and a cable stating that China would like to see North Korea taken over by the South is exactly the kind of thing that could potentially destabilize an already unstable situation.
Or it could make NK behave and abandon its brinkmanship antics, because it realizes that china will not back it in a shooting war. It is entirely possible that NK's intelligence services were not aware how irritated china was was. Just because secret information was leaked, does not mean that a negative outcome will result when it is revealed.
They are announcing this as the US and S Korean navies are resuming the naval exercises that prompted the North to commence shelling. The South Korean government ended up getting a lot of flack internally for not responding to the North in any meaningful fashion, and has announced that it will send Jets north if attacked again. The north knows it cannot win in a shooting war, and will be utterly crushed if this occurs. So they are playing the nuclear card in hopes of bluffing the south into not doing anything further.
The south's political leadership needs a strong show of force right now, to not get voted out of office by enraged voters. This is a smart bluff (IMHO) on the North's part, to discourage the South from lobbing a few shells over the border while a US carrier group is at their back and on full alert. Using the nuclear threat here is good because nobody really knows if they are crazy enough to do it, and they probably know this. (I am sure they know we think they are unpredictable and erratic, and are willing to play on those fears).
At first glance, I read that as bobcat, and I though, "That's silly, they would never fall for the old 'bobcat in the server room trick'". I think I have been reading too many Amazon product reviews....
Despite, of course, having been proven guilty to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers (or at least an independent judge). I mean, you can make the point that there are a few innocents in jail, yes, but you're going very, very far indeed.
Nitpicking, but prison usually where convicted people are placed. Jail is a holding place for people that are have been arrested or people that have been given short term sentences. Depending on the arrest/conviction ratio of wherever you live, you could say that most people in jail are innocent.
They keep bringing up this idea of an "Internet Killswitch" in the states. That could be used to stop both incoming and outgoing attacks.
An Internet killswitch is about as viable as a perpetual motion machine. Assuming that you could round up all the possible avenues into and out of the united states (and there are a LOT of them, not just a few major landlines), and get the collective owners to agree that a killswtich is a good idea, you can only realistically kill all traffic, since filtering is unrealistic. If you do this, you will cause far more internal economic damage than any hacking attempt could ever cause. Plus, it doesn't stop anything that is happening inside the country. (say, a Russian mob running a phishing botnet remotely.)
He isn't thinking ahead. My point was that that he is suggesting trying to think about a fundamentally new and different problem using conventional thought. You cannot realistically monitor a countries virtual military activities.
Here is why this is just yet another pipe dream: any hardware that we can build can be emulated identically in software. It will perhaps run slower, but it will do the same thing. There have been no software agents that have been modeled for the past 50 years that are anything close to 'real ai', so why would shifting the problem to hardware do anything to advance the underlying problem? Speed and transistor counts don't make up for a lack of understanding.
I find it interesting that Bruce, who is a pretty savvy guy, would suggest treaties for 'cyber warfare' that are analogous to those employed in conventional warfare. The problem is, as illustrated by the snarky remarks in this thread, is that the internet is so unlike anything else that such treaties would be pointless.
How are you going to verify that someone else is complying? Its one thing to be able to count missile silos or uranium mining operations, but how do you make sure that someone isn't researching methods for retasking criminal botnets for military purposes or preping viruses for targeted release? His suggestions are comically out of touch...
They probably don't even expect probable converts to go there, they expect True Believers(TM) to go there to reinforce their beliefs.
Disregarding the whole church/state separation lawsuit that you know will dog this through a decade of appeals, who in their right mind would want to fund this? I mean, you really think that this is going to make a lot of money? It sounds like a second rate zoo and fun park. If I were an investor, I would invest in something that sounds more likely to make money, you know, like perpetual motion machines and cold fusion...
You raise a fair and valid point, sir. Not all songs are created equally. Some songs might be very well worth a $750 penalty get a copy of, while others should have a penalty of.05 if you pirate them. Now the real question is how to figure out what should the correct financial penalty should be. Is sharing a copy of The Beatles 'Hey Jude' as financially damaging as sharing Milli Vanilli's 'Blame it on the Rain'? Good lord, I hope not...
There should be a formula that is something like: Total single sales + (album sales/tracks on album) * e^(-years since release) * (duration of time that file was shared/other people sharing song)/bitrate of host machine * average number of active torrents downloading song * lowest possible price to purchase given song. (.99c at I-tunes?)
The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter.
