Is it actually being attacked by north korea? If i were to do this, i'd compromise somebody else's computer and attack from there. Jumping to conclusions is much more fun though.
True; all signs point to North Korea but it could be a false flag operation, or just someone they trained, for example. However, motive, opportunity, and skill fingerprint are pointing to them. While we are engineers trained to think in counterexamples and recognize the possibility that it was someone else, it seems highly unlikely.
That being said, I do think the "wait and see" from the UN Mission Rep from North Korea, despite seeming to implicate them, was more of an "I have no clue whether we did it or not."
Yes, because corporate-funded (cyber-)terrorism against a soveriegn nation has *no* potential down sides, right? (:
It absolutely has downsides; the problem is a game-theory one, not a turn-the-other-cheek one. Mutual phased reduction in hostilities is the goal. The net benefit of escalation for the aggressor at any time must be outweighed by the net cost, so a threat is necessary.
I would be seriously tempted to both lobby for and bankroll offensive cyber-operations against North Korea. (Lobby for ones on the public dime from every country where SONY has a sizeable presence; bankroll one from some country where it's legal.)
Whether through cyberoperations or plain old believable threats, SONY has to come up with a way to show North Korea (or perhaps independent actors in North Korea) that there's a penalty for this kind of behavior. So does the developed world generally--attacks like this cost a fortune in productivity and potentially lost jobs, and reputation. SONY is in a better position to recover than many businesses (notably in the financial or legal sectors, where the loss of trust could be fatal), but even so.
I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.
I would expect they also got some fairly damning privileged information--emails exchanged with lawyers on everything from sexual harassment to copyright infringement suits. It's a BIG firm.
Plus Patents. Sony files THOUSANDS of patents a year. If that patent information (or research that could be patented) is published to the wild before SONY patents it, you have a LOT of new prior art and a fortune in IP at risk... SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention... (b) EXCEPTIONS.— (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
I'm all for removing artificial barriers, but once they are down we're gonna have to accept that maybe girls really do want to be princesses and maybe guys really do want to be monster trucks (not drive, be damnit, BE!)
Sure... once they're all down you will see differences. But they have never all been down.
Fundamentally, unless you have a significant community that actively tries to not focus on girl things with girls and guy things with guys, including training for parents who are dedicated to it, you're not going to escape your culture's gender norms. You can limit their influence, but they're still there. There are *trillions* of dollars of material and millenia of cultural inertia behind and imbued with those norms.
But there are traits that are admirable in the norms of both genders, and the trick is getting kids interested in those things. Experimenting, inventing, exploring, building things, designing things, social graces--there are lots of important traits, things it's good to bring out. Find a few parents who think the same way you do and try to set up activities around those things. Like lesson plans.
Also, look at parenting groups. Maybe even reach out through your college alumni networks to see what people from your school have done. I'm sure there are lots of parents around the country who wonder about this.
We lost most of the great teachers in the United States when we embraced gender equality. It was definitely the right move, but it cost our country untold billions in terms of the price to education.
Not many decades ago, women could not go into most high-earning-potential fields. Teacher was one of the few fields of instruction open to them, and as a result, a LOT of the smartest women in the country went into teaching. And there are a *lot* of smart women in the country.
You still have smart women teaching, but not nearly as many.
You assume we will know how to program them. Not the first-generation AI traffic-monitor, but third or fourth generation, where you have general-purpose AIs that learn from doing things like watching traffic cams or reading the news. We haven't yet gotten to a point where we agree on how to teach human children; now imagine AI children far more adept and capable than the most skilled among us.
Like people, they can use that power for good or for evil. We will encourage them to use it for good--most of us--but we all have different ideas of good, and we're not very good at controlling how our children learn. If you take fifteen kids raised in the same family, you wind up with a lot of very different adults. Some are productive, some are a drag on society, some do good, some do M&A. In fifty or a hundred years, it will be AIs doing hostile takeovers of companies, or at least deciding when to do them. Some of that is probably already going on, but if it's not, it will be soon.
