"I think there's been three great strips that have gone away over the last five, 10 years that I really miss: 'Bloom County,' 'Calvin and Hobbes' and 'The Far Side.' Those are the three strips that never should have ceased."
The headline made me think that Richard Garriott was returning to create more Ultima games. I have read a couple interviews with him, and think that he has an interesting take on game design. I never got a chance to play any of the Ultima games--though I remember reading reviews of them in the gaming magazines when I was little. Virtue in gaming seems like a very interesting idea given what we usualy see in games.
Thank you for explaining. You are limiting the term hacking only to instances where property is damaged. Simply obtaining information is not covered under your definition, correct?
Whether or not our supposed 'white-hat' hacker actually compromises the system, they would still need to take it off-line and examine it and rebuild it and test it as you say. Why? Because he has shown them a security flaw which has existed in an open system. There is no way to know how many others have exploited the flaw. So the hacker in our imaginary case has incurred no extra expense on the company by reporting to them that he was able to bypass their security. The flaw was there before his actions. That their increased knowledge puts them to expense to correct a flaw is no crime on his part.
The problem of feigning innocence is exactly the problem that I referred to regarding motive above. But it is a problem in the law that errs to the defense, rather than erring to the prosecution as the law does now. And it is in the character of U.S. law to err to the defense when possible.
Now this is interesting. 'On to me,' huh? Since you have already psychologically dissected my character with that masterful expose--you'd get a Pulitzer if there was justice--I will try yours.
You came across an argument that you disagreed with, but did not have the mental faculties to rebut. To express your disapproval you engaged in an attack without content: 'anybody fooled by this is an idiot'. After all, logical argument was not an option because of your limited means. When challenged, your pride prevented you from giving up, and you upgraded your attacks to a personal level. It was the rhetorical equivalent of monkeys flinging shit. Since it is a problem of your capacity and not your integrity, there is no reason to hold you accountable, anymore than one would lecture the monkey in the zoo.
So you maintain physical lines for people to send packets of information to your server, without requiring any specific agreement from them before use. You have no contract they must first agree to, and no posted rules that they must first read before sending packets to your computer. Someone uses one of those physical lines to send information to your server. Your server sends information back to him that is not acceptable to you. After the fact, you feel that the information he sent went against some permission that you never explictly stated. Therefore you wish him punished as a tresspasser?
I have a General-class HAM license. There is no reason anymore to require morse code. But with the internet and cell phones and satelite phones, there is no reason to need a HAM license either.
This comment has absolutely no content whatsoever. It says nothing, and takes three large paragraphs in which to do it.
By "this comment", you are referring to you own three-paragraph comment?
Now, do you mean to say that it should always be illegal to ever get information that you do not have "permission" for? The investigative reporters of the world should take note. Or maybe you only mean your statement as an unprincipled exception, and only to apply to those big scary computers that hacking people use.
Everyone enjoys comparing hacking to breaking into someone's house or trespassing on private property. It is not. You cannot be 'inside' someone else's server. (It is doubly impossible given the girth of most hackers.) The physical definitions fall apart. And the metaphorical analogies do not mesh physical property and Turing machines so well.
We can begin with what we do know for sure about hacking. A hacking incident is when someone sends packets of information (in some form and by some medium) from a computer or computers to someone else's computer or computers. Which packets are illegal and which are not? Any exact definition raises problems. You can say that any packets that change the functioning of the target system in an unintended way is hacking. So the ignorance of the owner becomes the limit of what is or is not hacking. Faking an email address on a badly designed sign up page (or using mailinator) might be hacking under that definition. Other definitions are similarly problematic. Currently our legal system tends to default (once it actually gets to jury trial) to the above definition, but (in effect) adds that the act must be highly technical and use specialized tools. (Other definitions exist, and I am of course willing to bust holes in any particular one you care to suggest--so go ahead and suggest them.)
But there is such a thing as computer hacking. Everyone knows that. Even if we cannot have an exact legal definition, we know that some things are clearly computer hacking. What is the best way of creating law (which is now inexact) to deal with this behavior? I would suggest making the motive of the hacker one of the main considerations of law. It is always hard to for legal systems to judge guilt based on motive--and they should not if they can avoid it--but in this case, they must either judge the motive of the victim or the perpetrator. If the motive is vandalism or theft, then the act should be punished. Adrian Lamo's motive appears to have been an act that should not have been punished--though it is highly important to state that we do not yet know the facts.
