As I said in my message, I don't want to make the argument the city didn't overreact at all. Even if you grant my argument that the response to the initial device on the bridge support column was not an overreaction, at some point during the day they should have figured out there was no real threat. Any disruption after that point was an overreaction.
But you (anonymously) argue that the goal of successful terrorists is to disguise their bombs, ergo the city should assume anything that looks like it could be a bomb is safe. Thank God you're not the police chief in my town.
Line up the facts about the first one the police saw:
1) positioned on a bridge column - a structural support to a major artery (not exactly prime ad space)
2) obvious electrical components, including a circuit board and sensors
3) a seemingly anti-societal "message" - a character chucking the finger. Not exactly "yankee go home" or "Death to the USA," but easily conceivable as a message (part of many terrorists' SOP).
4) no obvious explosive substance, but the device is large enough to cover an area large enough behind it to hide adequate explosives for some damage.
I have no problem with police shutting down the bridge while checking it out. If you don't for this, what would you do it for? This? Oh, wait. I forgot. Police should only react if it doesn't look like a bomb. Come to think of it, as a GP stated in his "ridiculous [sic]" scenario, you don't look like a bomb. Would you mind waiting over
here while we check you out?
Had this been found on the side of a bar, the reaction would have been less. Had this been found in a dumpster, it would have been ignored. But planted on a highway support column where few people would see it?
OK, so fast forward to a few hours later, the city still acting like planes are en route to the Hancock Tower and Prudential building... I'm not sure when I would say the city crossed over from cautious to stupid, but I don't know anyone outside of city hall who thinks they didn't make the cross over at some point, myself included.
why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario?
Your completely logical argument only applies here if you make the assumption this situation was "similarly ridiculous [sic]"
The only debate here is whether or not these devices could or should have been mistaken for bombs. The first device reported to the police was found on a support beam for a major highway bridge in a spot practically no one would ever see it - perfect spot for a bomb, not so perfect spot for an advertisement.
However, while I can understand treating that discovery a little more cautiously, that was at 8:18AM. The city government (along with the feds) disrupted the city for another 12 hours after. I don't think the city overreacted on that first one. I'm not so sure I want to take the side that the city didn't overreact for the rest of the day.
And I certainly don't want to take the side that "you can distribute crudely constructed electrical devices throughout a city and be free of responsibility for it." You can't yell fire in a theatre when it's not, no matter how much you believe in the first amendment. By the same argument, you can't haphazardly make it look like the theatre is on fire when it's not, either.
You are correct, right from the subject line you gave this thread. The truth is, this is just way too stupid a "feature problem" to be called an actual exploit.
The problem is, the IT world doesn't really have a another word that sinks down to the level of ineptitude this "exploit" shows.
I mean... come on. Was I the only one who rechecked his calendar to make sure this wasn't some kind of April Fool's joke? This is real?!?
Geez...this is like suing the street corner where young kids hang out at
This analogy is flawed in one critical way. The street corner is a public space, with no one person or private organization burdened with implied responsibility for anyone's actions but their own.
One can make the argument that the internet as a whole is public space, and indeed the subsidies the telcos get should carry with it the responsibility that they keep it in the puclis domain. This viewpoint, which I personally agree with, is at the core of the net neutrality debate.
But contrary to trends especially evident here, myspace and other social sites on the internet are NOT public space.
However, and I say this as a parent of two, I do still agree the vast bulk of the responsibility in cases like these resides in the parents. MySpace is to some extent private, but it is my responsibility, not MySpace's, to stop my kids from going to someone' elses "property,", or to supervise them while there.
Myspace is obligated to exercise due diligence to prevent people within their private space from breaking the law, no different than a McDonald's could be liable if it knowingly looked the other way while a sexual predator accosted chilren in its playground. But you cannot expect McDonald's to screen everyone who wants to come into their store, and neither McDonald's nor MySpace is offering babysitting service. If I as a parent allow my kids to go unsupervised to McDonald's while I depart for whereabouts other, McDonald's would have no extra obligation for the safety of my kids. In fact, if they were young enough, McDonald's could even be obligated to stop MY crime of abandoning them by calling the police to report children being left alone on their property.
I have a great idea for a funny post... I'll make a reference to trying to get the first post, but say I put it off too long!
Hmmm... I should probably read the posts to make sure I'm not the second guy to come up with this "second guy" idea...
