Cost has a definition. It is the amount of resources needed to produce a good or service. A thief stealing a DVD, costs the studios money, they paid to print the DVD. So tell me how are these pirates costing any content producer money? They cost internet providers bandwidth (which can be argued is a resource). But no extra cost is imposed on studios by what pirates do.
Their real "crime" is not earning the studios money. They're free riders. Which should hardly be a jailable offense.
No it's not the broken windows fallacy. The broken window fallacy doesn't take into account where the freed money would go. He didn't say that it was good for the economy that there was an upgrade treadmill. It was good for the computer hardware companies and those that need advanced computer hardware.
If I go out every week and throw rocks through the windows. It's bad for the economy, but it's definately good for the window-makers. Maybe next year I find the window makers have invented a new glass that's harder to break. So I have to shoot the windows out. Next year they're selling bulletproof windows. Now most shops would be hurting from this, but the shops that actually needed bulletproof glass before I came around, would love this.
Glass-makers love broken windows (as long as they're broken after they're sold)
Umm everything's gone up in price since November. The dollar is dropping rapidly, fuel costs and food costs are rising.. which causes other things to go up in price.
It's not your state, it's the country and that includes states that the minimum wage hasn't changed.
I'm pretty sure parent is correct that this is your problem. If you want to test it, you could try doing a traceroute to yahoo and see where the Akamai node is.
The weapons aren't the keyboard. The weapons are the training and knowledge. Some countries don't have a civilian population that knows how to use computers, you're not going to find very many CCIE and CCNP working on their networks.
The Army uses windows for most administrative tasks because they don't want to train every soldier on linux. There's no reason to train an infantry private linux when they'll mainly be using a computer to fill out leave forms (yes I'm exaggerating).
As soon as you get to job specialties that require a computer as part of conducting their mission, you'll find windows gets a lot less common. No it's not being replaced solely by linux. Heck you may even run into custom OSes (why have a general purpose OS when this computer will be only running this small set of applications). Don't expect to see Linux 2.6 though, it's just to plain new for military testing and bureaucracy.
AFAIK recruits are recruits. They have same requirements for basic training and military expectations (physical fitness, firing ranges, etc). If you want to be a civilian, join a civilian agency (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc). That said the basic requirements for military service aren't that hard. The minimum for Army (after basic and advanced training) for a 17-22yr male is 42 pushups, 53 situps and 15:54 2-mile run. That may sound rough, but many people entering basic can't do 10 pushups or situps.
Army doesn't have a MOS dedicated to this specifically. Meaning certain MOS's do this among other jobs (so you can't sign up for this specifically)
The other post on joining military is very accurate. But I want to emphasize don't trust the recruiter. In most cases they just don't know better. Your recruiter may be a tanker that knows about as much about computers as you'd expect. If you say "I want to work with computers" well they see their "administrative specialist" working on computers all day long. So look through the MOS's and use common sense. None of them are going to be called "1337 ha>0r", they'll all sound dry and generic. Talk to someone in military, better yet talk to someone in branch of military you're interested. Combat Arms probably can't explain the differences between Military Intelligence professions and vice versa. If you go in saying "I want to be a 35S Signals Collector/Analyst and nothing else" or "Chinese Linguist" you'll likely eventually get it (they may say it's not available right now, but follow up, there's always classes going through). Don't worry about not knowing Chinese or any of the job technicalities, they'll train you in that (if you score well enough on ASVAB to qualify, which is just High School level knowledge).
Also if you do join, maintain a good attitude, a lot of positions in military are filled by a commander recognizing someone has the appropriate skills but they're not going to put someone that has a bad attitude. If you don't start in position you want, work hard in the one you're at and let it be known what you want to do. I hope this helps someone.
In the same way the Air Force dominates airspace. Navy, Army and Marines all have plenty of planes and helicopters to provide support for their missions. It will be the same with computer warfare. Also with how mingled the services get, I doubt there will be competition because they're likely sitting at same desks.
The military itself doesn't really write any code. It's the defense contractors making these big projects. For security reasons the military won't want the code made public for their cool new toys. For financial reasons the defense contractors are going to want to charge an arm and leg for it. I consider it unlikely you'll see anything like SELinux from a military project.
It's easy to understand once you look at radio communications (which is essentially a communication network). If I jam your radios I disrupt your communications. If I jam your radars your equipment doesn't work right. If I actually get into your radio network, I could pretend to be someone on your side and feed you false info or propoganda.
If I want to send packets to you spoofing as google, then I have to control a piece of networking infrastructure (router, proxy, gateway, switch) between you and google. Otherwise you'll send your replies to google and I'll never see them. But by owning the infrastructure I can intercept the reply and send it back to my real IP.
Presumably they were on the same subnet as the network printer and were just eavesdropping the traffic to the printer.