Carriers are easy to sink. In a war with China, the Chinese will quickly elimante any carrier group in the region. If our only response to that is nuclear war, we're in for a hell of a ride if we intend to defend Taiwan.
Actually there are no longer any battleships in the U.S. Navy. We found out during WWII that airplanes beat battleships. Technology made battleships obsolete. What the battleship was in WWII, the aircraft carrier is today. It's a sitting duck for guided munitions. Those battle groups you mention will start out the war with subs and carriers and all sorts of surface ships. And about an hour later, the subs will be the only ones left.
executing on average about 1000 drug dealers a month.
What are you smoking? Taiwan barely executes anyone and is phasing out the penalty. You may be thinking about Sinapore which executes a large number of drug dealers. About 40 a year.
You are right, the U.S. should not intervene over Taiwan. We do not have a thing to gain to from a huge war with China.
On the other hand, war might be beneficial for us in that China would sink all of our aircraft carriers and other surface ships within an hour of the shooting starting. We would respond, of course, by sinking every Chinese boat in the water with our nuclear submarines. Maybe it would finally drive home the point that "there are two kinds of ship in the US Navy: subs and targets" to the Pentagon and Congress.
Hold your fucking horses. I support Taiwanese independance. Unsurprisingly, though, I was not trying to trace everything down to ultimate root causes in a simple slashdot post.
This current period of tensions have been aggravated by Taiwan's entirely proper military exercise. If you cannot see that, you have got some serious blinders on. My god. Someone actually accusing me of Communist sympathizing. That really takes the cake, you dumbass.
Here is the cause. Taiwan recently conducted military exercises simulating a Chinese invasion despite Chinese protests. I would imagine that this is China's response.
Or it could be preparation for an all out invasion by China. Now that would be a fun war to watch.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me sum up this article: "If you don't read my science fiction, then the terrorists have already won. (P.S. D&D is for losers.)
And your strategy for the Cold War would have been something along the lines of "Give up and die," I'd expect.
The headline made me think that Richard Garriott was returning to create more Ultima games. I have read a couple interviews with him, and think that he has an interesting take on game design. I never got a chance to play any of the Ultima games--though I remember reading reviews of them in the gaming magazines when I was little. Virtue in gaming seems like a very interesting idea given what we usualy see in games.
So obtaining information is always stealing? Whenever one looks up information on a website he is stealing? I assume you wish to revise your argument.
Thank you for explaining. You are limiting the term hacking only to instances where property is damaged. Simply obtaining information is not covered under your definition, correct?
Ah, I understand. I thought it was some sort of anti-Jewish thing for a second. And yes, slashdot does seem to be littered with people with certain types of mental inadequacies.
I'm a bit thick. What did you mean by "That's a 1.2 on the neocon scale"?
Whether or not our supposed 'white-hat' hacker actually compromises the system, they would still need to take it off-line and examine it and rebuild it and test it as you say. Why? Because he has shown them a security flaw which has existed in an open system. There is no way to know how many others have exploited the flaw. So the hacker in our imaginary case has incurred no extra expense on the company by reporting to them that he was able to bypass their security. The flaw was there before his actions. That their increased knowledge puts them to expense to correct a flaw is no crime on his part.
The problem of feigning innocence is exactly the problem that I referred to regarding motive above. But it is a problem in the law that errs to the defense, rather than erring to the prosecution as the law does now. And it is in the character of U.S. law to err to the defense when possible.
My god. Negative moderation. Make sure to tell me when you do it to make sure I notice. Wouldn't want any of your precious mod points to go to waste.
Now this is interesting. 'On to me,' huh? Since you have already psychologically dissected my character with that masterful expose--you'd get a Pulitzer if there was justice--I will try yours.
You came across an argument that you disagreed with, but did not have the mental faculties to rebut. To express your disapproval you engaged in an attack without content: 'anybody fooled by this is an idiot'. After all, logical argument was not an option because of your limited means. When challenged, your pride prevented you from giving up, and you upgraded your attacks to a personal level. It was the rhetorical equivalent of monkeys flinging shit. Since it is a problem of your capacity and not your integrity, there is no reason to hold you accountable, anymore than one would lecture the monkey in the zoo.
