Hehe. I didn't have Girlfriend 2.0 in mind. It was a reference to Apple's Aqua. I suspect that it is a subtle part of OSX's draw.
I realize there's a mindset of no-thrills utility in some of our fellow readers. I can understand that. I like my terminal window.
But I'm also inclined to some flash. I want my terminal window looking like a sheet of smokey glass hovering over my desktop. I like that almost visceral feel of interaction with my environment.
Apple does that. Linux does that. Windows does that now too. I suspect this is the angle of the marketing campaign.
If you relate this to Girlfriend 2.0... well... that's always been a welcomed angle in advertising as well.
Clearly the OP does not really understand what advertising is usually about. Most mass market advertising does not try to provide information, it is providing associations. It presents something enjoyable (here it is assumed that Seinfeld+Gates==Enjoyable) and then presents the branding that they want to be associated with that enjoyable feeling.
And that goes a long way to explain the commercial. Jerry Seinfeld for a bit of comedic glue to set the absurd scene. Shoe shopping. Churros. And a promise to offer computing so enjoyable that its like eating moist cake as you work. Which ties in to the churros and also sets itself up to be compared to someone else's "lickable" interface.
i'm not trolling there. Moraelin said that airport security guys didn't like these systems. i'm curious about what they think would help. Sometimes the guys on the ground have good ideas based on experience. *shrugs*
OK. Fair enough. Although it probably ends at airport security finding the system unwieldy and ineffective. I'm glad that these guys are seeing the entire process - not just flagging people but later finding that the people flagged are false positives. It goes a long way to dispelling unwarranted faith in magic black-box solutions.
i think it's better to try something and see how it works than to reject it because it might have the same problems as another system. If it fails, it fails. Pay some settlements and try something else.
The problem with this is expending large amounts of resources for little expected gain. Furthermore, civil liberties should be a greater concern than "pay some settlements." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and that we have to ignore anything that might inadvertently affect an individual's rights. But you have to look really critically at these solutions and admit when they're most likely to fail.
What if we had several systems working together? Databases, IDs, face recognition, x-rays, gait analysis and so on working together? Could that cut down on the false positives?
Or does it create a forest of mirrors? Do we end up with huge databases of false positives with occasional false positives echoing other false positives? GIGO. Increasing the amount of garbage isn't likely to help.
It should also be noted that there's a greater danger in such a system. You're going to have a population with power (i.e. law enforcement) who have much more faith in these systems than they deserve. They are going to be inclined to adjust their perceptions to make the data fit rather than look critically at the information they're being fed.
What are the security people at the airports suggesting?
Wait. Did you just invoke airport security as a source of expertise? I'm being trolled, aren't I?
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
Isn't it a pity the DRM fiasco takes center stage when talking about the game instead of.. say... the game itself? Just imagine if the DRM wasn't an issue to begin with.
I find that I have to disagree. Paper books have advantages. But so do electronic versions.
It's not that I don't like books. I do. I have a large library of books covering various subjects. I like curling up to a good book or sitting on the back porch with an interesting book and cool drink on a lazy summer day.
But I've found myself turning to electronic books just as often as paper copies. I have electronic versions of a lot of my leisure books and, while not flawless, I find my old Zaurus a sufficient platform to read them. Paper books have the advantage of battery life and ruggedness. But my Zaurus packs a lot of books in a compact form factor, offers a night light, and auto-bookmarks.
Subject matter is also important. I find my technical books, while nice to have in my library, aren't as convenient as electronic copies. I have an assortment of animal books on my bookshelf. But I prefer the ability to search (and even copy-and-paste from) CD Bookshelf copies when working on something.
As for credibility - that's an interesting subject in itself. I find the more subjective something is, the more likely you're going to find questionable information. I haven't had much trouble with IT related sources (unless I'm getting my IT advice from gamers). But I've seen some really popular kite books that are, frankly, crap. Putting ink to paper doesn't negate the fact that their information is incorrect both factually as well as in technical detail.
