The short version is that altering the position of a GPS signal (multiple signals, actually) in a local area would amount to jamming it with a stronger signal, and other things near the intended area also would see that signal.
That sort of thing might be a good idea in Iran if you're trying to confuse and capture a US military drone, but it's not a good idea in any urban area where people are trying to use GPS in the way it's intended - such as a tourist using GPS navigation as part of a friendly drive past the White House. (Been there, done that.)
Coincidentally, I just read Wikipedia's article on Unintended Consequences. If your idea #2 ever gets implemented, I think it will make a nice addition to that article, which already includes many interesting examples.
One of the biggest differences between the two types of warfare is that attribution is non-trivial in cyber.
Agreed. Another point is that unlike nuclear weapons, cyber weapons can easily be developed and used by non-state players such as terrorists and criminals. (We've seen quite a lot of the latter.) In contrast, one of the saving graces of nuclear weapons has always been that you can't build them in your garage. Therefore, even if a cyber warfare treaty is created and adhered to faithfully by all nations involved, the problem isn't solved. And the smaller nations that haven't even signed the treaty have a relatively low barrier to entry.
Cyber weapons from nations are different from similar "weapons" from non-nations only in terms of the resources available to create them, that is, their level of sophistication. Therefore, if treaties really worked, they would limit only the sophistication of the malware. So, it seems to me that the only thing that can be done is to employ the best possible defensive measures - and expect them to fail on occasion. That's pretty-much what most of us now do at home and work anyway.
In my own case, I recently uninstalled Kaspersky from all my computers, since it's based in Moscow, which is the capital of a country which is increasingly at odds with the US, where I live. I did that after a Russian-born friend of mine told me that he wouldn't have Kaspersky on his computer. But as sophisticated as Kaspersky is, I have no way to be sure they didn't leave something juicy behind in case Mr. Putin later wants to put the hurt on us. Of course, one could argue that the anti-virus software I replaced it with also could be used as an attack vector, but at least its parent company is based in my own country.
What I hear you saying is that if I buy a coffee maker from a company and the company goes out of business, the company actually still exists because the coffee maker still exists.
Almost. In your story the key thing isn't that the coffee maker still exists but that it's still being sold in some form using the old brand name.. At the moment that the coffee maker is no longer being sold, the brand disappears, and the coffee maker exists only on somebody's shelf or in a museum, the coffee maker company truly is defunct.
A good example of this is Studebaker, which morphed into American Motors, which morphed into Chrysler, which morphed into Daimler Benz, which morphed back into Chrysler. You can still find Studebakers in garages and museums and maybe even on the road, but "Studebaker" certainly is defunct.
In any event, the meaning of words is just a matter of semantics. YMMV.
There are several main reason why systemd has overrun some of the best known distros. On of the biggest is simple. Gnome depends on it, and soon KDE will too. Distro maintainers either bend over for systemd, or will spend a lot of time patching and trying to get these two desktops working on GNU/Linux.
Thanks, that's interesting. I always thought one of the strengths of Linux was that the OS was highly separated from the GUI. However, you're suggesting that the two dominant Linux GUIs are driving the design of the OS. Windows and Mac users have always been used to these things being intimately tied together (and therefore not having to/getting to decide which GUI they'd like to run on their chosen OS), but I would think that a system where the OS and GUI were separate and distinct would carefully retain that.
In that context, it might be OK for a GUI to influence the OS in some way, but hopefully such influence would be only around the edges rather than something as consequential as requiring systemd.
Your interpretation is interesting, but seems like a matter of opinion. My point was basically that the fact that Java is still a big thing is ample evidence that Sun does indeed "exist in [at least one] way that is meaningful."
I've worked for two different corporations that retained the name of the corporations they acquired as a brand name that they applied to the acquired product lines, which they continued to sell, maintain, and even develop. By analogy, that could be an "Oracle-Sun" line of Sun servers in this case, though I don't know if such a thing actually exists. I assume, though, that Oracle still sells some products that evolved from Sun products. Otherwise, they paid a great deal of money for the privilege of giving away Java. Whatever Sun-based things they're still selling are the reason Sun isn't defunct and can't be described as "no longer in existence; dead; extinct?"
This is distinct from a defunct mom-and-pop store that Wal-Mart put out of business but didn't acquire, and that therefore no longer exists in any way that is meaningful - except for maybe as an empty store on Main street with a decaying sign out front.
