Google will have the same problem as Microsoft in this area, lack of a consistent platform and user play-back device. I think that Apple's success rides on the fact that they control the entire pipeline (sans content creation) and provide the user with a consistent and simple interface, with relative freedom for the user to listen when and where they want. I think that any other distributor will have a problem if they do not control or at least have a very strong influence over the distribution and play-back pipeline.
I would strongly disagree, read ADAM in the book for a legally and ethically thorough argument for active response. To generally disregard active response is a mistake and shows that the topic is miscategorized to only include strike-back and hack-back methodologies.
An argument can be made that aggressive tactics are ethically and legally questionable in certain situations - but not in ALL scenarios (e.g. air traffic control threats, national security/life/safety critical systems).
Active response has a much broader definition than what you are eluding too.
Thats a good list of some active response actions, a potential taxonomy of actions to begin with is presented in my west point paper, here is the short version:
No Action: A threat is detected, but no action is taken.
Internal Notification: Using the organizational structure to
notify the designated responder(s) of an active response situation.
Internal Response: Applying active response actions within the domain over which the responder has authority (e.g. close a threat vector's associated port).
External Cooperative Response: Employing entities external to
the responding organization to mitigate a threat.
Non-cooperative Intelligence Gathering: Using external
services (e.g. finger, nmap, netstat, etc.) to gather intelligence
on the threat. Sometimes referred to as ``look but don't touch.''
Non-cooperative `Cease and Desist': Stopping harmful and
unauthorized services (e.g. zombie control processes) without
compromising legitimate usability.
Counter-strike: An external action to reduce or deny the capabilities of an attacker to continue the attack.
Preemptive Defense: With knowledge of a forthcoming attack, execute active defense actions to preempt (and disable) the upcoming attack.
I am an author of ADAM (Ch 9) in the book, with Deb Frincke. I would like to point out that more information and resources on the topic of active defense and active response can be found at:
http://www.activeresponse.org
This is very good for those who are interested in protecting their own assets by using offensive techniques - this removes some of the uncertainty of who you are actually retaliating against.
www.activedefense.org
How are they determining hit songs? I mean obviously there has to be a set of 'hit' songs to derive the successful characteristics from. However, since the inception of pop music, they have used questionable tactics to get people to purchase music (e.g. paying radio stations to increase paying). And by that, aren't they only really selecting the songs that they told people to purchase or like, and not the ones that people actually like and would be a hit by themselves? You can't choose a set of unbiased hits, from a set that has already been biased by their marketing.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1128 (W.D. Wash. 2000)
The court greatly expanded the understanding of "protected computers" to mean any computer connected to the Internet; and also broadens the meaning of "exceeding authorized access" to using pre-existing authorization to "obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter."
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1128 (W.D. Wash. 2000)
The court greatly expanded the understanding of "protected computers" to mean any computer connected to the Internet; and also broadens the meaning of "exceeding authorized access" to using pre-existing authorization to "obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter."
Although a good idea, I dont read e-books because I really cant stand reading large documents on a screen. It is much more comfortable for me to read on a page.
Also, who thinks that e-books are such a good idea? We have paper documents going back 3000+ years (papyrus to be exact). But already disks from 10 years ago are obsolete. Electronic storage media is going obsolete so fast that I dont think I trust it to hold a record of humanity.
So apparently these password thingies are working out too well... how about a new option....just say the password we want outloud, then everytime we want to login, our dead relatives will relay the message to John Edward, who is conveniently stationed at our bank! He will then call us with any information that we require! (of course a service charge of $9.99 will apply)
Can anybody enlighten me on why it is so difficult to insist that voters approve their ballot on paper? I guess some think that since it is a computer, it wont make a mistake and computers are here to rid us of paper anyway. It just confuses (and scares) me.
SpookyFish, you make a good argument; however, think of Carnegie Steel - he did nothing but sell his steel so cheap that others couldnt compete (at the cost of his employees). There was no copying or selling of others products.
Sure, monopolies are catalysts for other businesses (Carnegie spawned many construction companies when steel prices were so cheap); but in that particular market, there can be little or no competition.
The problem with a monopoly isnt that its only bad when you start being an asshole about it, its that just the existance of a monopoly places unfair stress on a market thereby denying opportunities to other technologies (or what have you). This can occur without you even knowing about it - I can drive the price of something down and push a potential competitor out without even knowing about them - and I would be practicing good business, and I might even do it for good (non-asshole) reasons!
And everybody should worry about influential peoples' opinions - yes, even Linus. They may be knowledgeable, but cannot be correct all the time. Its important to be questioning of such influence.
"I don't give a fuck about your stock price!"
Finally, a man with a vision. I mean, great, he might be right sometimes, but how many good technologies might this man stop with a simple off-the-cuff remark in an article? A little too much power I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Google will have the same problem as Microsoft in this area, lack of a consistent platform and user play-back device. I think that Apple's success rides on the fact that they control the entire pipeline (sans content creation) and provide the user with a consistent and simple interface, with relative freedom for the user to listen when and where they want. I think that any other distributor will have a problem if they do not control or at least have a very strong influence over the distribution and play-back pipeline.
