Just to clarify since I'm having a hard time understanding what the relationship between the fermi paradox and the singularity is that you're asking him about, are you going along the line of thought that if cyborg evolution is a potential step for all life that this should increase our chances of them being visible to us?
What is most at issue isn't just the direct effect of the attack or the indirect effect on our awareness of security and vulnerability in terms of judging the entire umbrella of grey hat. Those two forms of effect are unique to each example and should be judged on a case by case basis. The issue that isn't dependent on case by case analysis is the one of rule of law. It is possible to violate the letter of the law without violating the spirit of the law, but if a culture of taking enforcement into your own hands and your own interpretation grows, harm will also grow no matter whether or not some cases were handled with all the care necessary to assure that their effect was altruistic, and no matter how altruistic your direct effects are as a grey hat, your publicity will promote the prevalence of grey hat culture. The positive effects cannot negate the negative ones, and the negative ones cannot negate the positive ones.
A lot of the rhetoric that seems to be critical of a singularitarian future seems to hinge on this idea that computer architecture will hit a wall in size, which seems to be dependent on whether or not we'll be able to produce carbon nanotube transistors or find some other way to solve the quantum tunneling issue. When nantero started to make memory cells out of carbon nanotubes, I was very excited about whether or not this was evidence that carbon nanotube transistors would exist and be able to bring the transistor architecture under 5nms. Not being familiar enough with computing myself, I was sure that there would be some transhumanist/singularitarian engineers out there debating this, but the internet seemed to be lacking. While I understand that architecture could for all I know shift away from transistors entirely, do you know if these nanotube memory cells are evidence that we'll have computing under the 5nm scale and sufficient to refute an argument that a wall to size will prevent any singularity from occurring?
Thank you so much for taking the time to look over our questions and everything else you've done.
I'll jump into the "great minds think alike" party, although my comment seems to have attracted the attention of someone randomly ranting at me about whether or not it's ok to spy on spouses(no idea). I love Brian Krebs. Can't think of why it took businesses this long to actually implement that sort of thing in threat modeling.
Businesses that attempt to monetize threat modeling have been around for a long time without the same scrutiny a lot of you are giving this company. Is it immoral for a company that makes antivirus software to not give their software away for free rather than charging money? Do you think the moral thing to do would be to just go out of business instead of charging money? If you aren't currently an IT security expert working for a non profit or for free, I invite you to apply your train of thought to just as much introspection as finger pointing. All this company is doing is taking an approach to threat modeling that people like Brian Krebs started advocating a long long time ago, and incorporating it into a business model not incredibly different than any other IT security company.
For anything that involves storing of information, I try to use cloud services if I can. I don't like to have to worry about lots of stuff. Having extraneous things to think about and keep track of makes me more cognitively frazzled, so I'm mostly just keys, but I do have a bottle opener and a tritium vile on my keychain as well. These are both things that are used frequently and make my life easier. I live in a town that is disproportionately packed with universities and a junior college, so when the mood strikes there's almost always a party to go to. I was disappointed with the tritium vile at first because it doesn't glow as brightly as I had anticipated, however if you can't find your keys, turning off the lights in a room can sometimes instantly reveal where the keys are. It's also something that instigates social interaction, which can be good or bad(oh god I have to answer all the normal questions again... Yes it's legal in the US it's just illegal to purchase here... No it's not dangerous unless you break it open and swallow it).
As far as the things I have on me, only the normal keychain/wallet/phone. Though one habit that is notable is that I always keep each one in the same pocket. If one of those pockets is empty something feels "wrong". This has made my life so much easier.
Also in the trunk of my car is usually a bottle of liquor to share, which lately generally el jimador, but it fluctuates over time to different things, and healthy snack food that can store for a long time. The snack food is for myself, but has also shown useful for situations involving hypoglycemic people. Realistically a portion goes to feeding college kids that had too much to drink.
From my perception as someone who answers a phone for account lockouts a lot, and resolves most of them by asking if they had capslock on while they were entering their password, I'd say the article is spot on in suggesting that when a millennial calls, they're more likely to have a complex problem, but as an IT worker I fail to see how near zero call volume for millenials having simple PIC(person in chair) problems should be stresfull to me. Isn't the least stresfull call the one that doesn't exist because the problem never existed? Sounds like someone noticed that young people always have more complicated problems when they call and is now making bizarre conclusions about it.
Copyright and patent duration are just two different things though. The MPAA/riaa lobby have extended copyright to ridiculous lengths not just for themselves but for everyone. But even if patents and copyrights are both intellectual properties, patents are not copyrights and the movie/music lobby only spills into patenting when wording in legislation gets more vague than using words like "copyright".
That's an interesting and tempting concept, but who is really the creator of a movie? How do you determine what share of the content is owned by which contributers, and most importantly, how could you keep the RIAA and MPAA funding companies from arguing that they didn't really as a whole instigate the creation of the content? And if not, how would large projects like movies be funded?
If you didn't want a major coffee vending chain to be able to refuse you service simply because the movie or music industry doesn't like the field of work you are in and wants to make your life difficult, would this qualify you as being anti-copyright? The only difference in having your payment services shut off rather than your coffee, is that when the industry gets your service shut off, defending your rights becomes a less realistic goal.
If you're not breaking a copyright law, you're not breaking a copyright law. If he's not defending people breaking copyright law, it's not an anti-copyright rant.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clarify since I'm having a hard time understanding what the relationship between the fermi paradox and the singularity is that you're asking him about, are you going along the line of thought that if cyborg evolution is a potential step for all life that this should increase our chances of them being visible to us?
