We do NOT need to protect our children from the evils on the Internet. We need to protect people in general. While the US might have more people who are gullible, there are gullible people all over the world. Computers are not simple to use and operate like a toaster, or other kitchen appliance. Even if they were, one look at the statistics of fire departments on the day before and the day of Thanksgiving should tell you that people, in general, are not competent to operate anything more complex than the shoestrings of their shoes.
You can buy a car that costs less than some computers, but still need a license to drive it, and insurance in case you get into a wreck. Why should computing be any different? Oh, don't believe in the nanny-state? Well, stfu about kids needing protection from the evils of the Internet. Yes, give me that argument that motor vehicles are a life and death issue, or could be. I'll argue this, losing your identity or giving your life savings to some Nigerian prince is more or less a life and death issue, especially if you need that money in the near future for heart medicine.
The point is, and well demonstrated in this report, that NOBODY is safe, and not just kids need some training and guidance. Using the Internet is not a game, and people should be taught better how to use it and avoid the pitfalls of modern life. If it sounds too good to be true, well it probably is. If someone is advertising it in an email, it probably is something you don't need or can live without. That goes also for television and other advertisements.
I think that it is high time we, the human race, began to look at things a bit more intelligently. False sense of security? If it were not for Dept. of Homeland Security, most people in the US would think that flying was safe. This and other such campaigns are not about raising awareness or traning, it is about selling antivirus and antimalware software.
Why this should come as a surprise to anyone is beyond me. How long did it take to get people to wear seatbelts? The public, at large, is wont to believe experts, yes, but this is true despite the news that those same experts are paid by large corporations more often than not, and have been shown to be less than 100% honest.
How long before 'made in China' means it is a lethal device? (won't happen) How long before people riot in the streets because the food we eat is not labeled correctly? (won't happen). This is just one more thing that the US populace in particular is blissfully ignoring. If you have to spend 2-6 months salary on something, you tend to figure out how it works and treat it with care, take it in for tune ups and such. How many reading this know of one or more people that just go get another pc when theirs acts up, or becomes slow?
Ranting done. If you can't get people to read directions on the kitchen appliances, or cleaning recommendations on the tag in their clothes, you can't protect them from the evils of the Internet. Who would have thought we'd need instructions (too small to read) on cigarette lighters to stop them from ending up in baby's mouths? or warning notes on coffee cups that the contents are hot? I don't want to imply that people are ignorant... but
taken care of in the manner of one trade secret at a time. Every time that you, as an employee, are exposed to information deemed a 'trade secret' then the employer should have you sign a specific agreement on THAT piece of information. The catch all non-compete is like agreeing to binding arbitration. Both are overly broad, and designed to give the other party the upper hand in all cases where the future brings conflict. Making such a promise is no more enforcible than the marriage vows many people take. Marriage was once viewed higher than today, but today, you can get a divorce with little or no real effort. The same should be for any particular 'business agreement' where money has not exchanged hands.
That is to say that if a court can find in favor of the non-compete agreement, you should be able to get a divorce, or sue for compensation. I do not know if this has been tested, but I'd bet a couple of court cases is all that would be required to break that camel's back.
I agree with you with one minor exception. The degree I would have had in computer science back in 1982 is totally fscking worthless now, in as much as nothing in the current IT field has anything (roughly speaking) to do with the technology and information at that time. Why should a BS degree make any difference. If I remember right, Bill G's is only honorary. So, when someone can explain how a BS has any real meaning in the test of what makes common sense.. well, then I'll agree that the tests for patents are roughly fair.
This is but one example of how the system is not in tune with the current way of things. There are 19 year old C-level execs. There was none of that when the USPTO was put together, and it was not envisioned. The information age has washed away the premises that were used in constructing the patent system. That, IMO, makes it invalid. IANAL, and I approve this message.
big problem. Forget that, the US is obviously bleeding dry financially from the ungrateful copyright infringers who can't even be considerate enough to log who downloaded files from their computer. No wonder congress won't fund the war in Iraq anymore, this is obviously an imminent danger to all of the world's economies. (end sarcasm) So each song that might have been downloaded has obviously been downloaded 9250 times? I wonder how much it would cost to hire hackers to find kazaa software installed on **AA servers? Perhaps they might find some seditious reading material to help us in the US all decide who to vote for in the coming presidential election. The MPAA's ISP was just served DMCA takedown notice because of their University Toolkit being in violation of the GPL http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/03/mpaas-university-wir.html I seriously wonder what else can be found to be wrong with the **AA's internet infrastructure.
The reasoning used in granting patents by the USPTO needs to have a new basic clause. The not-obvious one is not cutting it for new technology. Why don't we try something like "if it makes too much common sense, do not grant a patent"....
Oh, so you thought of a way to visually represent and access voicemails... hmmm, that makes a lot of fscking sense... nope, sorry, no patent.