I would strongly disagree, read ADAM in the book for a legally and ethically thorough argument for active response. To generally disregard active response is a mistake and shows that the topic is miscategorized to only include strike-back and hack-back methodologies. An argument can be made that aggressive tactics are ethically and legally questionable in certain situations - but not in ALL scenarios (e.g. air traffic control threats, national security/life/safety critical systems). Active response has a much broader definition than what you are eluding too.
Thats a good list of some active response actions, a potential taxonomy of actions to begin with is presented in my west point paper, here is the short version:
No Action: A threat is detected, but no action is taken.
Internal Notification: Using the organizational structure to notify the designated responder(s) of an active response situation.
Internal Response: Applying active response actions within the domain over which the responder has authority (e.g. close a threat vector's associated port).
External Cooperative Response: Employing entities external to the responding organization to mitigate a threat.
Non-cooperative Intelligence Gathering: Using external services (e.g. finger, nmap, netstat, etc.) to gather intelligence on the threat. Sometimes referred to as ``look but don't touch.''
Non-cooperative `Cease and Desist': Stopping harmful and unauthorized services (e.g. zombie control processes) without compromising legitimate usability.
Counter-strike: An external action to reduce or deny the capabilities of an attacker to continue the attack.
Preemptive Defense: With knowledge of a forthcoming attack, execute active defense actions to preempt (and disable) the upcoming attack.
I am an author of ADAM (Ch 9) in the book, with Deb Frincke. I would like to point out that more information and resources on the topic of active defense and active response can be found at: http://www.activeresponse.org
Does this have any implications to sites which aggregate news through RSS sources? Just a question.
And if you work as a contractor..."travel time is billable time!"
This is very good for those who are interested in protecting their own assets by using offensive techniques - this removes some of the uncertainty of who you are actually retaliating against. www.activedefense.org
They are all rich, greedy bastards. Nothing to see here... move along.
How are they determining hit songs? I mean obviously there has to be a set of 'hit' songs to derive the successful characteristics from. However, since the inception of pop music, they have used questionable tactics to get people to purchase music (e.g. paying radio stations to increase paying). And by that, aren't they only really selecting the songs that they told people to purchase or like, and not the ones that people actually like and would be a hit by themselves? You can't choose a set of unbiased hits, from a set that has already been biased by their marketing.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1128 (W.D. Wash. 2000) The court greatly expanded the understanding of "protected computers" to mean any computer connected to the Internet; and also broadens the meaning of "exceeding authorized access" to using pre-existing authorization to "obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter."
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v. Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 199 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1128 (W.D. Wash. 2000)
The court greatly expanded the understanding of "protected computers" to mean any computer connected to the Internet; and also broadens the meaning of "exceeding authorized access" to using pre-existing authorization to "obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter."
Chalk one up for the stalkers!
Although a good idea, I dont read e-books because I really cant stand reading large documents on a screen. It is much more comfortable for me to read on a page. Also, who thinks that e-books are such a good idea? We have paper documents going back 3000+ years (papyrus to be exact). But already disks from 10 years ago are obsolete. Electronic storage media is going obsolete so fast that I dont think I trust it to hold a record of humanity.
I TOLD YOU SO
Its like watching the lakers/bulls win over and over, now I just tune in to watch him lose
So apparently these password thingies are working out too well... how about a new option....just say the password we want outloud, then everytime we want to login, our dead relatives will relay the message to John Edward, who is conveniently stationed at our bank! He will then call us with any information that we require! (of course a service charge of $9.99 will apply)
Can anybody enlighten me on why it is so difficult to insist that voters approve their ballot on paper? I guess some think that since it is a computer, it wont make a mistake and computers are here to rid us of paper anyway. It just confuses (and scares) me.
SpookyFish, you make a good argument; however, think of Carnegie Steel - he did nothing but sell his steel so cheap that others couldnt compete (at the cost of his employees). There was no copying or selling of others products.
Sure, monopolies are catalysts for other businesses (Carnegie spawned many construction companies when steel prices were so cheap); but in that particular market, there can be little or no competition.
The problem with a monopoly isnt that its only bad when you start being an asshole about it, its that just the existance of a monopoly places unfair stress on a market thereby denying opportunities to other technologies (or what have you). This can occur without you even knowing about it - I can drive the price of something down and push a potential competitor out without even knowing about them - and I would be practicing good business, and I might even do it for good (non-asshole) reasons!
And everybody should worry about influential peoples' opinions - yes, even Linus. They may be knowledgeable, but cannot be correct all the time. Its important to be questioning of such influence.
"I don't give a fuck about your stock price!" Finally, a man with a vision. I mean, great, he might be right sometimes, but how many good technologies might this man stop with a simple off-the-cuff remark in an article? A little too much power I think.