So short answer is you can't do it for any arbitrary IP (at least two way communications) unless you're part of a major telecom. Otherwise you could possibly blindly send out forged packets advertising they have the file. In TCP protocol they'd have to predict sequence numbers (which are supposed to be randomly generated to prevent this kind of attack), in UDP it may be possible.
The two(?) sequels were continuations of the story that turned it in a darker direction. If you like sands of time, play them in order. The other two do add significant new features, but they don't have the charm of the first. Plus the stories wouldn't make any sense I'd imagine (they're based on cleaning up the consequences of the first game).
I'm appalled by Greenpeaces stance on baby-eating. After my research* I've given them a 0% rating on baby-eating. A 0% grade represents organizations that consume more babies then the birth rate of China.
*Greenpeace lacks a published baby-eating policy and is hence unable to establish any grade.
Perhaps because this is from the dawn of video gaming. If this had been unreleased footage of the silent film era people would make a big deal of it too.
Safe Harbor (DMCA) is not the same as common carrior. As an ISP they are not liable for what goes through their series of tubes. So why would they want the limitations of common carrier when they have all the protections.
I'm wondering where you hang out that people constantly bump into you. Even on public transit, people should not be touching you. It's not like I take my wallet out, I just make sure that it's in my pocket, I don't even have to reach into pocket for that, not an inconvenience in the slightest.
I can enjoy music, but I don't block out reality to do it. Earbuds are horrible for this because they drown out any other noise. It also sends the message that you want no interaction with others, which is just as bad as paranoia.
How do you differentiate paranoia and caution? Is it paranoid to be uncomfortable with someone in my personal space? How large of personal space is appropriate?
I've never considered myself paranoid but I always find myself thinking ahead. I identify risks and think of how I can mitigate them or react to them. If someone bumps into me, I'm checking my wallet. I try to keep awareness of my surroundings, and I don't understand how people can blissfully enter a state of complete oblivion with Ipod's and the like.
What's paranoia is when you let it make you do irrational actions or worse yet afraid to take any action.
Physiological appearances are meaningless but I wouldn't go so far to say appearances are meaningless. If someone wants to dress like they're from the street, they should expect to be treated like that. They want to be identified as part of a culture that has espoused a disrespect for law and using violence to resolve conflict. None of this has to do with race.
That said don't fall into the trap that you can identify a criminal by appearance. Con-men, pickpockets and the like are successful by blending in.
I have no problems with anyone that wants to take a photo of my home. I have a problem when they want to put in a database that can be datamined and used to analyze me.
Sure Google will remove the photos And when Microsoft, Yahoo, and Verifax start doing the same, you're supposed to click their link to remove even though they never inform you that you've been added to their database? Some of us value our privacy but don't consider it our onus to have to spend time searching for people trying to breach our privacy. Some would compare this to web indexing, but it's not at all alike because of the robot exclusion standard. If I don't want someone to index my website, I place a file that says such, and if they do they're likely breaking the law.
But why should I care? Anyone can see my house right?? and that's fine, the problem comes when they stick it in a database. I actually expected better from slashdot in regard to this. We all know about datamining, all these different sources that can be used to gather information and make larger conclusions. The idiots that put pictures of themselves on Facebook doing drugs or underage drinking have only themselves to blame. But what about the people that get their photo snapped in some place they shouldn't be. If I had a moral agenda to push it wouldn't be hard to search out pictures of all "undesirable" places (strip clubs, gay bars, etc) to identify people and contact their employers. Plus this is just the start, do you think google will be the only company to ever want to do this? Do you think they'll stop after one picture, no they need to update their content.
Suppose something really bad is placed on internet, like a woman leaving her blinds open while undressing. She'll only find out when someone sees it, by then it's likely out of googles hands and posted on forums all over the place. Should google be responsible?
But the robots exclusion standard CAN'T work with real world information. Suppose we say we can opt-out of all databases. how do we do that? Place our facial information in a file so if we match a photo it's rejected, placing our facial information in everyones database in the process?! Or register our house and just acecpt that people can search for where we go?
What I think google should do if they want to be respectful of people is send out notices to all residents when they take photos of their block. Give them 30 days to opt out before the photos are placed online. This won't happen not just because it'd raise costs, but because they'd find every block has at least one person opposed. Plus they should blur our any people, license plates and other identifiable information in photos
Slashdot Mirror
Cost has a definition. It is the amount of resources needed to produce a good or service. A thief stealing a DVD, costs the studios money, they paid to print the DVD. So tell me how are these pirates costing any content producer money? They cost internet providers bandwidth (which can be argued is a resource). But no extra cost is imposed on studios by what pirates do.