Here's a related question I have as someone who doesn't use Linux: if systemd is so terrible and arouses so much ire, why does it seem to be appearing in almost every major Linux distribution?
Without knowing anything about it besides what I read here, the only way to reconcile this paradox seems to be that the hatred is coming from some small vocal minority, but there is a less vocal but more powerful majority (such as distro makers) who think it's a good thing. Is that true?
They could write legislation about anything and expect us to like it because it has a word in it like "freedom" or "patriot".
And don't forget the old advertising chestnut of "new and improved". Oh, waitaminute...they already have a word for that in Congress: "reform". Ever wonder why the tax code needs to be "reformed" every few years? - because it's "new and improved"!
For fun, the next time you go into a sit-down chain restaurant, read the menu carefully and look for adjectives such as "garden fresh" or "hand selected". Maybe we could apply some of those same adjectives to legislation, e.g. "The Garden Fresh Internet Freedom Act."
I agree, but that's the nature of the corporation. Sometimes they reproduce by fission and sometimes by fusion. Rarely do they go "defunct" in the same way that the mom-and-pop store in a small town might when Wal-Mart moves in. Even something like Polaroid, which effectively was just a brand name for several years until they recently began to sell instant film again, doesn't really go defunct.
Another interesting case is Indian Motorcycles, which existed for decades only as a brand that somebody owned, until the brand was acquired a few years ago by Polaris, who now sells Indian Motorcycles of their own (new) design, with the old Indian brand and aesthetic. I think Indian could reasonably have been called "defunct" at one time, though we've since learned that it was simply dormant.
Since when is a corporation like Sun that got acquired by another corporation (Oracle) "defunct", as in "no longer in existence; dead; extinct?" The fact that Java, which was created and popularized by Sun is alive and (arguably) well is ample evidence that Sun is not defunct. It has simply been acquired.
Likewise, whatever the future of Mozilla may be, it's far more likely to trudge on and/or take on some other new life than to ever become "no longer in existence; dead; extinct." Just like the old Netscape browser that was its foundation.
To take that a step further, the GPL is largely untested in court. Per TFS: "this, to our knowledge, marks the first time an enforcement case is exclusively focused on this type of legal question relating to GPL." IANAL, but any element of it that is reasonably subject to interpretation can be interpreted any way you like - until a case comes along to codify some other interpretation.
Therefore, from a strictly business point of view, you can interpret it in whatever way favors your business. However, if you push the boundaries of that, you run the risk of some future court case - against either you or someone else - interpreting it differently.
To me, the real purpose of most open source software licenses is to give honest people a set of rules to play by. It's likely that there are many violations of all but the most permissive licenses that we don't know about - and never will. There have only been a few situations that have been publicized of anybody allegedly violating the GPL, so it's likely that most users are complying, and those who aren't have found it easy to go unnoticed and/or unchallenged.
They're called nerds, you insensitive clod. There's even a whole website devoted to their "news", where they can exchange comments that they mutually deem to be "insightful", "informative", etc.
He's not saying that Russia is no longer a better place for Snowden, he's saying that Russia may no longer be a safe place for Snowden.
That's not a bad conclusion to draw, but my original point was more along the lines that regardless of how much folks complain about the flaws of the US government, you're unlikely to find some highly perfect government anywhere else. Russia, in particular, seems like an odd place to choose when fleeing an imperfect government. Does Snowden think Russia actually has that one idyllic government on Earth where "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail?" Seems unlikely.
So, why is Snowden there? It's pure expediency, of course. If you're looking for a place where the US can't get to you, a place with a corrupt government who doesn't much care what you've actually done to your last government, that's run by a would-be dictator who can unilaterally let you in, and is increasingly at odds with the government you're fleeing, one could hardly think of of a better place to be.
Here's the best part: since everybody knows that you (Snowden) are a gifted computer hacker with a penchant for exposing secrets, you won't ever be given access to anything new that could get you in trouble. So, you get to remain the idealist you still see yourself as, yet you don't have to get into any of the nasty trouble that sometimes goes with that.
Hey, minimum security prison may not actually be the country club everybody says it is. So let those other poor suckers face the music and take it like a man. As for Snowden, he can achieve fame and notoriety (oh, and also make the world a better place), and for punishment, he can wash down Russian caviar with a sip - or two - of the world's finest vodka.
To pull all that off, he must be one heckuva smart guy.
