In case you didn't know, when we talk about overpopulation, we're talking about the poor countries being overpopulated, like China and India, totalling 2 billion people. There's also Africa, where the birthrate is still skyrocketing. These are the people that need to be educated.
The population of the US is fine, and the pollution problem is one of educating the masses. We're doing a good job of that, as there are now recycling programs and what have you, but there's still work to be done. But the US soil can more than enough support its current population. When was the last time there was a famine in the US?
Your rant is not so much an observation on overpopulation as an antisocial statement... That's fine. Just don't pick a shotgun and clean a McDonald, man. "Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
(This news article seems to be a non-issue, given that the prediction is the optimistic one. It's always been that way, and the optimistic opinions never proved to be true.)
I'm actually surprised that, by 1999, people are still thinking the global population growth is a major problem. Yes, it's a problem for Third World countries that have to deal with famine. But it could be pointed out that the main reason why these countries face such dire conditions is not surpopulation itself, but rather the irresponsible leaders they have. Remember Ethiopia the way it was portrayed in the 1980's? Little babies with flies all over, the more the better, because it made us cough up a few bucks out of guilt.
However, what wasn't told was that the leaders of Ethiopia were engaged in a bloody war, and that all the millions of dollars that could be spent relieving hunger were being dissimated as armament for a pointless conflict.
Anyway. My point is: the Earth is capable of sustaining us, even if we reach 10 billion. There's a lot to be learned in the meantime, but it's false to say that the sole reason for an upcoming ecological disaster is population alone. In the 1970's, the UN predicted we'd pretty much reach 6 billion by 2000, and that it would be a disaster.
What they didn't count on? Technology. Technology has made farming and the transport of goods more efficient. As such, I don't think we're any worse now as a species that we were in 1970. What we need to work on is education of the people, and try for once to coexist in peace.
I'm not advocating against birth control, mind; that's what I mean by "education". But I don't think we're reaching critical mass any time soon. "Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
It was noted in your biography that you hold a degree in Physics in addition to your M.S. in Computer Science. This seems to be a developping trend in IT, as many Physics graduates turn to CS. Neal Stephenson undertook studies in Physics before becoming a writer. I am myself a physics graduate turned computer geek.
What impact do you think your science studies have on your current career? I suspect the high mathematical background of physics prepared you for cryptology, but what other aspects of a science degree come into play in your line of work? Would you call your B.S. in Physics an advantage or a disadvantage? "Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
I think anti-heroes are powerful figures in an age when we try to affirm moral relativism in the face of moral absolutism; when faced with Christian fundamentalists who argue that you live in sin because you have sex outside of marriage, an anti-hero gives us a strong character who disregards moral authority. He's himself and the opinions of others hardly matters.
Dunno why I always play Paladins or Angels, though... I gather it's for the intellectual exercise of playing something that asks absolutely no questions of an ethical nature and is certain of everything, when I know nothing absolutely and take nothing for granted.
To come back to the subject at hand... I think the above demonstrates that your choice of character in an Angel/Demon game doesn't have very much to do with whether you're a sinner or a saint. I bet the Pope would play a kick-ass Demon if he could.:) "Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
If The War in Heaven is a Christian game, then so is Doom.
I fail to see how a game that involves angels and/or demons has anything to do with Christian morality. The idea that your actions impact on your moral alignment is nothing new, and gives the false impression that you have to do something drastic to condemn yourself to evil (like sacking the nobles for cash in Baldur's Gate, or going on a peasant rampage in most RPGs.)
What I mean by this is, this game designer is trying to hype this game by appealing to Christians. He probably also expects Christians to take up arms at the mention of this game's graphical depiction of violence and hacking down "praying angels". And poof, he's getting more publicity than you can possibly hope for. In other words, he's a marketing troll.
That being said, I'm not Christian, so I couldn't care less. I think the idea of setting a game in Heaven sounds great, and I'm always a sucker for the good guys (hence I'll probably play an Angel, if I ever acquire the game.) It doesn't sound like it follows tradition very closely, and surely a game based on Milton's Paradise Lost would have had more appeal to Christians. It probably would be very boring, though, as the Angels could never be wounded and the Son of God would beat the Rebels' asses...
Anyway. Tis just hype, and Jon Katz bought into it without thinking twice. May still be a cool game, but I don't expect spiritual enlightenment from it. "Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
What's the point of putting a keyboard over the graffiti area, if it's gonna punch the graffiti area in exactly the same way that your fingers would? If you'd win typing speed, I wouldn't see a problem, but they claim this thing is as fast as the normal graffiti operation, not faster.