Oh, sending emails to a mobile device.. yes, yes, that is indeed novel... but it just makes too much sense. Sorry, denied. Good luck in your future endeavors with the USPTO, thanks for playing.
I see, I see, sir, you want to use voice translation for writing on your computer. Hmmm it was indeed novel when Star Trek did it, but it just makes too much common sense to give you a patent.
an article on the future of listening to audio tapes?
When a thing becomes outmoded, don't we always let it fall to the side? I mean I don't see many people beating their steering wheel with a buggy whip. electronic reading materials and electronic readers are beginning to be more popular. The MPAA and major networks want you to watch a movie version of the book rather than read it. It's going to be a hard sell to get people to keep turning pages on a paper book. Does anyone reading this post have a set of encyclopedias? Encyclopedias were essential for raising smart kids - replaced. The Physician's Desk Reference used to be an important book about drugs - replaced. An unabridged dictionary was or should have been truly important - replaced.
Perhaps we would be better off to read articles on the ergonomics of new electronic books etc. I know that Ford is not going to re-introduce the Fairlane 500, nor will GE try to bring back hand operated washing machines. Some things are simply no longer appropriate for the great unwashed masses.
Actually, that may be the way things go, with the near typical science fiction results. The trouble with such a system (which should be obvious) is that it would be written/programmed by the same people that can't get security correct right now.
A leap in security technology will take a requisite leap in human intelligence. IDS systems do a couple of things well. Routers do a couple of things well. Antivirus software does a couple of things well. Nobody has put them all together in an intelligent way, nor have they replaced them with an intelligent alternative. Remember that any computer system is as dumb (read useless) as the dumbest asshat human operating it. (place old adage here) When you build an idiot proof system, the idiots only get smarter.
And I quote TFA
I'd like to officially modify my position somewhat: I believe it's increasingly likely that we'll suffer catastrophic failures in critical infrastructure systems by 2017. It probably won't be terrorists that do it, though. More likely, we'll suffer some kind of horrible outage because a critical system was connected to a non-critical system that was connected to the Internet so someone could get to MySpace -- and that ancillary system gets a piece of malware. Or it'll be some incomprehensibly complex software, layered with Band-Aids and patches, that topples over when some "merely curious" hacker pushes the wrong e-button. We've got some bad-looking trend lines; all the indicators point toward a system that is more complex, less well-understood and more interdependent. With infrastructure like that, who needs enemies? Not to be all pessimistic on the great new security shock and awe campaign, but it will only work when we can get universal agreement from all humans (and possible non-humans) to not mess with it or obstruct its operation in any way. (queue other bad science fiction films here) Uhmmm, yeah, that's going to happen. Tell me again, when will the last Win95 system be decommissioned?
total security... no really good security... possibly good enough security... probably thought it was good security... most likely
Security is expensive, difficult, inconvenient, troublesome, and seldom seems worth the cost.
Interestingly, right here on/. I have been modded troll for being a bit paranoid about the government's progressive march through our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Odd how one day paranoia is good, on another day it is not. Perhaps it's just the way it sounds coming out from under the tin foil hat? I think that now, more than ever, we need to be vigilant against any intrusion on our rights, any at all, no matter how small. All such forays into authoritarianism or fascism should be pushed back against as though it were the worst possible of all insults against the populace. While that seems rather paranoid and reactionary, I think that it is the only way to ensure that the constitution of the US remains in tact and functionally purposeful to the American public. Of course, that is just my opinion. I only hope I am not alone in thinking that way.
Will this sort of news be generated, or allowed, in order to remove the thoughts of the public from impeaching the criminals in the whitehouse? Yeah, I know that sounds a bit tin hat-ish, but it would not be the first time that some news item was used to distract attention from the news we, the people, are not supposed to pay attention to. Like the magician does, lets you see the one hand while the other is doing the tricks. I'm all for this, and hope the AG gets supreme satisfaction in the court system with it, but I'm also watching to see what else is happening elsewhere. The **AA is big business, and big business is shacked up with big government. In this year of election antics, you have to always wonder what is really happening....
Yes, foolish to let other governments have all the totalitarian fun. I'm reasonably certain that the current administration has been using their toys to spy on us all.
Hello and 'can you hear me' are the first two phrases that people learn when learning a new language. I remember the days when it was "I'll have another drink please" and "where is the bathroom", followed closely by "what's your sign?"
There are plenty. If the government knows how to find botnets, they know how to run their own. I am willing to bet that pretty much any government worth anything will be using them, or has been using them to spy on other countries. If you believe that the NSA is NOT using one, you need to go get a tin foil hat this afternoon, and I mean it.
Industrial espionage doesn't seem likely, but it is happening already. Those without visible malicious activities or results will go undetected. They are out there in the wild now. No, that is not just tin foil hattery, it is true. There have been a couple of cases of espionage already uncovered and prosecuted. It would have stayed undetected had it not been for human error in the loop.
