I know Taco has said that the choice of the word "editors" to describe the editors was a bad decision, but if you don't pick up on and fix a mistake like this, that's just plain negligence.
Well, if you go by the things I learned in Intro. to Psychology, play-actions like that are called "signifiers" and are representative of the Preoperational stage of cognitive development. Piaget's original theory places these children between 2-7 years of age, but revision of developmental theory allows this stage to take place at different times for different signifiers. Perhaps the children who in fact carry out these fantasies of violence have not progressed beyond this stage in this area. Then again, IANA developmental psychologist.
Then again, neither are the parents and politicians who get pissy over this kind of thing.
Seriously, I imagine even describing programmatically the motivations and desires of 1,000 humans is impossible right now. You could simplify it (Sims, most CRPGs) but then you're at my question.
I have a feeling that if they are AIs who simply need to do X, Y, and Z to survive and survival is their priority, then there will be only a sterile culture of efficiency.
People develop different tastes and (often inefficient) idiosyncracies. This usually creates diversity in a culture.
Now the question becomes, how do we simulate this?
Also, it appears that this will be a static population, and that the set of AIs will not change. This simplifies the task greatly, as being able to model the creation of a new personality is probably an entirely separate problem of equal or greater difficulty than the one they are taking on here.
The link says "Trophy Pictures", but the link goes to the "Hall of Shame", which features really god-awful attempts to fake trophy pictures. Oops on submitter.
I've found that a firewall-based approach is more effective (in addition to in-server controls, for layered security). Modify either version of this iptables chain to your needs. After three bad tries, they get DROPped (if you don't have TARPIT available, which I don't) for 60 seconds. The scripts I've encountered have been too stupid to account for this and give up after a few extra tries.
And you satisfy the requirements for the obligatory poster who somehow feels there is a need to point this out, as though nobody's ever pointed it out before.
Those of us who use it as our primary desktop system want, basically, to be able to do whatever our Windows-using counterparts can, specifically, meeting the following criteria:
Common protocols and formats should be open.
Open standards and API should be preferred to proprietary and non-portable equivalents.
Either:
Produce a well-maintained, feature-complete, but not necessarily open driver, complete with a license that allows us to package the necessary parts in our distros; or
Give us the goddamn hardware specifications.
Of those, 1 and 2 are negotiable concerning the degree to which they are true; but 3 is completely and utterly non-negotiable. All other problems with Linux on the desktop actually working are internal ones.
I think it was the whitelist. The idea of the whitelist of executables triggered tinfoil mode violently. That led to the not-so-proper invocation of Its Unholiness, TCPA, etc., etc., etc. Really rather nasty looking now that I realize.
And using it the cross-site, talk-smack manner that I did doesn't help any.
Right, so here's some posts from some guy who seems to be one of those lazy-ass HS admins, from the discussion of this story at Fark:
I administer a network at a high school where 900 students have laptops, and all I can say is that it's going to be a challenge for them. We have to use, among other things, BIOS passwords, group policies, router access lists that block Internet traffic from all systems except for an internal proxy server, monitoring software, hidden services, authenticated DHCP and DNS servers, and segmented student and faculty networks. As a sidenote, the IBM Thinkpads that we use have no way to reset the BIOS password. In the past we had students who locked one another out of their computer via BIOS, and we had to mail the whole motherboard back to IBM so they could replace the securitchip.
I got a big kick out of hearing the students complain when their external proxy servers stopped working. They're going to be even more pissed this year when they realize that all applications are limited to a white list based upon the MD5 hash.
and
enemyplanet: Thanks. I hate being "that guy", but locking down the machines seems to have limited the effect of spyware (GPOs only allow approved BHOs to load with IE, etc), as well as encourage students to pay more attention in class. On top of that, I don't have to worry about the liability problems from students downloading music, movies, software, porn, etc during school.
stoneycase: what are you using to accomplish this?
Believe it or not, Windows XP has a built-in component via group policies called software restriction policies that allows you to either block certain executables or allow only approved executables based upon their filename, path, or MD5 hash. I picked MD5 hash. It would take more than a year for students to find a way to spoof the MD5, and all of the software is updated at the end of the year, so the MD5s are different the following year anyway. Server 2003 forces that policy down every login. The students have a home and school account, though we have removed administrative functionality such as mmc and ACL access via the file security tab in Explorer from the home account. I have a few other surprises besides that built in to prevent access to the home account and/or local accounts during school hours.
Basically, it took all of my strength not to outright flame his ass into next week. I settled for calling him an "administrative fascist" and telling him to "go to hell" for using what sounds like a TPM.
Please, if you do decide to take a job like that, don't join the Dark Side, as this poor individual has.
I actually got my ass up and did something away from the computer yesterday, thanks to the run of MS stories early Saturday morning, for which I had zero desire to see on the front page. Thanks, Slashdot! Do it again!
Um... are you implying that I'm implying that we should stop testing our programs? Because I don't think that's what I'm saying.
Shit gets through initial testing; the recalls and lawsuits over defects in cars attest to that, and so do these frantic patchfests to defects in software. That's why there exist security teams to go through previous code and find the critical bugs that slipped through.
Whereas if there's a previously undetected bug in the runtime, all of a sudden everything's vulnerable. And now you again have to patch every single machine in existence. How is that any different than in this case?
