Two people are guilty of committing a crime together. There is no proof. They are both suspects, and apprehended. Simultaneously, they are offered a deal: a far lighter sentence if they confess, and thereby turn evidence against the other.
If they both say nothing, they both walk free...the best-case scenario for both. But if one or both of them talk, then things go a bit downhill. That's how this idea seems to me, but in reverse. If lots of us reply, the spammers drown (kind of an email Slashdot effect, obviously) and the average value of a valid reply is outstripped by the cost of getting it. But if an insufficient number of us do this...we get spammed like crazy, and no overall change occurs.
The machines in question use 802.11b, and for security? Wait for it...YES! WEP! FUCKIN' A! And check THIS quote out...
Fairfax elections officials said the system won them over with its sophisticated, convenient and easy-to-use features. "Security wasn't really the deciding factor," said county election manager Judy Flaig.
YES! Great attitude to have with regard to the right to elect government!
You're right, but also a bit off. Yes, confinement increases the effect of the blast (which is really just a pressure differential between the expanding gases and the surrounding air; the sharp change in pressure is what does the damage). That's how a pipe bomb works, in part; the pipe retains the gases until they reach a certain level. The other part is shrapnel from the pipe itself, but that's not important here. However, it takes more than wooden barrels, and a LOT more than the walls of a truck, to get the same effect. The point of packing the barrels tightly was to increase the intensity of the blast, rather than to confine the gases.
Dr Geraint Thomas, head of the Centre for Explosion Studies, who led the research, said that the 2,500kg of gunpowder Guy Fawkes was found with, would be equivalent to the same amount of TNT today.
Um. There are two general categories of explosives; low-order and high-order. When someone says "high explosives," they are technically referring to the latter, or they are misusing the term. Different explosive compounds burn at different rates; the gases given off by the burn is what produces the force of the blast. The faster the rate of burn, the more destructive an explosive compound is, all other things being equal. Gunpowder, which is meant to propel projectiles, burns slowly and therefore is low-order explosive. If it burned too quickly, the projectile wouldn't have time to accelerate and get out of the way, and pressure would spike inside the cannon/barrel....BOOM! This is why nobody makes bullets that are propelled by dynamite or C4. TNT, on the other hand, is not intended for this use, but is rather intended to blow things up; it has a much faster burn rate, and is a high-order explosive.
So, with that said, how the hell can 2,500 kilograms of 17th-century gunpowder have the same destructive force as the same amount of 20th-century TNT?
I think the logic behind this (not that I think it should be applied here) essentially stems from the fact that nobody's ever walked into a school and massacred people with anti-gun rhetoric. Even "pro-gun" (sorry, can't think of the right term to use here) organizations point to the danger of public disarmarment as being more indirect than that posed by a kid or disgruntled worker with a gun. And of course, kids and employees are those who are having websited blocked from their view:)
I participated in JA when I was in high school, all those years ago; I was actually about to approach them locally and start participating as a volunteer. Frickin' forget THAT now. What are they thinking, acting as a forum where organizations can pay to disseminate information for their agendas?
Ok, whoever it is, you can turn off the DDoS attack against SunnComm now:)
Wonder if they know what they're in for...
on
Get Paid To Crack?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
This company seems to be a bit on the er...amateurish side. Checking out their website, I see that they apparently sell Axxis webcams as though it was some kind of high-end technology, and would love to sell me what looks like "Intranet in a can." Waaaaa hoo. Besides, while I don't go for the typical "it's not in Silicon Valley so it can't be for real" attitude, they are in Fargo, North Dakota. I don't think you have to be in the Valley to be serious, but jeez...it's as if it were meant to be parody!
Ok, not that I in any way doubt that there are immense applications for this technology, but the person/people who came up with the possible applications is/are morons. "A fire chief...could order his team out when the sensors they're wearing transmit data back to his command center telling him that the firefighters are inhaling hazardous fumes or too much smoke or that the fire is too hot to handle." How about just telling THEM so THEY can get the hell out under their own initiative? And "Such attire could have warned the U.S. Postal Service team manager that Armstrong was becoming dehydrated as he was warming up." Lance didn't lose 6.5 Kg of water warming up, he was cycling the fricking Tour de France! That kind of water loss is inevitable. As it is there is an entire cadre of team members for each team just to carry water in the pack so that he can replenish during a regular road race; during a time trial he is only able to carry one or two bottles and is not accompanied by other riders who can carry additional water. And in this example, what the HELL is a set of sensors going to do to change that?