What is most at issue isn't just the direct effect of the attack or the indirect effect on our awareness of security and vulnerability in terms of judging the entire umbrella of grey hat. Those two forms of effect are unique to each example and should be judged on a case by case basis. The issue that isn't dependent on case by case analysis is the one of rule of law. It is possible to violate the letter of the law without violating the spirit of the law, but if a culture of taking enforcement into your own hands and your own interpretation grows, harm will also grow no matter whether or not some cases were handled with all the care necessary to assure that their effect was altruistic, and no matter how altruistic your direct effects are as a grey hat, your publicity will promote the prevalence of grey hat culture. The positive effects cannot negate the negative ones, and the negative ones cannot negate the positive ones.
A lot of the rhetoric that seems to be critical of a singularitarian future seems to hinge on this idea that computer architecture will hit a wall in size, which seems to be dependent on whether or not we'll be able to produce carbon nanotube transistors or find some other way to solve the quantum tunneling issue. When nantero started to make memory cells out of carbon nanotubes, I was very excited about whether or not this was evidence that carbon nanotube transistors would exist and be able to bring the transistor architecture under 5nms. Not being familiar enough with computing myself, I was sure that there would be some transhumanist/singularitarian engineers out there debating this, but the internet seemed to be lacking. While I understand that architecture could for all I know shift away from transistors entirely, do you know if these nanotube memory cells are evidence that we'll have computing under the 5nm scale and sufficient to refute an argument that a wall to size will prevent any singularity from occurring? Thank you so much for taking the time to look over our questions and everything else you've done.
Is this different than the devices that Japanese dude was putting on stray cats?
I'll jump into the "great minds think alike" party, although my comment seems to have attracted the attention of someone randomly ranting at me about whether or not it's ok to spy on spouses(no idea). I love Brian Krebs. Can't think of why it took businesses this long to actually implement that sort of thing in threat modeling.
Businesses that attempt to monetize threat modeling have been around for a long time without the same scrutiny a lot of you are giving this company. Is it immoral for a company that makes antivirus software to not give their software away for free rather than charging money? Do you think the moral thing to do would be to just go out of business instead of charging money? If you aren't currently an IT security expert working for a non profit or for free, I invite you to apply your train of thought to just as much introspection as finger pointing. All this company is doing is taking an approach to threat modeling that people like Brian Krebs started advocating a long long time ago, and incorporating it into a business model not incredibly different than any other IT security company.
Where I work, they use as400. Apparently that's still pretty common, but it's only one month younger than I am.
For anything that involves storing of information, I try to use cloud services if I can. I don't like to have to worry about lots of stuff. Having extraneous things to think about and keep track of makes me more cognitively frazzled, so I'm mostly just keys, but I do have a bottle opener and a tritium vile on my keychain as well. These are both things that are used frequently and make my life easier. I live in a town that is disproportionately packed with universities and a junior college, so when the mood strikes there's almost always a party to go to. I was disappointed with the tritium vile at first because it doesn't glow as brightly as I had anticipated, however if you can't find your keys, turning off the lights in a room can sometimes instantly reveal where the keys are. It's also something that instigates social interaction, which can be good or bad(oh god I have to answer all the normal questions again... Yes it's legal in the US it's just illegal to purchase here... No it's not dangerous unless you break it open and swallow it). As far as the things I have on me, only the normal keychain/wallet/phone. Though one habit that is notable is that I always keep each one in the same pocket. If one of those pockets is empty something feels "wrong". This has made my life so much easier. Also in the trunk of my car is usually a bottle of liquor to share, which lately generally el jimador, but it fluctuates over time to different things, and healthy snack food that can store for a long time. The snack food is for myself, but has also shown useful for situations involving hypoglycemic people. Realistically a portion goes to feeding college kids that had too much to drink.
From my perception as someone who answers a phone for account lockouts a lot, and resolves most of them by asking if they had capslock on while they were entering their password, I'd say the article is spot on in suggesting that when a millennial calls, they're more likely to have a complex problem, but as an IT worker I fail to see how near zero call volume for millenials having simple PIC(person in chair) problems should be stresfull to me. Isn't the least stresfull call the one that doesn't exist because the problem never existed? Sounds like someone noticed that young people always have more complicated problems when they call and is now making bizarre conclusions about it.
Copyright and patent duration are just two different things though. The MPAA/riaa lobby have extended copyright to ridiculous lengths not just for themselves but for everyone. But even if patents and copyrights are both intellectual properties, patents are not copyrights and the movie/music lobby only spills into patenting when wording in legislation gets more vague than using words like "copyright".
That's an interesting and tempting concept, but who is really the creator of a movie? How do you determine what share of the content is owned by which contributers, and most importantly, how could you keep the RIAA and MPAA funding companies from arguing that they didn't really as a whole instigate the creation of the content? And if not, how would large projects like movies be funded?
If you don't believe Dan667, check out the musicians who aren't able to turn a profit until they start giving their music away for free and asking for donations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/20...
If you didn't want a major coffee vending chain to be able to refuse you service simply because the movie or music industry doesn't like the field of work you are in and wants to make your life difficult, would this qualify you as being anti-copyright? The only difference in having your payment services shut off rather than your coffee, is that when the industry gets your service shut off, defending your rights becomes a less realistic goal. If you're not breaking a copyright law, you're not breaking a copyright law. If he's not defending people breaking copyright law, it's not an anti-copyright rant.