What's this? Are we addicted to the gentle feel of a keyboard? A conspiracy theory to keep Carpal Tunnel Syndrome alive in the age of Palm Pilots? Or am I missing something?:)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
If I understand your point, it's that the idea of parents being the legal protectors of their children is unfounded?
Well, I guess that's debatable. I certainly don't agree that children should be sheltered from the world, but that's not something you can enforce legally; it's something you should teach to stupid parents who blame the Internet/television/etc. for their child's violent ways or what have you.
I think that this point doesn't come into play, however. My point is, if parents feel they have the legal means to protect their children, they'll leave censorship alone.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Am I against censorship? Yes. Am I against protecting children? No. Is that contradictory? I don't think so.
I can already hear people screaming over this, because it sounds as if the first waves of profound censorship is making its way unto the Net. Actually, I think it's quite different. This is not about censoring Internet content, it's about giving the parents the legal means to censor the Internet themselves.
As such, it's a little like NetNanny. It means parents have some form of control over what their children do. Well, that works wonderfully well for me. Think of the Internet as a giant video rental store. The idea is not to censor some movies, but to make it clear to everyone what each section contains.
And so, we have the little doors leading to the pr0n section. That's cool by me. As a matter of fact, if parents feel they're controlling what their children will see on the Internet, they might losen up and stop calling the Internet a den of depravation.
Protect your children the way you see fit, I don't care. Just don't try to protect me.
Caveat: unfortunately, this system sounds as if it's impossible to implement. How do you tell if a person is below 18 from an anonymous email? I've seen 30-odd year-old people spell like crap, so that's not even a consideration. And heck, everyone, adult or children, visits a children site at some point. (Best example: I have my own page on the LegoManiacs webpage.) So controlling everyone won't work either.
So, it just makes it mandatory to include some sort of silly button saying, 'I am over 18'. Yeah, porn sites have been doing that for ages.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I want to know what their focus is if it isn't programming. [...]
I don't think they're quite clear on this, either. The impression I get from cDc is that they're people who like to play with cool toys, and in that sense they're hackers in the oldest sense of the word.
Is the focus of a hacker programming? Well, I don't think it is. I don't program for programming's sake, because then I'd be doing tons of totally useless stuff just because they're cool things to do. (Wait, I do tend to do this... Nevermind.) A hacker uses programming to enrich his understanding of computing, including security. What they say is that a program is a mean to an end, and not an end in itself. I can live with that fact.
So, I guess the word to describe what they are is, quite simply, 'hacker'.
And why does it take the release of a product that can covertly spy on a system everybody already knows is inherently insecure to make you take them seriously?
Hmm? Everybody? Would that be every hacker, or every single computer user? People still think Hotmail is secure because it asks you for a password. They figure Win95 is secure because you can put a power-on password.
What they've done is take an abstract concept, Windows is insecure, and proved it with a concrete example that made the world panic. What is more effective? Pointing out a security hole or exploiting it? Companies scoff when you point out they have open ports. But when a stupid script kiddie comes in and defaces their websites, they all go in a panic and upgrade their security.
The cDc, though clever code, forced the corporate world to acknowledge Win95's security was non-existent. It takes good programming skills, and it takes guts. Two qualities I can admire in a hacker.
Any idiot can get up on a soapbox and say he's bucking the system.. but it takes alot of dedication, research, and friendly professional-like conduct to get you taken seriously by the mainstream.
They're taking the easiest path, but they're shaking up the computing world fastest than you could in years of dedication and putting on a suit and tie every morning. In a world of images and reputation, you can either, as you say, walk the walk, or decide to just run into everybody.
I wouldn't do the things the cDc does, but perhaps for that they deserve my respect.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Well, that was a very nice interview. I've read on the cDc before, but this was the first time we could perceive directly their opinion of Slashdot and the people on it, and how we as a group fit in the whole of the hacker community out there.
For once, we seem to be the self-conscious hackers, the ones who want a proper media image and good public relations, and wish our movement would receive more public recognition. This is exemplified in the hacker/cracker debate that will rage on on Slashdot for years to come, I think.
The cDc are techno-anarchists with a slant for educating the masses despite themselves. I believe them when they say they release Trojans in order to raise awareness. I also believe it's working, to a degree, and that the sacrifice to pay for that is that the hacker image as a whole suffers.
