They probably didn't think anyone would even bother trying. There is *nothing* on the Amundsen-Scott system worth stealing or hacking. It's mostly raw scientific data, email, and copies of their small web site.
If you think you're even a tenth as capable as the folks who work there, why don't you put in an application? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't even come close to meeting the minimum application standards. Your ego alone would disqualify you from living in close quarters with two dozen other folks for eight months, without respite.
Second: Prepare yourself for future-shock and read up on this crazy new-fangled thing called "remote access."
They don't need some little state-side wanker to install security for them. Now that they know there are idiots out there who'll - for god knows what reason - try to hack their system, they're more than capable of doing it themselves.
Installing security doesn't take any great amount of skill, and everyone there is very, very smart. They certainly aren't in need of a 'professional' for this task. I'm just disappointed by the fact that they have to waste the time on it, when they have so many better things to do with their limited resources.
I administer numerous servers hundreds or thousands of miles away from me. No kidding. Who says I would have to be shipped down there to install things like patches, updates, firewalls, and the like?
Good luck. Their access is by satellite, at most a few hours out of the day. They don't have cable, dial-up, or anything else of that nature.
And frankly, if I were at Amundsen-Scott right now I sure as hell wouldn't trust a slashdotter to properly lock down my system. Especially remotely, where I can't throw the little bastard out into the snow if he fucks something up - without a heated oxygen tank.
In any event, as I said before they no doubt can lock down the system on their own; everyone there is very, very bright and installing system security isn't exactly rocket science. They probably didn't do so because they have better things to spend their time on (like science, or repairing critical equipment) and didn't envision that some little wanker was so bored and fucked in the head that he'd hack their second-rate system.
RTFA. The system wasn't trashed. Very little was done to it.
How much does downtime cost you?
Considering that they only have communication access to the outside world for a few hours a day, very little.
What does it cost to get someone to your site to fix your system?
When the fuel could be used to ship needed equipment, food, or just used for heating, a whole hell of a lot.
What POTENTIAL expenses/risks do you face if someone uses your equipment to do damage to another site.
Considering the equipment on-base and the very limited daily access, this amounts to a big, fat zero. Or did you think they had cable?
People that have heard you rant about how "worthless" sys admins are start to wonder how credible the rest of your statements are.
A system administrator IS worthless at Amundsen-Scott, compared to a mechanic, a scientist, or an electrician. Do a bit of research on the subject before talking out of your ass.
The Amundsen-Scott station is very expensive to maintain. During the winter the entire base population can be as low as 17 individuals; this can increase significantly during a few months out of the summer, but with cuts in funding the total personnel at the station remains low.
The station is designed for one thing: scientific research. With that in mind, the people you send to the station are those capable of doing the research, or those that are capable of maintaining the station so that others can do their research. Most of the folks there are conversant in a half-dozen jobs - *because they have to be*. There isn't enough funding for critical positions, much less a position like 'computer network administrator' which is nothing more than dead weight 99% of the time. A person who, if they can't also fix tractor engines, maintain the fuel-based heating system, and help calibrate various pieces of astronomical equipment, is nothing more than a waste of space, food, and energy.
No doubt the Amundsen-Scott folks decided to do business 'as usual', e.g., in a not very secure manner, because a) who the hell would want to hack the system when there's nothing to gain?, and b) there isn't anyone there who's life work is system security.
(In fact, I'm willing to bet they *could* secure the system in a decent manner, but never saw the point of it since they couldn't conceive of why anyone would want to mess with it in the first place. Frankly, I can't either; it takes a real jack-off to do something like this.)
All those clueless gits out there who scream "they should have a network administrator!" might want to keep in mind that a network administrator isn't worth his weight in fuel to ship out there, much less keep around during the eight months of the year they're pretty much cut off from the outside world. And yes, that means *you*; if all you know is network administration/security then you're useless waste of good oxygen at Amundsen-Scott, and the people there neither want or need you cluttering up the cramped base, eating their food and using their heat.
The simple sad fact is that most Americans are utter and complete morons.
Which makes Americans no different from the citizens of any other country anywhere in the world. It just happens to be 'cool' in certain circles to point to Americans when, in fact, you could tell stories of idiocy about any people, anywhere, at any time in history.
You are comparing ignorance of regional districts *within* a country (states) to ignorance of major world countries as a whole.
Which matters how? Most of these countries don't have anything like the economic or political power of most of our medium-sized states, much less the giants like California or New York. So what, exactly, is the point of knowing where Belgium is, or what it's capital is, or how many people happen to live there? Belgium will never matter much to us, or in fact to anyone other than it's European neighbors.
