Oh, you cannot be serious. You're agnostic about god, because god can't be defined? But it's not about evidence, it's about philosophy? Seriously?
The impossibility of defining "god" is a good reason to be agnostic? It's impossible to define "asdjfop". It's impossible to define because I just made up the word, and it has no meaning. I could pretend it had meaning, but I could then pretend that it was impossible to define its meaning. You must, therefore, be agnostic about "asdjfop" as you cannot define it.
It's not about evidence of "asdjfop", after all. It's about philosophy - specifically, the logical impossibility of knowing everything about existence.
Surely before trying to answer the question of whether god exists or not, it would be useful to define "god". Asking, "What evidence do we have against his existence" is a pointless question unless you first define what "he" is. And there we reach the first - and fatal - stumbling block. There is very little - if any - agreement between faiths, nor between people who ostensibly share the same faith, as to what "god" is.
So, a question: what precisely is it that you're agnostic about?
I know you're joking, but this is pretty much what is happening in the UK. Photographers are being warned - especially in London - against taking any photographs of children as they risk being prosecuted. The reasoning?
Well, apparently, one thing that child pornographers do is take a picture of a child and cut-and-paste the head from that picture onto a picture of a naked body. Ergo - so the "reasoning" goes, anyone taking photographs of children in public must be a child pornographer.
There was a time when child pornography laws were about protecting children. Now they're about kowtowing to hysterical ramblings of the tabloid idiotorials
You mean, of course, "I personally could not justify it". That just means that it's not the trade-off you're prepared to make, it does not mean that there is no good justification for it.
A new Magnitude three star in Perseus - i.e., a new naked-eye object - is hardly "barely visible". It's highly visible, and is not only completely un-missable, it's also clearly not a star to the naked eye. Even through binoculars this thing takes up a huge field of view.
Barely Visible? Have you even looked at the thing, or anything vaguely resembling Perseus recently?
No. What he's described is religion. Or, what religious people try to pretend isn't religion, but nevertheless is.
Think of this phrase: "[A particular idea] is not inconsistent with my faith".
This is supposed to be a conciliatory phrase uttered by the religious to convince the non-religious that their faith, in that instance, will not interfere with science. How very nice of them. But what happens when it does become inconsistent with that persons faith? Which changes first? That persons faith, or that persons neutrality towards science?
What you're describing as "fundamental Christianity" is merely that part of one religion which is currently at odds with the rest of society, and disagrees with more science that other religious people.
I'm confused. Why would the space shuttle's heat shields need to face the sun in order to dry out water? There's no pressure in orbit. Surely water under no pressure is vapour?
Consipiracy theorists being marked "Insightful" on Slashdot. Whatever next.
Anywho. You appear to be saying that a plane can crash in to the side of a building, ignite its full tank of fuel, burn for a while - yet that nothing else burns. The temparature at which fuel burns is utterly irrelevant to why molten steel was found: the total temperature of all burning materials must be considered. I would certainly hope you'd perform that calculation before invoking violations of the laws of physics.
Incidentally, whilst you don't say it, you appear to be implying that the steel would have to melt in order for the structure to fail; which I certainly hope you know not to be true: the integrity of a steel structure will fail well before it reaches melting point.
Thanks for that; I have to say that that definition from answers.com - that of an appeal to emotion - is the first time I'd heard it being used that way. I've only heard the appeal to emotion described in english as just that "appeal to emotion", but the appeal against the character of the person in latin as "argumentum ad hominem".
Alas, I still have no idea what "appeal to the children" should be:)
Ad hominem matches that definition; argumentum ad hominem does not. Argumentum ad hominem is an attack against a person in an rhetoric attempt to deflect attention away from the argument put forward by attacking the character of the person making the argument.
Cite:
For example, if one were to attack the premises of an argument by casting aspersions on the character of the proponent of the argument, this would be characterized as committing an ad hominem fallacy.
("logic." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 6 July 2006)
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
It is an argument, it's simply a fallacious one. And I would argue that it's not really argumentum ad hominem, because your not attacking the character of the person making the proposition; it's more of an appeal to emotion.
Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.
This is clearly not a serious attempt at arguing for "simplified spelling": this one line alone is a paradoy of the "won't someone think of the children!!!" argument (argumentum ad libererum? Seriously, there's got to be a recognised logical fallacy here with a latin name. If not, there should be. Dagnamit.)
A DDoS attack is an attack that is distributed across many machines colaborating to bring down a target machine. It does not necessarialy have to flood a target off the machine in the sense of a SYN attack. For that matter - as in the case of the SYN attack - it doesn't have to be from multiple identifiable sources; simply from many sources.
RTFA. The attack can be either from a single machine, or it can be distributed. The source of the attack is unimportant. Either a single machine can generate the packets containing proscribed words, or the task can be distributed across many machines, it is therefore perfectly correct to describe it as either a DoS or a DDoS.