You know, if you wrote a worm that would root computers, and then set up a low bandwidth background torrent, it would really wreck the RIAA's ability to claim that people 'knew what they were doing', since it would set up a situation where anyone could be hosting files without consent or knowledge.
There is a huge whole in the thinking of the military tactics around this. Supposing the quoted soldier is correct, and there is really no way to fight this weapon from cover, or flee from it. There is one further option they are overlooking: Hand to hand combat. If you deploy a unbeatable weapon at range against me, I will just try to engineer the fights to be at such short ranges that explosives are off the table. Is this going to make insurgents run, or use more IEDs and close quarters ambushes?
When in the history of war has a new weapon ended war with it's lethality?
If only you could mod servers up or down, giving them some sort of reputation history. The your OS could determine a trusted anchor based on a server's "karma" and your requirements*. A system parallel to DNSSEC for apportioning, updating, and validating trust.
Doesn't china have like, 1.2 billion people? If all the people in china mod up the Chinese DNS servers, and a the people in the US mod them down, I'm pretty sure they will still have a pretty good score...
Because information on the Internet is fast and free, if 1 person finds a way around your block 5 minutes after it is in place, 10 million people can know about it in under a day, and your little information embargo is a futile exercise. If you made the same comment about how 'security through obscurity works' in the context of OS security, you would be laughed off Slashdot. Why would general blocking of sites be any different?
Which brings up an interesting point: How would a government org go about shutting down a rogue server? Lets pretend it is hosted in some remote country, so sending a CnD letter is probably ineffective. Blocking the DNS entries will just result in people putting up non-us filtered DNS servers, and you are playing whack a mole to try to find them and block them. You could put ip-filters on all the trunks going in and out of the country, but that's another game of whack a mole, since any proxy server outside the country can redirect.
I am not a networking expert, but even if you had the political will to do this, it seems to me it would be no more than an inconvenience for anyone determined enough.
I was recently made aware of someone taking a hunting knife (not a $20 swiss army, but an actual knife) through security with the help of steel-toed boots.
And why should we even CARE? I don't fucking care if someone takes a huge, razor sharp katanna on a plane. It isn't like the pilots will open the door to the cockpit regardless of who a nutjob threatens to kill. Sure they can hurt some passengers, but no more so than someone with the same sorts of weapons in any crowded place.
The only thing they need to search for is explosives. Give everyone who gets on a plane a 18" marine combat knife. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
One side effect I think of the gratuitous CGI is probably that the shots are kept short to keep your eye from paying too much attention to the CGI. If you examine it in detail, it's obvious that it's computer rendered, and thus not as effective. The quick cuts keep shoving "eye candy" at you without making it stand up to the eye.
You might be right, but I suspect that it is more about keeping budgets manageable. If it takes X hours of render farm time to generate 5 seconds of CGI craziness, then generating 3 minute long tracking shots of the same content will take 36 times as much render farm time.
I have an alternate theory too. Many directors that are reaching the height of their careers now, grew up being exposed to MTV's hyper-energetic buzz cut style of videos. For better or worse, MTV was a big change in visual style and has had some far reaching influences.
Funny, but I was just ranting to a friend about how MS seems to be dropping the fucking ball with Kinect driver support in XNA, too. A console lives or dies based on software titles, and they don't seem to be interested in letting developers write code for their brand new toy. I have asked people in the know who work at MS about timetables for an API or SDK for Kinect, but they give this bullshit line about not being able to discuss future releases (Yeah, like a release date for a Kinect dev kit is really going to give the competition a leg up on you, MS.)
This is Microsoft giving developers the finger, yet again. If you aren't a 'preferred partner', you don't get to write code.
pretty sure that people who offered to let scientists run current through their brains as part of a test to see how it affects learning aren't Nobel prize winners to begin with....
Deep-packet inspection has to be made illegal globally or they will continue to push to exploit it.
Deep packet inspection should be made legal everywhere, so everybody is pushed into encrypting everything all the time. Global adoption of encryption is a far better protection from privacy invasions like deep packet inspection than a piece of paper. Innovation before legislation, please.
Slashdot Mirror
and a cable stating that China would like to see North Korea taken over by the South is exactly the kind of thing that could potentially destabilize an already unstable situation.
Or it could make NK behave and abandon its brinkmanship antics, because it realizes that china will not back it in a shooting war. It is entirely possible that NK's intelligence services were not aware how irritated china was was. Just because secret information was leaked, does not mean that a negative outcome will result when it is revealed.