When it comes to publishing information it's GIGO. The medium doesn't alter that. So if we're going to compare the merits of paper vs. pixels I'm inclined to go back to where we started - physical advantages of the medium.
People just aren't security oriented. It doesn't matter what environment you're in. Unless it's your main focus, you're not likely to care as much about security as whatever it is that's your focus. That's assuming you're even aware of security implications.
There's exceptions of course. Some people just are naturally inclined to think about security ("just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me"). But that's a small percentage of the population. And probably a base talent to get in to a line of work that puts it to good use. Game development probably isn't it.
Sure there are people out there who are both aware it is a problem and know enough to exploit it. Perhaps you are one of them. However, are you going to actually do it? No? Then no problem.
Con-men the world over should be carrying you about on their shoulders and cheering. Keep it up and their line of work will continue to be profitable for years to come.
Ignorance does not help the victim. All it does is ensure the pool of victims remains large.
So... what about those who questioned the case itself? What about those who weren't biased by the fact that he coded a file system? Do we mix race in to these cases too? Or maybe we can work class in there instead.
I honestly don't know how anyone could think he's realistically innocent. He pointed them to his wife's body, confessed, not to mention the fact that there was already enough evidence to convict him at the trial.
The saying goes "hindsight is 20/20." At this point a lot of doubt (if not all doubt) has been removed. This, of course, wasn't always the case.
The last half-dozen or so times this story popped up there was always a few threads dedicated to the certainty of his guilt vs. the reasonable doubt. The conviction was far from being without controversy. But when a body was produced, you had some that held this as proof that the "reasonable doubt" argument was faulty.
I suspect this was an attempt to cover all those bases in advance.
And one thing that never gets discussed is what he claims he found. Which is modest enough (despite all the hours he put into the search) to sound almost plausible, and weird enough to be interesting: two folders of identically titled satellite photos, one folder of which was titled "unretouched". And a spreadsheet of names and ranks titled "non-terrestrial officers."
Actually - it HAS been discussed. Every time it shows up on Slashdot. I've even made comments.
The thing is... what he says sounds very reasonable. Sure. But there are some very important details missing; and the Devil's in those details. Someone familiar with the environment(s) he claims to have compromised would have questions.
I should note that I have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the incident(s) described. I am familiar with the general environment at JSC. However, I do not know the particular system(s) involved.
The first thing that comes to mind is exactly how he was able to target systems in Building 8. JSC's network is large. I've had to hunt down a rogue host on it before and it required using a network map. It's unlikely that he had access to such a map (it's not officially available online). It's also unlikely he was able to get any clue from host naming conventions (although not impossible). So while it's not entirely implausible to do what he claimed - it's not entirely trivial either.
So if he had managed to figure out what network segment services Building 8, what would he find? Keep in mind that Building 8 isn't some secured facility. It houses a number of activities to include the clinic / flight surgeons. I'm a little skeptical that something as sensitive as white-washing alien evidence would be going on in that particular building.
That's not to say image manipulation isn't happening in Building 8. It does also house JSC's multimedia group. They do all kinds of activities there from handling image archives to printing awards. If McKinney had managed to get on a workstation in Building 8 that belonged to the multimedia group, it wouldn't be surprising if he found a folder containing retouched images due to mundane activity.
What about this "non-terrestrial officers" Excel spreadsheet? Good question. But the spreadsheet, if it does exist, doesn't mean "deployed space marines." And keep in mind that he isn't sure whether he saw this alleged document on a NASA or US Navy system.
I would be very sad when the day comes that John Draper ("Captain Crunch") is referred to as a "cracker" instead of "phreaker" or "hacker". And face it, with the way some geeks now use "cracker", Draper's conviction on toll fraud charges (probably "terrorism" today) would certainly make him a "cracker"... And that's just wrong. I say we just keep the term "hacker" more generic - at least until us old-timers die.
Why can't he be both? It seems to me that he was both a hacker and a cracker... or more specifically, a phreaker. The semantics of it all seems to surround intent as much as skillset or environment.