FTFA:
Even though this technique would block communication between only two particular points on the Internet, the researchers calculated that a lone attacker using a single dial-up connection could still generate a "reasonably effective" denial-of-service attack. If an attacker generated 100 triggering packets per second, and each packet caused 20 minutes of disruption, 120,000 pairs of endpoints could be prevented from communicating at any one time.
Note that at no point was it suggested that either of the end-points in the attack need be involved. Ergo, anyone who is able to establish the appearance of an IP packet travelling from a destinatioin to a source is able to establish the appearance of an arbitrary number of packets travelling from an arbitrary number of destinations to a target source. If this is possible, then an arbitrary number of computers are able to send the manufactured packets, and you have a DDoS attack - it is distributed.
Indeed, reading the attack, it makes no sense for the attack to be a concern if a single source, and a single source only, is able to mount the attack, because the sole effect would be for that source to self-censor itself to a Chinese source. Precisely the opposite effect of the concern described.
Certainly TFA suggests that the DoS attack could be used against chinese government computers, but this could also be used against chinese citizens. An exploit is, after all, an exploit. So I would suggest that in the case of the DoS attack, reporting it to the appropriate people - in this case the Chinese authorities - was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, in this case, the very flaw that allows a DoS against machines within China also permits those inside the firewall to ignore the resets sent back, so by reporting the DoS, they've also reported how the censorship can be circumvented. (or, by discovering the censorship circumvention they've unfortunately stumbled upon a DoS attack).
In this case, I really don't think that there is a One True Answer.
If I happen to learn that they are doing that, I'd vote with my wallet and not shop at the store because of their actions, and likewise Apple can choose to change the way Foxconn does business by hiring another vendor to manufacture the iPods if they so desire (I'd suggest Asus, actually). Should Apple take steps (based on morality) to effect a change at Foxconn? Certainly. Are they obligated to? Absolutely not.
And herein lies the problem. Apple is an American company with public shareholders. They are obligated by law to maximise the return for their shareholders. Not only does morality not play a part in the question, they are legally obligated not to consider moral decisions when making these decisions; if they do, they can be sued by their shareholders.
This is the system as it exists within the US. Like it or not,that's the way it is. They simply cannot say "this is immoral, we must do everything we can to change this", they can only ask "is this more profitable than the alternative". The only way to force a moral decision on such a company is to make the immoral action less profitable: boycott the product or the company. There really is no other choice. That is, of course, assuming that the practice is immoral. Which is a completely separate question that the company cannot and will not address.
Would a thousand dollar attacker be more acceptable to you? Because that's what it takes to throw a signal 6 miles.
Guys are going 1/6th of that distance with $100 in parts at Radio Shack. The military can get some surplus military antennas and do 6 miles without even putting a mark on the budget.
I've heard of people receiving a standard blue-tooth signal over that distance. I've not, however, heard of people deliberately sending signals that far and seeing them clearly received with standard equipment.
Even if you have person A sending a hugely amplified signal to person B who can receive that signal through equipment designed to receive it, this says nothing about person A sending a hugely amplified signal to aircraft B that does not have reception equipment that can receive that signal in order to jam the equipment.
I could be wrong. I admit that. If you have a good study showing that my standard USB bluetooth receiver can be jammed from 30,000ft away, then I'm wrong. And even if you don't, I'm not necessarialy wrong. Even if you can show me a study showing that a standard bluetooth receiver can be jammed at a mile away, then I'm likely to be wrong.
I dont' think I'm wrong. Yes, you can receive signals over that distance with $100 worth of equipment, but that's a very differnt matter from transmitting over that distance.
Heh, I deleted a paragraph I wrote about the trillion dollar attacker; mostly about how their existance need not be true, good security works or it doesn't, and doesn't depend on your enemy being foolish or underfunded
Security is a trade-off. It's not an absolute. There is no "totally secure" vs. "totally insecure". In fact there is no "totally secure". Read Bruce Schneier. Read pretty much any book on security written by people in the field. There is no defense against the insanely funded attacker. Because the insanely funded attacker doesn't even bother with the front door. To the insanely funded attacker it is irrelevant whether the plane is controlled by bluetooth or cables. The insanely funded attacker simply buys a pilot's seat. Or bribes an Air Traffic Controller. The insanely funded attacker is simply not going to even try anything as tricky - and as questionably possibly - as jamming a wireless plane from the ground.
I gave you too much credit, I killed it because I thought it made my post too long and you wouldn't need that explained to you:). I was wrong.
Your assumption was wrong, and your risk assessment was grossly simplified requiring too much from your attacker than is feasible. Stating that "you wouldn't need to explain it" to me - and therefore implying that I'm an ignoranous with no experience does no justify your description of the "trillion dollar attacker" as a valid consideration in any security trade-off, and most certainly does not justify your assumption that all risks - no matter how well funded, and no matter how much co-ordination and suspension of disbelief they may require - should be considered equally valid.