So you maintain physical lines for people to send packets of information to your server, without requiring any specific agreement from them before use. You have no contract they must first agree to, and no posted rules that they must first read before sending packets to your computer. Someone uses one of those physical lines to send information to your server. Your server sends information back to him that is not acceptable to you. After the fact, you feel that the information he sent went against some permission that you never explictly stated. Therefore you wish him punished as a tresspasser?
I have a General-class HAM license. There is no reason anymore to require morse code. But with the internet and cell phones and satelite phones, there is no reason to need a HAM license either.
Now, do you mean to say that it should always be illegal to ever get information that you do not have "permission" for? The investigative reporters of the world should take note. Or maybe you only mean your statement as an unprincipled exception, and only to apply to those big scary computers that hacking people use.
Everyone enjoys comparing hacking to breaking into someone's house or trespassing on private property. It is not. You cannot be 'inside' someone else's server. (It is doubly impossible given the girth of most hackers.) The physical definitions fall apart. And the metaphorical analogies do not mesh physical property and Turing machines so well.
We can begin with what we do know for sure about hacking. A hacking incident is when someone sends packets of information (in some form and by some medium) from a computer or computers to someone else's computer or computers. Which packets are illegal and which are not? Any exact definition raises problems. You can say that any packets that change the functioning of the target system in an unintended way is hacking. So the ignorance of the owner becomes the limit of what is or is not hacking. Faking an email address on a badly designed sign up page (or using mailinator) might be hacking under that definition. Other definitions are similarly problematic. Currently our legal system tends to default (once it actually gets to jury trial) to the above definition, but (in effect) adds that the act must be highly technical and use specialized tools. (Other definitions exist, and I am of course willing to bust holes in any particular one you care to suggest--so go ahead and suggest them.)
But there is such a thing as computer hacking. Everyone knows that. Even if we cannot have an exact legal definition, we know that some things are clearly computer hacking. What is the best way of creating law (which is now inexact) to deal with this behavior? I would suggest making the motive of the hacker one of the main considerations of law. It is always hard to for legal systems to judge guilt based on motive--and they should not if they can avoid it--but in this case, they must either judge the motive of the victim or the perpetrator. If the motive is vandalism or theft, then the act should be punished. Adrian Lamo's motive appears to have been an act that should not have been punished--though it is highly important to state that we do not yet know the facts.
Maybe you could try pointing out where I was wrong. It helps the discussion along.
Carriers are easy to sink. In a war with China, the Chinese will quickly elimante any carrier group in the region. If our only response to that is nuclear war, we're in for a hell of a ride if we intend to defend Taiwan.
Actually there are no longer any battleships in the U.S. Navy. We found out during WWII that airplanes beat battleships. Technology made battleships obsolete. What the battleship was in WWII, the aircraft carrier is today. It's a sitting duck for guided munitions. Those battle groups you mention will start out the war with subs and carriers and all sorts of surface ships. And about an hour later, the subs will be the only ones left.
How do you launch a plane from a sunken ship?
I get this feeling that you do not know what you are talking about.
executing on average about 1000 drug dealers a month.
What are you smoking? Taiwan barely executes anyone and is phasing out the penalty. You may be thinking about Sinapore which executes a large number of drug dealers. About 40 a year.
You are right, the U.S. should not intervene over Taiwan. We do not have a thing to gain to from a huge war with China.
On the other hand, war might be beneficial for us in that China would sink all of our aircraft carriers and other surface ships within an hour of the shooting starting. We would respond, of course, by sinking every Chinese boat in the water with our nuclear submarines. Maybe it would finally drive home the point that "there are two kinds of ship in the US Navy: subs and targets" to the Pentagon and Congress.
Absolutely right. I got a bit hot under the collar there, geekoid.
I'd like everyone to know that I'm retracting all statements regarding copulating equines.
Hold your fucking horses. I support Taiwanese independance. Unsurprisingly, though, I was not trying to trace everything down to ultimate root causes in a simple slashdot post.
This current period of tensions have been aggravated by Taiwan's entirely proper military exercise. If you cannot see that, you have got some serious blinders on. My god. Someone actually accusing me of Communist sympathizing. That really takes the cake, you dumbass.
Here is the cause. Taiwan recently conducted military exercises simulating a Chinese invasion despite Chinese protests. I would imagine that this is China's response.
Or it could be preparation for an all out invasion by China. Now that would be a fun war to watch.