I guess what I'm saying here is that technology is wonderful, but before people start fawning over the possible applications, they need to actually KNOW about them first. Otherwise, they blow their proverbial load on a complete non-issue, discrediting themselves and jepoardizing the adoption of the tech in general. This is, in some cases, what happened with the dot com boom/bust.
I think that the underlying force here is that Taguchi focuses on what consumers want rather than what the producers want. Cringely is, I bet, banking on the idea that spammers will either transform into non-offensive advertisers of some form or realize that they can't do what they want to do (spam for money) and utilize Taguchi at the same time.
If they cap the highest, say, 10%, then what does that do to the average? If the top 10% uses 20% of the bandwidth, capping them will shift the "average" amount of bandwidth utilized per user downwards. The next time they go through the cycle of determining who needs capping, the bar will be lower.
Re:Technology threats vs. Policy threats
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 1
You raise a good point, but ultimately it's not a matter of people versus technology. It's people who would abuse it versus people who would resist those abuses, and neither side of that equation has changed, regardless of technology.
Re:Technology threats vs. Policy threats
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 1
No, this has never been a question; that's why we have a Constitution in the first place. You speak as though there have never before been technologies that were prone to abuse by government; this is as far from the truth as possible. There have always been periods of time when abuse has been widespread, but in time the tide shifts and goes back; look at the days of McCarthyism, or the late 60s and COINTELPRO/MKULTRA and their like, to name two such eras. Then look at what happened to the abusing organizations afterwards. The only question is how things will play out with the current social climate of fear, not what the end result will be.
Technology threats vs. Policy threats
on
RFID Hell
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The device in this article, as many have already said, is not an RFID. But let's take that one step further; a lot have also responded to state, simply, how RFID tags could be abused in the same way that this device could be abused. And they're right.
The Slashdot post that links to the article refers to the dystopic world portrayed in Gattaca, and states how instead of identification based upon DNA testing we could be tagged and scanned at every point via RFID tags. Also another technology, but a similar abuse.
In the Holocaust, a low-tech version of the RFID tag was put in place, as we all know. Concentration camp inmates were tattooed with unique serial numbers. It required visual authentication rather than just close proximity, but nonetheless could be used to easily track and identify people, as was its purpose.
Herein lies my whole point. RFID tags are like many technologies; they can be abused or used properly. Unique numbers tattooed onto an arm are a half-step away from SSNs that are needed in modern society where the familiarity of small-town life is no longer a sufficient ID. DNA testing to separate the haves from the have-nots based upon their probable health is a mere decision away from the same DNA testing that helps us diagnose and track many hereditary ailments, with the goal of one day curing them. And RFID tags promise tremendous improvements in industrial applications. Whether they are used to tag inventory or people is not in any way based on the technology; it's a matter of policy. Like the other two technologies described in this post, it is not inherently dangerous and will not be harmful unless we use it to do harm.
According to the site referenced in the posting, Telstar 8 is intended to serve an entirely different region. While T4 is oriented at North America, T8 is (according to the site) planned to service South America.
Ok, so here's a question. Considering that JetBlue provided the information of their own free will, but that Torch didn't sanitize the data included in the report (which JetBlue certainly wasn't expecting), does this qualify as a breach under the new law in California?
For those playing the home game, the law I'm speaking of mandates disclosure of any breach of information involving names, SSNs and financial data like credit card numbers. The way the law works, you have to have a number of elements (name and SSN together qualify) to consider it the proper type of breach.
One, it wasn't the telemarketing companies that were getting the calls, it was the association that represents them. While industries are huge, the associations behind them often employ less than a dozen people, and rarely more than fifty. So if thousands of people start calling, it's a hell of a telecom slashdot effect.
Two, whether they normall make money answering the phones or not is immaterial. We don't make money answering the phone when at home, but we still find it disruptive and annoying to get calls from telemarketers; this is the same concept. The goal wasn't to keep them from getting profitable calls, but rather to turn the tables on them, using their proposed "First Amendement" model of justified harrassment.