Imagine a virus that has one goal... to find a computer with your name as a user. Then, with galactic sized patience, waits... deleting one file per week, the oldest.txt file on the computer, or the oldest.xls file on the computer... or any.ppt files on mounted network shares that are older than 6 months (after copying them to some unknown IP address across the globe somewhere). This virus looks like a computer program owned by and run by a user. It goes undetected for several years... data loss is attributed to poor system performance/upgrades/hardware failures.
It has stored itself on network drives so that it can re-infect later if needed.
Malicious software is more dangerous than you think, and already this type of software is out there in the wild.
Seriously? I thought real people grew out of social networking when they got out of college...
Here were are at the obvious end conclusion. Social networking sites are not bad just for children, they are bad, period. Diary books normally come with a lock and key, social network sites come with an invitation for you to share your personal diary with the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world has any desire to read it or not. Social networking is to the Internet what reality tv is to video based entertainment. If we could get the pages judged by American Idol judges, perhaps it would be a bit better, but as long as bright neon spandex clothing continues to be sold in XXXL sizes, social networking sites will continue to plague society.
I personally think it is a bonus feature for my next job interview that I don't have a social networking account.
How many automobile manufacturers were there at the beginning of the 20th century? How many do we have now? Since the number of manufacturers has changed little at all, or even shrunk, can we assume that even with astronomical growth in the use of automobiles, that there is something wrong with the automotive industry?
While that doesn't quite fit perfectly, I think it makes a point. If your 25 coders are putting out code good enough for astronomical use growth, then no more coders are needed. Every OSS project does NOT have to turn into a MS look alike to be successful. I think the author needs to re-evaluate their definition of success here. The hummer vehicles are successful as business goes, but there is not one in every driveway in North America yet. I have some very successful code, and there are 3 users total. It hums along nicely, 24/7 doing it's thing and all the end users are happy. It does not have astronomical growth, but it is SUCCESSFUL.
Why does F/OSS HAVE to compete with MS? That's not really rhetorical. For most of what I do, OO is absolutely great. I have no need to run and load MS Office. To me, OO is successful. I don't have to drive a Silver Ghost to have a great car. Tomcat and Apache are very successful at what they do because (IMO) MS sucked at that job and offered no real competition.
MP3 players are a successful market... not because of the superior sound quality, or because they were made by MS, but because they do their intended job very well. Some better than others, but all do the job. In the software world, it seems rare that there are more than two options for a given product precisely because of MS (not counting Mac products). If you only had a choice between an H1 hummer and a Mitsubishi Galant, or a BMW motorocycle... which would you drive?
The insistence that software must be like MS is at best absurd, and at worse, it's the worst thing that could happen to the F/OSS software industry.
I don't have links handy to throw at you, but yes, there is much data with regard to cogs and gears and stress. If you look at gearing of any kind, you will see that it is not simply square symmetrical construction. the beveling and other tapers on the teeth are there to reduce wear and stress while providing as much strength as needed. Some of the shaping of gear teeth is to lessen the slack and provide more precision in the geared movement. It is possible that the silicon gears are not able to be shaped in the same ways that large metal gears are, thus providing a weak point for long term use. Such shaping of the teeth is even apparent in Lego toys. That tells you how important it is for long term use. If the silicon gears are more or less symmetrical square construction, I cannot imagine them lasting for long term use.
Not to worry, at the rate the US is turning out hobbyist engineers, I'm fairly certain that cheap hobby launches to Mars will be commonplace in 10 years at the lunar Googleplex... http://stellarmaps.google.com/sol/
You got mod points, but it doesn't seem like you are putting emphasis where it needs to be. With what was stated in the bill, it is also plausible that public libraries, Popular Science magazine, the Radio Shack catalog, the USPS, the public switched phone systems, and dozens of other things that might qualify as helping to spread terrorist ideals, assist in terrorist activities, or otherwise be used by terrorists.
We all know the folly of prohibition. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I think that applies here. The Internet does NOT need to be singled out, and by doing so elected officials are signaling their intent to scrutinize and censor the Internet. Do you really think that the Internet had anything to do with the OK city bombing, or the Unabomber? Do you think that the Internet helped the DC snipers? do you think that law enforcement will use any valid data they get on terrorist activities from the Internet... or will they fsck it up like they did with the relevant data they had about the 9/11 plan to use planes? To date I have not seen ONE case where post 9/11 knee jerk reactions and Patriot Act provisions have helped to stop any terrorist activity. In fact, all the actual successes I've heard of came about through standard pre-9/11 law enforcement methods.
Don't naysay people who worry just because your myopic view of the writing on the wall is all blurry. Remember, in the beginning the Patriot act seemed like a good idea to a lot of people. In fact it seemed like a good idea to the very people that are suggesting this bill be passed into legislation. fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me !
You, and the rest of the world, would do well to be VERY worried about anything that even suggests a hint that it might be the intent to monitor, datamine, censor, or filter the Internet by the government. Do you think that the Great Firewall of China is a good idea? You should read how the Chinese government describes it.