The other big target is the US elections. Heavy AI investing by major donors or the parties will, at some point in the next thirty years, be making a *lot* of decisions for the campaigns. They are already using good data-mining, and more data is available every year.
Washington State has a very good public records law; but this is sometimes a problem. The press should be able to get police body cam feeds, probably, and certainly on matters of public concern but realistically it causes more harm than good to have all police bodycam feeds publicly available through, for example, data-mining firms.
Should the time cops broke up that party a kid was at be available, in video, for the rest of the kid's life?
How about the time the couple at the end of the block fought and a noise complaint got called in? Should future employers be able to get access to recordings of people at the worst moments of their lives?
...stole corporate secrets for the purpose of gaming the stock market.
They seem to know a lot about these guys.
After all, corporate secrets can be sold for competitive advantages, for financially scamming those institutions or their clients, for embarrassing those institutions targeted, and/or for blackmailing purposes. The fact that they know it's for gaming the stock market implies that they have some evidence of that.
My guess is they work for the NSA
No.
The NSA already has most of that data from their wiretaps. If they wanted to game the market they wouldn't do it using such easily detectable moves.
The article indicates heavy speculation that this is done by insiders in the i-banking community. My guess is former i-bankers who got laid off at some point, but it could also be i-bankers who are using the information to fuel their trading behavior for their firm.
1. Fully socialised healthcare and comprehensive welfare state like all the most advanced countries in the world do it, then there'd be no need to have this sort of inefficient, risk-avoisive bullshit just because people fear being fucked for life over a moderate injury;
Wrong.
The purpose of the tort system is to incentivize people to act reasonably. It has big costs--a bunch of jerks trying to get money--but that's what it's all about.
Socialized healthcare takes care of the cost to the individual who is harmed--it does not incentivize the high school to act reasonably.
The algorithm is dumb. Explaining it is smart. We had to do thousands of long division problems when I was a kid, and it was utterly useless after, say, the first hundred. Boring as hell. Math should be fun.
That being said, most people don't do math--not because they're incapable (I refuse to believe that many people are so congenitally stupid)--but because they're not trained well and they don't *have* to do it. So if you don't spend time teaching math that they're not going to use anyway, you could wind up with a lot of extra time to teach life skills.
Or more useful math. Let them graduate knowing how to deal with the time value of money and needing a calculator for long division--that would be a net gain.
Girls excel at everything in school. Since the feminisation of the school system their is not a single subject that boys do not lag behind in. It is impossible to compete when the entire system is against you.
Try making the critique in a way which doesn't put half of everybody down. What specifically would have been a better system for you and why?
The system isn't "against you." It just evolved not understanding you. So make it better.
Curiously, this technique has a long history dating back to the 19th century when Victorian doctors would look for testicular cancer by holding a candle behind the scrotum and looking for suspicious shadows. The new technique should be more comfortable.
I think we've determined who should never, ever write grant proposals.
If you can't actually beat 'em, just bankrupt 'em or drive 'em to suicide!
I love the modern concept of "justice"
They didn't bankrupt him; he did that. He could probably have hired less experienced lawyers to represent him. My guess is his lawyers were up-front about the rates and he decided to keep using them anyway.
It's a bad system, and his choices sucked at the point where he had already committed what is technically a pretty major crime, but he still had choices.
Pretty much everyone I've ever met--with a very few exceptions--believe that copyright violation should get noncommercial violaters no more than a small civil violation. Basically a ticket with no criminal record and a small fine.
But this is commercial infringement. It's a big deal. The system still sucks, but is anyone claiming he's actually an innocent guy getting railroaded?
Probably they get to write it up as a victory in their funding request. Either that, or somebody drastically overestimated the effect it would have--But they got it wrong in a few ways. (I will not speculate on exactly how. Certain discussions are better not shared with, you know, the Syrian Electronic Army when they happen across slashdot.)
