This is a logical step considering the military suits they're designed come with a computer built in.
If I were a soldier, I would be interested in minimizing the amount of weight that I would be required to carry. Additionally, if your integrated computer were to fail (or become riddled with bullet holes) in the desert, you would be required to employ alternate methods of communication and navigation, thus rendering your device irrelevant.
However, "friend or foe" identification, idealistically presuming that the implementation were reliable and secure, might ultimately prove to be invaluable. Less idealistically, of course, a poor implementation would remain trivial to compromise: An adversary would merely assault a soldier and use his beacon.
A small side-note: I doubt www content will be a primary usage of the network. Possibly some voice-over-IP applications and a ton of proprietary stuff.
No, hopefully not. If the "secure" network were capable of accessing the World Wide Web, then that would render it much more vulnerable to attacks originating from the public Internet. It would become an extension of that network.
Ultimately, a printed map is not vulnerable to electromagnetic attacks, nor can it be "jammed." It cannot exhaust an internal power supply, and a severe downpour cannot disrupt its connectivity. Let us hope, then, that our military would only deploy something comparably rugged.
Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our newspaper editors or television reporters would have you believe.
Sensational sells...
You make an excellent point; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish government propaganda from that which is created by our popular media. Our "free press" no longer questions, and our independent media is often suppressed by the prodigious corporate entities.
In fact, one might compare our popular media to an "objective review service" that publishes only corporate press releases. Everything else, such as excessive coverage of the Laci Peterson case, is merely a diversion. But, as your statement implies, it is much more profitable than practicing objective journalism.
Any malware developer could probably derive a benefit. They are unscrupulous, and it is usually more trivial to examine uncompiled software for vulnerabilities.
It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling the portion of the code that was leaked earlier this year
It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling [the code] at all. Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our current administration would have you believe.
As Americans, we are responsible for perpetuating our civil liberties. According to your response, we shouldn't exhibit concern for the 0.1% of Americans that have been affected. That complacency would merely encourage the legislators to enact additional laws, and those laws would eventually affect 100% of the American population.
Competition often provides an impetus to remain benevolent. If Google were to successfully conquer Microsoft, then what impetus would they possess to remain benevolent? Google is now a publicly traded corporation, and "Don't be evil!" may not last.
Education, not a mythical patch, is the answer. Computer users are too often instructed to select "yes" by default; instead, perhaps we should encourage them to read the prompt with incredulity and then apply their best judgment. There is no patch for complete end-user competence.
I'll "induce" a moral conflict: Earthlink is often accused of directly supporting the Church of Scientology. In fact, Sky Dayton, the man responsible for Earthlink, is a devout Scientologist.
However, it is somewhat humorous that the writer often substitutes "World Wide Web" for "Internet." Considering that the number of estimated Internet users increased from 38,000,000 at the end of 1994 to 604,000,000 in 2004, I am somewhat incredulous to the belief that our current architecture is incapable of accommodating expansion. It may not be inexpensive, but it is possible.
Aside from that, the article contains no other information. A substantial percentage of the article body is actually dedicated to FinancialWire and StreetSignals.
Slashdot's motto is "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." Personally, with many of our civil liberties hanging in the balance, including those that allow many Americans to freely access and propagate data, I am unable to cite a more relevant subject than this election. This matters.
the American presidential election system just doesn't play that way.
Neither does our corporate media. How much coverage of the "other, less popular" candidates do you see on FOX? If they can successfully perpetuate the belief that only two candidates are viable, then only two candidates will be viable, primarily because many voters incorrectly consider network media to be authoritative and objective. Considering that it is much easier to "influence" two parties as opposed to a much larger number, it is probably in their collective best interest.
Anybody can generate fictitious Caller ID information. Instead of attributing the blame to Jepson, who merely developed a convenient method by which to do so, perhaps we should blame the telephone companies. They developed the insecure technology, after all, and appear unwilling to mitigate the problem(s).
I realize that this was intended to be a joke; however, it is likely that many of these credit card numbers were derived from a malicious application. Although one might argue that anybody inexperienced enough to execute a malicious application is also "deserving," I have often observed that those individuals are -- perhaps ironically -- averse to conducting electronic transactions.
Slashdot Mirror
From orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Are those people radioactive ostriches, then?
I live several miles north of Spring. Our general area, which is dominated by corporately planned communities, worries about "offensive billboards," not the local citizens without access to electricity or running water. Those articles should provide an accurate impression of the sentiment here.
Hey, I appear to have a new freak. ;-)
This is a logical step considering the military suits they're designed come with a computer built in.
If I were a soldier, I would be interested in minimizing the amount of weight that I would be required to carry. Additionally, if your integrated computer were to fail (or become riddled with bullet holes) in the desert, you would be required to employ alternate methods of communication and navigation, thus rendering your device irrelevant.