Slashdot Mirror
Two people are guilty of committing a crime together. There is no proof. They are both suspects, and apprehended. Simultaneously, they are offered a deal: a far lighter sentence if they confess, and thereby turn evidence against the other.
If they both say nothing, they both walk free...the best-case scenario for both. But if one or both of them talk, then things go a bit downhill. That's how this idea seems to me, but in reverse. If lots of us reply, the spammers drown (kind of an email Slashdot effect, obviously) and the average value of a valid reply is outstripped by the cost of getting it. But if an insufficient number of us do this...we get spammed like crazy, and no overall change occurs.
Something that can both be vaporware and NOT be vaporware at the same time!
YES! Great attitude to have with regard to the right to elect government!
If you want to read it, the article url is here.
You're right, but also a bit off. Yes, confinement increases the effect of the blast (which is really just a pressure differential between the expanding gases and the surrounding air; the sharp change in pressure is what does the damage). That's how a pipe bomb works, in part; the pipe retains the gases until they reach a certain level. The other part is shrapnel from the pipe itself, but that's not important here. However, it takes more than wooden barrels, and a LOT more than the walls of a truck, to get the same effect. The point of packing the barrels tightly was to increase the intensity of the blast, rather than to confine the gases.
Um. There are two general categories of explosives; low-order and high-order. When someone says "high explosives," they are technically referring to the latter, or they are misusing the term. Different explosive compounds burn at different rates; the gases given off by the burn is what produces the force of the blast. The faster the rate of burn, the more destructive an explosive compound is, all other things being equal. Gunpowder, which is meant to propel projectiles, burns slowly and therefore is low-order explosive. If it burned too quickly, the projectile wouldn't have time to accelerate and get out of the way, and pressure would spike inside the cannon/barrel....BOOM! This is why nobody makes bullets that are propelled by dynamite or C4. TNT, on the other hand, is not intended for this use, but is rather intended to blow things up; it has a much faster burn rate, and is a high-order explosive.
So, with that said, how the hell can 2,500 kilograms of 17th-century gunpowder have the same destructive force as the same amount of 20th-century TNT?
I think the logic behind this (not that I think it should be applied here) essentially stems from the fact that nobody's ever walked into a school and massacred people with anti-gun rhetoric. Even "pro-gun" (sorry, can't think of the right term to use here) organizations point to the danger of public disarmarment as being more indirect than that posed by a kid or disgruntled worker with a gun. And of course, kids and employees are those who are having websited blocked from their view :)
I thought the pr0n I was in amounted to WAY more than 800 MB last year...
Ah, just what I need for my new swimming pool...on Arrakis!
I participated in JA when I was in high school, all those years ago; I was actually about to approach them locally and start participating as a volunteer. Frickin' forget THAT now. What are they thinking, acting as a forum where organizations can pay to disseminate information for their agendas?
Why not call it "assholeware"?
Christ, can you imagine the Slashdot effect a channel like that would have???
Ok, whoever it is, you can turn off the DDoS attack against SunnComm now :)
This company seems to be a bit on the er...amateurish side. Checking out their website, I see that they apparently sell Axxis webcams as though it was some kind of high-end technology, and would love to sell me what looks like "Intranet in a can." Waaaaa hoo. Besides, while I don't go for the typical "it's not in Silicon Valley so it can't be for real" attitude, they are in Fargo, North Dakota. I don't think you have to be in the Valley to be serious, but jeez...it's as if it were meant to be parody!
The 1st Battallion TARDISS Brigade?!?
"She's made of wood!"
"...and therefore?"
"A HACKER!"
Ok, not that I in any way doubt that there are immense applications for this technology, but the person/people who came up with the possible applications is/are morons. "A fire chief...could order his team out when the sensors they're wearing transmit data back to his command center telling him that the firefighters are inhaling hazardous fumes or too much smoke or that the fire is too hot to handle." How about just telling THEM so THEY can get the hell out under their own initiative? And "Such attire could have warned the U.S. Postal Service team manager that Armstrong was becoming dehydrated as he was warming up." Lance didn't lose 6.5 Kg of water warming up, he was cycling the fricking Tour de France! That kind of water loss is inevitable. As it is there is an entire cadre of team members for each team just to carry water in the pack so that he can replenish during a regular road race; during a time trial he is only able to carry one or two bottles and is not accompanied by other riders who can carry additional water. And in this example, what the HELL is a set of sensors going to do to change that?