If you insist that we know these things about Belgium, or Portugal, or Ireland, "just because", then it stands to reason that you should be able to locate states within the U.S. Or provinces in Canada and Australia, for that matter.
In a free country it doesn't matter whether you're offended or not. You can object all you like, but you don't have any business trying to pass laws outlawing whatever it is you think that mocks your religion. Even if it does mock your religion.
One of the primary tenets of 'freedom of speech' is that it also includes *speech you don't happen to like*. So you suck it up and move on - that is, if you really do believe in freedom and aren't just some wanker who gives it lip service so long as he agrees with the speech in question.
I would be offended too (and I'm not Christian) if Christian religious chanting were used as background music for such a game. Its simply disrespectful to the sentiments involved.
But not illegal, and there'd be nothing you could do about it other than throw a tantrum.
Plus the sad fact that I trust the integrity of crackers more than I do the integrity of a publishing house.
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Crackers do what they do for reputation, and bundling a cracked game with a virus or trojan will destroy their reputation in no time flat. Not only that, it'll invite reprisals from other crackers who don't want the stain of that bad decision to spread to their own efforts.
If game companies make the move to deliberately installing malware on my computer along with the game then I, too, might download the cracked version of that game and put the purchased CD away, untouched. Although I'm more likely just to not purchase the game at all - after all, I'm older, and unlike the kiddies I don't think I just HAVE to have the latest and greatest game to be uber-leet.
Game companies should take note: the vast majority of computer game dollars come from the over-25 crowd. If most of these gamers have the same view I do (i.e., screw the game, I'll spend my money elsewhere) then this is a perfect way to fuck yourself into the bankruptcy hole. They can bitch, whine and moan about 'piracy' all they like, but in the end it'll be their own bad decisions which run the company into the ground.
IBM, in classic Adam Smith mode, look to their own advantage but, without intending to, benefit everybody.
Even better, they're being honest about it. Notice that IBM isn't claiming to be a 'white knight' charging in for 'the greater good', or some such leftist rot. They've been pretty clear that they back Linux because it's good for them and their business, and not for any other reason.
I could get used to this new IBM. No grandiose claims, just smart and honest business. That's a company I could put money into. And it's a whole hell of a lot different from the IBM we knew and hated when I was young.
They aren't doing this for "the good of humanity", boy. They're doing it because it's a sensible move for the world's leading computer hardware producer; they're doing it out of *self-interest*.
You see, liberal jack-offs whining about their version of altruism aren't the only ones capable of doing good deeds.
The beauty of the whole thing is that it's entirely a convergence of self-interest: that of IBM and that of coding geeks who happen to favor and use the GPL. You don't need warm-fuzzy pseudo-altruistic clap-trap to make Good Things Happen(TM).
The unregulated markets and industries of the early 1900's
The 'unregulated' markets and industries you speak of didn't exist. Workers were treated poorly not because of the free market, but because business was capable of using the government to impose legislation in their favor. This has pretty much been a truism of the American economy since Thomas Jefferson left office.
The entire concept of 'eminent domain' was radically extended not for the 'good of the people', but so that rail barons could seize land at will and recompense the original owner for pennies on the dollar. A number of laws were passed with the goal of outlawing unions, which led to the famous Pinkerton clashes and widespread police brutality against union leaders.
Your 'unregulated' markets are nothing more than a liberal fantasy promulgated after the '60's to justify the expansion of the welfare state.
Yeah, right. Spare us the drivel. You don't get to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, no matter how many times you've read "Alice in Wonderland".
Anarchy is a lack of an established government. People have tried this countless times, and have rejected it each and every time. That is a fact which you can't dispute.
So by your definition, if everyone's a slave then everyone is being treated fairly? Here's hoping to god you never have any real power over other human beings, ever.
I don't have a negative view of people - you do. You equate self-interest with evil, whereas I think - as I said - that self-interest is a damned good thing. The more open people are about their motivations (e.g., self-interest) and what they're working for, the more likely it is that we can work in agreement or cooperation towards some mutually beneficial goal.
Let me say this again: I think self-interest is a good thing. A really good thing. If you can't understand this, if you somehow think you live on a higher plane of existence because *you* aren't motivated by such 'crass' concerns, then you're the one deserving of pity.
Nature's encouragement of greed/self-interest is now something that humanity, if it wants to survive, must overcome.
