If you thought those fiber-optic based surveillance cams were bad, you'll hate these even more.
Yeah, this will find tons of apps in all sorts of useful places, but at a certain point, they'll be so cheap that you'll have to be afraid that people have hidden them somewhere, and that you are being watched.
This will be like camera phones, but squared and then cubed.
It would seem that if the Amazon guy doesn't want to kowtow to Mr. Israel (and why would he), the blogger guy is likely to wage some sort of blogger-jihad against Amazon.
Is that likely to cause them any trouble? Amazon seems to be quite good at what they do.
I have a feeling that this is a case where he can tell Israel to kiss his ass.
That is, I googled some phrase from the article, in an attempt to get it.
Don't look at that unless you have the hotfix or mozilla, I guess.
Botmasters will switch to distributed C&C
on
Meet the Botnet Hunters
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Botmasters will switch to gossip-based protocols (like p2p) to achieve their goals. The good ones have done this already.
This is required for other reasons: if you have more than 10K or so bots, you are better off with a distributed mechanism.
Interestingly enough, most of the botmasters are not so technical - they wouldn't be able to comprehend virtual synchrony if it smacked them in the face.
Yet Again, the BSDs get Snubbed
on
Unusual Open Source
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The BSDs have more rigid professionalism than the typical Linux project. I don't know why this is, but there is a focus on correctness over features.
Yet again, the PR-excellence of the Linux crowd wins. Even though, for instance, Yahoo!, a company that hosts a huge number of sites (and stores), uses FreeBSD.
If you look at it, these botnet idiots aren't really using the best technology. E.g. how does 20K bots connecting on an IRC channel make any sense? It doesn't -- there are better methods.
But, they've got a way to make money, with crappy tools, and that's what they are doing. So a few of the guys get big, and then they start making decent custom software -- well, that makes them evil genius villains.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if DARPA (or the CIA) wants to talk with these guys about doing some surveillance of "bad guys". The botnet ninjas are in a perfect position to collect interesting information and pass it on to anybody who wants it, no questions asked.
If I were a creative, hard-working guy at IBM, and I heard something like this, I'd be thinking that I needed to get a new job, as I'd have no future at IBM if that is the sort of thing coming down from the top.
They make some b.s. statements that just aren't founded in logic, or in a reasonably cynical view of how people/companies behave. The result is that they suggest you do the ridiculous, with your security (not theirs). Then they (for whatever reason) say something else.
I'm not even suggesting that they "came to their senses", but perhaps, for one reason or another, decided that Microsoft was not their friend anymore (or maybe firefox is their friend now).
Is there any special hardware or chips on this thing? Or is it just a low-end computer?
I saw this story before and it didn't mention anything about the hardware
Good points. Perhaps congestion-pricing is the way to go then.
I'm troubled by the fact that flat-rate pricing leads to people responding rationally (e.g. mega BitTorrent use) and then telcos complaining and having to use hardware/software to achieve their goals. All that costs money and wastes time -- better to just do some reasonable pricing in the first place.
Bandwidth-based pricing would stop this, and other
on
Neighborhood WiFi Security
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If you had to pay for bandwidth based on how much you used, people wouldn't do share. Also, telco companies wouldn't be floating the concept of charging more for various services (e.g. VOIP, or VOD).
Does anyone know why it is that companies don't just charge for bandwidth, the way they do with a colo? Is it really so complicated?
That would be nice to for mom-and-pop -- they wouldn't have big fixed-fees due to heavy users like myself.
Vodaphone had some real Chutzpah, to think they co
on
Vodafone Quitting Japan
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Vodaphone had some real chutzpah, to think they could beat the Japanese on their home turf, in a gadget-oriented market.
Only Apple has done that in recent memory, and they are hardly "normal".
No it doesn't. But then if you read this, it is clear tha his contribution sounds so minor as to be unworthy of further discussion -- he just wanted to change some unprintable characters to printable ones.