If your trillion dollar attacker existed, or was considered in all security trade-offs, not one aeroplane would ever leave an airport in the world. The trillion dollar attacker could and would be anyone, could bribe anyone, could buy anything or anyone. They could buy an entire passenger roster on a 747 and stage a revolt before blowing the damn thing up after having bribed the bagage-handlers, the airline and the pilots.
You're talking science-fiction plots; you should sell it to a publisher. But you're not talking reality.
Some guys can build a 1 mile bluetooth rifle in their garage. You don't think we can get to 6 miles with real engineers and actual money involved?
No. I don't. Certainly not as far as jamming a signal is concerned. You can build a receiver to receive bluetooth signals up to a mile away, but jamming those signals is a completely different matter. Jamming those signals 6 miles away is orders of magnitude harder, and no, I don't think that can be done.
Anyone who knows me knows I hate the recent "blame everything on the terrorists" movement with a fiery passion.
Well, to be fair, I don't know you but:
This point however, is a legitimate concern. Security needs to be measured against the "trillion dollar attacker".
Security does not, and cannot be measured against the "trillion dollar attacker". The trillion dollar attacker does not exist. Boeing does not have that much money. Microsft does not have that much money. A trillion dollar attacker is a fanatasy science fiction scenario which cannot be defended against. A trillion dollar attacker would own Boeing, would own Airbus, and would probably own anyone who supplied either company. A trillion dollar attacker would use this information to commit a crime that - at most - would cause several billion dollars of damage. But a trillion dollar attacker wouldn't need to. They'd simply remove their money from the system and watch the collapse
You'd have to really be missing the boat to think that a weapon that can take down a plane without physical contact in any form wouldn't be highly sought after by military programs all over the world.
And you would seriously need to be off your trolley to believe that trillion dollar attackers exist, or would - if they could actually exist - not simply attack many thousands of existing airplane production systems.
Can security of this level be achieved? I expect so, yes. Signals can be encrypted, faraday cage type options -- I'm sure some very well paid engineers can solve these problems.
Level with us. You're smoking crack aren't you. You think not only that a trillion dollar attacker can exist, but their attacks can be defended against?
Hijack a plane using Bluetooth? From the ground? Let me get this straight:
You think you can hijack a plane cruising aroung 30,000ft that's using bluetooth, by jamming it's signal from the ground. When bluetooth has a range of - to understand - significantly less than that.
There's a lot of potential problems with using wireless as control system, but jamming from the ground is most certainly not one of them!
claiming one million dollars in damages, based on what he claims are vindictive complaints filed against him by other lawyers
And encouraging families to sue game makers is not vindictive?! The man has been abusing the legal system filing frivolous complaints against game makers for years.
They're both copyright law, so it's right and proper that the law be applied in both instances. The fact that shrinkwrap licenses are considered "bad" is not because the copyright enforcement is 'bad', but because the conditions they impose upon the user are onerous, confusing, and seek to remove - in many instances - the statutory rights of the person buying the content.
You don't see copyright notices in books - for example - stating that you can't re-sell the book when your done with it, but I've certainly seen shrinkwrap licenses state this. (whether this is binding is entirely dependent upon where the product is used of course - which further aids the confusion).
They are not trying to push people around. They are pointing out that this product promotes actions that they feel are detrimental to their school and students.
They appear to be trying to push Rockstar around. Are they "promoting" bullying? I don't know. And for that matter - unless you're on Rockstar's staff - neither do you. Does GTA "promote" car-jacking? Does Burnout "promote" deliberately causing pile-ups? Does Moto-GP or Gran Turismo "promote" driving at ludicrous speeds on public highways? Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by "promote".
I think that by drafting this resolution, they are doing their due diligence to aid their students.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in doing so they're attempting to prevent people who are within the "target audience" - who are not young school chidren - from being able to get a copy of the game. Their reach is too broad.
People want to call it censorship and such. But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this?
No. No, and again: No. Jet Set Willy - if you ever read the instructions - is about a man sneaking into his estranged wife's house to burgal it to retrieve what Willy believed was his property. Was Mathew Smith irresponsible for releasing this on an unspecting public? "Elite" permitted - and encouraged - the player to plunder traders using piracy as a means of effecting material gain. Same question. And again with Adventure: there was no requirement to calculate the tax burden, or to declare one's findings with a tax authority. These games were clearly a tutorial on tax-evasion, robery and burgulary for future generations. Except, of course, that they weren't.
Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this.
Why?