And we replace it with what? The 'greater good', which is invariably defined by the person who yammers on about it? Which would make the definition one created out of self-interest, would it not?
Cut the socialist clap-trap about how 'self-interest' is evil and counter-survival. It's not only pure, unadulterated crap, it's pathetically juvenile.
There have been African tribes (before the Portugese arrived) where a person worked on average 16 hour a week.
And prior to the industrial revolution people starved, on average, once every *three years*.
Personally I'd rather work more and avoid regular starvation than work less and watch the kids and old folks drop like flies whenever the crop fails or the game becomes scarce.
This is exactly why capitalism, in the current incarnation, fails.
Wrong. We don't live in an actual capitalism, but a rather weak, watered-down state controlled version of capitalism. Corporations are able to gain the power they have not because they can manipulate the 'evil' free market, but because they can use the government's regulatory power to do it for them.
The more powerful the government, the easier it is for those with wealth to manipulate the government into interfering with the free market in their favor. That isn't a fault of capitalism, but a fault of the political system you live in. If you want a 'real' free market you need to curtail the ability of government to interfere with that market. The less power the government has over the free market, the less power the wealthy have to buy a continuation of the status quo through government action.
That's horseshit. If it were true humans would never have been able to form tribes, much less nations, as any gathering would inevitably and swiftly fall to internecine bloodshed.
Humans are primarily motivated by SELF-INTEREST. This is *not* a bad thing, no matter what the whining fringe elements claim. The point of any 'free' economic/political system is to allow people to pursue that self-interest without unduly infringing upon the ability of others to do the same.
Self-interest doesn't make people evil. It makes them human.
billions around the world want something better and more fair.
Billions around the world want to eat on a regular basis, and as history has shown us time and time again, anarchism isn't up to the job of putting food on the table.
Slashdot Mirror
They probably didn't think anyone would even bother trying. There is *nothing* on the Amundsen-Scott system worth stealing or hacking. It's mostly raw scientific data, email, and copies of their small web site.
If you think you're even a tenth as capable as the folks who work there, why don't you put in an application? I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't even come close to meeting the minimum application standards. Your ego alone would disqualify you from living in close quarters with two dozen other folks for eight months, without respite.
Max
Second: Prepare yourself for future-shock and read up on this crazy new-fangled thing called "remote access."
They don't need some little state-side wanker to install security for them. Now that they know there are idiots out there who'll - for god knows what reason - try to hack their system, they're more than capable of doing it themselves.
Installing security doesn't take any great amount of skill, and everyone there is very, very smart. They certainly aren't in need of a 'professional' for this task. I'm just disappointed by the fact that they have to waste the time on it, when they have so many better things to do with their limited resources.
Max
I administer numerous servers hundreds or thousands of miles away from me. No kidding. Who says I would have to be shipped down there to install things like patches, updates, firewalls, and the like?
Good luck. Their access is by satellite, at most a few hours out of the day. They don't have cable, dial-up, or anything else of that nature.
And frankly, if I were at Amundsen-Scott right now I sure as hell wouldn't trust a slashdotter to properly lock down my system. Especially remotely, where I can't throw the little bastard out into the snow if he fucks something up - without a heated oxygen tank.
In any event, as I said before they no doubt can lock down the system on their own; everyone there is very, very bright and installing system security isn't exactly rocket science. They probably didn't do so because they have better things to spend their time on (like science, or repairing critical equipment) and didn't envision that some little wanker was so bored and fucked in the head that he'd hack their second-rate system.
Max
What is the cost of replacing a trashed system?
RTFA. The system wasn't trashed. Very little was done to it.
How much does downtime cost you?
Considering that they only have communication access to the outside world for a few hours a day, very little.
What does it cost to get someone to your site to fix your system?
When the fuel could be used to ship needed equipment, food, or just used for heating, a whole hell of a lot.
What POTENTIAL expenses/risks do you face if someone uses your equipment to do damage to another site.
Considering the equipment on-base and the very limited daily access, this amounts to a big, fat zero. Or did you think they had cable?
People that have heard you rant about how "worthless" sys admins are start to wonder how credible the rest of your statements are.
A system administrator IS worthless at Amundsen-Scott, compared to a mechanic, a scientist, or an electrician. Do a bit of research on the subject before talking out of your ass.
Max
The Amundsen-Scott station is very expensive to maintain. During the winter the entire base population can be as low as 17 individuals; this can increase significantly during a few months out of the summer, but with cuts in funding the total personnel at the station remains low.