There are lots of targets that would be really smart to go after if you wanted to get the attention of the average american and/or hurt the US markets. But this op... not so much.
Sure Microsoft; after you sign this memorandum where you enter into binding agreement to fork over payment for all costs associated with the audit, plus an additional non-refundable fee of 6139000¥ plus a 31390¥ retainer.
Costs to Include payment for some additional vacation time for management and senior staff and the cost of purchasing additional computers, server equipment, software, and gov't employees, labor, overtime hours desired to assist with the audit, and other ordinary expenses.
It actually sounds like Xinhau broke some kind of law or agreement here, just from the way this went down.
Specifically, they disclosed the company by describing it without ever saying its name. They knew everyone would figure out who the company was. But they never would have done that unless they were prohibited from telling you the company. So they broke whatever was prohibiting them from doing that.
It's unlikely Microsoft will sue them for it (not impossible, but unlikely), but no Western company will ever trust that agreement or law again.
This is a classic example of a really *Stupid* move to make yourself seem good in the short term that makes other people less willing to deal with you in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it actually being attacked by north korea? If i were to do this, i'd compromise somebody else's computer and attack from there. Jumping to conclusions is much more fun though.
True; all signs point to North Korea but it could be a false flag operation, or just someone they trained, for example. However, motive, opportunity, and skill fingerprint are pointing to them. While we are engineers trained to think in counterexamples and recognize the possibility that it was someone else, it seems highly unlikely.
That being said, I do think the "wait and see" from the UN Mission Rep from North Korea, despite seeming to implicate them, was more of an "I have no clue whether we did it or not."
Yes, because corporate-funded (cyber-)terrorism against a soveriegn nation has *no* potential down sides, right? ( :
It absolutely has downsides; the problem is a game-theory one, not a turn-the-other-cheek one. Mutual phased reduction in hostilities is the goal. The net benefit of escalation for the aggressor at any time must be outweighed by the net cost, so a threat is necessary.
I would be seriously tempted to both lobby for and bankroll offensive cyber-operations against North Korea. (Lobby for ones on the public dime from every country where SONY has a sizeable presence; bankroll one from some country where it's legal.)
Whether through cyberoperations or plain old believable threats, SONY has to come up with a way to show North Korea (or perhaps independent actors in North Korea) that there's a penalty for this kind of behavior. So does the developed world generally--attacks like this cost a fortune in productivity and potentially lost jobs, and reputation. SONY is in a better position to recover than many businesses (notably in the financial or legal sectors, where the loss of trust could be fatal), but even so.
I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.
I would expect they also got some fairly damning privileged information--emails exchanged with lawyers on everything from sexual harassment to copyright infringement suits. It's a BIG firm.
Plus Patents. Sony files THOUSANDS of patents a year. If that patent information (or research that could be patented) is published to the wild before SONY patents it, you have a LOT of new prior art and a fortune in IP at risk... SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ...
(b) EXCEPTIONS.— (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
+1.
A kid raised solely on TV and the average preschool isn't getting the necessary stimulus for good brain or character development.
I'm all for removing artificial barriers, but once they are down we're gonna have to accept that maybe girls really do want to be princesses and maybe guys really do want to be monster trucks (not drive, be damnit, BE!)
Sure... once they're all down you will see differences. But they have never all been down.
Fundamentally, unless you have a significant community that actively tries to not focus on girl things with girls and guy things with guys, including training for parents who are dedicated to it, you're not going to escape your culture's gender norms. You can limit their influence, but they're still there. There are *trillions* of dollars of material and millenia of cultural inertia behind and imbued with those norms.
But there are traits that are admirable in the norms of both genders, and the trick is getting kids interested in those things. Experimenting, inventing, exploring, building things, designing things, social graces--there are lots of important traits, things it's good to bring out. Find a few parents who think the same way you do and try to set up activities around those things. Like lesson plans.