GTA was a phenomenon. It is a fantastic series. It's compulsive, it's enjoyable, it's bloody. It's great! Your statement impliess that Rockstar should never consider making another GTA game, or that Rockstar is guilty of the accusations levelled against it - but why? I love the game. I don't rob, pimp, deal in drugs, use prostitutes, or kill prostitutes to get my money back. I don't get my kicks out of doing any of these things in real life, but find it incredibly amusing to do in the game.
I also find it extraordinarialy funny to try to do an inverted turn under the golden gate bridge in a number of flight simulators - usually resulting in my plowing the plane into said bridge. I also used to find it amusing to drive a car the wrong way around the track in Indionapolis 500. Or to make a living as a pirate in Elite.
But I'm not a pimp. I'm not a murderer. I don't find the idea of smacking into an entourage of Indi-500 cars particularly appealing. I don't want to make a living stealing from shops, homes or ships.
Games do not make murderers. They don't make pimps. Game companies make games. They make the interactive versions of videos. If parents can't grasp the fact that their children are buying the computer game equivelant of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that is the fault of the parent - not the game manufacturer.
I don't want see a future in 10 or 20 years time where the only game I can play is "PacMan" (a muderous game where the players character uses an obvious advatage - the PacPills - to murder the other four artificial persons and confine them the oblivion - albeit temporarialy). I don't want this future because I'm not 6-years old. I don't want 6-year old entertainmant. I'm 31. I want 31-year old entertainment. It's not my fault if other people can't see the difference.
Nope. Read your link. Argumentum ad antiuitatem applies if and only if the argument is supporting a proposition based soley on the fact that "it has always been that way". Arguing that a game will not remove the problem, because the problem is an age-old problem does not commit this falacy. Although it does require proof that the proposed solution does not solve the problem. Incidentally, it won't. Bullying will not suddenly cease as a result of banning the publication of this game: the concern is simply that bullying may be considered more acceptable. This is a completely different issue.
hyperbole
Not hyperbole. Read your link. This is not an exageration, although it is not necessarialy the government that is trying to ban things they don't like. This game in general, and Rockstar in particular, has been subjected to immense abuse by a number of players who's agenda is not clear. A family in the UK - for example - goaded by an American lawyer claimed that their son - killed by a friend in a robbery to pay for a drug debt - was killed because the killer was obcessed with Rockstar's game "Manhunt". The fact that it was the dead son that owned the game (it is an offense in the UK for a minor to buy an 18 registered game) entirely escaped the notice of the family, the media and their lawyer.
straw man
Not a straw man. Car manufacturers are not held responsible for irresponsible use of their products. Neither are car manufacturers held responsible for the fact that their products are advertised in a fashion that may encourage irresponsible and unlawful behaviour in a certain segment of community. It is not a straw man because it is a direct correlation.
ad hominem
Not a logical fallacy but a statement of personal opinion not used to further the argument.
Perhaps, before you resort to simply calling out alleged logical fallacies, you should learn the first law of reason: it is not permissible simply to claim that an argument is a fallacy. It is your responsibility to explain the error of reasoning in the person you are arguing with. Stating "Straw Man" to an argument stating "Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others?" is not sufficient. It is your duty to state precisely the error of reasoning.
Since you've read wikipedia, you should also have read:
"The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion."
Doing otherwise is known as the Fallacy Fallacy: the assumption that a conclusion is invalid because one or more of the arguments made to reach that conclusion is invalid:
"All cats are mamals" "My pet is a mamal" "ergo, my pet is a cat"
In this case, the logic is wrong, but the conclusion is - in my case anyway - perfectly valid.
Hahah, I could write an essay on logical fallacies entirely based on your post.
Despite attempts by numerous big companies to invalidate this patent based on prior art, no one has ever located any meaningful prior art
Sorry, but since when was a patent's validity determined soley by the existence of prior art? Non-obvious is also a requirement.
Sony don't have a "force feed-back" system as I understand it - think the steering wheel controller in the force-feedback steering wheel in Hard Drivin' in the arcades that made it hard to stear if you went of the road - what Sony have is a controller that rumbles a varied amount based on an analogue signal.
Anne Summers have had such controllers for decades.
I'm suprised that the fact that they paid a consoltant to provide evidence in a civil case should count against them as well. Or even be particularly suspicious. If the judge felt that the consultant lied, or deliberately mis-represented the facts, then the judge should say so, and perhaps press for perjury charges (an oath is an oath is an oath). I can't see how he can dismiss his testimony based purely on the fact that he had been paid by Sony because he was an employee.
Of course, if someone provides the patent number then I'll be happy to eat my words if something about it really is more novel than that true force-feedback steering wheel of the 1980s.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you cannot be serious. You're agnostic about god, because god can't be defined? But it's not about evidence, it's about philosophy? Seriously?
The impossibility of defining "god" is a good reason to be agnostic? It's impossible to define "asdjfop". It's impossible to define because I just made up the word, and it has no meaning. I could pretend it had meaning, but I could then pretend that it was impossible to define its meaning. You must, therefore, be agnostic about "asdjfop" as you cannot define it.