Their real "crime" is not earning the studios money. They're free riders. Which should hardly be a jailable offense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
No it's not the broken windows fallacy. The broken window fallacy doesn't take into account where the freed money would go. He didn't say that it was good for the economy that there was an upgrade treadmill. It was good for the computer hardware companies and those that need advanced computer hardware.
If I go out every week and throw rocks through the windows. It's bad for the economy, but it's definately good for the window-makers. Maybe next year I find the window makers have invented a new glass that's harder to break. So I have to shoot the windows out. Next year they're selling bulletproof windows. Now most shops would be hurting from this, but the shops that actually needed bulletproof glass before I came around, would love this.
Glass-makers love broken windows (as long as they're broken after they're sold)
Umm everything's gone up in price since November. The dollar is dropping rapidly, fuel costs and food costs are rising.. which causes other things to go up in price.
It's not your state, it's the country and that includes states that the minimum wage hasn't changed.
I disagree. To habitual pirates, if they can't download one thing, they download something else. To pirates there is no scarcity of games ;)
If they can't downloading A, they're downloading B. They're not talking about A, they're talking about B. That's less buzz for A.
I'm pretty sure parent is correct that this is your problem. If you want to test it, you could try doing a traceroute to yahoo and see where the Akamai node is.
Glad to hear you'll help. My IP is 192.168.1.101. If that's not enough my router's IP is 192.168.1.1.
The weapons aren't the keyboard. The weapons are the training and knowledge. Some countries don't have a civilian population that knows how to use computers, you're not going to find very many CCIE and CCNP working on their networks.
The Army uses windows for most administrative tasks because they don't want to train every soldier on linux. There's no reason to train an infantry private linux when they'll mainly be using a computer to fill out leave forms (yes I'm exaggerating).
As soon as you get to job specialties that require a computer as part of conducting their mission, you'll find windows gets a lot less common. No it's not being replaced solely by linux. Heck you may even run into custom OSes (why have a general purpose OS when this computer will be only running this small set of applications). Don't expect to see Linux 2.6 though, it's just to plain new for military testing and bureaucracy.
AFAIK recruits are recruits. They have same requirements for basic training and military expectations (physical fitness, firing ranges, etc). If you want to be a civilian, join a civilian agency (NSA, CIA, FBI, etc). That said the basic requirements for military service aren't that hard. The minimum for Army (after basic and advanced training) for a 17-22yr male is 42 pushups, 53 situps and 15:54 2-mile run. That may sound rough, but many people entering basic can't do 10 pushups or situps.
Army doesn't have a MOS dedicated to this specifically. Meaning certain MOS's do this among other jobs (so you can't sign up for this specifically)
Navy has a dedicated rating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptologic_Technician
The other post on joining military is very accurate. But I want to emphasize don't trust the recruiter. In most cases they just don't know better. Your recruiter may be a tanker that knows about as much about computers as you'd expect. If you say "I want to work with computers" well they see their "administrative specialist" working on computers all day long. So look through the MOS's and use common sense. None of them are going to be called "1337 ha>0r", they'll all sound dry and generic. Talk to someone in military, better yet talk to someone in branch of military you're interested. Combat Arms probably can't explain the differences between Military Intelligence professions and vice versa. If you go in saying "I want to be a 35S Signals Collector/Analyst and nothing else" or "Chinese Linguist" you'll likely eventually get it (they may say it's not available right now, but follow up, there's always classes going through). Don't worry about not knowing Chinese or any of the job technicalities, they'll train you in that (if you score well enough on ASVAB to qualify, which is just High School level knowledge).
Also if you do join, maintain a good attitude, a lot of positions in military are filled by a commander recognizing someone has the appropriate skills but they're not going to put someone that has a bad attitude. If you don't start in position you want, work hard in the one you're at and let it be known what you want to do. I hope this helps someone.
In the same way the Air Force dominates airspace. Navy, Army and Marines all have plenty of planes and helicopters to provide support for their missions. It will be the same with computer warfare. Also with how mingled the services get, I doubt there will be competition because they're likely sitting at same desks.
The military itself doesn't really write any code. It's the defense contractors making these big projects. For security reasons the military won't want the code made public for their cool new toys. For financial reasons the defense contractors are going to want to charge an arm and leg for it. I consider it unlikely you'll see anything like SELinux from a military project.
It's easy to understand once you look at radio communications (which is essentially a communication network). If I jam your radios I disrupt your communications. If I jam your radars your equipment doesn't work right. If I actually get into your radio network, I could pretend to be someone on your side and feed you false info or propoganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Warfare
http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182754-1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe
If I want to send packets to you spoofing as google, then I have to control a piece of networking infrastructure (router, proxy, gateway, switch) between you and google. Otherwise you'll send your replies to google and I'll never see them. But by owning the infrastructure I can intercept the reply and send it back to my real IP.