They are announcing this as the US and S Korean navies are resuming the naval exercises that prompted the North to commence shelling. The South Korean government ended up getting a lot of flack internally for not responding to the North in any meaningful fashion, and has announced that it will send Jets north if attacked again. The north knows it cannot win in a shooting war, and will be utterly crushed if this occurs. So they are playing the nuclear card in hopes of bluffing the south into not doing anything further.
The south's political leadership needs a strong show of force right now, to not get voted out of office by enraged voters. This is a smart bluff (IMHO) on the North's part, to discourage the South from lobbing a few shells over the border while a US carrier group is at their back and on full alert. Using the nuclear threat here is good because nobody really knows if they are crazy enough to do it, and they probably know this. (I am sure they know we think they are unpredictable and erratic, and are willing to play on those fears).
Why not try a simple well organized boycott?
At first glance, I read that as bobcat, and I though, "That's silly, they would never fall for the old 'bobcat in the server room trick'". I think I have been reading too many Amazon product reviews....
So people in jail are all innocent ?
Despite, of course, having been proven guilty to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers (or at least an independent judge). I mean, you can make the point that there are a few innocents in jail, yes, but you're going very, very far indeed.
Nitpicking, but prison usually where convicted people are placed. Jail is a holding place for people that are have been arrested or people that have been given short term sentences. Depending on the arrest/conviction ratio of wherever you live, you could say that most people in jail are innocent.
We'll just call anybody a terrorist nowadays, won't we?
Quiet you terrorist, or you're next!
Best. Post. Ever.
"The Darfsteller" tells of a time when actors sell their likeness and are replaced by robots (apparently, Keanu Reeves did this early in his career).
I look forward to Keaun being replaced by a robot, so his acting will be less stiff....
They keep bringing up this idea of an "Internet Killswitch" in the states. That could be used to stop both incoming and outgoing attacks.
An Internet killswitch is about as viable as a perpetual motion machine. Assuming that you could round up all the possible avenues into and out of the united states (and there are a LOT of them, not just a few major landlines), and get the collective owners to agree that a killswtich is a good idea, you can only realistically kill all traffic, since filtering is unrealistic. If you do this, you will cause far more internal economic damage than any hacking attempt could ever cause. Plus, it doesn't stop anything that is happening inside the country. (say, a Russian mob running a phishing botnet remotely.)
He isn't thinking ahead. My point was that that he is suggesting trying to think about a fundamentally new and different problem using conventional thought. You cannot realistically monitor a countries virtual military activities.
Here is why this is just yet another pipe dream: any hardware that we can build can be emulated identically in software. It will perhaps run slower, but it will do the same thing. There have been no software agents that have been modeled for the past 50 years that are anything close to 'real ai', so why would shifting the problem to hardware do anything to advance the underlying problem? Speed and transistor counts don't make up for a lack of understanding.
I find it interesting that Bruce, who is a pretty savvy guy, would suggest treaties for 'cyber warfare' that are analogous to those employed in conventional warfare. The problem is, as illustrated by the snarky remarks in this thread, is that the internet is so unlike anything else that such treaties would be pointless.
How are you going to verify that someone else is complying? Its one thing to be able to count missile silos or uranium mining operations, but how do you make sure that someone isn't researching methods for retasking criminal botnets for military purposes or preping viruses for targeted release? His suggestions are comically out of touch...
They probably don't even expect probable converts to go there, they expect True Believers(TM) to go there to reinforce their beliefs.
Disregarding the whole church/state separation lawsuit that you know will dog this through a decade of appeals, who in their right mind would want to fund this? I mean, you really think that this is going to make a lot of money? It sounds like a second rate zoo and fun park. If I were an investor, I would invest in something that sounds more likely to make money, you know, like perpetual motion machines and cold fusion...
Yeah, there is nobody that would be stupid and misguided enough to step up and help with this guy's defense......
five bucks says the bimbo calls him a 'patriot'.
I think $750 per song is a fair price.
.05 if you pirate them. Now the real question is how to figure out what should the correct financial penalty should be. Is sharing a copy of The Beatles 'Hey Jude' as financially damaging as sharing Milli Vanilli's 'Blame it on the Rain'? Good lord, I hope not...
You raise a fair and valid point, sir. Not all songs are created equally. Some songs might be very well worth a $750 penalty get a copy of, while others should have a penalty of
There should be a formula that is something like: Total single sales + (album sales/tracks on album) * e^(-years since release) * (duration of time that file was shared/other people sharing song)/bitrate of host machine * average number of active torrents downloading song * lowest possible price to purchase given song. (.99c at I-tunes?)
The girl is not charged with theft, she's charged with distribution of a copyrighted work. Her defense is that she didn't know she was distributing it, and the court says that doesn't matter.