I get the feeling our positions are at odds with one another. We both dwell in the "digital underground" (sounded like a buzzword to me, but hey, the cDc guys used it). We both want to "educate" the masses and show them that consumerism is not the best technological solution.
However, the cDc does so at the cost of their image, and we do it at the cost of efficiency. However, I think that the hacker world needs both kinds: inflamatory anarchists who take nothing seriously, and ethical workers who communicate with the world.
They're right on one thing, though: a cracker is something you eat with cheese on top.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Sig, you're being uptight about this. How does saying that their focus is not programming imply that they're script kiddies?
As far as I know, the cDc members are great programmers. BO2K is clever code. No script kiddie could come up with this. However, script kiddies use it aplenty (see their comments.)
Additionally, I don't think that having conflicting views goes against a group's unity. If anything, they seem to work well with diverse opinions. Isn't that exactly what the Open Source movement is, as a whole? You can't get two coders to agree on anything out there (e.g. KDE vs. Gnome, BSD vs. Linux), yet we still seem to work as a cohesive whole when the movement comes under fire.
Finally, I think anyone judging a product by the images or words it includes - as a deliberate slam, no less - deserves to miss the point. They claimed BO2K was a statement from the beginning, and it actually makes sense. Did you notice how much Microsoft security is coming under fire lately? I'm starting to get pro-Linux jokes from non-hacker friends in the mail. I don't think they've ever seen a Linux login prompt, much less know what ls does. But still, they're being critical of commercial products because of the sheer amount of macro-viruses and other crap that's been out.
I take the cDc guys seriously for one big reason: BO2K. They proved a point, however juvenile you think they are.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Alan Cox's articles are always enjoyable, and he is a very insightful man. What he is basically saying in this article is: there are advantages to Open Source models, because they decentralise support and get rid of a single point of failure.
However, he's addressing managers and techies at large here, and notice how he doesn't try to sell Open Source, but rather outlines flaws in the Closed Source model. That's the best way to go about it: point out a loss opportunity for profit, then propose an intelligent alternative.
Is it FUD? Well, no. FUD spreads ideas that are barely grounded in fact. This is advocacy: it is a clear argument with a definitive target audience, and it exposes a flaw of Closed Source quite simply.
I think all OS advocates should take note. Selling advantages of OS may not be the way to do it, because managers believe they already have a system that fulfills all their needs, and will be wont to change for the simple promise of more features. Managers won't switch from NT to Linux for the same reason they take forever to upgrade, say, from Solaris 2.6 to 7: they want to play it safe, and new features won't come into play unless they know they have a definite disadvantage.
However, when you present an OS advantage as a shortcoming in CS, you're speaking their language. You're showing them where they're not making money, and to a manager or CEO, not making money is worst than losing money.
The problem is that we geeks and them managers speak a different language. Contrast the following statements:
"Linux offers greater stability than NT."
"NT suffers from outages that cost money to the enterprise. One solution is to use a more stable platform, such as Linux."
Sure, we'd love to sell OS's merit on its own. Someday, when OS has gained mainstream recognition, we'll be able to. But for now, I think Cox's strategy is very sound.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Man, you'd wish companies had learned anything. Anyone remember the same story going on in the 80's? Atari sueing Intellivision for producing game platforms. Atari claimed they had the patent on any sort of electronic game using computer graphics.
But the trouble is, a good idea has a way to spread, and it ends up being futile to try to cling on to it. Not only that, it deprives consumers of quality service. In the end, companies doing this try to cling to an artificially maintained consummer base, but it ends up eroding up and the idea spreads around.
I think Amazon realises that. There's plenty of other companies doing this also, and certainly not just online bookstores. I know Chapters.ca does it (they store your credit card info, so you only have to enter it once; buying a book takes one click, and you're processing to checkout.)
I think what Amazon is doing is trying to hurt the competition by dragging them into a lawsuit. I don't think they care if they win or not. They're projecting the image that they invented a novel system, and that BnN is copying them for their success.
So, let's not expect a dramatic turn of events; either they settle this out of court, as a way to calm the flames, or Amazon wins. But no one, not the CEO's, not the lawyers, not the judges, will once realise the concept of software patent is crap. They'll just use it as law fodder, and be happy with it.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Let's see. First, it's Mrs. Dole dropping out of the election race for lack of money. Now, it's the ultimate capitalist frenzy machine applied to... College admission. Good thing in theory you can go to college and/or become President of the US with only your willpower and your brains, cause in practice it's gonna take wads of cash too.
Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture? Dare I say amoral? Yes, high tution fees are a fact of life, and anyone thinking you can go to school in the US no matter your parents' income is deluding himself. If you're looking for school gratuity, you have to look to more Left-leaning countries. Canada used to work that way, but it's slowly catching up to the US.
Anyway: my point is not to slam any nationality (far from it!), or get into a Leftist speech. What I want to point out is this:
The idea of parents bidding against one another is sick. Some college administrator realised that when you accepted a student, he was paying the same price as everyone else, when he probably could pay more. In other words, his family's wallet wasn't being siphoned for all it's worth.
It's unfair to say you won't get into a quality college because you lost a bid war. It's unfair to make parents pay maybe ten times the normal entry fee just because they can.
We're a long way from college gratuity, indeed... But it's no surprise, in a day when colleges seek corporate sponsoring and are constantly cut back on funds, that top colleges would begin placing more importance on money than on GPA's.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Why do you assume that the signature is stored or used as a bitmap? That would not only be more expensive in terms of storage, it would remove the ordering and speed information from the strokes.
I didn't mean they were necessarely stored as bitmaps, but I was questioning the resulting keyspace.
Say your grid is 50x50. Each pixel is either black or white. That means 2^2500 possibilities. It seems impressive, until you consider the number of contraints on it; for instance, you'll never have a completely black grid. Most of the time, the black dots will be connected into a line. If the pen point is fat, you'll always have a black point next to another. If you know the person's name, it's another indication of what the signature will be like.
So, in effect, it's a rather big keyspace, but with so many restrictions (not to mention you can know what the keyspace is like, just by finding the person's signature, which is not secret!) that in the end it's worthless next to traditional digital certificate keyspace.
It's like showing your private key in public, but you hide out bits of it. Any security administrator will tell you it's not just stupid, it's an invitation to a crack.
So, in short, with this thing, they're going to great lengths to provide a security system which is, well, total crap compared to any moderately-strengthed cryptosystem.
But it sounds cool, so I bet the layman will say, 'Oh! THAT's what they meant by digital signature!' and swallow it up. It's not impressing this cryptogeek, however.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Actually, yeah, zantispam, what you said makes a lot of sense.
I think the difference between your analogy and mine arises when you understand what is a security hole exploit and what is an allowed activity. If you believe everything you can do should be allowed, then you don't believe in the unethical breech of privacy. If you understand that not just because you can do it means it's right, then you can do some decent ethical hacking.
As a matter of fact, this makes sense in the hacker vs. cracker debate: whereas hackers can do what crackers do and more, they do so out of curiosity, and more or less as a public service. Whereas crackers, and especially script kiddies, feel empowered with the capacity to break a system, and reason that since they can do it without illegal equipment, it justifies their actions.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
What geek wants to end up with the kind of girl who reads the Weekly World News? I mean, sure, they may be naive enough to fawn over your pocket calculator, but let's face it: you'll probably puke by the third time she says Elvis was from Pluto.
Why, just follow this simple advice:
She may have a hot body, but if she can't do simple maths, you'll probably be very bored during the morning chit-chat. Try asking for a few simple additions. Calculus is probably overdoing it. Tensor analysis is way off.
Having a paranoid gal spouting about Government agencies trying to control your lives is alright. If she's spouting about the NSA and Echelon, you're a winner. If she thinks the NSA is the Space Agency that serves as an embassy for the alien invasion, run.
Should you consider a bimbo with great legs, or a fat girl with great brain? Well, think of it this way: you can lose weight much more easily than you can gain a brain.
If a WWN gal approaches you, tell her you're an alien and she can feel your zipper in the back.
And most importantly:
Walk slouched, giggle nervously, speak nonsense. Or just be yourself. If a girl is turned off by stupid stuff like that, she doesn't deserve a winner like you, and will probably end up sleeping with the football captain behind your back anyway.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I think the difference between a cracker who wants to cause serious harm to a system, and a hacker (in the review sense of the word) who accesses a system out of curiosity and without doing any harm is a moral one only.
If a hacker goes into a system out of curiosity, takes a peek and figures out how something works, it's called hacking. If he does harm, he's being a cracker. It's the motivation that differs, and agreed, that's a lot. But.
