Sometimes i visit a site that links a lot of places (an common one is a google search) and open every site in a different browser tab, and then i read. Now, the last tabs are likely to be there for long time, either till i close it, read it, or even click on links there. How that kind of behaviour gives more weight to the sites i opened at the end?
And to make it worse, most browsers now support tabs.
Individuals are dumb (i.e. in the ants examples), but as a whole seems to be a pattern, some (lets pick correctly the words) "intelligent design" in how the group behaves. But there are not design there, not intelligent choices made by individuals or the group as a whole, just simple (mechanic?) interactions in the group much like sand making dunes. Seeing the the swarm as something intelligent because the dumb interactions seems to have a pattern tells more about the observer than about the swarm.
I did the same reading... then remembered that Hollywood likes a lot doing movies where building burns, ship sinks, planes crashes, and wondered what had of original a Windows film.
"It will never be possible" if a global disaster strikes us before all is up and running, magic wands or not. And the "magic wand" is a key in the original article. Is impossible or near to, IF nothing like a magic wand comes out, and in the last minutes of your analogy we had a lot of magic wands coming thru, from fire to internet. Some were evolutionary, some revolutionary. But will be one magic wand that will open us the doors to the universe? all we know for sure in phisics now says that no. That is the starting point of the article, is not sci-fi, is science.
Could be another "magic wand", but there distance should not matter (specially if is not orbiting a planet, or could leave the orbit), and we will still be safe from something happening to earth (ok, no supernova if still in this solar system), and eventually, could reach other systems. In sci-fi there are a lot of magic words like recycling, hydroponic, and shielding that could make viable or not such kind of space colonies, they could be even closer than the moon for us.
Yes and no. A lot are pirated windows, and some patches are not available for them. Is not in the linked article, but in i.e. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=266 you can see a bit more of info.
That starting amount of people will try to connect to that site could be high, ok, but as soon the p2p client realizes that is not talking with a p2p server all ends there, the attack said by Bittorrent author in the article could be better. How long could be a p2p attack that way? Or maybe, how much retries/time do usual the p2p clients to make that worrysome?
Probably what those skills dont have is future, in the sense of new companies/developments probably will not be based on them. But still there are working plenty of things that require those skills and must keep being maintained, adapted, or even grow a bit all around. IF you got those skills and are already working on one of such legacy systems, then while they last your skills will even worth more. But if not, better to learn something newer.
Also, I learnt a lot of things based on i.e. programming languages that are long dead and buried by now (like modula/pascal). But not only learnt a particular language, learnt to program, and also to learn. That skill, behind whatever technology is the current implementation, last forever.
Some (most?) of the best Science Fiction is not about the weird things that could come in the future, but how we would behave in that new environments/situations. or at least how reasonable for us is that the protagonist do what they do. More about what we have inside than what there are out there..
Of course, there are pretty good science fiction cases that fits perfectly in the article description, like i.e. The last question, from Asimov.
Whirled seems to go exactly in that direction, where the content created by its players is the king. Some games have meaning by themselves, but if your game is essentially what you and other players adds to it, possibilities are endless.
Isolated the individual myths debunks could or not be strong enough... but combined is another matter. I.e. in the one that explains why CO2 is one of the most important greenhouses gases. Some of the other "global forcings" come and go, like with i.e. water vapour, but the CO2 takes time to be reabsorbed. The problem is maybe not just now, but what will happen if we keep going in the same way. Reading all as a whole could help.
You know, no single water drop can be made responsible for the flood, i agree that maybe CO2 alone, or even the one produced by humans alone couldnt make a big disaster, but in a somewhat self-balanced system if you keep pushing in the wrong direction things like points of no return happens, and worst case scenarios are always ugly.
Re:Here's how it works from another perspective
on
How Image Spam Works
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
On an unrelated note, has anyone else noticed a huge drop in the effectiveness of greylisting as a spam countermeasure? I used to receive close to zero spam messages up until 2-3 weeks ago and suddenly they're flooding me! Any hint?
Greylist don't "magically" stop spams, dont even have to know that is spam or not what is stopping. Only asks that the sending server is well behaved and try again to send the same message (same sender, same destination) after some minutes/hours and it works against spam because most spam-sending bots usually dont retry. But you only need to be targetted by machines that behaves well in this sense to get again spam.
Would love that Microsoft get sued because Eudora (or any other email client for windows) stepped into some gray borders IBM patent. Thats more or less what they are saying there.
Or not, maybe they are not suing "Linux" as the kernel. but "Linux" as what packs the usual distributions (and they usually packs email clients, GUIs, and so on). And there, who will be going after? Distribution companies/organizations? (the ones behind debian/fedora/ubuntu/mandrake, but not suse this time) or people that install those distributions. In the last case, you can see distributions as a shortcut on downloading/compiling/installing the apps. But if are the apps the problem, not "linux", then their own costumers (that prefered to have their PCs without the big banner of "hack here" and installed i..e Firefox) would end liable.