Also, look at parenting groups. Maybe even reach out through your college alumni networks to see what people from your school have done. I'm sure there are lots of parents around the country who wonder about this.
Let's look at the premise:
1. Students usually know WAY more about technology than their teachers.
This is becoming less and less true, as people who had computers growing up become teachers.
That being said, this is slashdot, so most of *us* knew WAY more about technology as kids than our teachers, or than teachers today.
We lost most of the great teachers in the United States when we embraced gender equality. It was definitely the right move, but it cost our country untold billions in terms of the price to education.
Not many decades ago, women could not go into most high-earning-potential fields. Teacher was one of the few fields of instruction open to them, and as a result, a LOT of the smartest women in the country went into teaching. And there are a *lot* of smart women in the country.
You still have smart women teaching, but not nearly as many.
You assume we will know how to program them. Not the first-generation AI traffic-monitor, but third or fourth generation, where you have general-purpose AIs that learn from doing things like watching traffic cams or reading the news. We haven't yet gotten to a point where we agree on how to teach human children; now imagine AI children far more adept and capable than the most skilled among us.
Like people, they can use that power for good or for evil. We will encourage them to use it for good--most of us--but we all have different ideas of good, and we're not very good at controlling how our children learn. If you take fifteen kids raised in the same family, you wind up with a lot of very different adults. Some are productive, some are a drag on society, some do good, some do M&A. In fifty or a hundred years, it will be AIs doing hostile takeovers of companies, or at least deciding when to do them. Some of that is probably already going on, but if it's not, it will be soon.
The other big target is the US elections. Heavy AI investing by major donors or the parties will, at some point in the next thirty years, be making a *lot* of decisions for the campaigns. They are already using good data-mining, and more data is available every year.
Mod parent up.
Washington State has a very good public records law; but this is sometimes a problem. The press should be able to get police body cam feeds, probably, and certainly on matters of public concern but realistically it causes more harm than good to have all police bodycam feeds publicly available through, for example, data-mining firms.
Should the time cops broke up that party a kid was at be available, in video, for the rest of the kid's life?
How about the time the couple at the end of the block fought and a noise complaint got called in? Should future employers be able to get access to recordings of people at the worst moments of their lives?
What were the names of these companies and how exactly did hacking email accounts lead to a compromise of the Operating System?
Announcing their names would cost the companies billions of dollars and get the victims of the fraud fired and possibly make them unhireable.
And Reuters would get sued by all of them.
It would probably win, but it would still be expensive.
In addition there is almost certainly an ongoing investigation.
...stole corporate secrets for the purpose of gaming the stock market.
They seem to know a lot about these guys.
After all, corporate secrets can be sold for competitive advantages, for financially scamming those institutions or their clients, for embarrassing those institutions targeted, and/or for blackmailing purposes. The fact that they know it's for gaming the stock market implies that they have some evidence of that.
My guess is they work for the NSA
No.
The NSA already has most of that data from their wiretaps. If they wanted to game the market they wouldn't do it using such easily detectable moves.
The article indicates heavy speculation that this is done by insiders in the i-banking community. My guess is former i-bankers who got laid off at some point, but it could also be i-bankers who are using the information to fuel their trading behavior for their firm.
1. Fully socialised healthcare and comprehensive welfare state like all the most advanced countries in the world do it, then there'd be no need to have this sort of inefficient, risk-avoisive bullshit just because people fear being fucked for life over a moderate injury;
Wrong.
The purpose of the tort system is to incentivize people to act reasonably. It has big costs--a bunch of jerks trying to get money--but that's what it's all about.
Socialized healthcare takes care of the cost to the individual who is harmed--it does not incentivize the high school to act reasonably.
It's not the noise.
If that were true, then she should say that.
Apparently 50%+ of the people on slashdot think she is lying to her husband about why she wants the gaming PC out of the living room.