I believe in the sacrosanct confidentiality, and I think a confidential information is one that should not be accessed under any circumstance the owner does not want, and not an information that cannot be used for ill purpose.
Sure, I can read my sister's diary and no harm will come of it. I will feel empowered by a secret, but the knowledge I gleaned. I'm not going to blackmail her with the info, I just satisfied a curiosity I believe inherent and essential to my personality.
But the unethical act, here, is not the use of the information, but the unlawful access of the information itself. That's a distinction we didn't make back in the 80's, when 'information' was mostly the contents of the 'porn' directory of your fellow alumni. In today's age, information on computer systems has become much more sensitive.
That's the idea behind my flagging a dychotomy, and why my use of the term 'hacker' was changed from the original for the purpose of my post.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Slashdot Mirror
In case you didn't know, when we talk about overpopulation, we're talking about the poor countries being overpopulated, like China and India, totalling 2 billion people. There's also Africa, where the birthrate is still skyrocketing. These are the people that need to be educated.
The population of the US is fine, and the pollution problem is one of educating the masses. We're doing a good job of that, as there are now recycling programs and what have you, but there's still work to be done. But the US soil can more than enough support its current population. When was the last time there was a famine in the US?
Your rant is not so much an observation on overpopulation as an antisocial statement... That's fine. Just don't pick a shotgun and clean a McDonald, man.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
"A tan and skin cancer. You?"
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
I'm actually surprised that, by 1999, people are still thinking the global population growth is a major problem. Yes, it's a problem for Third World countries that have to deal with famine. But it could be pointed out that the main reason why these countries face such dire conditions is not surpopulation itself, but rather the irresponsible leaders they have. Remember Ethiopia the way it was portrayed in the 1980's? Little babies with flies all over, the more the better, because it made us cough up a few bucks out of guilt.
However, what wasn't told was that the leaders of Ethiopia were engaged in a bloody war, and that all the millions of dollars that could be spent relieving hunger were being dissimated as armament for a pointless conflict.
Anyway. My point is: the Earth is capable of sustaining us, even if we reach 10 billion. There's a lot to be learned in the meantime, but it's false to say that the sole reason for an upcoming ecological disaster is population alone. In the 1970's, the UN predicted we'd pretty much reach 6 billion by 2000, and that it would be a disaster.
What they didn't count on? Technology. Technology has made farming and the transport of goods more efficient. As such, I don't think we're any worse now as a species that we were in 1970. What we need to work on is education of the people, and try for once to coexist in peace.
I'm not advocating against birth control, mind; that's what I mean by "education". But I don't think we're reaching critical mass any time soon.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
What impact do you think your science studies have on your current career? I suspect the high mathematical background of physics prepared you for cryptology, but what other aspects of a science degree come into play in your line of work? Would you call your B.S. in Physics an advantage or a disadvantage?
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
Dunno why I always play Paladins or Angels, though... I gather it's for the intellectual exercise of playing something that asks absolutely no questions of an ethical nature and is certain of everything, when I know nothing absolutely and take nothing for granted.
To come back to the subject at hand... I think the above demonstrates that your choice of character in an Angel/Demon game doesn't have very much to do with whether you're a sinner or a saint. I bet the Pope would play a kick-ass Demon if he could. :)
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
I fail to see how a game that involves angels and/or demons has anything to do with Christian morality. The idea that your actions impact on your moral alignment is nothing new, and gives the false impression that you have to do something drastic to condemn yourself to evil (like sacking the nobles for cash in Baldur's Gate, or going on a peasant rampage in most RPGs.)
What I mean by this is, this game designer is trying to hype this game by appealing to Christians. He probably also expects Christians to take up arms at the mention of this game's graphical depiction of violence and hacking down "praying angels". And poof, he's getting more publicity than you can possibly hope for. In other words, he's a marketing troll.
That being said, I'm not Christian, so I couldn't care less. I think the idea of setting a game in Heaven sounds great, and I'm always a sucker for the good guys (hence I'll probably play an Angel, if I ever acquire the game.) It doesn't sound like it follows tradition very closely, and surely a game based on Milton's Paradise Lost would have had more appeal to Christians. It probably would be very boring, though, as the Angels could never be wounded and the Son of God would beat the Rebels' asses...