And in that case, all will end being "use everything from me or you will get sued". Would be a good start for a big antitrust case.
Hurricanes are not the only big power source around climate events. With the power of lightning you can get nothing less than 1.2 Gigawatts, just enough to power up a time machine built inside a DeLorean. And thunderstorms is far more frequent than hurricanes.
The important (for the children) part of the OLPC is not the OS that it runs, but the user interface. Something centered in activities, something that was meant for collaboration between them from the start, something that dont add complexities but let them focus in doing what they must. Behind that interface, could have been Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, DOS, whatever.
Of course, that be linux had some advantages for the big people behind. Was free (cost of the whole thing was important, and maybe more important, you dont depend of the mood of a private company to keep using it for the same price), was fully customizable, and had already most of the needed tools to develop this.
... but is a very good starting point. Is the main major vendor that somewhat, in a way or another (design choices, big implementation holes, monoculture, etc) always been the "weak point" of internet, the unsafe by default case study.
But even with a secure environment from the start you can make things very unsafe (i.e. using trivial passwords in open services)
Well, one of Asimov's best short stories was "Spell my name with an S", where the character changed the 1st letter of his name from Z to S. All the Zebatinskys of the world got their revenge now:)
How much critical/central points have Internet for an effective phisical attack? Something that could do a big phisical harm to it probably could do a more effective one against population.
In virtual wold the attacks are currently under way, maybe not that for religious or political reasons (?) but mainly for economical ones. Spam, botnets, trojans, exploiting vulnerabities, etc, are the "bombs" in internet, and, with a bit of luck, the people that do/run them could eventually be processed as terrorists too
Im not worried about spam sent by those machines. If you assume that all those machines are not sending spam because their usual user send it on pourpose, then means that all those fortune 1000 companies have maybe a lot of people with sensible information/passwords/access regarding their internal network, with compromised PCs (that have keyloggers, bots picking orders from their master, etc).
Having botnets composed by home users with their hobby pcs is bad enough, now when that botnet have a good numbers of PCs with priviledged info/access inside is far worser.
If you only need 1 device, be a phone, or an iPod, definately wont worth the change, you may get something better for that task at a cheaper price. As you start to add needed devices, and start making a batbelt, the commodity overcomes most of the negative aspects of the integrated option, be the iPhone or a similar capabilities device made by other company (i.e P900 and up from Ericsson as something less polished). Maybe the question could be answered by another question... we need to have with us all the iPhone capabilities, no matter at what price?
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes i visit a site that links a lot of places (an common one is a google search) and open every site in a different browser tab, and then i read. Now, the last tabs are likely to be there for long time, either till i close it, read it, or even click on links there. How that kind of behaviour gives more weight to the sites i opened at the end?
And to make it worse, most browsers now support tabs.
Individuals are dumb (i.e. in the ants examples), but as a whole seems to be a pattern, some (lets pick correctly the words) "intelligent design" in how the group behaves. But there are not design there, not intelligent choices made by individuals or the group as a whole, just simple (mechanic?) interactions in the group much like sand making dunes. Seeing the the swarm as something intelligent because the dumb interactions seems to have a pattern tells more about the observer than about the swarm.
I did the same reading... then remembered that Hollywood likes a lot doing movies where building burns, ship sinks, planes crashes, and wondered what had of original a Windows film.
She will lose. In both the antivirus will detect that Windows is installed, so both will have malware, blue pill or not.
"It will never be possible" if a global disaster strikes us before all is up and running, magic wands or not. And the "magic wand" is a key in the original article. Is impossible or near to, IF nothing like a magic wand comes out, and in the last minutes of your analogy we had a lot of magic wands coming thru, from fire to internet. Some were evolutionary, some revolutionary. But will be one magic wand that will open us the doors to the universe? all we know for sure in phisics now says that no. That is the starting point of the article, is not sci-fi, is science.
Could be another "magic wand", but there distance should not matter (specially if is not orbiting a planet, or could leave the orbit), and we will still be safe from something happening to earth (ok, no supernova if still in this solar system), and eventually, could reach other systems. In sci-fi there are a lot of magic words like recycling, hydroponic, and shielding that could make viable or not such kind of space colonies, they could be even closer than the moon for us.
Yes and no. A lot are pirated windows, and some patches are not available for them. Is not in the linked article, but in i.e. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=266 you can see a bit more of info.
That starting amount of people will try to connect to that site could be high, ok, but as soon the p2p client realizes that is not talking with a p2p server all ends there, the attack said by Bittorrent author in the article could be better. How long could be a p2p attack that way? Or maybe, how much retries/time do usual the p2p clients to make that worrysome?
Probably what those skills dont have is future, in the sense of new companies/developments probably will not be based on them. But still there are working plenty of things that require those skills and must keep being maintained, adapted, or even grow a bit all around. IF you got those skills and are already working on one of such legacy systems, then while they last your skills will even worth more. But if not, better to learn something newer.
