication or calling you up to confirm (defeating the point of e-commerce), or is it in some strange way the mail servers who are liable?
You might respond that you system is just for communication, not for e-commerce. Fine, but we need something that is for e-commerce, so we need to keep looking.
these new methods you propose are no better. if you could have gotten access to someone's PKI private key you can get access to all their individualized authentication keys. this means you can impersonate them at least everywhere they've been before.
also, there's the issue of accountability. with PKI you can use post offices, biometrics, chips etc. what do you do with individualized systems when you want to do a first transaction between a person and a website? you can't use 'reputation' without some universal identifier that would make these individualized systems useless if it worked. so what's left, credit card or social security numbers? how do you transmit to be used in a crypto-system you haven't yet established (because you're going to use these numbers as keys for the system). they can be intercepted, and if you don't use these numbers what have you got left? there has got to be some global protocol for the initial communication, and everyone needs a public key. the only advantage of PKI over a credit card or soc # is that you don't care if people intercept your PKI public key!
I see this whole issue of disintegrating e-trust as a modernist/postmodernist dilemma.
the modernist posturing is inherent in the act of consumerism itself, in cryptology as well as in art -- there is a need being expressed here: for certainty, for objectivity. that need is necessary in order for people to partcipate in mass consumerism without considering its deeper implications. Anyone must be able to sit down and buy something, and think of it only as "I click the mouse, it shows up." Clarke does well to introduce the alternative theory of developing reputation, and that is what EBAY has done, but that approach is insufficient for the mass consumerism of the future, people can't be expected to worry about things like this. "i click the mouse, it shows up. shipping and handling extra."
like any modernist theory, however, the Certificate authority contains the seeds of its own demise. Clarke is correct, the private key can jepoardize the security of the whole system, as well as compromise privacy. the modernist system of 'absolute truth' has failed in the manner Clarke describes, and we are left with the postmodernist idea of relative truth and PGP's 'web of trust.' But just as postmodern art is critical of rampant consumerism and absolute certainty, so too is the pure consumerism mentioned above impossible with PGP.
SDSI's idea of using attributes and not identities is useless, since attribute could then be spoof just as easily if you got ahold of a key.
the whole idea of being able to maintian an identity without biometrics or chips seems suspect to me, since it has never been employed in the past. It has always been visual identification (bar tabs) magnetic strips (credit cards) or verifiable name space (billing adresses) that have been used in business in the past, and computers seem to offer no relief from these conditions. if anything they have complicated the system even further.
if it seems that I am hedging about and not tending toward a final answer of 'what's best,' that's only because there is as yet no 'answer' to the modrnist-postmodernist dilemma. I wonder however, why it is so important to a bunch of technocrats such as ourselves that the common man be able to enact these transactions unconsciously. MAybe it is Wyndham Lewis' "the best thing humanity can do for artists is to remain unconscious," to provide us with problems to solve. "Machines are our favorite game," he says, we invent them and hunt them down." but he too is a modernist. a postmodern and perhaps more enlightend approach might to be say that those unwilling to stand up and defend their e-rights through all due vigilance have no place doing business on the no-man's land of the internet, unless we want an internet Leviathan to replace this no-man's land.
Slashdot Mirror
It is already impossible for ground control to keep track of the position of stealth aircraft. just like a good pilot, the AI should be able to observe it's MOs without reporting on its progress until out of enemy airspace.
"I think the future of unmanned aircrafts will depend on AI. Of course, we're not yet there" a)how do you know that wer're not yet there? b)if/when we do get "there" everything else you said is invalidated. you have to realize that AI and ground control are not mutually exclusive. the plane would not "go down" any more than a human pilot would. in each case the plane and pilot must simply operate without intelligence support. This would be done in the case of a computer pilot with AI. 1), 2):the plane can be made stealth, and emits nothing. There is such a thing as passive radio where you can listen without being detected. Passive radar is up and coming on the next generation of SAMs.
All this talk about intercepting or spoofing control signals is ridiculous.
If electronic infiltration were even a remote possibility with computer pilots it would be almost as doable with real ones, since a human pilot gets targetting info, terrain maps, base and target locations, and mission objectives from ground or satellite locations already.
Of course there is the human element of trust in calling the enemy "charlie" or naming different jets with various adjective/animal/number triplets, but that is just another type of encryption, really. It can't always be cracked by computers (as long as they're still failing the turing test) but enemy humans can crack it pretty well.
A human pilot could of course just use visual imput to complete the mission and get home if he had some reason to doubt ground or satellite info. But so could a computer pilot! If the checksums or codewords or protocols are a bit fishy, of if it sees one ally attacking another, the computer plane can go manual override and just do its own thing. Of course this creates the possibility for a Dr. Strangelove scenario, but the movie shows that humans don't do much good against that.
Personally I plan on getting on the robots' good side now so they'll let me live to do their menial chores once they take over.
Sorry about the paragraph breaks. ;) I forgot to set it to 'plain old text.'
/.ers care if the .com retail monopoly crumbles due to security flaws? I think a lot us might be sort of happy about it, in a sick, Dr. Strangelove kind of way.
/.ers largely care about the system intellectually, like Wyndham Lewis says: "machines are our favorite game, we invent them and hunt them down."