Anyway. Tis just hype, and Jon Katz bought into it without thinking twice. May still be a cool game, but I don't expect spiritual enlightenment from it.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
What's this? Are we addicted to the gentle feel of a keyboard? A conspiracy theory to keep Carpal Tunnel Syndrome alive in the age of Palm Pilots? Or am I missing something? :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Well, I guess that's debatable. I certainly don't agree that children should be sheltered from the world, but that's not something you can enforce legally; it's something you should teach to stupid parents who blame the Internet/television/etc. for their child's violent ways or what have you.
I think that this point doesn't come into play, however. My point is, if parents feel they have the legal means to protect their children, they'll leave censorship alone.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I can already hear people screaming over this, because it sounds as if the first waves of profound censorship is making its way unto the Net. Actually, I think it's quite different. This is not about censoring Internet content, it's about giving the parents the legal means to censor the Internet themselves.
As such, it's a little like NetNanny. It means parents have some form of control over what their children do. Well, that works wonderfully well for me. Think of the Internet as a giant video rental store. The idea is not to censor some movies, but to make it clear to everyone what each section contains.
And so, we have the little doors leading to the pr0n section. That's cool by me. As a matter of fact, if parents feel they're controlling what their children will see on the Internet, they might losen up and stop calling the Internet a den of depravation.
Protect your children the way you see fit, I don't care. Just don't try to protect me.
Caveat: unfortunately, this system sounds as if it's impossible to implement. How do you tell if a person is below 18 from an anonymous email? I've seen 30-odd year-old people spell like crap, so that's not even a consideration. And heck, everyone, adult or children, visits a children site at some point. (Best example: I have my own page on the LegoManiacs webpage.) So controlling everyone won't work either.
So, it just makes it mandatory to include some sort of silly button saying, 'I am over 18'. Yeah, porn sites have been doing that for ages.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I don't think they're quite clear on this, either. The impression I get from cDc is that they're people who like to play with cool toys, and in that sense they're hackers in the oldest sense of the word.
Is the focus of a hacker programming? Well, I don't think it is. I don't program for programming's sake, because then I'd be doing tons of totally useless stuff just because they're cool things to do. (Wait, I do tend to do this... Nevermind.) A hacker uses programming to enrich his understanding of computing, including security. What they say is that a program is a mean to an end, and not an end in itself. I can live with that fact.
So, I guess the word to describe what they are is, quite simply, 'hacker'.
Hmm? Everybody? Would that be every hacker, or every single computer user? People still think Hotmail is secure because it asks you for a password. They figure Win95 is secure because you can put a power-on password.
What they've done is take an abstract concept, Windows is insecure, and proved it with a concrete example that made the world panic. What is more effective? Pointing out a security hole or exploiting it? Companies scoff when you point out they have open ports. But when a stupid script kiddie comes in and defaces their websites, they all go in a panic and upgrade their security.
The cDc, though clever code, forced the corporate world to acknowledge Win95's security was non-existent. It takes good programming skills, and it takes guts. Two qualities I can admire in a hacker.
They're taking the easiest path, but they're shaking up the computing world fastest than you could in years of dedication and putting on a suit and tie every morning. In a world of images and reputation, you can either, as you say, walk the walk, or decide to just run into everybody.
I wouldn't do the things the cDc does, but perhaps for that they deserve my respect.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
For once, we seem to be the self-conscious hackers, the ones who want a proper media image and good public relations, and wish our movement would receive more public recognition. This is exemplified in the hacker/cracker debate that will rage on on Slashdot for years to come, I think.
The cDc are techno-anarchists with a slant for educating the masses despite themselves. I believe them when they say they release Trojans in order to raise awareness. I also believe it's working, to a degree, and that the sacrifice to pay for that is that the hacker image as a whole suffers.
I get the feeling our positions are at odds with one another. We both dwell in the "digital underground" (sounded like a buzzword to me, but hey, the cDc guys used it). We both want to "educate" the masses and show them that consumerism is not the best technological solution.
However, the cDc does so at the cost of their image, and we do it at the cost of efficiency. However, I think that the hacker world needs both kinds: inflamatory anarchists who take nothing seriously, and ethical workers who communicate with the world.
They're right on one thing, though: a cracker is something you eat with cheese on top.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
As far as I know, the cDc members are great programmers. BO2K is clever code. No script kiddie could come up with this. However, script kiddies use it aplenty (see their comments.)