Note to self... read posts to reasearch rsik* of being tagged redundant when I get around to it.
*2nd note to self... spell check when I get around to it, too.
--OK, I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, though I did almost become one once upon a time. However, {cue someone who knows what they're talking about to rip me one}
-Blah blah blah blah...blah. BOTTOM LINE, you Slashdot nincompoops...
Perhaps I should limit the point to physics, but I think it holds true for other sciences as well to varying degrees.
More and more, the path to scientific "discovery" has been led more by mathematical speculation than by experimental observation. As the trend continues, experimental observation is becoming more the tool to verify or invalidate mathematical paradigms than it is to discover new unanswered questions.
The most obvious example is string theory, the debate about which continues as to whether or not it is more mathematical philosophy than practical science.
But even going back to relativity, the trend was started. Relativity, while it sought to answer some specific unanswered questions of its time, was a coldly logical and yet highly speculative mathematical analysis, as it led to many repercussions not provable experimentally or observationally for decades. The experiments which led to the unanswered questions relativity sought to answer were actually very few, though they were vexing. The implications arrived at mathematically were the true advancements of relativity.
OK, I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, though I did almost become one once upon a time. However, {cue someone who knows what they're talking about to rip me one}
I would think it far stranger to hear that Microsoft was proactively suing people who targeted other companies. After all, I'm sure every MSFT stock owner would love to hear their company was spending money protecting Google, Yahoo, eBay, and [insert-your-bank-name-here].
This reference to prior applications gave me an idea...
I'm going to patent inventing things. My concept is that "by creating new things, you improve efficiency." You can improve productivity in a number of ways, including just by working harder (see my other patent filing). This patent seeks to cover the process of inventing new processes.
And I'm going to refernce everyone who came before me and had the audacity to use my process to create things.
But I'm going to have to strongly oppose any plan that uses nukular weapons in space. I'm strongly opposed to the possibility of introducing nukular fallout in space.
Symantec has released it into the wild. Here's how it works.
The computer receives the virus into RAM, usually via the processing of input received from it's visual sensors, interfacing with language banks. For the virus to take hold, the computer must be improperly "patched," in that it holds incomplete definitions of what a computer virus is.
Thusly imporperly patched, with an inadequate understanding of what is truly dangerous to its silicon counterpart, the incompletely educated human computer incorrectly processes the information, making the false decision that a financial invesment in Symantec products are in order.
The virus spreads itself to other human computers through the need-to-appear-smart subroutine.
In order to protect itself, the human computer should run the program http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/viruses/i ntro_viruses_what.mspx, which is simply an educational program, designed to infuse into the human computer an understanding about computer viruses. It is a free program offered by the computer company most experienced in viruses.
If the reporting is truly unfair, the Diebold should sue, in a court of law.
Anything else is just posturing, and should be treated (read: ignored) as such.
Now this being Slashdot, I think we all know how we feel about whether or not their machines are secure.
Re:Is it all BS? Is Christopher Alexander bullshit
on
Slashdot's Vastu
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
a collective pattern language.
This phrase summarizes the only real redeaming quality of "sciences" like Feng Shui.
The truth is, there is no "science" behind these collective wisdoms. But that doesn't mean all of the conclusions derived are by definition wrong. Unscientific and wrong are not the same thing.
Once upon a time, collective wisdom (in some areas of human civilization) stated that the sun rose every day, carried on the chariot of a God. One could argue that this perception derived from the collective experience of a shared physical observation, the human desire to understand that experience, and the state of human understanding of the world at the time. Many religious beliefs could be seen to have possibly been derived this way.
Now, a citizen could use that understanding to predict the sun would rise the next day (cloud cover aside). Very unscientific, as the belief Helios was at work was based on very unprovable assumptions. But the prediction could hardly be called wrong.
Collective wisdom can provide valuable information, even if the method it is arrived at is little more tha trial and error with a folk explanation on top of it. The folk explanation could be seen as being a handed down tag-on from a "knowledgible leader" ages back who capatilized on mankind's need to understand as a means of self promotion.
I should make a habit of these activities, perform my daily demon clensing ritual...I'l call it a shower. My methods are a bit off, but is my conclusion wrong?
Maybe, maybe not.
Of course, until Slashdot readers actually start taking showers, we'll never know.