It's not about evidence of "asdjfop", after all. It's about philosophy - specifically, the logical impossibility of knowing everything about existence.
Especially asdjfop.
Surely before trying to answer the question of whether god exists or not, it would be useful to define "god". Asking, "What evidence do we have against his existence" is a pointless question unless you first define what "he" is. And there we reach the first - and fatal - stumbling block. There is very little - if any - agreement between faiths, nor between people who ostensibly share the same faith, as to what "god" is.
So, a question: what precisely is it that you're agnostic about?
I know you're joking, but this is pretty much what is happening in the UK. Photographers are being warned - especially in London - against taking any photographs of children as they risk being prosecuted. The reasoning?
Well, apparently, one thing that child pornographers do is take a picture of a child and cut-and-paste the head from that picture onto a picture of a naked body. Ergo - so the "reasoning" goes, anyone taking photographs of children in public must be a child pornographer.
There was a time when child pornography laws were about protecting children. Now they're about kowtowing to hysterical ramblings of the tabloid idiotorials
You mean, of course, "I personally could not justify it". That just means that it's not the trade-off you're prepared to make, it does not mean that there is no good justification for it.
Not just some barely visible
A new Magnitude three star in Perseus - i.e., a new naked-eye object - is hardly "barely visible". It's highly visible, and is not only completely un-missable, it's also clearly not a star to the naked eye. Even through binoculars this thing takes up a huge field of view.
Barely Visible? Have you even looked at the thing, or anything vaguely resembling Perseus recently?
No. What he's described is religion. Or, what religious people try to pretend isn't religion, but nevertheless is.
Think of this phrase: "[A particular idea] is not inconsistent with my faith".
This is supposed to be a conciliatory phrase uttered by the religious to convince the non-religious that their faith, in that instance, will not interfere with science. How very nice of them. But what happens when it does become inconsistent with that persons faith? Which changes first? That persons faith, or that persons neutrality towards science?
What you're describing as "fundamental Christianity" is merely that part of one religion which is currently at odds with the rest of society, and disagrees with more science that other religious people.
I'm confused. Why would the space shuttle's heat shields need to face the sun in order to dry out water? There's no pressure in orbit. Surely water under no pressure is vapour?
Consipiracy theorists being marked "Insightful" on Slashdot. Whatever next.
Anywho. You appear to be saying that a plane can crash in to the side of a building, ignite its full tank of fuel, burn for a while - yet that nothing else burns. The temparature at which fuel burns is utterly irrelevant to why molten steel was found: the total temperature of all burning materials must be considered. I would certainly hope you'd perform that calculation before invoking violations of the laws of physics.
Incidentally, whilst you don't say it, you appear to be implying that the steel would have to melt in order for the structure to fail; which I certainly hope you know not to be true: the integrity of a steel structure will fail well before it reaches melting point.
I dunno, it just doesn't seem to have the marketting charm.
argumentum ad hominem
argumentum ad baculum
argumentum spectare proles
I mean, how are you going to get children to pronounce that? Won't somebody think of the children!
Thanks for that; I have to say that that definition from answers.com - that of an appeal to emotion - is the first time I'd heard it being used that way. I've only heard the appeal to emotion described in english as just that "appeal to emotion", but the appeal against the character of the person in latin as "argumentum ad hominem".
:)
Alas, I still have no idea what "appeal to the children" should be
Ummm: source?
Ad hominem matches that definition; argumentum ad hominem does not. Argumentum ad hominem is an attack against a person in an rhetoric attempt to deflect attention away from the argument put forward by attacking the character of the person making the argument.
Cite:
For example, if one were to attack the premises of an argument by casting aspersions on the character of the proponent of the argument, this would be characterized as committing an ad hominem fallacy.
("logic." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 6 July 2006)
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
(Wikipedia)
It is an argument, it's simply a fallacious one. And I would argue that it's not really argumentum ad hominem, because your not attacking the character of the person making the proposition; it's more of an appeal to emotion.
Those in favor of simplified spelling say children would learn faster and illiteracy rates would drop. Opponents say a new system would make spelling even more confusing.
This is clearly not a serious attempt at arguing for "simplified spelling": this one line alone is a paradoy of the "won't someone think of the children!!!" argument (argumentum ad libererum? Seriously, there's got to be a recognised logical fallacy here with a latin name. If not, there should be. Dagnamit.)
A DDoS attack is an attack that is distributed across many machines colaborating to bring down a target machine. It does not necessarialy have to flood a target off the machine in the sense of a SYN attack. For that matter - as in the case of the SYN attack - it doesn't have to be from multiple identifiable sources; simply from many sources.