I guess what I'm saying here is that technology is wonderful, but before people start fawning over the possible applications, they need to actually KNOW about them first. Otherwise, they blow their proverbial load on a complete non-issue, discrediting themselves and jepoardizing the adoption of the tech in general. This is, in some cases, what happened with the dot com boom/bust.
I think that the underlying force here is that Taguchi focuses on what consumers want rather than what the producers want. Cringely is, I bet, banking on the idea that spammers will either transform into non-offensive advertisers of some form or realize that they can't do what they want to do (spam for money) and utilize Taguchi at the same time.
If they cap the highest, say, 10%, then what does that do to the average? If the top 10% uses 20% of the bandwidth, capping them will shift the "average" amount of bandwidth utilized per user downwards. The next time they go through the cycle of determining who needs capping, the bar will be lower.
You raise a good point, but ultimately it's not a matter of people versus technology. It's people who would abuse it versus people who would resist those abuses, and neither side of that equation has changed, regardless of technology.
No, this has never been a question; that's why we have a Constitution in the first place. You speak as though there have never before been technologies that were prone to abuse by government; this is as far from the truth as possible. There have always been periods of time when abuse has been widespread, but in time the tide shifts and goes back; look at the days of McCarthyism, or the late 60s and COINTELPRO/MKULTRA and their like, to name two such eras. Then look at what happened to the abusing organizations afterwards. The only question is how things will play out with the current social climate of fear, not what the end result will be.
The device in this article, as many have already said, is not an RFID. But let's take that one step further; a lot have also responded to state, simply, how RFID tags could be abused in the same way that this device could be abused. And they're right.
The Slashdot post that links to the article refers to the dystopic world portrayed in Gattaca, and states how instead of identification based upon DNA testing we could be tagged and scanned at every point via RFID tags. Also another technology, but a similar abuse.
In the Holocaust, a low-tech version of the RFID tag was put in place, as we all know. Concentration camp inmates were tattooed with unique serial numbers. It required visual authentication rather than just close proximity, but nonetheless could be used to easily track and identify people, as was its purpose.
Herein lies my whole point. RFID tags are like many technologies; they can be abused or used properly. Unique numbers tattooed onto an arm are a half-step away from SSNs that are needed in modern society where the familiarity of small-town life is no longer a sufficient ID. DNA testing to separate the haves from the have-nots based upon their probable health is a mere decision away from the same DNA testing that helps us diagnose and track many hereditary ailments, with the goal of one day curing them. And RFID tags promise tremendous improvements in industrial applications. Whether they are used to tag inventory or people is not in any way based on the technology; it's a matter of policy. Like the other two technologies described in this post, it is not inherently dangerous and will not be harmful unless we use it to do harm.
According to the site referenced in the posting, Telstar 8 is intended to serve an entirely different region. While T4 is oriented at North America, T8 is (according to the site) planned to service South America.
Ok, so here's a question. Considering that JetBlue provided the information of their own free will, but that Torch didn't sanitize the data included in the report (which JetBlue certainly wasn't expecting), does this qualify as a breach under the new law in California?
For those playing the home game, the law I'm speaking of mandates disclosure of any breach of information involving names, SSNs and financial data like credit card numbers. The way the law works, you have to have a number of elements (name and SSN together qualify) to consider it the proper type of breach.
You're missing a few key points.
One, it wasn't the telemarketing companies that were getting the calls, it was the association that represents them. While industries are huge, the associations behind them often employ less than a dozen people, and rarely more than fifty. So if thousands of people start calling, it's a hell of a telecom slashdot effect.
Two, whether they normall make money answering the phones or not is immaterial. We don't make money answering the phone when at home, but we still find it disruptive and annoying to get calls from telemarketers; this is the same concept. The goal wasn't to keep them from getting profitable calls, but rather to turn the tables on them, using their proposed "First Amendement" model of justified harrassment.
OOH, I hope so! That would be just swell!