In a later appendix, F. L. Bauer responds to Naur's statements:
"It is amusing to see how Peter Naur looks at the use of the Backus notation from his personal point of view. Among [other members of the committee] there was no question that we would like... a form similar to the one Backus had used for its ICIP paper... If Peter Naur had seen this a result of his "plan" to make an appeal to the members of the ALGOL committee concerning the style of the language description, he was running into open doors."
"... Peter Naur speaks of 'my slightly revised form of Backus's notation' and 'my slightly modified form of Backus's notation.' I think the minor notation difference is not worth mentioning. If some people speak of Backus- Naur form instead of the original Backus Normal Form, then they indicate that Peter Naur, as the editor of the ALGOL 60 report, brought this notation to a wide attention. Backus-ALGOL Form would be more appropriate anyhow."
At the bottom of the page, there is a discussion of controlling the motion of farmed fish, which would allow them to be kept outside of cages. When it was time to harvest them, they'd assemble for harvesting. Otherwise they'd be free to swim around and spread their toxic fish waste, which would be better for the environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Any reference to demonstrate this ban on making derivative works?
I've never heard it, and I've studied this stuff.
It would be great if the Linux crowd would do stuff like this too.
If you thought those fiber-optic based surveillance cams were bad, you'll hate these even more.
Yeah, this will find tons of apps in all sorts of useful places, but at a certain point, they'll be so cheap that you'll have to be afraid that people have hidden them somewhere, and that you are being watched.
This will be like camera phones, but squared and then cubed.
I'm wondering if there is any downside to this for the company that just said bandwidth to home doesn't matter.
They just pissed off every geek by saying bandwidth doesn't matter.
The average schmuck doesn't care or understand.
So all they did was piss off all the geeks. I'm thinking that can't be good.
It would seem that if the Amazon guy doesn't want to kowtow to Mr. Israel (and why would he), the blogger guy is likely to wage some sort of blogger-jihad against Amazon.
Is that likely to cause them any trouble? Amazon seems to be quite good at what they do.
I have a feeling that this is a case where he can tell Israel to kiss his ass.
Are any of the links on this page bad ones?
h +against+dollar&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&st art=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.google.com/search?q=+Yuan+hits+new+hig
That is, I googled some phrase from the article, in an attempt to get it.
Don't look at that unless you have the hotfix or mozilla, I guess.
Botmasters will switch to gossip-based protocols (like p2p) to achieve their goals. The good ones have done this already.
This is required for other reasons: if you have more than 10K or so bots, you are better off with a distributed mechanism.
Interestingly enough, most of the botmasters are not so technical - they wouldn't be able to comprehend virtual synchrony if it smacked them in the face.
The BSDs have more rigid professionalism than the typical Linux project. I don't know why this is, but there is a focus on correctness over features.
Yet again, the PR-excellence of the Linux crowd wins. Even though, for instance, Yahoo!, a company that hosts a huge number of sites (and stores), uses FreeBSD.
That's OK with me -- it is a secret weapon.
You are right on the mark.
If you look at it, these botnet idiots aren't really using the best technology. E.g. how does 20K bots connecting on an IRC channel make any sense? It doesn't -- there are better methods.
But, they've got a way to make money, with crappy tools, and that's what they are doing. So a few of the guys get big, and then they start making decent custom software -- well, that makes them evil genius villains.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if DARPA (or the CIA) wants to talk with these guys about doing some surveillance of "bad guys". The botnet ninjas are in a perfect position to collect interesting information and pass it on to anybody who wants it, no questions asked.
If I were a creative, hard-working guy at IBM, and I heard something like this, I'd be thinking that I needed to get a new job, as I'd have no future at IBM if that is the sort of thing coming down from the top.
What about that OpenBSD-based live CD? Isn't that a top security OS?
Or is this thing only for Linux?
It is unimaginable that OpenBSD would ever have an error like this.