RTFA. The attack can be either from a single machine, or it can be distributed. The source of the attack is unimportant. Either a single machine can generate the packets containing proscribed words, or the task can be distributed across many machines, it is therefore perfectly correct to describe it as either a DoS or a DDoS.
FTFA:
Even though this technique would block communication between only two particular points on the Internet, the researchers calculated that a lone attacker using a single dial-up connection could still generate a "reasonably effective" denial-of-service attack. If an attacker generated 100 triggering packets per second, and each packet caused 20 minutes of disruption, 120,000 pairs of endpoints could be prevented from communicating at any one time.
Note that at no point was it suggested that either of the end-points in the attack need be involved. Ergo, anyone who is able to establish the appearance of an IP packet travelling from a destinatioin to a source is able to establish the appearance of an arbitrary number of packets travelling from an arbitrary number of destinations to a target source. If this is possible, then an arbitrary number of computers are able to send the manufactured packets, and you have a DDoS attack - it is distributed.
Indeed, reading the attack, it makes no sense for the attack to be a concern if a single source, and a single source only, is able to mount the attack, because the sole effect would be for that source to self-censor itself to a Chinese source. Precisely the opposite effect of the concern described.
...half a dozen of the other.
Certainly TFA suggests that the DoS attack could be used against chinese government computers, but this could also be used against chinese citizens. An exploit is, after all, an exploit. So I would suggest that in the case of the DoS attack, reporting it to the appropriate people - in this case the Chinese authorities - was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, in this case, the very flaw that allows a DoS against machines within China also permits those inside the firewall to ignore the resets sent back, so by reporting the DoS, they've also reported how the censorship can be circumvented. (or, by discovering the censorship circumvention they've unfortunately stumbled upon a DoS attack).
In this case, I really don't think that there is a One True Answer.
If I happen to learn that they are doing that, I'd vote with my wallet and not shop at the store because of their actions, and likewise Apple can choose to change the way Foxconn does business by hiring another vendor to manufacture the iPods if they so desire (I'd suggest Asus, actually). Should Apple take steps (based on morality) to effect a change at Foxconn? Certainly. Are they obligated to? Absolutely not.
And herein lies the problem. Apple is an American company with public shareholders. They are obligated by law to maximise the return for their shareholders. Not only does morality not play a part in the question, they are legally obligated not to consider moral decisions when making these decisions; if they do, they can be sued by their shareholders.
This is the system as it exists within the US. Like it or not,that's the way it is. They simply cannot say "this is immoral, we must do everything we can to change this", they can only ask "is this more profitable than the alternative". The only way to force a moral decision on such a company is to make the immoral action less profitable: boycott the product or the company. There really is no other choice. That is, of course, assuming that the practice is immoral. Which is a completely separate question that the company cannot and will not address.
Okay, fair enough.
Would a thousand dollar attacker be more acceptable to you? Because that's what it takes to throw a signal 6 miles.
Guys are going 1/6th of that distance with $100 in parts at Radio Shack. The military can get some surplus military antennas and do 6 miles without even putting a mark on the budget.
I've heard of people receiving a standard blue-tooth signal over that distance. I've not, however, heard of people deliberately sending signals that far and seeing them clearly received with standard equipment.
Even if you have person A sending a hugely amplified signal to person B who can receive that signal through equipment designed to receive it, this says nothing about person A sending a hugely amplified signal to aircraft B that does not have reception equipment that can receive that signal in order to jam the equipment.
I could be wrong. I admit that. If you have a good study showing that my standard USB bluetooth receiver can be jammed from 30,000ft away, then I'm wrong. And even if you don't, I'm not necessarialy wrong. Even if you can show me a study showing that a standard bluetooth receiver can be jammed at a mile away, then I'm likely to be wrong.
I dont' think I'm wrong. Yes, you can receive signals over that distance with $100 worth of equipment, but that's a very differnt matter from transmitting over that distance.
Heh, I deleted a paragraph I wrote about the trillion dollar attacker; mostly about how their existance need not be true, good security works or it doesn't, and doesn't depend on your enemy being foolish or underfunded
:). I was wrong.
Security is a trade-off. It's not an absolute. There is no "totally secure" vs. "totally insecure". In fact there is no "totally secure". Read Bruce Schneier. Read pretty much any book on security written by people in the field. There is no defense against the insanely funded attacker. Because the insanely funded attacker doesn't even bother with the front door. To the insanely funded attacker it is irrelevant whether the plane is controlled by bluetooth or cables. The insanely funded attacker simply buys a pilot's seat. Or bribes an Air Traffic Controller. The insanely funded attacker is simply not going to even try anything as tricky - and as questionably possibly - as jamming a wireless plane from the ground.