I thought the whole point of Bitcoin was to provide anonymity to its anonymous creator so that he/she could be the ultimate early adopter, mine lots of Bitcoins when doing so was cheap, then anonymously sell them at any time after the idea caught on. Ain't anonymity wonderful?
Bitcoin is the only thing I've ever heard of that could potentially change the world, yet whose creator staunchly desires to remain anonymous. In comparison, Newton, Jefferson, Edison, and Einstein never hesitated to sign their name to their work.
Let's go with your premise that the DA was incompetent, biased, corrupt, or whatever. Was the defendant therefore guilty? The mob (and now plus one more) sure seemed to think so.
I've always thought that rioting was an odd response to injustice in the system - whether perceived or real. The reason is that the process is intended to be insulated from normal political forces such as the "majority rule" that is intended to explicitly drive many other processes, such as election of officials.
If the system isn't working as intended, I recommend that you rioters work peacefully to change the system rather than demolish property to express your ire. In any case, if the system has failed in some given case by, for example, acquitting letting off someone who shouldn't have been, there's no way to cure that case via rioting or any other political means.
...if Snowden has half a brain he will allow the Russians opposition to handle exposing the similar shenanigans of the Russian government.
What idealist has half a brain? Instead, the true idealist stamps out the non-ideal wherever he may find it. But assuming the Russians have half a brain (which is a pretty good bet, since they're not idealists), they'll never give him the opportunity to use the half he's got.
Of course, Snowden is highly unlikely to ever have an opportunity to expose anything significant ever again except for whatever he may still have stashed away from "the good ol' days". Still, it's kindda fun to wonder exactly where his idealism ends and his pragmatism begins. Evidently, he has at least one-quarter of a brain since he fled the US to practice his idealism from a safe distance.
Slashdot Mirror
The short version is that altering the position of a GPS signal (multiple signals, actually) in a local area would amount to jamming it with a stronger signal, and other things near the intended area also would see that signal.
That sort of thing might be a good idea in Iran if you're trying to confuse and capture a US military drone, but it's not a good idea in any urban area where people are trying to use GPS in the way it's intended - such as a tourist using GPS navigation as part of a friendly drive past the White House. (Been there, done that.)
Coincidentally, I just read Wikipedia's article on Unintended Consequences. If your idea #2 ever gets implemented, I think it will make a nice addition to that article, which already includes many interesting examples.
One of the biggest differences between the two types of warfare is that attribution is non-trivial in cyber.
Agreed. Another point is that unlike nuclear weapons, cyber weapons can easily be developed and used by non-state players such as terrorists and criminals. (We've seen quite a lot of the latter.) In contrast, one of the saving graces of nuclear weapons has always been that you can't build them in your garage. Therefore, even if a cyber warfare treaty is created and adhered to faithfully by all nations involved, the problem isn't solved. And the smaller nations that haven't even signed the treaty have a relatively low barrier to entry.
Cyber weapons from nations are different from similar "weapons" from non-nations only in terms of the resources available to create them, that is, their level of sophistication. Therefore, if treaties really worked, they would limit only the sophistication of the malware. So, it seems to me that the only thing that can be done is to employ the best possible defensive measures - and expect them to fail on occasion. That's pretty-much what most of us now do at home and work anyway.
In my own case, I recently uninstalled Kaspersky from all my computers, since it's based in Moscow, which is the capital of a country which is increasingly at odds with the US, where I live. I did that after a Russian-born friend of mine told me that he wouldn't have Kaspersky on his computer. But as sophisticated as Kaspersky is, I have no way to be sure they didn't leave something juicy behind in case Mr. Putin later wants to put the hurt on us. Of course, one could argue that the anti-virus software I replaced it with also could be used as an attack vector, but at least its parent company is based in my own country.
What I hear you saying is that if I buy a coffee maker from a company and the company goes out of business, the company actually still exists because the coffee maker still exists.
Almost. In your story the key thing isn't that the coffee maker still exists but that it's still being sold in some form using the old brand name.. At the moment that the coffee maker is no longer being sold, the brand disappears, and the coffee maker exists only on somebody's shelf or in a museum, the coffee maker company truly is defunct.
A good example of this is Studebaker, which morphed into American Motors, which morphed into Chrysler, which morphed into Daimler Benz, which morphed back into Chrysler. You can still find Studebakers in garages and museums and maybe even on the road, but "Studebaker" certainly is defunct.
In any event, the meaning of words is just a matter of semantics. YMMV.