One of the points that I think gets missed in the whole "cracker vs hacker" discussion is that the public perception of a hacker has a basis on reality. Even the early MIT hacker culture was full of examples where hackers circumvented security (physical as well as electronic) to gain access to resources. That these activities are simply a subset of hacking culture and blend well within the hacker mindset is a subtlety lost on the public. The problem is that the general public overlooks or is unaware of the less controversial aspects of hacker culture.
And so the public perception is that a hacker is solely about compromising security. Nevermind that this view is akin to calling someone who picks a lock a "locksmith" or someone who breaks down a door a "carpenter".
With no basic materials science or semiconductor research, I'm not sure what they're going to be able to develop in the fields of "high-speed electronics" or "nanotechnology".
Oh. There are still a LOT of things to be worked out. For example, what color should they be?
With WoW, pretty much any PvP encounter is a gear check. Skill plays virtually zero part in the game. You level to 70, get flattened in the BGs repeatedly until you get enough gear with res on it so you get flattened less and less. Then, you head to the arenas, where you try to at least a few wins for your weekly point income, and hope your personal arena rating doesn't sink too low.
Player skill still matters. But I do find it to be a pretty subtle thing. Many folks barrel in to the fray without any mind to what's going on... apparently depending on brute force and gear. But I've also seen folks intelligently pick their fight, use their class skills, and pull off things that made me go "wow" and review my combat log to see exactly what they did.
But again - gear is important. Even more so with resilience gear. I can really tell when I've run in to someone w/out res. They go down real quick. So I completely agree with the need to run through BGs to stock up on points and tokens to purchase the PvP gear. Without it, you're at a real severe disadvantage.
OK. Point taken on being free to walk in to danger at your own pace. Although I still maintain that it isn't really THAT much freedom when you're just as likely to be slaughtered (even more so when groups sell their services to lock down a dungeon - the aforementioned goon squads).
As for your naked mage... geared or otherwise, I'm willing to bet the guy still had several Grand Master skills under his belt. That took grinding / training to achieve even if it took a skilled player to put to good use.
Granted - WoW is MUCH more gear-oriented. But I've run in to players that have pulled off really impressive combinations of actions that weren't entirely based on their gear (although trinkets, engineering gadgets, etc. really expand on that). Unfortunately I've also run in to mobile brick walls of gear - so I understand where the comparison comes from.
Beautiful woman and yet she has a boyfriend who lives in that game. (6hrs a day or more of playing, especially weekdays = living in the game.) MMO's, they're a helluva drug.
Ahhh - the oddity of human behavior. WoW (being a successful example of an MMO) is just another in the long line of activities that impact personal interactions. Ever hear of a "football widow"? Ever really seen a sign that reads "gone fishing"?
Yeah, sure... MMOs and other such ilk touch all these interesting psychological behaviors. But they're hardly unique in the realm of personal interaction (neglected or otherwise).
As for me... in about an hour, I'm going to be sitting down at the computer area with my wife and leveling up some alts. We got matching recruit-a-friend accounts to play with. Re-running all this old content with player classes we rarely use has been a blast.
Are you really getting to freely experience content if you're so under-prepared (read: must be Grand Master in several skills plus equipment) that the mobs take you out shortly after walking through the door? Or if some player goon squad does the same?
Don't get me wrong - UO was great. Still is in many ways. But I'm thinking your field over there isn't as green as you think it is.:)
Slashdot Mirror
And get something new and awesomer in the skies to replace it.
Something that could get people going wow again would be nice.
I would also like a pony.
I would imagine he's covering scenarios. But I'm sure someone will manage to read something sinister in to it.
Hehe. I didn't have Girlfriend 2.0 in mind. It was a reference to Apple's Aqua. I suspect that it is a subtle part of OSX's draw.
I realize there's a mindset of no-thrills utility in some of our fellow readers. I can understand that. I like my terminal window.