You know, if you wrote a worm that would root computers, and then set up a low bandwidth background torrent, it would really wreck the RIAA's ability to claim that people 'knew what they were doing', since it would set up a situation where anyone could be hosting files without consent or knowledge.
I really would love to read a professional analysis of the source(s) of the attack(s). It might be juicier than the actual leaks...
There is a huge whole in the thinking of the military tactics around this. Supposing the quoted soldier is correct, and there is really no way to fight this weapon from cover, or flee from it. There is one further option they are overlooking: Hand to hand combat. If you deploy a unbeatable weapon at range against me, I will just try to engineer the fights to be at such short ranges that explosives are off the table. Is this going to make insurgents run, or use more IEDs and close quarters ambushes?
When in the history of war has a new weapon ended war with it's lethality?
If only you could mod servers up or down, giving them some sort of reputation history. The your OS could determine a trusted anchor based on a server's "karma" and your requirements*. A system parallel to DNSSEC for apportioning, updating, and validating trust.
Doesn't china have like, 1.2 billion people? If all the people in china mod up the Chinese DNS servers, and a the people in the US mod them down, I'm pretty sure they will still have a pretty good score...
There just isn't a need for a perfect block.
yes there is if you want it to work.
Because information on the Internet is fast and free, if 1 person finds a way around your block 5 minutes after it is in place, 10 million people can know about it in under a day, and your little information embargo is a futile exercise. If you made the same comment about how 'security through obscurity works' in the context of OS security, you would be laughed off Slashdot. Why would general blocking of sites be any different?
Which brings up an interesting point: How would a government org go about shutting down a rogue server? Lets pretend it is hosted in some remote country, so sending a CnD letter is probably ineffective. Blocking the DNS entries will just result in people putting up non-us filtered DNS servers, and you are playing whack a mole to try to find them and block them. You could put ip-filters on all the trunks going in and out of the country, but that's another game of whack a mole, since any proxy server outside the country can redirect.
I am not a networking expert, but even if you had the political will to do this, it seems to me it would be no more than an inconvenience for anyone determined enough.
I was recently made aware of someone taking a hunting knife (not a $20 swiss army, but an actual knife) through security with the help of steel-toed boots.
And why should we even CARE? I don't fucking care if someone takes a huge, razor sharp katanna on a plane. It isn't like the pilots will open the door to the cockpit regardless of who a nutjob threatens to kill. Sure they can hurt some passengers, but no more so than someone with the same sorts of weapons in any crowded place.
The only thing they need to search for is explosives. Give everyone who gets on a plane a 18" marine combat knife. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.
One side effect I think of the gratuitous CGI is probably that the shots are kept short to keep your eye from paying too much attention to the CGI. If you examine it in detail, it's obvious that it's computer rendered, and thus not as effective. The quick cuts keep shoving "eye candy" at you without making it stand up to the eye.
You might be right, but I suspect that it is more about keeping budgets manageable. If it takes X hours of render farm time to generate 5 seconds of CGI craziness, then generating 3 minute long tracking shots of the same content will take 36 times as much render farm time.
I have an alternate theory too. Many directors that are reaching the height of their careers now, grew up being exposed to MTV's hyper-energetic buzz cut style of videos. For better or worse, MTV was a big change in visual style and has had some far reaching influences.
You could have a feature length film in one cut without any waste. It would take a lot of skill to do it well -- from both the cast and the crew.
I have heard of this being done before. I believe in the biz, they call this a 'Play'.
Funny, but I was just ranting to a friend about how MS seems to be dropping the fucking ball with Kinect driver support in XNA, too. A console lives or dies based on software titles, and they don't seem to be interested in letting developers write code for their brand new toy. I have asked people in the know who work at MS about timetables for an API or SDK for Kinect, but they give this bullshit line about not being able to discuss future releases (Yeah, like a release date for a Kinect dev kit is really going to give the competition a leg up on you, MS.)
This is Microsoft giving developers the finger, yet again. If you aren't a 'preferred partner', you don't get to write code.
Did you just create a group of idiots?
pretty sure that people who offered to let scientists run current through their brains as part of a test to see how it affects learning aren't Nobel prize winners to begin with....
Deep-packet inspection has to be made illegal globally or they will continue to push to exploit it.
Deep packet inspection should be made legal everywhere, so everybody is pushed into encrypting everything all the time. Global adoption of encryption is a far better protection from privacy invasions like deep packet inspection than a piece of paper. Innovation before legislation, please.