There are several main reason why systemd has overrun some of the best known distros. On of the biggest is simple. Gnome depends on it, and soon KDE will too. Distro maintainers either bend over for systemd, or will spend a lot of time patching and trying to get these two desktops working on GNU/Linux.
Thanks, that's interesting. I always thought one of the strengths of Linux was that the OS was highly separated from the GUI. However, you're suggesting that the two dominant Linux GUIs are driving the design of the OS. Windows and Mac users have always been used to these things being intimately tied together (and therefore not having to/getting to decide which GUI they'd like to run on their chosen OS), but I would think that a system where the OS and GUI were separate and distinct would carefully retain that.
In that context, it might be OK for a GUI to influence the OS in some way, but hopefully such influence would be only around the edges rather than something as consequential as requiring systemd.
Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about that indicates (to me, at least) that Sun is far from defunct.
Your interpretation is interesting, but seems like a matter of opinion. My point was basically that the fact that Java is still a big thing is ample evidence that Sun does indeed "exist in [at least one] way that is meaningful."
I've worked for two different corporations that retained the name of the corporations they acquired as a brand name that they applied to the acquired product lines, which they continued to sell, maintain, and even develop. By analogy, that could be an "Oracle-Sun" line of Sun servers in this case, though I don't know if such a thing actually exists. I assume, though, that Oracle still sells some products that evolved from Sun products. Otherwise, they paid a great deal of money for the privilege of giving away Java. Whatever Sun-based things they're still selling are the reason Sun isn't defunct and can't be described as "no longer in existence; dead; extinct?"
This is distinct from a defunct mom-and-pop store that Wal-Mart put out of business but didn't acquire, and that therefore no longer exists in any way that is meaningful - except for maybe as an empty store on Main street with a decaying sign out front.
Here's a related question I have as someone who doesn't use Linux: if systemd is so terrible and arouses so much ire, why does it seem to be appearing in almost every major Linux distribution?
Without knowing anything about it besides what I read here, the only way to reconcile this paradox seems to be that the hatred is coming from some small vocal minority, but there is a less vocal but more powerful majority (such as distro makers) who think it's a good thing. Is that true?
They could write legislation about anything and expect us to like it because it has a word in it like "freedom" or "patriot".
And don't forget the old advertising chestnut of "new and improved". Oh, waitaminute...they already have a word for that in Congress: "reform". Ever wonder why the tax code needs to be "reformed" every few years? - because it's "new and improved"!
For fun, the next time you go into a sit-down chain restaurant, read the menu carefully and look for adjectives such as "garden fresh" or "hand selected". Maybe we could apply some of those same adjectives to legislation, e.g. "The Garden Fresh Internet Freedom Act."
I agree, but that's the nature of the corporation. Sometimes they reproduce by fission and sometimes by fusion. Rarely do they go "defunct" in the same way that the mom-and-pop store in a small town might when Wal-Mart moves in. Even something like Polaroid, which effectively was just a brand name for several years until they recently began to sell instant film again, doesn't really go defunct.
Another interesting case is Indian Motorcycles, which existed for decades only as a brand that somebody owned, until the brand was acquired a few years ago by Polaris, who now sells Indian Motorcycles of their own (new) design, with the old Indian brand and aesthetic. I think Indian could reasonably have been called "defunct" at one time, though we've since learned that it was simply dormant.
Since when is a corporation like Sun that got acquired by another corporation (Oracle) "defunct", as in "no longer in existence; dead; extinct?" The fact that Java, which was created and popularized by Sun is alive and (arguably) well is ample evidence that Sun is not defunct. It has simply been acquired.
Likewise, whatever the future of Mozilla may be, it's far more likely to trudge on and/or take on some other new life than to ever become "no longer in existence; dead; extinct." Just like the old Netscape browser that was its foundation.
To take that a step further, the GPL is largely untested in court. Per TFS: "this, to our knowledge, marks the first time an enforcement case is exclusively focused on this type of legal question relating to GPL." IANAL, but any element of it that is reasonably subject to interpretation can be interpreted any way you like - until a case comes along to codify some other interpretation.
Therefore, from a strictly business point of view, you can interpret it in whatever way favors your business. However, if you push the boundaries of that, you run the risk of some future court case - against either you or someone else - interpreting it differently.
To me, the real purpose of most open source software licenses is to give honest people a set of rules to play by. It's likely that there are many violations of all but the most permissive licenses that we don't know about - and never will. There have only been a few situations that have been publicized of anybody allegedly violating the GPL, so it's likely that most users are complying, and those who aren't have found it easy to go unnoticed and/or unchallenged.
the humor and irony challenged
They're called nerds, you insensitive clod. There's even a whole website devoted to their "news", where they can exchange comments that they mutually deem to be "insightful", "informative", etc.
