After all, what is to stop someone writing a programme which does certain things based on certain inputs?
True, a virus is a program. What makes it a virus is the way it gets introduced into the system. Since the AS/400 has incredibly well thought out security that prevents any object introduced into the system from executing without a tightly controlled process, the normal methods of virus propogation will fail. Period.
You have not described a virus, you've described a trojan horse.
The simple fact is that we've gotten *much* better at finding oil in the past few years. I can't find the citation right now ot I'd link to it, but I read somewhere recently that we found more oil in the past decade than we knew existed previously.
Well, compared to your 'read somewhere', take a look at the March 1998 issue of Scientific American, in which several experts in the field of oil field reserves detail how they have concluded that we have discovered 95% of all the oil there is to discover. In fact, in the last decade, the industry has pumped more oil than it has discovered, and the vast majority of "discoveries" were actually accounting adjustments about the size of existing oil fields.
In other words, you're blowing smoke, and the situation is a lot worse than you'd like us to believe.
Other ideas: a Superman movie that Doesn't Suck. A Batman movie that Doesn't Suck.
Actually, the first Batman movie didn't suck at all. It did a surprisingly good adaptation of the Dark Knight Batman character. The other two, however, were a waste of time.
The IBM mainframe and AS/400 environments are incredibly hard to get a virus into. AS/400s have an object-oriented security model in which it's absolutely not possible for a text or data object to be executed.
We got commercials, but they were before the trailers, not before the main film. I think that the original poster was seeing stuff inserted by the theater.
All the actors had signed on for two sequels early on in the development of this movie. Doesn't guarantee anything, but the movie opened really big ($57.5 million for opening weekend - a new July record), so you can be pretty sure they'll make at least one more.
I already have an encrypted cellphone. It uses a protocol called GSM, of which the voice AND authorization data streams are BOTH encrypted.
Encrypted poorly, however. GSM encryption was broken in 1998, quite easily. It seems the spooks got to the protocol designers. Check here for details. Further, the encryption is over-the-air only. Once on the land lines, the conversation can be tapped the usual way.
Don't let the word "encryption" lull you into a false sense of security.
Next thing you know, CBS execs will be in front of Congress, using this as an excuse to call for an extension to the DCMA making it illegal for anybody to access a web site in any way other than the author intended.
Congress granted "Olympic" special status a while back. You're pretty much guaranteed to be accused of violating the trademark if you use "Olympic" anything. "Olympia" is apparently OK.
Buying a CD (hey, weren't they supposed to finally go down in price when we all switched from vinyl??)
Just for grins, I decided to see what inflation has done to record prices. Taking $17 as a typical price for a CD in 2000, I plugged it into the NewsEngin's Cost-Of-Living Calculator, and found that my $17 in 2000 was the same as $8.23 in 1980. As I recall, the typical LP in 1980 was in the $8-$12 range. If my memory is correct (some other old fart jump in here), then the cost of buying recordings hasn't changed a whole lot.
There's always somebody who says this, but they never manage to present any evidence. You wouldn't happen to have any evidence lying around, would you?
Um, it's not a violation of copyright to disclose information covered under a non-disclosure agreement. It may very well be a violation of the terms of the contract, in which case you can be sued for breaking the contract. However, it's contract law, not copyright law, that covers NDAs.
How is it...another instance of our first admentment rights getting trashed for a company (or for that matter an individual) to want to know what's being said about it?
The author's justifications are very much anti-tax (he appears to be a serious Randian). One of the unstated reasons that the U.S. government was believed to be anti-crypto was exactly that the widespread distribution of unbreakable crypto would allow the development of an underground untaxable economy. It's interesting that this web site's author comes right out and says pretty much the same thing.
What better way to attract attention and get some serious development effort aimed at it? For those of us who don't want solutions handed to us on a silver platter, this is the best time to get involved.
Don't know, but the utilities still have the user interface of the Berkeley Unix command line code.
...phil
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 3
This other rational conclusion explains nothing and does not provide any hard data.
Unfortunately, the 'god' hypothesis doesn't provide any hard data either. It's a handwaving argument, ultimately rooted in proof by incredulity. You cannot present any verifiable evidence for a god, particularly that as described in the christian bible.
Argument from Intelligent Design mostly shows that the person putting forth the argument has reached a point where they can no longer believe that mechanical answers are sufficient, and they are unwilling to accept 'I don't know' as a temporary answer. It doesn't matter that more facts are still being uncovered, or that the line between knowledge and 'I don't know' has shifted dramatically over time, meaning that the locations where the answer 'god did it' worked have shifted as well. For a philosophy that claims to have an absolute answer, this shift is not good evidence for a particular claim of enlightenment.
All proposals for a god wind up either being loaded with self-contradictions or so weak that it can be safely ignored. One example: the proposal earlier in this thread that god is completely and utterly outside the universe. In that case, as I pointed out earlier, this by definition is a completely non-interventionist god, which cannot interact with anything inside our universe. Prayers are abosolutely useless, and miracles are impossible by the very definition of your god. You've conveniently ignored that aspect of the argument.
...phil
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument
on
Calculating God
·
· Score: 2
Likewise, the rational conclusion to draw from the incredible fine tuning of the universe is that Someone purposed we should live.
A rational conclusion, not the only rational conclusion. Another rational conclusion could be that life is very robust, and that it can appear and survive to self-awareness in much harsher conditions than you are willing to give credit.
Further, the strong anthropic principle still stands. Your contrived firing squad example does nothing to discount it.