I gave you too much credit, I killed it because I thought it made my post too long and you wouldn't need that explained to you
Your assumption was wrong, and your risk assessment was grossly simplified requiring too much from your attacker than is feasible. Stating that "you wouldn't need to explain it" to me - and therefore implying that I'm an ignoranous with no experience does no justify your description of the "trillion dollar attacker" as a valid consideration in any security trade-off, and most certainly does not justify your assumption that all risks - no matter how well funded, and no matter how much co-ordination and suspension of disbelief they may require - should be considered equally valid.
If your trillion dollar attacker existed, or was considered in all security trade-offs, not one aeroplane would ever leave an airport in the world. The trillion dollar attacker could and would be anyone, could bribe anyone, could buy anything or anyone. They could buy an entire passenger roster on a 747 and stage a revolt before blowing the damn thing up after having bribed the bagage-handlers, the airline and the pilots.
You're talking science-fiction plots; you should sell it to a publisher. But you're not talking reality.
Some guys can build a 1 mile bluetooth rifle in their garage. You don't think we can get to 6 miles with real engineers and actual money involved?
No. I don't. Certainly not as far as jamming a signal is concerned. You can build a receiver to receive bluetooth signals up to a mile away, but jamming those signals is a completely different matter. Jamming those signals 6 miles away is orders of magnitude harder, and no, I don't think that can be done.
Anyone who knows me knows I hate the recent "blame everything on the terrorists" movement with a fiery passion.
Well, to be fair, I don't know you but:
This point however, is a legitimate concern. Security needs to be measured against the "trillion dollar attacker".
Security does not, and cannot be measured against the "trillion dollar attacker". The trillion dollar attacker does not exist. Boeing does not have that much money. Microsft does not have that much money. A trillion dollar attacker is a fanatasy science fiction scenario which cannot be defended against. A trillion dollar attacker would own Boeing, would own Airbus, and would probably own anyone who supplied either company. A trillion dollar attacker would use this information to commit a crime that - at most - would cause several billion dollars of damage. But a trillion dollar attacker wouldn't need to. They'd simply remove their money from the system and watch the collapse
You'd have to really be missing the boat to think that a weapon that can take down a plane without physical contact in any form wouldn't be highly sought after by military programs all over the world.
And you would seriously need to be off your trolley to believe that trillion dollar attackers exist, or would - if they could actually exist - not simply attack many thousands of existing airplane production systems.
Can security of this level be achieved? I expect so, yes. Signals can be encrypted, faraday cage type options -- I'm sure some very well paid engineers can solve these problems.
Level with us. You're smoking crack aren't you. You think not only that a trillion dollar attacker can exist, but their attacks can be defended against?
You're nuts.
Hijack a plane using Bluetooth? From the ground? Let me get this straight:
You think you can hijack a plane cruising aroung 30,000ft that's using bluetooth, by jamming it's signal from the ground. When bluetooth has a range of - to understand - significantly less than that.
There's a lot of potential problems with using wireless as control system, but jamming from the ground is most certainly not one of them!
claiming one million dollars in damages, based on what he claims are vindictive complaints filed against him by other lawyers
And encouraging families to sue game makers is not vindictive?! The man has been abusing the legal system filing frivolous complaints against game makers for years.
They're both copyright law, so it's right and proper that the law be applied in both instances. The fact that shrinkwrap licenses are considered "bad" is not because the copyright enforcement is 'bad', but because the conditions they impose upon the user are onerous, confusing, and seek to remove - in many instances - the statutory rights of the person buying the content.
You don't see copyright notices in books - for example - stating that you can't re-sell the book when your done with it, but I've certainly seen shrinkwrap licenses state this. (whether this is binding is entirely dependent upon where the product is used of course - which further aids the confusion).
They are not trying to push people around. They are pointing out that this product promotes actions that they feel are detrimental to their school and students.
They appear to be trying to push Rockstar around. Are they "promoting" bullying? I don't know. And for that matter - unless you're on Rockstar's staff - neither do you. Does GTA "promote" car-jacking? Does Burnout "promote" deliberately causing pile-ups? Does Moto-GP or Gran Turismo "promote" driving at ludicrous speeds on public highways? Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by "promote".
I think that by drafting this resolution, they are doing their due diligence to aid their students.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in doing so they're attempting to prevent people who are within the "target audience" - who are not young school chidren - from being able to get a copy of the game. Their reach is too broad.
People want to call it censorship and such. But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this?
No. No, and again: No. Jet Set Willy - if you ever read the instructions - is about a man sneaking into his estranged wife's house to burgal it to retrieve what Willy believed was his property. Was Mathew Smith irresponsible for releasing this on an unspecting public? "Elite" permitted - and encouraged - the player to plunder traders using piracy as a means of effecting material gain. Same question. And again with Adventure: there was no requirement to calculate the tax burden, or to declare one's findings with a tax authority. These games were clearly a tutorial on tax-evasion, robery and burgulary for future generations. Except, of course, that they weren't.
Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this.