The station is designed for one thing: scientific research. With that in mind, the people you send to the station are those capable of doing the research, or those that are capable of maintaining the station so that others can do their research. Most of the folks there are conversant in a half-dozen jobs - *because they have to be*. There isn't enough funding for critical positions, much less a position like 'computer network administrator' which is nothing more than dead weight 99% of the time. A person who, if they can't also fix tractor engines, maintain the fuel-based heating system, and help calibrate various pieces of astronomical equipment, is nothing more than a waste of space, food, and energy.
No doubt the Amundsen-Scott folks decided to do business 'as usual', e.g., in a not very secure manner, because a) who the hell would want to hack the system when there's nothing to gain?, and b) there isn't anyone there who's life work is system security.
(In fact, I'm willing to bet they *could* secure the system in a decent manner, but never saw the point of it since they couldn't conceive of why anyone would want to mess with it in the first place. Frankly, I can't either; it takes a real jack-off to do something like this.)
All those clueless gits out there who scream "they should have a network administrator!" might want to keep in mind that a network administrator isn't worth his weight in fuel to ship out there, much less keep around during the eight months of the year they're pretty much cut off from the outside world. And yes, that means *you*; if all you know is network administration/security then you're useless waste of good oxygen at Amundsen-Scott, and the people there neither want or need you cluttering up the cramped base, eating their food and using their heat.
Max
The simple sad fact is that most Americans are utter and complete morons.
Which makes Americans no different from the citizens of any other country anywhere in the world. It just happens to be 'cool' in certain circles to point to Americans when, in fact, you could tell stories of idiocy about any people, anywhere, at any time in history.
Max
Not to mention violating UN resolutions.
And who really gives a shit about the UN, other than no-name nations who'd otherwise never get a say in anything, anywhere?
Fuck the UN.
Max
You are comparing ignorance of regional districts *within* a country (states) to ignorance of major world countries as a whole.
Which matters how? Most of these countries don't have anything like the economic or political power of most of our medium-sized states, much less the giants like California or New York. So what, exactly, is the point of knowing where Belgium is, or what it's capital is, or how many people happen to live there? Belgium will never matter much to us, or in fact to anyone other than it's European neighbors.
If you insist that we know these things about Belgium, or Portugal, or Ireland, "just because", then it stands to reason that you should be able to locate states within the U.S. Or provinces in Canada and Australia, for that matter.
Max
It would be just as offensive to a Muslim as playing a fighting game to the sound of a famous psalm would be to a Christian.
Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. The test of any truly free country is to see if they have freedom of speech. Clearly, they don't.
Max
In a free country it doesn't matter whether you're offended or not. You can object all you like, but you don't have any business trying to pass laws outlawing whatever it is you think that mocks your religion. Even if it does mock your religion.
One of the primary tenets of 'freedom of speech' is that it also includes *speech you don't happen to like*. So you suck it up and move on - that is, if you really do believe in freedom and aren't just some wanker who gives it lip service so long as he agrees with the speech in question.
Max
I would be offended too (and I'm not Christian) if Christian religious chanting were used as background music for such a game. Its simply disrespectful to the sentiments involved.
But not illegal, and there'd be nothing you could do about it other than throw a tantrum.
Max
The chances of the CD being damaged before the next sequel comes out is miniscule.
And yet it's usually at the moment when you think "it's never happened, I don't really need a backup" that something horrible befalls you.
Backups are common sense. For everything computer related. Software cds, whether they of games or not, are no exception.
Max
Plus the sad fact that I trust the integrity of crackers more than I do the integrity of a publishing house.
Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Crackers do what they do for reputation, and bundling a cracked game with a virus or trojan will destroy their reputation in no time flat. Not only that, it'll invite reprisals from other crackers who don't want the stain of that bad decision to spread to their own efforts.
If game companies make the move to deliberately installing malware on my computer along with the game then I, too, might download the cracked version of that game and put the purchased CD away, untouched. Although I'm more likely just to not purchase the game at all - after all, I'm older, and unlike the kiddies I don't think I just HAVE to have the latest and greatest game to be uber-leet.
Game companies should take note: the vast majority of computer game dollars come from the over-25 crowd. If most of these gamers have the same view I do (i.e., screw the game, I'll spend my money elsewhere) then this is a perfect way to fuck yourself into the bankruptcy hole. They can bitch, whine and moan about 'piracy' all they like, but in the end it'll be their own bad decisions which run the company into the ground.
Max
IBM, in classic Adam Smith mode, look to their own advantage but, without intending to, benefit everybody.