There also exist modifications to gcc that perform the same function. A little checking on your part was all that was necessary to not fall into the publicization trap.
However, all such methods introduce a very noticable performance penalty.
Furthermore, there are documented ways of bypassing all such stack protection mechanisms.
Stop bitching. Audit your goddamn code already. Or would you rather all the bugs be found by the bad guys (this one was found by the Gentoo security team)?
And there was way too much mention of IPTV and you-know-who, with their "the future may run through us alone" attitude, in that article for it to be palatable.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it counts for anything, she's officially a cliche at Fark.
that you'll be needing to add your own serial port.
Making Firefox work well on Mac has been scheduled for 1.1 for many months.
The more a robot must interface with regular humans (i.e., not anyone maintaining them), the more humanoid it should be.
I know Taco has said that the choice of the word "editors" to describe the editors was a bad decision, but if you don't pick up on and fix a mistake like this, that's just plain negligence.
Well, if you go by the things I learned in Intro. to Psychology, play-actions like that are called "signifiers" and are representative of the Preoperational stage of cognitive development. Piaget's original theory places these children between 2-7 years of age, but revision of developmental theory allows this stage to take place at different times for different signifiers. Perhaps the children who in fact carry out these fantasies of violence have not progressed beyond this stage in this area. Then again, IANA developmental psychologist.
Then again, neither are the parents and politicians who get pissy over this kind of thing.
Seriously, I imagine even describing programmatically the motivations and desires of 1,000 humans is impossible right now. You could simplify it (Sims, most CRPGs) but then you're at my question.
I have a feeling that if they are AIs who simply need to do X, Y, and Z to survive and survival is their priority, then there will be only a sterile culture of efficiency.
People develop different tastes and (often inefficient) idiosyncracies. This usually creates diversity in a culture.
Now the question becomes, how do we simulate this?
Also, it appears that this will be a static population, and that the set of AIs will not change. This simplifies the task greatly, as being able to model the creation of a new personality is probably an entirely separate problem of equal or greater difficulty than the one they are taking on here.
(Note: didn't RTFA)
The link says "Trophy Pictures", but the link goes to the "Hall of Shame", which features really god-awful attempts to fake trophy pictures. Oops on submitter.
That site's ferret mascot looks almost exactly like the BSA ferret. Whoa.
Every now and then you find something that you just can't physically find. Lotsa fun.
Obligatory bash.org quote:
<erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
I've found that a firewall-based approach is more effective (in addition to in-server controls, for layered security). Modify either version of this iptables chain to your needs. After three bad tries, they get DROPped (if you don't have TARPIT available, which I don't) for 60 seconds. The scripts I've encountered have been too stupid to account for this and give up after a few extra tries.
Yeah, I felt similarly at that age about Gates.
And then, when I grew up, I realized that he was just a businessman in geek's clothing.
A vector of Torrents?
And you satisfy the requirements for the obligatory poster who somehow feels there is a need to point this out, as though nobody's ever pointed it out before.
People also like on-demand, which isn't always the case with P2P. Some people will pay (extra) to have something now as opposed to later.
Sounds like the makings of a new Thinkgeek shirt: "Go away or we will replace you with a very small Wiki."
- Common protocols and formats should be open.
- Open standards and API should be preferred to proprietary and non-portable equivalents.
- Either:
- Produce a well-maintained, feature-complete, but not necessarily open driver, complete with a license that allows us to package the necessary parts in our distros; or
- Give us the goddamn hardware specifications.
Of those, 1 and 2 are negotiable concerning the degree to which they are true; but 3 is completely and utterly non-negotiable. All other problems with Linux on the desktop actually working are internal ones.I think it was the whitelist. The idea of the whitelist of executables triggered tinfoil mode violently. That led to the not-so-proper invocation of Its Unholiness, TCPA, etc., etc., etc. Really rather nasty looking now that I realize.
And using it the cross-site, talk-smack manner that I did doesn't help any.
Oops.
Please, if you do decide to take a job like that, don't join the Dark Side, as this poor individual has.
I actually got my ass up and did something away from the computer yesterday, thanks to the run of MS stories early Saturday morning, for which I had zero desire to see on the front page. Thanks, Slashdot! Do it again!
Um... are you implying that I'm implying that we should stop testing our programs? Because I don't think that's what I'm saying.
Shit gets through initial testing; the recalls and lawsuits over defects in cars attest to that, and so do these frantic patchfests to defects in software. That's why there exist security teams to go through previous code and find the critical bugs that slipped through.
Whereas if there's a previously undetected bug in the runtime, all of a sudden everything's vulnerable. And now you again have to patch every single machine in existence. How is that any different than in this case?
I was going for whatever the substantive form of the verb "publicize" is.
So maybe such a form doesn't officially exist. Check Google; I'm not the only one.
There also exist modifications to gcc that perform the same function. A little checking on your part was all that was necessary to not fall into the publicization trap.
However, all such methods introduce a very noticable performance penalty.
Furthermore, there are documented ways of bypassing all such stack protection mechanisms.
Stop bitching. Audit your goddamn code already. Or would you rather all the bugs be found by the bad guys (this one was found by the Gentoo security team)?
Now, what about latency and QoS?
And there was way too much mention of IPTV and you-know-who, with their "the future may run through us alone" attitude, in that article for it to be palatable.