How can you trust these guys with your security?
They make some b.s. statements that just aren't founded in logic, or in a reasonably cynical view of how people/companies behave. The result is that they suggest you do the ridiculous, with your security (not theirs). Then they (for whatever reason) say something else.
I'm not even suggesting that they "came to their senses", but perhaps, for one reason or another, decided that Microsoft was not their friend anymore (or maybe firefox is their friend now).
I can imagine that this will open up even more methods of attack. Victims will come into range while, lending new meaning to "drive-by install".
Good luck, Bill!
Is there any special hardware or chips on this thing? Or is it just a low-end computer? I saw this story before and it didn't mention anything about the hardware
Good points. Perhaps congestion-pricing is the way to go then.
I'm troubled by the fact that flat-rate pricing leads to people responding rationally (e.g. mega BitTorrent use) and then telcos complaining and having to use hardware/software to achieve their goals. All that costs money and wastes time -- better to just do some reasonable pricing in the first place.
If you had to pay for bandwidth based on how much you used, people wouldn't do share. Also, telco companies wouldn't be floating the concept of charging more for various services (e.g. VOIP, or VOD).
Does anyone know why it is that companies don't just charge for bandwidth, the way they do with a colo? Is it really so complicated?
That would be nice to for mom-and-pop -- they wouldn't have big fixed-fees due to heavy users like myself.
Vodaphone had some real chutzpah, to think they could beat the Japanese on their home turf, in a gadget-oriented market.
Only Apple has done that in recent memory, and they are hardly "normal".
Although this is likely true, is it really news to anyone? I'm not at all surprised that so much traffic is bad in some way: bad traffic pays.
A more interesting question is why people continue to ignore security -- could it perhaps be that security just isn't that important to anyone?
It seems that people only get upset when their bankaccount gets drained. Until then, WHATEVERRRRRR.
No it doesn't. But then if you read this, it is clear tha his contribution sounds so minor as to be unworthy of further discussion -- he just wanted to change some unprintable characters to printable ones.
In a later appendix, F. L. Bauer responds to Naur's statements:
"It is amusing to see how Peter Naur looks at the use of the Backus notation from his personal point of view. Among [other members of the committee] there was no question that we would like... a form similar to the one Backus had used for its ICIP paper... If Peter Naur had seen this a result of his "plan" to make an appeal to the members of the ALGOL committee concerning the style of the language description, he was running into open doors."
"... Peter Naur speaks of 'my slightly revised form of Backus's notation' and 'my slightly modified form of Backus's notation.' I think the minor notation difference is not worth mentioning. If some people speak of Backus- Naur form instead of the original Backus Normal Form, then they indicate that Peter Naur, as the editor of the ALGOL 60 report, brought this notation to a wide attention. Backus-ALGOL Form would be more appropriate anyhow."
There is a famous controversy, described here:
http://spirit.sourceforge.net/dl_docs/bnf.html
Some accuse this guy of bogarting the credit.
Where is the judge's decision that attacks Bezos and the position that Amazon took?
I'm hoping to read it, because I'm leery of articles that paraphrase this stuff -- I always like to read the original source.
How do you feel aboout leashes, or the invisible fence (for dogs)?
It seems quite similar to me, but far more invasive -- brain implant?
But if, for instance, they had some little harness on the fish, that would probably bother the fix more.
Perhaps one day it will be possible to breed fish that follow properly encoded instructions (e.g. perhaps via flashing lights).
At the bottom of the page, there is a discussion of controlling the motion of farmed fish, which would allow them to be kept outside of cages. When it was time to harvest them, they'd assemble for harvesting. Otherwise they'd be free to swim around and spread their toxic fish waste, which would be better for the environment.
Although Apple did it, that's not proof that Napster could do it.
Apple is an integrated hardware/software company. Napster isn't, and probably couldn't become that in time.
I'm guessing that Napster was doomed; that there was no way out.