If the Internet is abused in anyway in the name of security from terrorism, sit back and wait until you need permission to buy bug spray for your house, or you get a visit from the Feds when you purchase household chemicals in one month period that can be used to create explosive devices. Wait till your car/truck has to be searched prior to entering any major metropolitan area.
How long will it be before you give up all your freedom for these little efforts that don't ACTUALLY say that they intend to use them to take your freedoms?
And finally: For fsck sake man! Why are we now fighting 'home grown terrorism' at all? when the Unabomber was active.. did we need this? When the DC snipers were active, did we need to fight home grown terrorism? When the OKC bombing took place, did we need laws to fight home grown terrorism? The short answer is NO. The reason that we need it now is so that the executive branch can continue to push war powers privileges to further shrink the rights of citizens. As long as there is a WAR on terror or drugs, they will get to push your rights right down the toilet. Terrorists, and the origin of the term comes from the French Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism and guess which side the 'terrorists' were on? Every successful terrorist has broken at least a couple normal laws that are already in force. Making special provisions or laws for crimes committed by people who are 'deemed' terrorists is nothing more than a tool to take your liberties.
Should we call mass murderers terrorists? Should we call arsonists terrorists? Should we call anti-war protesters terrorists? Should we call gay-bashers terrorists since they are promoting their ideology through violent action? Sure, now lets just lump in all hate crimes... hell, lets just make any violent crime a terrorist offense. That kid that started the fires in California: is he a terrorist? And you are totally screwed if you do something unusual in Boston, perhaps there we can call jaywalker
When I was a kid, I did not know that playing with estes model rockets was actually making me a rocket scientist!!
On the lighter side, this is just one more step toward open source styled science. I'm glad to see it. It will slowly break the stranglehold that big military business has on such ventures, and hopefully spread the wealth around a little bit better.
Necessity is still the mother of invention. All you have to do is look at problems that will not be solved next year, and think a little bit about it, you too can be a futurist. I'm not saying you will be great at it, but you can be a futurist. Being able to predict likely future trends used to be something useful and difficult to do. With the advent of the Internet, you have a veritable research facility in your home. What? you need to know about materials engineering? Google it bro! Oh, need to know about animal husbandry? Google it bro! At no previous time in man's history has so much information been available to so many people. I really am saddened to see that such is left out of the loop on how the future is going to look.
We are currently at some point of compromise between where society was when the original Star Trek was written, and where it predicts we will eventually go. The world has become much more flat, as they say, with regard to commerce, news, politics, and many other things. None of this seems to be affecting technology predictions. Well, I'll make a prediction; the things I've just mentioned will have a far greater impact on future technology than people generally give credence to.
Look at the results of what some of the current technology will bring: Health insurance industry upheaval with bio-tech innovations; big pharma industry upset with open source style medicines; auto insurance upheaval with computer driven vehicles; in general, all of the current trend in innovation is about to upset the big business apple cart. Trouble with this is not that things will change, but that third and second world countries are better poised to take advantage of it as it happens. Big businesses will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on their markets with the same determination that we have seen the **AA use. There is no good that can come from this.
I also predict that business will change in general. There will be polarization of business practices. Simply opening a company with one cash cow will not be good enough. There will be more vertical integration of business as well as more single mom-n-pop salons. Walmart and their ilk will crumble under their own weight. That seems to contradict what I said of vertical integration, but it does not. There will be more self reliance in business as technology becomes more important, and wise CEO's will see that they need in-house expertise rather than simply paying someone else to do what they can no longer trust another company to do for them. As the world becomes more flat, and regulation of industries becomes more equalized, it will not be possible for some huge multinationals to remain that way. Yes, shrinking profits is what is ahead for the globe.
It will take only one invention to upset the entire global economy, say for instance, free fuel. Hydrogen power for free or very cheap and made open source would destabilize a huge section of the global economy. None of these 'futurists' seem to get any of that in their predictions.... ?
but if all that could be done successfully, wouldn't it already exist as a set of ruby on rails scripts?
Seriously, I believe that until processors/hardware works with the OS to sandbox applications correctly, there is no really effective way to sanitize the Internet, and there are some really good reasons for not doing so.
At least some malware uses the OS features to hide itself, and propagate itself. Much of the rest of it relies on users to initialize it locally. Tell me how that will automatically be removed from the internet. Try to eliminate all threats is the same whack-a-mole game as trying to stop file sharing outright. Sure, might theoretically be a good idea, but in practice there are some gaping huge holes in the process.
No matter how smart you make the software, the routers, or the Internet in general, there will be some finance guy that thinks he knows IT in a small company that allows his servers to get owned. Thanks to the 1000s like him, the rest of the internet will have to continue fighting the 'malware' forever. False positives aside, the task of eliminating security risks from an Internet where Win95 is still running is a bit more than daunting.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, had I known it would be (gasp) read and repeated, I might have been more careful with my writing style. Go ahead, doesn't bother me a bit :)
We do NOT need to protect our children from the evils on the Internet. We need to protect people in general. While the US might have more people who are gullible, there are gullible people all over the world. Computers are not simple to use and operate like a toaster, or other kitchen appliance. Even if they were, one look at the statistics of fire departments on the day before and the day of Thanksgiving should tell you that people, in general, are not competent to operate anything more complex than the shoestrings of their shoes.