Presumably they were on the same subnet as the network printer and were just eavesdropping the traffic to the printer.
So short answer is you can't do it for any arbitrary IP (at least two way communications) unless you're part of a major telecom. Otherwise you could possibly blindly send out forged packets advertising they have the file. In TCP protocol they'd have to predict sequence numbers (which are supposed to be randomly generated to prevent this kind of attack), in UDP it may be possible.
Sands of Time was a revolutionary game. Play it.
The two(?) sequels were continuations of the story that turned it in a darker direction. If you like sands of time, play them in order. The other two do add significant new features, but they don't have the charm of the first. Plus the stories wouldn't make any sense I'd imagine (they're based on cleaning up the consequences of the first game).
I'm appalled by Greenpeaces stance on baby-eating. After my research* I've given them a 0% rating on baby-eating. A 0% grade represents organizations that consume more babies then the birth rate of China.
*Greenpeace lacks a published baby-eating policy and is hence unable to establish any grade.
Perhaps because this is from the dawn of video gaming. If this had been unreleased footage of the silent film era people would make a big deal of it too.
not "Blocking" isn't one of the requirements to be an ISP according to DMCA.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi
So it's a Tiger Panzer?
Just trying to follow along with this thread...
Safe Harbor (DMCA) is not the same as common carrior. As an ISP they are not liable for what goes through their series of tubes. So why would they want the limitations of common carrier when they have all the protections.
I'm wondering where you hang out that people constantly bump into you. Even on public transit, people should not be touching you. It's not like I take my wallet out, I just make sure that it's in my pocket, I don't even have to reach into pocket for that, not an inconvenience in the slightest.
I can enjoy music, but I don't block out reality to do it. Earbuds are horrible for this because they drown out any other noise. It also sends the message that you want no interaction with others, which is just as bad as paranoia.
Sorry but lie detectors can't detect sociopaths.
How do you differentiate paranoia and caution? Is it paranoid to be uncomfortable with someone in my personal space? How large of personal space is appropriate?
I've never considered myself paranoid but I always find myself thinking ahead. I identify risks and think of how I can mitigate them or react to them. If someone bumps into me, I'm checking my wallet. I try to keep awareness of my surroundings, and I don't understand how people can blissfully enter a state of complete oblivion with Ipod's and the like.
What's paranoia is when you let it make you do irrational actions or worse yet afraid to take any action.
Physiological appearances are meaningless but I wouldn't go so far to say appearances are meaningless. If someone wants to dress like they're from the street, they should expect to be treated like that. They want to be identified as part of a culture that has espoused a disrespect for law and using violence to resolve conflict. None of this has to do with race.
That said don't fall into the trap that you can identify a criminal by appearance. Con-men, pickpockets and the like are successful by blending in.
I have no problems with anyone that wants to take a photo of my home. I have a problem when they want to put in a database that can be datamined and used to analyze me.
Sure Google will remove the photos And when Microsoft, Yahoo, and Verifax start doing the same, you're supposed to click their link to remove even though they never inform you that you've been added to their database? Some of us value our privacy but don't consider it our onus to have to spend time searching for people trying to breach our privacy. Some would compare this to web indexing, but it's not at all alike because of the robot exclusion standard. If I don't want someone to index my website, I place a file that says such, and if they do they're likely breaking the law.
But why should I care? Anyone can see my house right?? and that's fine, the problem comes when they stick it in a database. I actually expected better from slashdot in regard to this. We all know about datamining, all these different sources that can be used to gather information and make larger conclusions. The idiots that put pictures of themselves on Facebook doing drugs or underage drinking have only themselves to blame. But what about the people that get their photo snapped in some place they shouldn't be. If I had a moral agenda to push it wouldn't be hard to search out pictures of all "undesirable" places (strip clubs, gay bars, etc) to identify people and contact their employers. Plus this is just the start, do you think google will be the only company to ever want to do this? Do you think they'll stop after one picture, no they need to update their content.
Suppose something really bad is placed on internet, like a woman leaving her blinds open while undressing. She'll only find out when someone sees it, by then it's likely out of googles hands and posted on forums all over the place. Should google be responsible?
But the robots exclusion standard CAN'T work with real world information. Suppose we say we can opt-out of all databases. how do we do that? Place our facial information in a file so if we match a photo it's rejected, placing our facial information in everyones database in the process?! Or register our house and just acecpt that people can search for where we go?
What I think google should do if they want to be respectful of people is send out notices to all residents when they take photos of their block. Give them 30 days to opt out before the photos are placed online. This won't happen not just because it'd raise costs, but because they'd find every block has at least one person opposed. Plus they should blur our any people, license plates and other identifiable information in photos
It would be harder then implementing IPSec which already has authentication.
You can't just change the TCP header to add signatures because every piece of equipment out there works on the standard.