I know, most people will say there's nothing wrong with the joke since it's about video games, but when you know someone who's been raped, anything that mentions it loses all humor.
We keep hearing how Microsoft has been a big part of the current economic boom and how breaking up Microsoft would be a blow to the U.S. economy. My question is, how much do you think this will affect the judge's decision? If he finds they did break the law, would he let them off with a slap on the wrist in order to protect the economy? If it goes to the Supreme Court, how would they take the economy into account?
When BO becomes a program that can bypass security, I'll get scared.
Somebody installs B.O. on your computer without your knowledge and is then able to access your computer remotely. My friend, this is the DEFINITION of bypassing security.
You have a chance to do something about this - you can protect your data. If the government trys to screw with you (or any part of the government), they can do it out in the open, and if you try to stop them you'll be resisting arrest.
There are ways to resist that don't involve fighting with a cop. If you understood our society, & our legal system in particular, just a little better, you might realize that.
And even if this is true, & the gov't is out to get all of us, it still doesn't make cracking right! That's been my point all along, but somehow it got lost in people's ranting about the gov't being out to get them.
And sometimes, only the parinoid survive...
No, the paranoid get medication, those with common sense survive...
Indeviduals with their own agenda, and the power of the entire USA backing them if they decide to screw with us...
Those 2 things are mutually exclusive. If you have a bunch of people, each with their own agenda, do you really think they would all be willing to work together to screw over one person? For every conspiracy there is an equal and opposite conspirarcy.
Now, as much fun as this has been, I've gotten bored with this discussion. If anyone would like to continue with the topic this thread was supposed to be about (whether or not cracking is wrong, in case anybody has forgotten), I will be happy to respond. Any more replies from the "The gov't is covering up the fact that aliens assassinated JFK!" camp will be ignored.
Wow, you mean crackers have been arming themselves and kicking down people's doors in the middle of the night? Crackers have been confiscating people's property and refusing to give it back even after the confiscatee has been proven innocent of crime? Damn, them crackers are getting aggressive.
They arm themselves with programs like B.O. and kick down your security measures any time of the day or night. They confiscate your data and refuse to give it back even though you've done nothing to them. You're right, they're getting damn aggressive.
So you're telling me that your life wouldn't be screwed up if somebody erased all your data, stole your identity, spent thousands of dollars & committed numerous crimes under your name? You're lucky...
Which works fairly well until the government decides to classify the evidence against you, or to disallow your legal strategy because it would deprive the government of a neat tool...
Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere? You've really been watching too many movies. The gov't is not out to get you. I hate to break it to you, but you're not that important.
I think what people like you fail to realize is that the gov't is not a single entity working for a single goal. It's made up of individuals, like you & me. The conspiracies you see around every corner are not likely to stay secret long, nor to be as wide spread as you think, in a system like ours.
Well, there are these things called firewalls and security policies, you know. Tell me, when the issue of house burglaries comes up, do you put locks on your doors and windows, or do you whine about the moral character of the burglars and expect the government to solve the problem for you and absolve you of the need to do anything? Hey, at least the crackers are forced to play by the same rules you are; the government can change the rules as it likes to give itself an advantage.
Ok, what's your address? I'll come by some night, break into your house, and steal all your stuff. But don't call the police... because it's your fault for not having good enough locks.
Crackers DO NOT play by the same rules I do -- I don't break into people's computers. Regardless of what the gov't does, cracking is wrong. Quit trying to blame the gov't for all the ills of society. And quit whining that, "Oh, the gov't was mean to me, so that means I can do whatever I want to whoever I want." Grow up. You think the system is wrong, CHANGE IT. Just leave my computer alone.
So, it's ok for Joe Hacker to break into my computer, but not the government? I have to say, I'd rather it be the government. They're just looking for evidence to convict me of something, where a hacker could be looking to crash my computer and/or steal my identity.
Granted, the DOJ should have used the term "cracker" rather than "hacker," but most people associate hacking with criminal activity, and more people are familiar with that word.
And, yes, the DOJ is being hypocritical. But look at it from their point of view. I don't think they're out to "get" anybody, they honestly believe they're protecting the "American way of life." Their methods are sometimes underhanded, but their intentions are good. The stuff on their website is intended to be a good lesson for children. What we need to do is support laws that force them to apply those same lessons to their methods. That's the way to fight hyprocrisy, not by saying, "since the government does it, you can too."
Sorry, but that's not all separation of church *insert-whatever-word-makes-you-happy* state was intended for. Why do we not have a state-sponsored religion? So that people can worship (or not worship) however they please. If the schools teach Christian creationism, they are pressuring those who are not Christians to conform.
I agree, there can be church-related things in the state. "In God We Trust." But if the schools teach creationism, they are actively pushing one religion over all others.
I have to say, I agree with New Mexico's decision. If the standard of separation of church and state is to be upheld in public schools, then either no creationism can be taught, or every major religion and/or ethnic group's creation story needs to be presented as a possibility.
It was a TV show a long time ago about these 7 people getting stranded on a desert island. Hilarity ensued. If you turn your brain off for half an hour, you could enjoy it.:-)
Or does his article contradict itself? He chastises the London Sunday Times for not checking their facts, then attacks Jane's for their attempt at getting the story right.