Well what you said explains why the Amazonian dot com people should care if PKI is "An Artefact Ill-Fitted to the Needs of the Information Society."
But we're not them. What do most
POE and all that.
I think that we
It seems to me that you are the one confusing your terms. PostmodernITY is of course not critical of consumerism because it is constitued by the consumerism. But I used the term PostmodernISM. This -ism, whether or not it is appropriately termed 're-cycled sentimental surrealist crap,' had its roots in art and has extended into discussions about ethics, culture and the human race. It is comprised of an acknowledgement of the disintigration of certianty entailed by new technology, consumerism, and consumer culture, and a reaction paired to that acknowledgement. It starts with the question, "what do we do in/about postmodernity," not with the statement "postmodernity is good."
Likewise, modernISM was critical of the victorian and romantic elements of modernITY. What you have done in your post is to conflate the time period with the intellectual reaction to it, confusing the -ITY with the -ISM.
If this seems like yet more 'wannabee trendy journal scouring' to you, let me put this in more easily understandable terms. The shift from the authoritative, absolute trust of SKI to the relativism of PGP is part of a larger trend of a breakdown in certainty that occured in many forms of thought in this century. This breakdown occures because every system that attempts to establish certainty is somehow flawed on its own terms.
Internet conumerism requires a great deal of certainty to be practical, so the intellectuals orchestrating the system for the masses who will use it without understanding it must therefore choose between a flawed system or one that does not support consumerism for these masses.
When you announce "where postmodenity is leading us" you are correct. But as you say Postmodernity is 'after'-'modern,' and in fact a result of the intellectual movement of a modernISM reacting against modernITY. It is fair criticsm, however, that I have been ambiguous by using the word 'Postmodern.' What I should have said is 'Postmodernist.'
how would you buy something in this way? suppose the security is compromised at a mail server, and you end up buying forty pounds of highly perishable strawberries instead of a DVD player.
suppose also that you have reason to suspect that it may be someone with ill intent toward you who caused this error by invading the mail server. the company also suspects e-espionage from activist groups.
so the strawberries decompose quickly on your front lawn. setting aside the issue of scavenging animals, who is liable for the error? is it you in a "buyer beware" situation? is it the company for not providing better authentication or calling you up to confirm (defeating the point of e-commerce), or is it in some strange way the mail servers who are liable?
You might respond that you system is just for communication, not for e-commerce. Fine, but we need something that is for e-commerce, so we need to keep looking.
these new methods you propose are no better. if you could have gotten access to someone's PKI private key you can get access to all their individualized authentication keys. this means you can impersonate them at least everywhere they've been before.
also, there's the issue of accountability. with PKI you can use post offices, biometrics, chips etc. what do you do with individualized systems when you want to do a first transaction between a person and a website? you can't use 'reputation' without some universal identifier that would make these individualized systems useless if it worked. so what's left, credit card or social security numbers? how do you transmit to be used in a crypto-system you haven't yet established (because you're going to use these numbers as keys for the system). they can be intercepted, and if you don't use these numbers what have you got left? there has got to be some global protocol for the initial communication, and everyone needs a public key. the only advantage of PKI over a credit card or soc # is that you don't care if people intercept your PKI public key!
I see this whole issue of disintegrating e-trust as a modernist/postmodernist dilemma. the modernist posturing is inherent in the act of consumerism itself, in cryptology as well as in art -- there is a need being expressed here: for certainty, for objectivity. that need is necessary in order for people to partcipate in mass consumerism without considering its deeper implications. Anyone must be able to sit down and buy something, and think of it only as "I click the mouse, it shows up." Clarke does well to introduce the alternative theory of developing reputation, and that is what EBAY has done, but that approach is insufficient for the mass consumerism of the future, people can't be expected to worry about things like this. "i click the mouse, it shows up. shipping and handling extra." like any modernist theory, however, the Certificate authority contains the seeds of its own demise. Clarke is correct, the private key can jepoardize the security of the whole system, as well as compromise privacy. the modernist system of 'absolute truth' has failed in the manner Clarke describes, and we are left with the postmodernist idea of relative truth and PGP's 'web of trust.' But just as postmodern art is critical of rampant consumerism and absolute certainty, so too is the pure consumerism mentioned above impossible with PGP. SDSI's idea of using attributes and not identities is useless, since attribute could then be spoof just as easily if you got ahold of a key. the whole idea of being able to maintian an identity without biometrics or chips seems suspect to me, since it has never been employed in the past. It has always been visual identification (bar tabs) magnetic strips (credit cards) or verifiable name space (billing adresses) that have been used in business in the past, and computers seem to offer no relief from these conditions. if anything they have complicated the system even further. if it seems that I am hedging about and not tending toward a final answer of 'what's best,' that's only because there is as yet no 'answer' to the modrnist-postmodernist dilemma. I wonder however, why it is so important to a bunch of technocrats such as ourselves that the common man be able to enact these transactions unconsciously. MAybe it is Wyndham Lewis' "the best thing humanity can do for artists is to remain unconscious," to provide us with problems to solve. "Machines are our favorite game," he says, we invent them and hunt them down." but he too is a modernist. a postmodern and perhaps more enlightend approach might to be say that those unwilling to stand up and defend their e-rights through all due vigilance have no place doing business on the no-man's land of the internet, unless we want an internet Leviathan to replace this no-man's land.