Slashdot Mirror
But you (anonymously) argue that the goal of successful terrorists is to disguise their bombs, ergo the city should assume anything that looks like it could be a bomb is safe. Thank God you're not the police chief in my town.
Line up the facts about the first one the police saw:
1) positioned on a bridge column - a structural support to a major artery (not exactly prime ad space)
2) obvious electrical components, including a circuit board and sensors
3) a seemingly anti-societal "message" - a character chucking the finger. Not exactly "yankee go home" or "Death to the USA," but easily conceivable as a message (part of many terrorists' SOP).
4) no obvious explosive substance, but the device is large enough to cover an area large enough behind it to hide adequate explosives for some damage.
I have no problem with police shutting down the bridge while checking it out. If you don't for this, what would you do it for? This? Oh, wait. I forgot. Police should only react if it doesn't look like a bomb. Come to think of it, as a GP stated in his "ridiculous [sic]" scenario, you don't look like a bomb. Would you mind waiting over here while we check you out?
Had this been found on the side of a bar, the reaction would have been less. Had this been found in a dumpster, it would have been ignored. But planted on a highway support column where few people would see it?
OK, so fast forward to a few hours later, the city still acting like planes are en route to the Hancock Tower and Prudential building... I'm not sure when I would say the city crossed over from cautious to stupid, but I don't know anyone outside of city hall who thinks they didn't make the cross over at some point, myself included.
Your completely logical argument only applies here if you make the assumption this situation was "similarly ridiculous [sic]"
The only debate here is whether or not these devices could or should have been mistaken for bombs. The first device reported to the police was found on a support beam for a major highway bridge in a spot practically no one would ever see it - perfect spot for a bomb, not so perfect spot for an advertisement.
However, while I can understand treating that discovery a little more cautiously, that was at 8:18AM. The city government (along with the feds) disrupted the city for another 12 hours after. I don't think the city overreacted on that first one. I'm not so sure I want to take the side that the city didn't overreact for the rest of the day.
And I certainly don't want to take the side that "you can distribute crudely constructed electrical devices throughout a city and be free of responsibility for it." You can't yell fire in a theatre when it's not, no matter how much you believe in the first amendment. By the same argument, you can't haphazardly make it look like the theatre is on fire when it's not, either.
Now the aliens know where to aim their bunker buster lasers.
I fixed your typo for ewe.
Readers of /. know the proper statement is...
MicroSoft's most effective detractors are their own execs.
The problem is, the IT world doesn't really have a another word that sinks down to the level of ineptitude this "exploit" shows.
I mean... come on. Was I the only one who rechecked his calendar to make sure this wasn't some kind of April Fool's joke? This is real?!?
-- this is the internet, you can say fucking.
This is Slashdot. No one here has the slightest clue what fucking is.
This analogy is flawed in one critical way. The street corner is a public space, with no one person or private organization burdened with implied responsibility for anyone's actions but their own.
One can make the argument that the internet as a whole is public space, and indeed the subsidies the telcos get should carry with it the responsibility that they keep it in the puclis domain. This viewpoint, which I personally agree with, is at the core of the net neutrality debate.
But contrary to trends especially evident here, myspace and other social sites on the internet are NOT public space.
However, and I say this as a parent of two, I do still agree the vast bulk of the responsibility in cases like these resides in the parents. MySpace is to some extent private, but it is my responsibility, not MySpace's, to stop my kids from going to someone' elses "property,", or to supervise them while there.
Myspace is obligated to exercise due diligence to prevent people within their private space from breaking the law, no different than a McDonald's could be liable if it knowingly looked the other way while a sexual predator accosted chilren in its playground. But you cannot expect McDonald's to screen everyone who wants to come into their store, and neither McDonald's nor MySpace is offering babysitting service. If I as a parent allow my kids to go unsupervised to McDonald's while I depart for whereabouts other, McDonald's would have no extra obligation for the safety of my kids. In fact, if they were young enough, McDonald's could even be obligated to stop MY crime of abandoning them by calling the police to report children being left alone on their property.
Hmmm... I should probably read the posts to make sure I'm not the second guy to come up with this "second guy" idea...
Note to self... read posts to reasearch rsik* of being tagged redundant when I get around to it.
*2nd note to self... spell check when I get around to it, too.
... Google searches for Myers-Briggs have shot through the roof.
--OK, I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, though I did almost become one once upon a time. However, {cue someone who knows what they're talking about to rip me one}
-Blah blah blah blah...blah. BOTTOM LINE, you Slashdot nincompoops...