I think Jane's realized something that more media outlets are going to understand as technology stories become evan more popular. The audience for these stories tend to be knowledgable on the subject and can be very critical of flawed articles. I can't tell you how many articles I've read that explain the Y2K bug and obviously didn't know what they were talking about. So Jane's gave their audience the chance to correct the story before it went to print, which I think was a great idea. It's refreshing to see the media admit it doesn't know everything.
BTW, has anybody driven the new 2000 Mitsubishi Nerderati? That's a sweet ride...:-)
I don't think I want to be in a position of authority if it means giving up my right to free speech. If my opinions offend the stockholders, let them hire somebody else. (Not that I'll ever have the opportunity to worry about that:-) )
I guess some people think it's worth it, though. But do we really want people in control (whether it's corporations or the government) that will so readily back down from their opinions in order to keep their power?
As for the media focusing on individuals, I don't think you can blame the media for that. People in general like to have a real person they can rally around. It's hard to like or dislike an organization. It's easier if you can put a face on it. How much do you think Bill Gates is actually involved in writing code for Win2K? My guess: none. But when we are using it (and, unfortunately, we will) and we get the blue screen of death (and, unfortunately, we will), who's name will we curse?
First of all, in an article just last week, wasn't Katz saying that if we're not careful we'll be enslaved by AI? Now he says we should let an AI program decide what we see?
I don't want Clotho.org to turn back the clock, just to regulate the pace of change, leave me the dignity of autonomy, and do me the courtesy of letting me check my own refrigerator for milk instead of letting a digitalized refrigerator do it.
He wants to check his refrigerator himself, but he wants a computer to tell him what to read?
As far as I'm concerned, Clotho could screen out virtually every debate on every Washington talk show and the country's civic life would be improved a thousand times overnight. This means I'd almost never heard anything from Washington, a technological boon to humanity if there ever was one.
So the country would be better off if voters were less informed about politics? How much less informed can they be?
1. Is this information necessary? Do we need to know it? Does it advance knowledge, inform or entertain us? Or does it tell us something we already know, provide a service when we can easily do ourselves, replicate what already exists?
If Clotho filters out things that provide services we can easily do ourself, won't she kill herself?
Anyway, those are some of the things this article made me think about. Perhaps Katz should have thought about those things before he published it...
Have we ever built a blender we couldn't turn off, or a car, or a computer? My point is, humans would not build tools without safety measures. If someone did create true AI (which I believe is inevitable), they would not be so careless as to design it in such a way that it would want to take over.
"Ok," you say, "but what about when computers build computers that build computers..." I don't believe it would be that complicated to tell the first computer, "Build me a smarter computer, just make sure it doesn't hate me." You make sure those instructions keep getting passed down, you're safe.
People are always pointing to stories like 2001 and Frankenstein and calling them lessons on what happens when humans "play God." Sorry, folks, it's simpler than that: It makes the story interesting. How exciting would a story be about a robot that was created and worked exactly as it was supposed to and didn't cause any problems?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I know, most people will say there's nothing wrong with the joke since it's about video games, but when you know someone who's been raped, anything that mentions it loses all humor.
http://billy.j.mabray/
This is the same technology that causes a stamp to stick to an envelope after it's been licked...
human://billy.j.mabray/
We keep hearing how Microsoft has been a big part of the current economic boom and how breaking up Microsoft would be a blow to the U.S. economy. My question is, how much do you think this will affect the judge's decision? If he finds they did break the law, would he let them off with a slap on the wrist in order to protect the economy? If it goes to the Supreme Court, how would they take the economy into account?
They should give the award to Microsoft... posthumously. :-)
human://billy.j.mabray/
And even if this is true, & the gov't is out to get all of us, it still doesn't make cracking right! That's been my point all along, but somehow it got lost in people's ranting about the gov't being out to get them. No, the paranoid get medication, those with common sense survive... Those 2 things are mutually exclusive. If you have a bunch of people, each with their own agenda, do you really think they would all be willing to work together to screw over one person? For every conspiracy there is an equal and opposite conspirarcy.
Now, as much fun as this has been, I've gotten bored with this discussion. If anyone would like to continue with the topic this thread was supposed to be about (whether or not cracking is wrong, in case anybody has forgotten), I will be happy to respond. Any more replies from the "The gov't is covering up the fact that aliens assassinated JFK!" camp will be ignored.
human://billy.j.mabray/
So you're telling me that your life wouldn't be screwed up if somebody erased all your data, stole your identity, spent thousands of dollars & committed numerous crimes under your name? You're lucky... Shouldn't you be out on a ledge somewhere? You've really been watching too many movies. The gov't is not out to get you. I hate to break it to you, but you're not that important.
I think what people like you fail to realize is that the gov't is not a single entity working for a single goal. It's made up of individuals, like you & me. The conspiracies you see around every corner are not likely to stay secret long, nor to be as wide spread as you think, in a system like ours. Ok, what's your address? I'll come by some night, break into your house, and steal all your stuff. But don't call the police... because it's your fault for not having good enough locks.