You can buy a car that costs less than some computers, but still need a license to drive it, and insurance in case you get into a wreck. Why should computing be any different? Oh, don't believe in the nanny-state? Well, stfu about kids needing protection from the evils of the Internet. Yes, give me that argument that motor vehicles are a life and death issue, or could be. I'll argue this, losing your identity or giving your life savings to some Nigerian prince is more or less a life and death issue, especially if you need that money in the near future for heart medicine.
The point is, and well demonstrated in this report, that NOBODY is safe, and not just kids need some training and guidance. Using the Internet is not a game, and people should be taught better how to use it and avoid the pitfalls of modern life. If it sounds too good to be true, well it probably is. If someone is advertising it in an email, it probably is something you don't need or can live without. That goes also for television and other advertisements.
I think that it is high time we, the human race, began to look at things a bit more intelligently. False sense of security? If it were not for Dept. of Homeland Security, most people in the US would think that flying was safe. This and other such campaigns are not about raising awareness or traning, it is about selling antivirus and antimalware software.
Why this should come as a surprise to anyone is beyond me. How long did it take to get people to wear seatbelts? The public, at large, is wont to believe experts, yes, but this is true despite the news that those same experts are paid by large corporations more often than not, and have been shown to be less than 100% honest.
How long before 'made in China' means it is a lethal device? (won't happen) How long before people riot in the streets because the food we eat is not labeled correctly? (won't happen). This is just one more thing that the US populace in particular is blissfully ignoring. If you have to spend 2-6 months salary on something, you tend to figure out how it works and treat it with care, take it in for tune ups and such. How many reading this know of one or more people that just go get another pc when theirs acts up, or becomes slow?
Ranting done. If you can't get people to read directions on the kitchen appliances, or cleaning recommendations on the tag in their clothes, you can't protect them from the evils of the Internet. Who would have thought we'd need instructions (too small to read) on cigarette lighters to stop them from ending up in baby's mouths? or warning notes on coffee cups that the contents are hot? I don't want to imply that people are ignorant... but
taken care of in the manner of one trade secret at a time. Every time that you, as an employee, are exposed to information deemed a 'trade secret' then the employer should have you sign a specific agreement on THAT piece of information. The catch all non-compete is like agreeing to binding arbitration. Both are overly broad, and designed to give the other party the upper hand in all cases where the future brings conflict. Making such a promise is no more enforcible than the marriage vows many people take. Marriage was once viewed higher than today, but today, you can get a divorce with little or no real effort. The same should be for any particular 'business agreement' where money has not exchanged hands.
That is to say that if a court can find in favor of the non-compete agreement, you should be able to get a divorce, or sue for compensation. I do not know if this has been tested, but I'd bet a couple of court cases is all that would be required to break that camel's back.
I agree with you with one minor exception. The degree I would have had in computer science back in 1982 is totally fscking worthless now, in as much as nothing in the current IT field has anything (roughly speaking) to do with the technology and information at that time. Why should a BS degree make any difference. If I remember right, Bill G's is only honorary. So, when someone can explain how a BS has any real meaning in the test of what makes common sense.. well, then I'll agree that the tests for patents are roughly fair.
This is but one example of how the system is not in tune with the current way of things. There are 19 year old C-level execs. There was none of that when the USPTO was put together, and it was not envisioned. The information age has washed away the premises that were used in constructing the patent system. That, IMO, makes it invalid. IANAL, and I approve this message.
big problem. Forget that, the US is obviously bleeding dry financially from the ungrateful copyright infringers who can't even be considerate enough to log who downloaded files from their computer. No wonder congress won't fund the war in Iraq anymore, this is obviously an imminent danger to all of the world's economies. (end sarcasm) So each song that might have been downloaded has obviously been downloaded 9250 times? I wonder how much it would cost to hire hackers to find kazaa software installed on **AA servers? Perhaps they might find some seditious reading material to help us in the US all decide who to vote for in the coming presidential election. The MPAA's ISP was just served DMCA takedown notice because of their University Toolkit being in violation of the GPL http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/03/mpaas-university-wir.html I seriously wonder what else can be found to be wrong with the **AA's internet infrastructure.
covered in greygoo created in someone's kitchen with toys from Matel?
The reasoning used in granting patents by the USPTO needs to have a new basic clause. The not-obvious one is not cutting it for new technology. Why don't we try something like "if it makes too much common sense, do not grant a patent"....
Oh, so you thought of a way to visually represent and access voicemails... hmmm, that makes a lot of fscking sense... nope, sorry, no patent.