Additionally, I don't think that having conflicting views goes against a group's unity. If anything, they seem to work well with diverse opinions. Isn't that exactly what the Open Source movement is, as a whole? You can't get two coders to agree on anything out there (e.g. KDE vs. Gnome, BSD vs. Linux), yet we still seem to work as a cohesive whole when the movement comes under fire.
Finally, I think anyone judging a product by the images or words it includes - as a deliberate slam, no less - deserves to miss the point. They claimed BO2K was a statement from the beginning, and it actually makes sense. Did you notice how much Microsoft security is coming under fire lately? I'm starting to get pro-Linux jokes from non-hacker friends in the mail. I don't think they've ever seen a Linux login prompt, much less know what ls does. But still, they're being critical of commercial products because of the sheer amount of macro-viruses and other crap that's been out.
I take the cDc guys seriously for one big reason: BO2K. They proved a point, however juvenile you think they are.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
However, he's addressing managers and techies at large here, and notice how he doesn't try to sell Open Source, but rather outlines flaws in the Closed Source model. That's the best way to go about it: point out a loss opportunity for profit, then propose an intelligent alternative.
Is it FUD? Well, no. FUD spreads ideas that are barely grounded in fact. This is advocacy: it is a clear argument with a definitive target audience, and it exposes a flaw of Closed Source quite simply.
I think all OS advocates should take note. Selling advantages of OS may not be the way to do it, because managers believe they already have a system that fulfills all their needs, and will be wont to change for the simple promise of more features. Managers won't switch from NT to Linux for the same reason they take forever to upgrade, say, from Solaris 2.6 to 7: they want to play it safe, and new features won't come into play unless they know they have a definite disadvantage.
However, when you present an OS advantage as a shortcoming in CS, you're speaking their language. You're showing them where they're not making money, and to a manager or CEO, not making money is worst than losing money.
The problem is that we geeks and them managers speak a different language. Contrast the following statements:
"Linux offers greater stability than NT."
"NT suffers from outages that cost money to the enterprise. One solution is to use a more stable platform, such as Linux."
Sure, we'd love to sell OS's merit on its own. Someday, when OS has gained mainstream recognition, we'll be able to. But for now, I think Cox's strategy is very sound.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
But the trouble is, a good idea has a way to spread, and it ends up being futile to try to cling on to it. Not only that, it deprives consumers of quality service. In the end, companies doing this try to cling to an artificially maintained consummer base, but it ends up eroding up and the idea spreads around.
I think Amazon realises that. There's plenty of other companies doing this also, and certainly not just online bookstores. I know Chapters.ca does it (they store your credit card info, so you only have to enter it once; buying a book takes one click, and you're processing to checkout.)
I think what Amazon is doing is trying to hurt the competition by dragging them into a lawsuit. I don't think they care if they win or not. They're projecting the image that they invented a novel system, and that BnN is copying them for their success.
So, let's not expect a dramatic turn of events; either they settle this out of court, as a way to calm the flames, or Amazon wins. But no one, not the CEO's, not the lawyers, not the judges, will once realise the concept of software patent is crap. They'll just use it as law fodder, and be happy with it.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
There's a review and pictures here. Doesn't seem so fantastic, but I guess it's better than putting the CPU in the kitchen freezer.
Basically, it has condensation, you have to vaccuum it for dust, the CPU died after two hours of overclocking, and the 5.25 bay is gone.
Oh, it also makes 50 dbA of noise. Man, that must be annoying. :)
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Am I the only one seeing something wrong with this picture? Dare I say amoral? Yes, high tution fees are a fact of life, and anyone thinking you can go to school in the US no matter your parents' income is deluding himself. If you're looking for school gratuity, you have to look to more Left-leaning countries. Canada used to work that way, but it's slowly catching up to the US.
Anyway: my point is not to slam any nationality (far from it!), or get into a Leftist speech. What I want to point out is this:
The idea of parents bidding against one another is sick. Some college administrator realised that when you accepted a student, he was paying the same price as everyone else, when he probably could pay more. In other words, his family's wallet wasn't being siphoned for all it's worth.
It's unfair to say you won't get into a quality college because you lost a bid war. It's unfair to make parents pay maybe ten times the normal entry fee just because they can.