Slashdot Mirror
True, a virus is a program. What makes it a virus is the way it gets introduced into the system. Since the AS/400 has incredibly well thought out security that prevents any object introduced into the system from executing without a tightly controlled process, the normal methods of virus propogation will fail. Period.
You have not described a virus, you've described a trojan horse.
...phil
Well, compared to your 'read somewhere', take a look at the March 1998 issue of Scientific American, in which several experts in the field of oil field reserves detail how they have concluded that we have discovered 95% of all the oil there is to discover. In fact, in the last decade, the industry has pumped more oil than it has discovered, and the vast majority of "discoveries" were actually accounting adjustments about the size of existing oil fields.
In other words, you're blowing smoke, and the situation is a lot worse than you'd like us to believe.
...phil
Yeah, and they're doing something way more productive than driving one person, you, to the mall.
...phil
Or the GM Subdivision? (Next step up from a Suburban.)
...phil
Actually, the first Batman movie didn't suck at all. It did a surprisingly good adaptation of the Dark Knight Batman character. The other two, however, were a waste of time.
...phil
The IBM mainframe and AS/400 environments are incredibly hard to get a virus into. AS/400s have an object-oriented security model in which it's absolutely not possible for a text or data object to be executed.
...phil
We got commercials, but they were before the trailers, not before the main film. I think that the original poster was seeing stuff inserted by the theater.
...phil
All the actors had signed on for two sequels early on in the development of this movie. Doesn't guarantee anything, but the movie opened really big ($57.5 million for opening weekend - a new July record), so you can be pretty sure they'll make at least one more.
...phil
Encrypted poorly, however. GSM encryption was broken in 1998, quite easily. It seems the spooks got to the protocol designers. Check here for details. Further, the encryption is over-the-air only. Once on the land lines, the conversation can be tapped the usual way.
Don't let the word "encryption" lull you into a false sense of security.
...phil
Next thing you know, CBS execs will be in front of Congress, using this as an excuse to call for an extension to the DCMA making it illegal for anybody to access a web site in any way other than the author intended.
...phil
Congress granted "Olympic" special status a while back. You're pretty much guaranteed to be accused of violating the trademark if you use "Olympic" anything. "Olympia" is apparently OK.
...phil
"Go to www.software.gnu"
"Did you say .new?"
"No, .gnu."
Ack.
...phil
Just for grins, I decided to see what inflation has done to record prices. Taking $17 as a typical price for a CD in 2000, I plugged it into the NewsEngin's Cost-Of-Living Calculator, and found that my $17 in 2000 was the same as $8.23 in 1980. As I recall, the typical LP in 1980 was in the $8-$12 range. If my memory is correct (some other old fart jump in here), then the cost of buying recordings hasn't changed a whole lot.
...phil
No. In some European sports, the teams go in at halftime and come out wearing jerseys with different ads than they had on during the first half.
...phil
Bad example. Radio is inherently a broadcast medium, e-mail is more-or-less directed.
...phil
There's always somebody who says this, but they never manage to present any evidence. You wouldn't happen to have any evidence lying around, would you?
...phil
Um, it's not a violation of copyright to disclose information covered under a non-disclosure agreement. It may very well be a violation of the terms of the contract, in which case you can be sued for breaking the contract. However, it's contract law, not copyright law, that covers NDAs.
...phil
How is it ...another instance of our first admentment rights getting trashed for a company (or for that matter an individual) to want to know what's being said about it?
...phil
The author's justifications are very much anti-tax (he appears to be a serious Randian). One of the unstated reasons that the U.S. government was believed to be anti-crypto was exactly that the widespread distribution of unbreakable crypto would allow the development of an underground untaxable economy. It's interesting that this web site's author comes right out and says pretty much the same thing.
...phil
What better way to attract attention and get some serious development effort aimed at it? For those of us who don't want solutions handed to us on a silver platter, this is the best time to get involved.
...phil
No, Rachel was added later, after she fled Tyrell Corp (and before she turned up in Deckard's apartment).
...phil
I personally believe the voice-over makes the movie worse. I've got the Director's Cut laserdisk, and it's a very fine movie that way.
...phil
Don't know, but the utilities still have the user interface of the Berkeley Unix command line code.
...phil
Unfortunately, the 'god' hypothesis doesn't provide any hard data either. It's a handwaving argument, ultimately rooted in proof by incredulity. You cannot present any verifiable evidence for a god, particularly that as described in the christian bible.
Argument from Intelligent Design mostly shows that the person putting forth the argument has reached a point where they can no longer believe that mechanical answers are sufficient, and they are unwilling to accept 'I don't know' as a temporary answer. It doesn't matter that more facts are still being uncovered, or that the line between knowledge and 'I don't know' has shifted dramatically over time, meaning that the locations where the answer 'god did it' worked have shifted as well. For a philosophy that claims to have an absolute answer, this shift is not good evidence for a particular claim of enlightenment.
All proposals for a god wind up either being loaded with self-contradictions or so weak that it can be safely ignored. One example: the proposal earlier in this thread that god is completely and utterly outside the universe. In that case, as I pointed out earlier, this by definition is a completely non-interventionist god, which cannot interact with anything inside our universe. Prayers are abosolutely useless, and miracles are impossible by the very definition of your god. You've conveniently ignored that aspect of the argument.
...phil
A rational conclusion, not the only rational conclusion. Another rational conclusion could be that life is very robust, and that it can appear and survive to self-awareness in much harsher conditions than you are willing to give credit.
Further, the strong anthropic principle still stands. Your contrived firing squad example does nothing to discount it.
...phil