Oh, sending emails to a mobile device.. yes, yes, that is indeed novel... but it just makes too much sense. Sorry, denied. Good luck in your future endeavors with the USPTO, thanks for playing.
I see, I see, sir, you want to use voice translation for writing on your computer. Hmmm it was indeed novel when Star Trek did it, but it just makes too much common sense to give you a patent.
an article on the future of listening to audio tapes?
When a thing becomes outmoded, don't we always let it fall to the side? I mean I don't see many people beating their steering wheel with a buggy whip. electronic reading materials and electronic readers are beginning to be more popular. The MPAA and major networks want you to watch a movie version of the book rather than read it. It's going to be a hard sell to get people to keep turning pages on a paper book. Does anyone reading this post have a set of encyclopedias? Encyclopedias were essential for raising smart kids - replaced. The Physician's Desk Reference used to be an important book about drugs - replaced. An unabridged dictionary was or should have been truly important - replaced.
Perhaps we would be better off to read articles on the ergonomics of new electronic books etc. I know that Ford is not going to re-introduce the Fairlane 500, nor will GE try to bring back hand operated washing machines. Some things are simply no longer appropriate for the great unwashed masses.
A leap in security technology will take a requisite leap in human intelligence. IDS systems do a couple of things well. Routers do a couple of things well. Antivirus software does a couple of things well. Nobody has put them all together in an intelligent way, nor have they replaced them with an intelligent alternative. Remember that any computer system is as dumb (read useless) as the dumbest asshat human operating it. (place old adage here) When you build an idiot proof system, the idiots only get smarter.
And I quote TFA I'd like to officially modify my position somewhat: I believe it's increasingly likely that we'll suffer catastrophic failures in critical infrastructure systems by 2017. It probably won't be terrorists that do it, though. More likely, we'll suffer some kind of horrible outage because a critical system was connected to a non-critical system that was connected to the Internet so someone could get to MySpace -- and that ancillary system gets a piece of malware. Or it'll be some incomprehensibly complex software, layered with Band-Aids and patches, that topples over when some "merely curious" hacker pushes the wrong e-button. We've got some bad-looking trend lines; all the indicators point toward a system that is more complex, less well-understood and more interdependent. With infrastructure like that, who needs enemies? Not to be all pessimistic on the great new security shock and awe campaign, but it will only work when we can get universal agreement from all humans (and possible non-humans) to not mess with it or obstruct its operation in any way. (queue other bad science fiction films here) Uhmmm, yeah, that's going to happen. Tell me again, when will the last Win95 system be decommissioned?
total security... no
really good security... possibly
good enough security... probably
thought it was good security... most likely
Security is expensive, difficult, inconvenient, troublesome, and seldom seems worth the cost.
Interestingly, right here on /. I have been modded troll for being a bit paranoid about the government's progressive march through our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Odd how one day paranoia is good, on another day it is not. Perhaps it's just the way it sounds coming out from under the tin foil hat? I think that now, more than ever, we need to be vigilant against any intrusion on our rights, any at all, no matter how small. All such forays into authoritarianism or fascism should be pushed back against as though it were the worst possible of all insults against the populace. While that seems rather paranoid and reactionary, I think that it is the only way to ensure that the constitution of the US remains in tact and functionally purposeful to the American public. Of course, that is just my opinion. I only hope I am not alone in thinking that way.
Will this sort of news be generated, or allowed, in order to remove the thoughts of the public from impeaching the criminals in the whitehouse? Yeah, I know that sounds a bit tin hat-ish, but it would not be the first time that some news item was used to distract attention from the news we, the people, are not supposed to pay attention to. Like the magician does, lets you see the one hand while the other is doing the tricks. I'm all for this, and hope the AG gets supreme satisfaction in the court system with it, but I'm also watching to see what else is happening elsewhere. The **AA is big business, and big business is shacked up with big government. In this year of election antics, you have to always wonder what is really happening....
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=374805&cid=21522989
Yes, foolish to let other governments have all the totalitarian fun. I'm reasonably certain that the current administration has been using their toys to spy on us all.
Hello and 'can you hear me' are the first two phrases that people learn when learning a new language. I remember the days when it was "I'll have another drink please" and "where is the bathroom", followed closely by "what's your sign?"
There are plenty. If the government knows how to find botnets, they know how to run their own. I am willing to bet that pretty much any government worth anything will be using them, or has been using them to spy on other countries. If you believe that the NSA is NOT using one, you need to go get a tin foil hat this afternoon, and I mean it.
.txt file on the computer, or the oldest .xls file on the computer... or any .ppt files on mounted network shares that are older than 6 months (after copying them to some unknown IP address across the globe somewhere). This virus looks like a computer program owned by and run by a user. It goes undetected for several years... data loss is attributed to poor system performance/upgrades/hardware failures.
Industrial espionage doesn't seem likely, but it is happening already. Those without visible malicious activities or results will go undetected. They are out there in the wild now. No, that is not just tin foil hattery, it is true. There have been a couple of cases of espionage already uncovered and prosecuted. It would have stayed undetected had it not been for human error in the loop.