We're a long way from college gratuity, indeed... But it's no surprise, in a day when colleges seek corporate sponsoring and are constantly cut back on funds, that top colleges would begin placing more importance on money than on GPA's.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
10. Thunderstorm in California; traffic slows down in NYC.
9. Forgot to go to the garage to get that new Service Pack.
8. Windshield is overtaken by a slew of porn site ads.
7. Incompatibility between your car's OS and the highway's OS.
6. Got distracted by all the pretty iCars.
5. That's what you get for running a beta!
4. Instead of the fancy car with all the extra options, you should have chosen that reliable, Open Source car...
3. Your car is highjacked by a script kiddie and driven into a ditch.
2. "What are you talking about? There's no Ctrl-Alt-Del in my car!"
And the #1 accident of the future...
1. It was a bad idea to advertise your new car on Slashdot...
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
But I garantee you it's easier to keep a twinkie from a starved Ethiopian than it is to educate those who don't value knowledge.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I didn't mean they were necessarely stored as bitmaps, but I was questioning the resulting keyspace.
Say your grid is 50x50. Each pixel is either black or white. That means 2^2500 possibilities. It seems impressive, until you consider the number of contraints on it; for instance, you'll never have a completely black grid. Most of the time, the black dots will be connected into a line. If the pen point is fat, you'll always have a black point next to another. If you know the person's name, it's another indication of what the signature will be like.
So, in effect, it's a rather big keyspace, but with so many restrictions (not to mention you can know what the keyspace is like, just by finding the person's signature, which is not secret!) that in the end it's worthless next to traditional digital certificate keyspace.
It's like showing your private key in public, but you hide out bits of it. Any security administrator will tell you it's not just stupid, it's an invitation to a crack.
So, in short, with this thing, they're going to great lengths to provide a security system which is, well, total crap compared to any moderately-strengthed cryptosystem.
But it sounds cool, so I bet the layman will say, 'Oh! THAT's what they meant by digital signature!' and swallow it up. It's not impressing this cryptogeek, however.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
That's what I'm questioning. Why a signature is considered unique and unreproductible, whereas a digital signature is still up in the air.
Fancy that. The signature program runs on a Palm Pilot. Kinda invalidates the thought that they're doing that instead of PKi because it's easier.
They fear machines, yet they buy Palm Pilots?
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I think the difference between your analogy and mine arises when you understand what is a security hole exploit and what is an allowed activity. If you believe everything you can do should be allowed, then you don't believe in the unethical breech of privacy. If you understand that not just because you can do it means it's right, then you can do some decent ethical hacking.
As a matter of fact, this makes sense in the hacker vs. cracker debate: whereas hackers can do what crackers do and more, they do so out of curiosity, and more or less as a public service. Whereas crackers, and especially script kiddies, feel empowered with the capacity to break a system, and reason that since they can do it without illegal equipment, it justifies their actions.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Why, just follow this simple advice:
She may have a hot body, but if she can't do simple maths, you'll probably be very bored during the morning chit-chat. Try asking for a few simple additions. Calculus is probably overdoing it. Tensor analysis is way off.
Having a paranoid gal spouting about Government agencies trying to control your lives is alright. If she's spouting about the NSA and Echelon, you're a winner. If she thinks the NSA is the Space Agency that serves as an embassy for the alien invasion, run.
Should you consider a bimbo with great legs, or a fat girl with great brain? Well, think of it this way: you can lose weight much more easily than you can gain a brain.
If a WWN gal approaches you, tell her you're an alien and she can feel your zipper in the back.
And most importantly:
Walk slouched, giggle nervously, speak nonsense. Or just be yourself. If a girl is turned off by stupid stuff like that, she doesn't deserve a winner like you, and will probably end up sleeping with the football captain behind your back anyway.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
If a hacker goes into a system out of curiosity, takes a peek and figures out how something works, it's called hacking. If he does harm, he's being a cracker. It's the motivation that differs, and agreed, that's a lot. But.
I believe in the sacrosanct confidentiality, and I think a confidential information is one that should not be accessed under any circumstance the owner does not want, and not an information that cannot be used for ill purpose.
Sure, I can read my sister's diary and no harm will come of it. I will feel empowered by a secret, but the knowledge I gleaned. I'm not going to blackmail her with the info, I just satisfied a curiosity I believe inherent and essential to my personality.
But the unethical act, here, is not the use of the information, but the unlawful access of the information itself. That's a distinction we didn't make back in the 80's, when 'information' was mostly the contents of the 'porn' directory of your fellow alumni. In today's age, information on computer systems has become much more sensitive.
That's the idea behind my flagging a dychotomy, and why my use of the term 'hacker' was changed from the original for the purpose of my post.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
So I'm not sure it's the solution.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."