But I'm also inclined to some flash. I want my terminal window looking like a sheet of smokey glass hovering over my desktop. I like that almost visceral feel of interaction with my environment.
Apple does that. Linux does that. Windows does that now too. I suspect this is the angle of the marketing campaign.
If you relate this to Girlfriend 2.0... well... that's always been a welcomed angle in advertising as well.
Clearly the OP does not really understand what advertising is usually about. Most mass market advertising does not try to provide information, it is providing associations. It presents something enjoyable (here it is assumed that Seinfeld+Gates==Enjoyable) and then presents the branding that they want to be associated with that enjoyable feeling.
And that goes a long way to explain the commercial. Jerry Seinfeld for a bit of comedic glue to set the absurd scene. Shoe shopping. Churros. And a promise to offer computing so enjoyable that its like eating moist cake as you work. Which ties in to the churros and also sets itself up to be compared to someone else's "lickable" interface.
Ahhh. Viral advertising, yes? That makes sense. I'm definitely feeling nauseous and disoriented after having watched the ad.
No, that was Moraelin. ;)
i'm not trolling there. Moraelin said that airport security guys didn't like these systems. i'm curious about what they think would help. Sometimes the guys on the ground have good ideas based on experience. *shrugs*
OK. Fair enough. Although it probably ends at airport security finding the system unwieldy and ineffective. I'm glad that these guys are seeing the entire process - not just flagging people but later finding that the people flagged are false positives. It goes a long way to dispelling unwarranted faith in magic black-box solutions.
i think it's better to try something and see how it works than to reject it because it might have the same problems as another system. If it fails, it fails. Pay some settlements and try something else.
The problem with this is expending large amounts of resources for little expected gain. Furthermore, civil liberties should be a greater concern than "pay some settlements." That doesn't mean we shouldn't try and that we have to ignore anything that might inadvertently affect an individual's rights. But you have to look really critically at these solutions and admit when they're most likely to fail.
Or does it create a forest of mirrors? Do we end up with huge databases of false positives with occasional false positives echoing other false positives? GIGO. Increasing the amount of garbage isn't likely to help.
It should also be noted that there's a greater danger in such a system. You're going to have a population with power (i.e. law enforcement) who have much more faith in these systems than they deserve. They are going to be inclined to adjust their perceptions to make the data fit rather than look critically at the information they're being fed.
Wait. Did you just invoke airport security as a source of expertise? I'm being trolled, aren't I?
You can have your Personal Computer. I have a Personal Jesus.
Which makes you wonder. Will it work in the marketplace?
"Hi. I'm a PC."
"And I'm a Son of God."
The scene at the beginning with Erasmus and Ala is pretty cool though. anyways, the book is awesome.
Wait. So what I'm getting here is that the video is much cooler if I've already read the book and understand what it is the video is about?
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
Isn't it a pity the DRM fiasco takes center stage when talking about the game instead of.. say... the game itself? Just imagine if the DRM wasn't an issue to begin with.
I find that I have to disagree. Paper books have advantages. But so do electronic versions.
It's not that I don't like books. I do. I have a large library of books covering various subjects. I like curling up to a good book or sitting on the back porch with an interesting book and cool drink on a lazy summer day.
But I've found myself turning to electronic books just as often as paper copies. I have electronic versions of a lot of my leisure books and, while not flawless, I find my old Zaurus a sufficient platform to read them. Paper books have the advantage of battery life and ruggedness. But my Zaurus packs a lot of books in a compact form factor, offers a night light, and auto-bookmarks.
Subject matter is also important. I find my technical books, while nice to have in my library, aren't as convenient as electronic copies. I have an assortment of animal books on my bookshelf. But I prefer the ability to search (and even copy-and-paste from) CD Bookshelf copies when working on something.
As for credibility - that's an interesting subject in itself. I find the more subjective something is, the more likely you're going to find questionable information. I haven't had much trouble with IT related sources (unless I'm getting my IT advice from gamers). But I've seen some really popular kite books that are, frankly, crap. Putting ink to paper doesn't negate the fact that their information is incorrect both factually as well as in technical detail.