Crackers DO NOT play by the same rules I do -- I don't break into people's computers. Regardless of what the gov't does, cracking is wrong. Quit trying to blame the gov't for all the ills of society. And quit whining that, "Oh, the gov't was mean to me, so that means I can do whatever I want to whoever I want." Grow up. You think the system is wrong, CHANGE IT. Just leave my computer alone.
human://billy.j.mabray/
I hear donalds.com is suing McDonald's for the same reason...
human://billy.j.mabray/
Why did I come to work early this morning? In fact, why am I putting in any time at work at all, if there isn't any?
I would consider these questions more, but I'm going home...
human://billy.j.mabray/
The cracker can do both.
The government has a system for me to work within to protect myself.
The cracker doesn't.
human://billy.j.mabray/
So, it's ok for Joe Hacker to break into my computer, but not the government? I have to say, I'd rather it be the government. They're just looking for evidence to convict me of something, where a hacker could be looking to crash my computer and/or steal my identity.
Granted, the DOJ should have used the term "cracker" rather than "hacker," but most people associate hacking with criminal activity, and more people are familiar with that word.
And, yes, the DOJ is being hypocritical. But look at it from their point of view. I don't think they're out to "get" anybody, they honestly believe they're protecting the "American way of life." Their methods are sometimes underhanded, but their intentions are good. The stuff on their website is intended to be a good lesson for children. What we need to do is support laws that force them to apply those same lessons to their methods. That's the way to fight hyprocrisy, not by saying, "since the government does it, you can too."
human://billy.j.mabray/
Now we can start work on that Tower of Babel again. :-)
human://billy.j.mabray/
Sorry, but that's not all separation of church *insert-whatever-word-makes-you-happy* state was intended for. Why do we not have a state-sponsored religion? So that people can worship (or not worship) however they please. If the schools teach Christian creationism, they are pressuring those who are not Christians to conform.
I agree, there can be church-related things in the state. "In God We Trust." But if the schools teach creationism, they are actively pushing one religion over all others.
human://billy.j.mabray/
I have to say, I agree with New Mexico's decision. If the standard of separation of church and state is to be upheld in public schools, then either no creationism can be taught, or every major religion and/or ethnic group's creation story needs to be presented as a possibility.
human://billy.j.mabray/
It was a TV show a long time ago about these 7 people getting stranded on a desert island. Hilarity ensued. If you turn your brain off for half an hour, you could enjoy it. :-)
human://billy.j.mabray/
Sit right back & we'll tell a tale,
A tale of a fateful show,
That started as a ratings ploy,
With an idea that really did blow.
The producer was a slimy weasel,
The director dumb as slop,
16 idiots set sail that day,
For a 7 week flop,
A 7 week flop.
human://billy.j.mabray/
Or does his article contradict itself? He chastises the London Sunday Times for not checking their facts, then attacks Jane's for their attempt at getting the story right.
:-)
I think Jane's realized something that more media outlets are going to understand as technology stories become evan more popular. The audience for these stories tend to be knowledgable on the subject and can be very critical of flawed articles. I can't tell you how many articles I've read that explain the Y2K bug and obviously didn't know what they were talking about. So Jane's gave their audience the chance to correct the story before it went to print, which I think was a great idea. It's refreshing to see the media admit it doesn't know everything.
BTW, has anybody driven the new 2000 Mitsubishi Nerderati? That's a sweet ride...
human://billy.j.mabray/
I don't think I want to be in a position of authority if it means giving up my right to free speech. If my opinions offend the stockholders, let them hire somebody else. (Not that I'll ever have the opportunity to worry about that :-) )
I guess some people think it's worth it, though. But do we really want people in control (whether it's corporations or the government) that will so readily back down from their opinions in order to keep their power?
As for the media focusing on individuals, I don't think you can blame the media for that. People in general like to have a real person they can rally around. It's hard to like or dislike an organization. It's easier if you can put a face on it. How much do you think Bill Gates is actually involved in writing code for Win2K? My guess: none. But when we are using it (and, unfortunately, we will) and we get the blue screen of death (and, unfortunately, we will), who's name will we curse?
human://billy.j.mabray/
Anyway, those are some of the things this article made me think about. Perhaps Katz should have thought about those things before he published it...
human://billy.j.mabray/
Have we ever built a blender we couldn't turn off, or a car, or a computer? My point is, humans would not build tools without safety measures. If someone did create true AI (which I believe is inevitable), they would not be so careless as to design it in such a way that it would want to take over.
:-)
"Ok," you say, "but what about when computers build computers that build computers..." I don't believe it would be that complicated to tell the first computer, "Build me a smarter computer, just make sure it doesn't hate me." You make sure those instructions keep getting passed down, you're safe.
People are always pointing to stories like 2001 and Frankenstein and calling them lessons on what happens when humans "play God." Sorry, folks, it's simpler than that: It makes the story interesting. How exciting would a story be about a robot that was created and worked exactly as it was supposed to and didn't cause any problems?
Billy
It's mindboggling that someone would do that for a *bowling* game. Sounds like the next thing they need to steal is a marketing research department...