Why?
GTA was a phenomenon. It is a fantastic series. It's compulsive, it's enjoyable, it's bloody. It's great! Your statement impliess that Rockstar should never consider making another GTA game, or that Rockstar is guilty of the accusations levelled against it - but why? I love the game. I don't rob, pimp, deal in drugs, use prostitutes, or kill prostitutes to get my money back. I don't get my kicks out of doing any of these things in real life, but find it incredibly amusing to do in the game.
I also find it extraordinarialy funny to try to do an inverted turn under the golden gate bridge in a number of flight simulators - usually resulting in my plowing the plane into said bridge. I also used to find it amusing to drive a car the wrong way around the track in Indionapolis 500. Or to make a living as a pirate in Elite.
But I'm not a pimp. I'm not a murderer. I don't find the idea of smacking into an entourage of Indi-500 cars particularly appealing. I don't want to make a living stealing from shops, homes or ships.
Games do not make murderers. They don't make pimps. Game companies make games. They make the interactive versions of videos. If parents can't grasp the fact that their children are buying the computer game equivelant of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that is the fault of the parent - not the game manufacturer.
I don't want see a future in 10 or 20 years time where the only game I can play is "PacMan" (a muderous game where the players character uses an obvious advatage - the PacPills - to murder the other four artificial persons and confine them the oblivion - albeit temporarialy). I don't want this future because I'm not 6-years old. I don't want 6-year old entertainmant. I'm 31. I want 31-year old entertainment. It's not my fault if other people can't see the difference.
argumentum ad antiquitatem (Appeal to Tradition)
Nope. Read your link. Argumentum ad antiuitatem applies if and only if the argument is supporting a proposition based soley on the fact that "it has always been that way". Arguing that a game will not remove the problem, because the problem is an age-old problem does not commit this falacy. Although it does require proof that the proposed solution does not solve the problem. Incidentally, it won't. Bullying will not suddenly cease as a result of banning the publication of this game: the concern is simply that bullying may be considered more acceptable. This is a completely different issue.
hyperbole
Not hyperbole. Read your link. This is not an exageration, although it is not necessarialy the government that is trying to ban things they don't like. This game in general, and Rockstar in particular, has been subjected to immense abuse by a number of players who's agenda is not clear. A family in the UK - for example - goaded by an American lawyer claimed that their son - killed by a friend in a robbery to pay for a drug debt - was killed because the killer was obcessed with Rockstar's game "Manhunt". The fact that it was the dead son that owned the game (it is an offense in the UK for a minor to buy an 18 registered game) entirely escaped the notice of the family, the media and their lawyer.
straw man
Not a straw man. Car manufacturers are not held responsible for irresponsible use of their products. Neither are car manufacturers held responsible for the fact that their products are advertised in a fashion that may encourage irresponsible and unlawful behaviour in a certain segment of community. It is not a straw man because it is a direct correlation.
ad hominem
Not a logical fallacy but a statement of personal opinion not used to further the argument.
Perhaps, before you resort to simply calling out alleged logical fallacies, you should learn the first law of reason: it is not permissible simply to claim that an argument is a fallacy. It is your responsibility to explain the error of reasoning in the person you are arguing with. Stating "Straw Man" to an argument stating "Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others?" is not sufficient. It is your duty to state precisely the error of reasoning.
Since you've read wikipedia, you should also have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
And I quote:
"The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion."
Doing otherwise is known as the Fallacy Fallacy: the assumption that a conclusion is invalid because one or more of the arguments made to reach that conclusion is invalid:
"All cats are mamals"
"My pet is a mamal"
"ergo, my pet is a cat"
In this case, the logic is wrong, but the conclusion is - in my case anyway - perfectly valid.
Hahah, I could write an essay on logical fallacies entirely based on your post.
I wouldn't recommend it.
Despite attempts by numerous big companies to invalidate this patent based on prior art, no one has ever located any meaningful prior art
Sorry, but since when was a patent's validity determined soley by the existence of prior art? Non-obvious is also a requirement.
Sony don't have a "force feed-back" system as I understand it - think the steering wheel controller in the force-feedback steering wheel in Hard Drivin' in the arcades that made it hard to stear if you went of the road - what Sony have is a controller that rumbles a varied amount based on an analogue signal.
Anne Summers have had such controllers for decades.
I'm suprised that the fact that they paid a consoltant to provide evidence in a civil case should count against them as well. Or even be particularly suspicious. If the judge felt that the consultant lied, or deliberately mis-represented the facts, then the judge should say so, and perhaps press for perjury charges (an oath is an oath is an oath). I can't see how he can dismiss his testimony based purely on the fact that he had been paid by Sony because he was an employee.
Of course, if someone provides the patent number then I'll be happy to eat my words if something about it really is more novel than that true force-feedback steering wheel of the 1980s.