Well, that wasn't exactly what I had in mind.
Perhaps I should limit the point to physics, but I think it holds true for other sciences as well to varying degrees.
More and more, the path to scientific "discovery" has been led more by mathematical speculation than by experimental observation. As the trend continues, experimental observation is becoming more the tool to verify or invalidate mathematical paradigms than it is to discover new unanswered questions.
The most obvious example is string theory, the debate about which continues as to whether or not it is more mathematical philosophy than practical science.
But even going back to relativity, the trend was started. Relativity, while it sought to answer some specific unanswered questions of its time, was a coldly logical and yet highly speculative mathematical analysis, as it led to many repercussions not provable experimentally or observationally for decades. The experiments which led to the unanswered questions relativity sought to answer were actually very few, though they were vexing. The implications arrived at mathematically were the true advancements of relativity.
OK, I'm not a scientist or a mathematician, though I did almost become one once upon a time. However, {cue someone who knows what they're talking about to rip me one}
True. But, more and more, science is becoming mathematics.
Where, exactly, did you install the Linksys?
I would think it far stranger to hear that Microsoft was proactively suing people who targeted other companies. After all, I'm sure every MSFT stock owner would love to hear their company was spending money protecting Google, Yahoo, eBay, and [insert-your-bank-name-here].
I'm going to patent inventing things. My concept is that "by creating new things, you improve efficiency." You can improve productivity in a number of ways, including just by working harder (see my other patent filing). This patent seeks to cover the process of inventing new processes.
And I'm going to refernce everyone who came before me and had the audacity to use my process to create things.
You all owe me big time.
I'll believe it when I see it. I mean, if I had a dolla...
Hold on... I have to take this call.
You forgot Hooloovoo: a superintelligent shade of the color blue and colour: one of two ways to spell "color"
Why am I now filled with the un-deletable image of Spock, crying in front of flotsam?
But I'm going to have to strongly oppose any plan that uses nukular weapons in space. I'm strongly opposed to the possibility of introducing nukular fallout in space.
Symantec has released it into the wild. Here's how it works.
The computer receives the virus into RAM, usually via the processing of input received from it's visual sensors, interfacing with language banks. For the virus to take hold, the computer must be improperly "patched," in that it holds incomplete definitions of what a computer virus is.
Thusly imporperly patched, with an inadequate understanding of what is truly dangerous to its silicon counterpart, the incompletely educated human computer incorrectly processes the information, making the false decision that a financial invesment in Symantec products are in order.
The virus spreads itself to other human computers through the need-to-appear-smart subroutine.
In order to protect itself, the human computer should run the program http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/viruses/i ntro_viruses_what.mspx, which is simply an educational program, designed to infuse into the human computer an understanding about computer viruses. It is a free program offered by the computer company most experienced in viruses.
If the reporting is truly unfair, the Diebold should sue, in a court of law.
Anything else is just posturing, and should be treated (read: ignored) as such.
Now this being Slashdot, I think we all know how we feel about whether or not their machines are secure.
This phrase summarizes the only real redeaming quality of "sciences" like Feng Shui.
The truth is, there is no "science" behind these collective wisdoms. But that doesn't mean all of the conclusions derived are by definition wrong. Unscientific and wrong are not the same thing.
Once upon a time, collective wisdom (in some areas of human civilization) stated that the sun rose every day, carried on the chariot of a God. One could argue that this perception derived from the collective experience of a shared physical observation, the human desire to understand that experience, and the state of human understanding of the world at the time. Many religious beliefs could be seen to have possibly been derived this way.
Now, a citizen could use that understanding to predict the sun would rise the next day (cloud cover aside). Very unscientific, as the belief Helios was at work was based on very unprovable assumptions. But the prediction could hardly be called wrong.
Collective wisdom can provide valuable information, even if the method it is arrived at is little more tha trial and error with a folk explanation on top of it. The folk explanation could be seen as being a handed down tag-on from a "knowledgible leader" ages back who capatilized on mankind's need to understand as a means of self promotion.
I should make a habit of these activities, perform my daily demon clensing ritual...I'l call it a shower. My methods are a bit off, but is my conclusion wrong?
Maybe, maybe not.
Of course, until Slashdot readers actually start taking showers, we'll never know.
So, then, by the book, crypto has only been around for, what, 30 hours?