Imagine a virus that has one goal... to find a computer with your name as a user. Then, with galactic sized patience, waits... deleting one file per week, the oldest
It has stored itself on network drives so that it can re-infect later if needed.
Malicious software is more dangerous than you think, and already this type of software is out there in the wild.
Seriously? I thought real people grew out of social networking when they got out of college...
Here were are at the obvious end conclusion. Social networking sites are not bad just for children, they are bad, period. Diary books normally come with a lock and key, social network sites come with an invitation for you to share your personal diary with the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world has any desire to read it or not. Social networking is to the Internet what reality tv is to video based entertainment. If we could get the pages judged by American Idol judges, perhaps it would be a bit better, but as long as bright neon spandex clothing continues to be sold in XXXL sizes, social networking sites will continue to plague society.
I personally think it is a bonus feature for my next job interview that I don't have a social networking account.
How many automobile manufacturers were there at the beginning of the 20th century? How many do we have now? Since the number of manufacturers has changed little at all, or even shrunk, can we assume that even with astronomical growth in the use of automobiles, that there is something wrong with the automotive industry?
While that doesn't quite fit perfectly, I think it makes a point. If your 25 coders are putting out code good enough for astronomical use growth, then no more coders are needed. Every OSS project does NOT have to turn into a MS look alike to be successful. I think the author needs to re-evaluate their definition of success here. The hummer vehicles are successful as business goes, but there is not one in every driveway in North America yet. I have some very successful code, and there are 3 users total. It hums along nicely, 24/7 doing it's thing and all the end users are happy. It does not have astronomical growth, but it is SUCCESSFUL.
Why does F/OSS HAVE to compete with MS? That's not really rhetorical. For most of what I do, OO is absolutely great. I have no need to run and load MS Office. To me, OO is successful. I don't have to drive a Silver Ghost to have a great car. Tomcat and Apache are very successful at what they do because (IMO) MS sucked at that job and offered no real competition.
MP3 players are a successful market... not because of the superior sound quality, or because they were made by MS, but because they do their intended job very well. Some better than others, but all do the job. In the software world, it seems rare that there are more than two options for a given product precisely because of MS (not counting Mac products). If you only had a choice between an H1 hummer and a Mitsubishi Galant, or a BMW motorocycle... which would you drive?
The insistence that software must be like MS is at best absurd, and at worse, it's the worst thing that could happen to the F/OSS software industry.
I don't have links handy to throw at you, but yes, there is much data with regard to cogs and gears and stress. If you look at gearing of any kind, you will see that it is not simply square symmetrical construction. the beveling and other tapers on the teeth are there to reduce wear and stress while providing as much strength as needed. Some of the shaping of gear teeth is to lessen the slack and provide more precision in the geared movement. It is possible that the silicon gears are not able to be shaped in the same ways that large metal gears are, thus providing a weak point for long term use. Such shaping of the teeth is even apparent in Lego toys. That tells you how important it is for long term use. If the silicon gears are more or less symmetrical square construction, I cannot imagine them lasting for long term use.
or did anyone else see 'silicon fatigue' and immediately think of something more mammalian in nature?
Not to worry, at the rate the US is turning out hobbyist engineers, I'm fairly certain that cheap hobby launches to Mars will be commonplace in 10 years at the lunar Googleplex... http://stellarmaps.google.com/sol/
turn out like a bad nightmare after watching A clockwork Orange ??
You got mod points, but it doesn't seem like you are putting emphasis where it needs to be. With what was stated in the bill, it is also plausible that public libraries, Popular Science magazine, the Radio Shack catalog, the USPS, the public switched phone systems, and dozens of other things that might qualify as helping to spread terrorist ideals, assist in terrorist activities, or otherwise be used by terrorists.
We all know the folly of prohibition. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. I think that applies here. The Internet does NOT need to be singled out, and by doing so elected officials are signaling their intent to scrutinize and censor the Internet. Do you really think that the Internet had anything to do with the OK city bombing, or the Unabomber? Do you think that the Internet helped the DC snipers? do you think that law enforcement will use any valid data they get on terrorist activities from the Internet... or will they fsck it up like they did with the relevant data they had about the 9/11 plan to use planes? To date I have not seen ONE case where post 9/11 knee jerk reactions and Patriot Act provisions have helped to stop any terrorist activity. In fact, all the actual successes I've heard of came about through standard pre-9/11 law enforcement methods.
Don't naysay people who worry just because your myopic view of the writing on the wall is all blurry. Remember, in the beginning the Patriot act seemed like a good idea to a lot of people. In fact it seemed like a good idea to the very people that are suggesting this bill be passed into legislation. fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me !
You, and the rest of the world, would do well to be VERY worried about anything that even suggests a hint that it might be the intent to monitor, datamine, censor, or filter the Internet by the government. Do you think that the Great Firewall of China is a good idea? You should read how the Chinese government describes it.