When it comes to publishing information it's GIGO. The medium doesn't alter that. So if we're going to compare the merits of paper vs. pixels I'm inclined to go back to where we started - physical advantages of the medium.
People just aren't security oriented. It doesn't matter what environment you're in. Unless it's your main focus, you're not likely to care as much about security as whatever it is that's your focus. That's assuming you're even aware of security implications.
There's exceptions of course. Some people just are naturally inclined to think about security ("just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me"). But that's a small percentage of the population. And probably a base talent to get in to a line of work that puts it to good use. Game development probably isn't it.
Sure there are people out there who are both aware it is a problem and know enough to exploit it. Perhaps you are one of them. However, are you going to actually do it? No? Then no problem.
Con-men the world over should be carrying you about on their shoulders and cheering. Keep it up and their line of work will continue to be profitable for years to come.
Ignorance does not help the victim. All it does is ensure the pool of victims remains large.
But who would see it?
Its better to post links here than in the article no one reads.
Great. Now we're gonna have WTFV.
So... what about those who questioned the case itself? What about those who weren't biased by the fact that he coded a file system? Do we mix race in to these cases too? Or maybe we can work class in there instead.
I honestly don't know how anyone could think he's realistically innocent. He pointed them to his wife's body, confessed, not to mention the fact that there was already enough evidence to convict him at the trial.
The saying goes "hindsight is 20/20." At this point a lot of doubt (if not all doubt) has been removed. This, of course, wasn't always the case.
The last half-dozen or so times this story popped up there was always a few threads dedicated to the certainty of his guilt vs. the reasonable doubt. The conviction was far from being without controversy. But when a body was produced, you had some that held this as proof that the "reasonable doubt" argument was faulty.
I suspect this was an attempt to cover all those bases in advance.
And one thing that never gets discussed is what he claims he found. Which is modest enough (despite all the hours he put into the search) to sound almost plausible, and weird enough to be interesting: two folders of identically titled satellite photos, one folder of which was titled "unretouched". And a spreadsheet of names and ranks titled "non-terrestrial officers."
Actually - it HAS been discussed. Every time it shows up on Slashdot. I've even made comments.
The thing is... what he says sounds very reasonable. Sure. But there are some very important details missing; and the Devil's in those details. Someone familiar with the environment(s) he claims to have compromised would have questions.
I should note that I have absolutely no first-hand knowledge of the incident(s) described. I am familiar with the general environment at JSC. However, I do not know the particular system(s) involved.
The first thing that comes to mind is exactly how he was able to target systems in Building 8. JSC's network is large. I've had to hunt down a rogue host on it before and it required using a network map. It's unlikely that he had access to such a map (it's not officially available online). It's also unlikely he was able to get any clue from host naming conventions (although not impossible). So while it's not entirely implausible to do what he claimed - it's not entirely trivial either.
So if he had managed to figure out what network segment services Building 8, what would he find? Keep in mind that Building 8 isn't some secured facility. It houses a number of activities to include the clinic / flight surgeons. I'm a little skeptical that something as sensitive as white-washing alien evidence would be going on in that particular building.
That's not to say image manipulation isn't happening in Building 8. It does also house JSC's multimedia group. They do all kinds of activities there from handling image archives to printing awards. If McKinney had managed to get on a workstation in Building 8 that belonged to the multimedia group, it wouldn't be surprising if he found a folder containing retouched images due to mundane activity.
What about this "non-terrestrial officers" Excel spreadsheet? Good question. But the spreadsheet, if it does exist, doesn't mean "deployed space marines." And keep in mind that he isn't sure whether he saw this alleged document on a NASA or US Navy system.