Also, I learnt a lot of things based on i.e. programming languages that are long dead and buried by now (like modula/pascal). But not only learnt a particular language, learnt to program, and also to learn. That skill, behind whatever technology is the current implementation, last forever.
Some (most?) of the best Science Fiction is not about the weird things that could come in the future, but how we would behave in that new environments/situations. or at least how reasonable for us is that the protagonist do what they do. More about what we have inside than what there are out there..
Of course, there are pretty good science fiction cases that fits perfectly in the article description, like i.e. The last question, from Asimov.
Whirled seems to go exactly in that direction, where the content created by its players is the king. Some games have meaning by themselves, but if your game is essentially what you and other players adds to it, possibilities are endless.
Isolated the individual myths debunks could or not be strong enough... but combined is another matter. I.e. in the one that explains why CO2 is one of the most important greenhouses gases. Some of the other "global forcings" come and go, like with i.e. water vapour, but the CO2 takes time to be reabsorbed. The problem is maybe not just now, but what will happen if we keep going in the same way. Reading all as a whole could help.
You know, no single water drop can be made responsible for the flood, i agree that maybe CO2 alone, or even the one produced by humans alone couldnt make a big disaster, but in a somewhat self-balanced system if you keep pushing in the wrong direction things like points of no return happens, and worst case scenarios are always ugly.
Would love that Microsoft get sued because Eudora (or any other email client for windows) stepped into some gray borders IBM patent. Thats more or less what they are saying there.
Or not, maybe they are not suing "Linux" as the kernel. but "Linux" as what packs the usual distributions (and they usually packs email clients, GUIs, and so on). And there, who will be going after? Distribution companies/organizations? (the ones behind debian/fedora/ubuntu/mandrake, but not suse this time) or people that install those distributions. In the last case, you can see distributions as a shortcut on downloading/compiling/installing the apps. But if are the apps the problem, not "linux", then their own costumers (that prefered to have their PCs without the big banner of "hack here" and installed i..e Firefox) would end liable.
And in that case, all will end being "use everything from me or you will get sued". Would be a good start for a big antitrust case.
Hurricanes are not the only big power source around climate events. With the power of lightning you can get nothing less than 1.2 Gigawatts, just enough to power up a time machine built inside a DeLorean. And thunderstorms is far more frequent than hurricanes.
The important (for the children) part of the OLPC is not the OS that it runs, but the user interface. Something centered in activities, something that was meant for collaboration between them from the start, something that dont add complexities but let them focus in doing what they must. Behind that interface, could have been Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, DOS, whatever.
Of course, that be linux had some advantages for the big people behind. Was free (cost of the whole thing was important, and maybe more important, you dont depend of the mood of a private company to keep using it for the same price), was fully customizable, and had already most of the needed tools to develop this.
... but is a very good starting point. Is the main major vendor that somewhat, in a way or another (design choices, big implementation holes, monoculture, etc) always been the "weak point" of internet, the unsafe by default case study.
But even with a secure environment from the start you can make things very unsafe (i.e. using trivial passwords in open services)
One Botnet to rule them all, One Botnet to find them, One Botnet to bring them all, and in the spam sink us
Well, one of Asimov's best short stories was "Spell my name with an S", where the character changed the 1st letter of his name from Z to S. All the Zebatinskys of the world got their revenge now :)
How much critical/central points have Internet for an effective phisical attack? Something that could do a big phisical harm to it probably could do a more effective one against population.
In virtual wold the attacks are currently under way, maybe not that for religious or political reasons (?) but mainly for economical ones. Spam, botnets, trojans, exploiting vulnerabities, etc, are the "bombs" in internet, and, with a bit of luck, the people that do/run them could eventually be processed as terrorists too
Im not worried about spam sent by those machines. If you assume that all those machines are not sending spam because their usual user send it on pourpose, then means that all those fortune 1000 companies have maybe a lot of people with sensible information/passwords/access regarding their internal network, with compromised PCs (that have keyloggers, bots picking orders from their master, etc).
Having botnets composed by home users with their hobby pcs is bad enough, now when that botnet have a good numbers of PCs with priviledged info/access inside is far worser.
Who says monoliths must be rectangular?
Anyway, would be funny if after they send a probe there the NASA engineers exclaim "Its full of stars!"
If you only need 1 device, be a phone, or an iPod, definately wont worth the change, you may get something better for that task at a cheaper price. As you start to add needed devices, and start making a batbelt, the commodity overcomes most of the negative aspects of the integrated option, be the iPhone or a similar capabilities device made by other company (i.e P900 and up from Ericsson as something less polished). Maybe the question could be answered by another question... we need to have with us all the iPhone capabilities, no matter at what price?
what next in the agenda? Mandate water to flow upwards? Ice to burn things? Pigs to fly?
There are rumors that such things exist, in very special cases, but is easier to see pigs fly than to see a secure windows machine.
... that they get soon the Darwin Award, Company Edition.