He's not saying that Russia is no longer a better place for Snowden, he's saying that Russia may no longer be a safe place for Snowden.
That's not a bad conclusion to draw, but my original point was more along the lines that regardless of how much folks complain about the flaws of the US government, you're unlikely to find some highly perfect government anywhere else. Russia, in particular, seems like an odd place to choose when fleeing an imperfect government. Does Snowden think Russia actually has that one idyllic government on Earth where "gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail?" Seems unlikely.
So, why is Snowden there? It's pure expediency, of course. If you're looking for a place where the US can't get to you, a place with a corrupt government who doesn't much care what you've actually done to your last government, that's run by a would-be dictator who can unilaterally let you in, and is increasingly at odds with the government you're fleeing, one could hardly think of of a better place to be.
Here's the best part: since everybody knows that you (Snowden) are a gifted computer hacker with a penchant for exposing secrets, you won't ever be given access to anything new that could get you in trouble. So, you get to remain the idealist you still see yourself as, yet you don't have to get into any of the nasty trouble that sometimes goes with that.
Hey, minimum security prison may not actually be the country club everybody says it is. So let those other poor suckers face the music and take it like a man. As for Snowden, he can achieve fame and notoriety (oh, and also make the world a better place), and for punishment, he can wash down Russian caviar with a sip - or two - of the world's finest vodka.
To pull all that off, he must be one heckuva smart guy.
After that, will the Coke of cell phones give us the Mr. Pibb of cell phones? Just wondering.
What would surprise me is if none of the missing bitcoins showed up in the wallets of the investigators that took down Mt. Gox.
Maybe Samuel Jackson knows: isn't he the one who's always asking, "What's in your wallet?'
There's nothing ironic about your comment.
McCoy: See what I mean, Jim?
I thought the whole point of Bitcoin was to provide anonymity to its anonymous creator so that he/she could be the ultimate early adopter, mine lots of Bitcoins when doing so was cheap, then anonymously sell them at any time after the idea caught on. Ain't anonymity wonderful?
Bitcoin is the only thing I've ever heard of that could potentially change the world, yet whose creator staunchly desires to remain anonymous. In comparison, Newton, Jefferson, Edison, and Einstein never hesitated to sign their name to their work.
Patches? We ain't got no patches. We don't need no patches. I don't have to show you any stinking patches.
"Simply having the code in there is just the start. Your Linux distribution will have to support it with patches that can make use of it."
Darn. It looks like I'm gonna have to patch and reboot so I won't have to reboot after I patch.
Let's go with your premise that the DA was incompetent, biased, corrupt, or whatever. Was the defendant therefore guilty? The mob (and now plus one more) sure seemed to think so.
I've always thought that rioting was an odd response to injustice in the system - whether perceived or real. The reason is that the process is intended to be insulated from normal political forces such as the "majority rule" that is intended to explicitly drive many other processes, such as election of officials.
If the system isn't working as intended, I recommend that you rioters work peacefully to change the system rather than demolish property to express your ire. In any case, if the system has failed in some given case by, for example, acquitting letting off someone who shouldn't have been, there's no way to cure that case via rioting or any other political means.
When will you rioters learn...?
Kirk: Your logic is impeccable, Mr. Spock.
McCoy: You're right, Jim - I guess a Vulcan can't be expected to understand irony.
He did pretty well with English, a language where pronunciation has nearly nothing to do with the way you write it
Says you. (Translation: "sez u")
Who said anything about absolution? I'm merely pondering where Mr. Snowden would most like to live under his present circumstances.
...if Snowden has half a brain he will allow the Russians opposition to handle exposing the similar shenanigans of the Russian government.
What idealist has half a brain? Instead, the true idealist stamps out the non-ideal wherever he may find it. But assuming the Russians have half a brain (which is a pretty good bet, since they're not idealists), they'll never give him the opportunity to use the half he's got.
Of course, Snowden is highly unlikely to ever have an opportunity to expose anything significant ever again except for whatever he may still have stashed away from "the good ol' days". Still, it's kindda fun to wonder exactly where his idealism ends and his pragmatism begins. Evidently, he has at least one-quarter of a brain since he fled the US to practice his idealism from a safe distance.