If the Internet is abused in anyway in the name of security from terrorism, sit back and wait until you need permission to buy bug spray for your house, or you get a visit from the Feds when you purchase household chemicals in one month period that can be used to create explosive devices. Wait till your car/truck has to be searched prior to entering any major metropolitan area.
How long will it be before you give up all your freedom for these little efforts that don't ACTUALLY say that they intend to use them to take your freedoms?
And finally: For fsck sake man! Why are we now fighting 'home grown terrorism' at all? when the Unabomber was active.. did we need this? When the DC snipers were active, did we need to fight home grown terrorism? When the OKC bombing took place, did we need laws to fight home grown terrorism? The short answer is NO. The reason that we need it now is so that the executive branch can continue to push war powers privileges to further shrink the rights of citizens. As long as there is a WAR on terror or drugs, they will get to push your rights right down the toilet. Terrorists, and the origin of the term comes from the French Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism and guess which side the 'terrorists' were on? Every successful terrorist has broken at least a couple normal laws that are already in force. Making special provisions or laws for crimes committed by people who are 'deemed' terrorists is nothing more than a tool to take your liberties.
Should we call mass murderers terrorists? Should we call arsonists terrorists? Should we call anti-war protesters terrorists? Should we call gay-bashers terrorists since they are promoting their ideology through violent action? Sure, now lets just lump in all hate crimes... hell, lets just make any violent crime a terrorist offense. That kid that started the fires in California: is he a terrorist? And you are totally screwed if you do something unusual in Boston, perhaps there we can call jaywalker
something with a handgun and a foot?
When I was a kid, I did not know that playing with estes model rockets was actually making me a rocket scientist!!
On the lighter side, this is just one more step toward open source styled science. I'm glad to see it. It will slowly break the stranglehold that big military business has on such ventures, and hopefully spread the wealth around a little bit better.
Necessity is still the mother of invention. All you have to do is look at problems that will not be solved next year, and think a little bit about it, you too can be a futurist. I'm not saying you will be great at it, but you can be a futurist. Being able to predict likely future trends used to be something useful and difficult to do. With the advent of the Internet, you have a veritable research facility in your home. What? you need to know about materials engineering? Google it bro! Oh, need to know about animal husbandry? Google it bro! At no previous time in man's history has so much information been available to so many people. I really am saddened to see that such is left out of the loop on how the future is going to look.
We are currently at some point of compromise between where society was when the original Star Trek was written, and where it predicts we will eventually go. The world has become much more flat, as they say, with regard to commerce, news, politics, and many other things. None of this seems to be affecting technology predictions. Well, I'll make a prediction; the things I've just mentioned will have a far greater impact on future technology than people generally give credence to.
Look at the results of what some of the current technology will bring: Health insurance industry upheaval with bio-tech innovations; big pharma industry upset with open source style medicines; auto insurance upheaval with computer driven vehicles; in general, all of the current trend in innovation is about to upset the big business apple cart. Trouble with this is not that things will change, but that third and second world countries are better poised to take advantage of it as it happens. Big businesses will fight tooth and nail to keep their stranglehold on their markets with the same determination that we have seen the **AA use. There is no good that can come from this.
I also predict that business will change in general. There will be polarization of business practices. Simply opening a company with one cash cow will not be good enough. There will be more vertical integration of business as well as more single mom-n-pop salons. Walmart and their ilk will crumble under their own weight. That seems to contradict what I said of vertical integration, but it does not. There will be more self reliance in business as technology becomes more important, and wise CEO's will see that they need in-house expertise rather than simply paying someone else to do what they can no longer trust another company to do for them. As the world becomes more flat, and regulation of industries becomes more equalized, it will not be possible for some huge multinationals to remain that way. Yes, shrinking profits is what is ahead for the globe.
It will take only one invention to upset the entire global economy, say for instance, free fuel. Hydrogen power for free or very cheap and made open source would destabilize a huge section of the global economy. None of these 'futurists' seem to get any of that in their predictions.... ?
but if all that could be done successfully, wouldn't it already exist as a set of ruby on rails scripts?
Seriously, I believe that until processors/hardware works with the OS to sandbox applications correctly, there is no really effective way to sanitize the Internet, and there are some really good reasons for not doing so.
At least some malware uses the OS features to hide itself, and propagate itself. Much of the rest of it relies on users to initialize it locally. Tell me how that will automatically be removed from the internet. Try to eliminate all threats is the same whack-a-mole game as trying to stop file sharing outright. Sure, might theoretically be a good idea, but in practice there are some gaping huge holes in the process.
No matter how smart you make the software, the routers, or the Internet in general, there will be some finance guy that thinks he knows IT in a small company that allows his servers to get owned. Thanks to the 1000s like him, the rest of the internet will have to continue fighting the 'malware' forever. False positives aside, the task of eliminating security risks from an Internet where Win95 is still running is a bit more than daunting.