However, "friend or foe" identification, idealistically presuming that the implementation were reliable and secure, might ultimately prove to be invaluable. Less idealistically, of course, a poor implementation would remain trivial to compromise: An adversary would merely assault a soldier and use his beacon.
A small side-note: I doubt www content will be a primary usage of the network. Possibly some voice-over-IP applications and a ton of proprietary stuff.
No, hopefully not. If the "secure" network were capable of accessing the World Wide Web, then that would render it much more vulnerable to attacks originating from the public Internet. It would become an extension of that network.
Ultimately, a printed map is not vulnerable to electromagnetic attacks, nor can it be "jammed." It cannot exhaust an internal power supply, and a severe downpour cannot disrupt its connectivity. Let us hope, then, that our military would only deploy something comparably rugged.
More accurate (and perhaps more timeless)
Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our newspaper editors or television reporters would have you believe.
Sensational sells...
You make an excellent point; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish government propaganda from that which is created by our popular media. Our "free press" no longer questions, and our independent media is often suppressed by the prodigious corporate entities.
In fact, one might compare our popular media to an "objective review service" that publishes only corporate press releases. Everything else, such as excessive coverage of the Laci Peterson case, is merely a diversion. But, as your statement implies, it is much more profitable than practicing objective journalism.
Any malware developer could probably derive a benefit. They are unscrupulous, and it is usually more trivial to examine uncompiled software for vulnerabilities.
It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling the portion of the code that was leaked earlier this year
It's not perfectly clear whether Genovese was selling [the code] at all. Innocent until proven guilty, despite what our current administration would have you believe.
As Americans, we are responsible for perpetuating our civil liberties. According to your response, we shouldn't exhibit concern for the 0.1% of Americans that have been affected. That complacency would merely encourage the legislators to enact additional laws, and those laws would eventually affect 100% of the American population.
Competition often provides an impetus to remain benevolent. If Google were to successfully conquer Microsoft, then what impetus would they possess to remain benevolent? Google is now a publicly traded corporation, and "Don't be evil!" may not last.
Education, not a mythical patch, is the answer. Computer users are too often instructed to select "yes" by default; instead, perhaps we should encourage them to read the prompt with incredulity and then apply their best judgment. There is no patch for complete end-user competence.
I can still do that even if there's no point, right?
;-)
Careful, there. If sufficient pressure is applied, you may scratch the disc.
If mine were longer than yours, would it be more appropriate to act humiliated or boast?
I'll "induce" a moral conflict: Earthlink is often accused of directly supporting the Church of Scientology. In fact, Sky Dayton, the man responsible for Earthlink, is a devout Scientologist.
I wonder what Microsoft had in mind?
Why, global domination, of course!
Additionally, rumor has it that this device will burn a hole in your pocket. (Thank you, I'm here all week.)
Article summary: FUD.
However, it is somewhat humorous that the writer often substitutes "World Wide Web" for "Internet." Considering that the number of estimated Internet users increased from 38,000,000 at the end of 1994 to 604,000,000 in 2004, I am somewhat incredulous to the belief that our current architecture is incapable of accommodating expansion. It may not be inexpensive, but it is possible.
Aside from that, the article contains no other information. A substantial percentage of the article body is actually dedicated to FinancialWire and StreetSignals.
When you're sleeping, those aren't particularly effective. ;-)
Slashdot's motto is "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." Personally, with many of our civil liberties hanging in the balance, including those that allow many Americans to freely access and propagate data, I am unable to cite a more relevant subject than this election. This matters.
the American presidential election system just doesn't play that way.
Neither does our corporate media. How much coverage of the "other, less popular" candidates do you see on FOX? If they can successfully perpetuate the belief that only two candidates are viable, then only two candidates will be viable, primarily because many voters incorrectly consider network media to be authoritative and objective. Considering that it is much easier to "influence" two parties as opposed to a much larger number, it is probably in their collective best interest.
Sex.
Unless you're married.
Divorce court?
If your opinions regarding every issue are the same, where is the fun?
Anybody can generate fictitious Caller ID information. Instead of attributing the blame to Jepson, who merely developed a convenient method by which to do so, perhaps we should blame the telephone companies. They developed the insecure technology, after all, and appear unwilling to mitigate the problem(s).
I realize that this was intended to be a joke; however, it is likely that many of these credit card numbers were derived from a malicious application. Although one might argue that anybody inexperienced enough to execute a malicious application is also "deserving," I have often observed that those individuals are -- perhaps ironically -- averse to conducting electronic transactions.
That is correct. Never, under any circumstance, should you drink the saltwater!
Hey, you aren't too far off. ;-)