The algorithm is dumb. Explaining it is smart. We had to do thousands of long division problems when I was a kid, and it was utterly useless after, say, the first hundred. Boring as hell. Math should be fun.
That being said, most people don't do math--not because they're incapable (I refuse to believe that many people are so congenitally stupid)--but because they're not trained well and they don't *have* to do it. So if you don't spend time teaching math that they're not going to use anyway, you could wind up with a lot of extra time to teach life skills.
Or more useful math. Let them graduate knowing how to deal with the time value of money and needing a calculator for long division--that would be a net gain.
In that case, we have a problem with a wife who can't honestly communicate with her husband.
I suggest therapy.
Failure to communicate is on both parties. Therapy may help, but so can talking.
Girls excel at everything in school. Since the feminisation of the school system their is not a single subject that boys do not lag behind in. It is impossible to compete when the entire system is against you.
Try making the critique in a way which doesn't put half of everybody down. What specifically would have been a better system for you and why?
The system isn't "against you." It just evolved not understanding you. So make it better.
Curiously, this technique has a long history dating back to the 19th century when Victorian doctors would look for testicular cancer by holding a candle behind the scrotum and looking for suspicious shadows. The new technique should be more comfortable.
I think we've determined who should never, ever write grant proposals.
Maybe it's a very roundabout plot to tax heating. Diesel works in place of heating oil, right?
What is Belgium doing in your list of stable countries ?
Not being invaded by Germany!
If you can't actually beat 'em, just bankrupt 'em or drive 'em to suicide!
I love the modern concept of "justice"
They didn't bankrupt him; he did that. He could probably have hired less experienced lawyers to represent him. My guess is his lawyers were up-front about the rates and he decided to keep using them anyway.
It's a bad system, and his choices sucked at the point where he had already committed what is technically a pretty major crime, but he still had choices.
Pretty much everyone I've ever met--with a very few exceptions--believe that copyright violation should get noncommercial violaters no more than a small civil violation. Basically a ticket with no criminal record and a small fine.
But this is commercial infringement. It's a big deal. The system still sucks, but is anyone claiming he's actually an innocent guy getting railroaded?
Probably they get to write it up as a victory in their funding request. Either that, or somebody drastically overestimated the effect it would have--But they got it wrong in a few ways. (I will not speculate on exactly how. Certain discussions are better not shared with, you know, the Syrian Electronic Army when they happen across slashdot.)
There are lots of targets that would be really smart to go after if you wanted to get the attention of the average american and/or hurt the US markets. But this op... not so much.
Sure Microsoft; after you sign this memorandum where you enter into binding agreement to fork over payment for all costs associated with the audit, plus an additional non-refundable fee of 6139000¥ plus a 31390¥ retainer.
Costs to Include payment for some additional vacation time for management and senior staff and the cost of purchasing additional computers, server equipment, software, and gov't employees, labor, overtime hours desired to assist with the audit, and other ordinary expenses.
It actually sounds like Xinhau broke some kind of law or agreement here, just from the way this went down.
Specifically, they disclosed the company by describing it without ever saying its name. They knew everyone would figure out who the company was. But they never would have done that unless they were prohibited from telling you the company. So they broke whatever was prohibiting them from doing that.
It's unlikely Microsoft will sue them for it (not impossible, but unlikely), but no Western company will ever trust that agreement or law again.
This is a classic example of a really *Stupid* move to make yourself seem good in the short term that makes other people less willing to deal with you in the future.
#GOP has just become a top-10 target for US Offensive cyber-operations...
The grand jury found no reason to even send this to trial. Cut and dry case of justifiable self defense. END of story.
No, the grand jury found on probable cause. So it was not more likely than not that he was guilty, based on what they heard.
That does *not* mean it was a cut and dry case of justifiable self-defense, or that the officer was innocent.
Found *no* probable cause. Can we get an "edit for typo" button already?