Even better, they're being honest about it. Notice that IBM isn't claiming to be a 'white knight' charging in for 'the greater good', or some such leftist rot. They've been pretty clear that they back Linux because it's good for them and their business, and not for any other reason.
I could get used to this new IBM. No grandiose claims, just smart and honest business. That's a company I could put money into. And it's a whole hell of a lot different from the IBM we knew and hated when I was young.
Max
They aren't doing this for "the good of humanity", boy. They're doing it because it's a sensible move for the world's leading computer hardware producer; they're doing it out of *self-interest*.
You see, liberal jack-offs whining about their version of altruism aren't the only ones capable of doing good deeds.
Max
The beauty of the whole thing is that it's entirely a convergence of self-interest: that of IBM and that of coding geeks who happen to favor and use the GPL. You don't need warm-fuzzy pseudo-altruistic clap-trap to make Good Things Happen(TM).
Max
The unregulated markets and industries of the early 1900's
The 'unregulated' markets and industries you speak of didn't exist. Workers were treated poorly not because of the free market, but because business was capable of using the government to impose legislation in their favor. This has pretty much been a truism of the American economy since Thomas Jefferson left office.
The entire concept of 'eminent domain' was radically extended not for the 'good of the people', but so that rail barons could seize land at will and recompense the original owner for pennies on the dollar. A number of laws were passed with the goal of outlawing unions, which led to the famous Pinkerton clashes and widespread police brutality against union leaders.
Your 'unregulated' markets are nothing more than a liberal fantasy promulgated after the '60's to justify the expansion of the welfare state.
Max
Yeah, right. Spare us the drivel. You don't get to redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, no matter how many times you've read "Alice in Wonderland".
Anarchy is a lack of an established government. People have tried this countless times, and have rejected it each and every time. That is a fact which you can't dispute.
Max
Fairness: When two people are treated the same.
So by your definition, if everyone's a slave then everyone is being treated fairly? Here's hoping to god you never have any real power over other human beings, ever.
Max
It's sad you have such a negative view of people
I don't have a negative view of people - you do. You equate self-interest with evil, whereas I think - as I said - that self-interest is a damned good thing. The more open people are about their motivations (e.g., self-interest) and what they're working for, the more likely it is that we can work in agreement or cooperation towards some mutually beneficial goal.
Let me say this again: I think self-interest is a good thing. A really good thing. If you can't understand this, if you somehow think you live on a higher plane of existence because *you* aren't motivated by such 'crass' concerns, then you're the one deserving of pity.
Max
Nature's encouragement of greed/self-interest is now something that humanity, if it wants to survive, must overcome.
And we replace it with what? The 'greater good', which is invariably defined by the person who yammers on about it? Which would make the definition one created out of self-interest, would it not?
Cut the socialist clap-trap about how 'self-interest' is evil and counter-survival. It's not only pure, unadulterated crap, it's pathetically juvenile.
Max
There have been African tribes (before the Portugese arrived) where a person worked on average 16 hour a week.
And prior to the industrial revolution people starved, on average, once every *three years*.
Personally I'd rather work more and avoid regular starvation than work less and watch the kids and old folks drop like flies whenever the crop fails or the game becomes scarce.
Max
This is exactly why capitalism, in the current incarnation, fails.
Wrong. We don't live in an actual capitalism, but a rather weak, watered-down state controlled version of capitalism. Corporations are able to gain the power they have not because they can manipulate the 'evil' free market, but because they can use the government's regulatory power to do it for them.
The more powerful the government, the easier it is for those with wealth to manipulate the government into interfering with the free market in their favor. That isn't a fault of capitalism, but a fault of the political system you live in. If you want a 'real' free market you need to curtail the ability of government to interfere with that market. The less power the government has over the free market, the less power the wealthy have to buy a continuation of the status quo through government action.
Max
Unfortunately people are rotten in general.
That's horseshit. If it were true humans would never have been able to form tribes, much less nations, as any gathering would inevitably and swiftly fall to internecine bloodshed.
Humans are primarily motivated by SELF-INTEREST. This is *not* a bad thing, no matter what the whining fringe elements claim. The point of any 'free' economic/political system is to allow people to pursue that self-interest without unduly infringing upon the ability of others to do the same.
Self-interest doesn't make people evil. It makes them human.
Max
billions around the world want something better and more fair.
Billions around the world want to eat on a regular basis, and as history has shown us time and time again, anarchism isn't up to the job of putting food on the table.
Max