I would be very sad when the day comes that John Draper ("Captain Crunch") is referred to as a "cracker" instead of "phreaker" or "hacker". And face it, with the way some geeks now use "cracker", Draper's conviction on toll fraud charges (probably "terrorism" today) would certainly make him a "cracker"... And that's just wrong. I say we just keep the term "hacker" more generic - at least until us old-timers die.
Why can't he be both? It seems to me that he was both a hacker and a cracker... or more specifically, a phreaker. The semantics of it all seems to surround intent as much as skillset or environment.
One of the points that I think gets missed in the whole "cracker vs hacker" discussion is that the public perception of a hacker has a basis on reality. Even the early MIT hacker culture was full of examples where hackers circumvented security (physical as well as electronic) to gain access to resources. That these activities are simply a subset of hacking culture and blend well within the hacker mindset is a subtlety lost on the public. The problem is that the general public overlooks or is unaware of the less controversial aspects of hacker culture.
And so the public perception is that a hacker is solely about compromising security. Nevermind that this view is akin to calling someone who picks a lock a "locksmith" or someone who breaks down a door a "carpenter".
I can see it now... at a social site near you...
Watermarks - they're the new black.... which is also the new black.
Oddly enough - most Windows systems I have to deal with already have a black background.
With no basic materials science or semiconductor research, I'm not sure what they're going to be able to develop in the fields of "high-speed electronics" or "nanotechnology".
Oh. There are still a LOT of things to be worked out. For example, what color should they be?
With WoW, pretty much any PvP encounter is a gear check. Skill plays virtually zero part in the game. You level to 70, get flattened in the BGs repeatedly until you get enough gear with res on it so you get flattened less and less. Then, you head to the arenas, where you try to at least a few wins for your weekly point income, and hope your personal arena rating doesn't sink too low.
Player skill still matters. But I do find it to be a pretty subtle thing. Many folks barrel in to the fray without any mind to what's going on... apparently depending on brute force and gear. But I've also seen folks intelligently pick their fight, use their class skills, and pull off things that made me go "wow" and review my combat log to see exactly what they did.
But again - gear is important. Even more so with resilience gear. I can really tell when I've run in to someone w/out res. They go down real quick. So I completely agree with the need to run through BGs to stock up on points and tokens to purchase the PvP gear. Without it, you're at a real severe disadvantage.
OK. Point taken on being free to walk in to danger at your own pace. Although I still maintain that it isn't really THAT much freedom when you're just as likely to be slaughtered (even more so when groups sell their services to lock down a dungeon - the aforementioned goon squads).
As for your naked mage... geared or otherwise, I'm willing to bet the guy still had several Grand Master skills under his belt. That took grinding / training to achieve even if it took a skilled player to put to good use.
Granted - WoW is MUCH more gear-oriented. But I've run in to players that have pulled off really impressive combinations of actions that weren't entirely based on their gear (although trinkets, engineering gadgets, etc. really expand on that). Unfortunately I've also run in to mobile brick walls of gear - so I understand where the comparison comes from.
It's all a mater of perspective. What history have you witnessed? And from what angle?
Beautiful woman and yet she has a boyfriend who lives in that game. (6hrs a day or more of playing, especially weekdays = living in the game.) MMO's, they're a helluva drug.
Ahhh - the oddity of human behavior. WoW (being a successful example of an MMO) is just another in the long line of activities that impact personal interactions. Ever hear of a "football widow"? Ever really seen a sign that reads "gone fishing"?
Yeah, sure... MMOs and other such ilk touch all these interesting psychological behaviors. But they're hardly unique in the realm of personal interaction (neglected or otherwise).
As for me... in about an hour, I'm going to be sitting down at the computer area with my wife and leveling up some alts. We got matching recruit-a-friend accounts to play with. Re-running all this old content with player classes we rarely use has been a blast.
Are you really getting to freely experience content if you're so under-prepared (read: must be Grand Master in several skills plus equipment) that the mobs take you out shortly after walking through the door? Or if some player goon squad does the same?
Don't get me wrong - UO was great. Still is in many ways. But I'm thinking your field over there isn't as green as you think it is. :)