Your posting exhibits a fascinating level of stupidity, even for an AC. The receiver in this case does not see the nature of the thing before he looks at it. That already is enough to cause damage. This is far more like a letter-bomb.
The criticism is wrongly targeted: If it is legal to have these sites online, it is not the purpose of a search-engines to make any moral judgments or judgments as to truth. If it is illegal to have these sites online, then remove them. Anything else is exceptionally dangerous.
Search-engine "optimization" is something different though. That is an attack on the workings of the search-engine.
Well, yes. But the techniques that can be used to achieve that (censorship, coercion, propaganda, religion, laws, penalties,...) are dual-purpose and completely free of any inherent morality. In the past, whenever these were used, they were abused, and that is going to happen in the future as well. Allowing unrestricted free speech (well, with some limits as to inciting violence and slander targeted at individuals that are not public figures) is not a good solution. It is a pretty bad solution. But it is the best available one by a large margin.
You would also need to suppress all sites that claim there is _no_ live after death, because that is just as obviously bullshit. The actual scientific fact at this time is "nobody knows". Don't like that? Too bad.
Incidentally, and I think your and my example shows that nicely, the core problem with any kind of censorship is that as soon as you have a decision process on what is "true" and what is not, that process is open to manipulation.
The second part we had recently, I think several times. Watson starting to swear and that Microsoft Nazi killer teenage girl chatterbot come to mind.
Better AI is not even on the horizon though, as AI is still not something we have in any meaningful way. Got to have a thing before you can improve it.
You need to have a serious look into the literature. Nothing you propose works. And, incidentally, how is prevention not a goal, when getting one guy just frees up the whole bot-net to be grabbed by the next one?
And how does that happen, say, for children's toys containing lead? The problem seems to be pretty similar to me...
We are not talking about hard to find vulnerabilities either. We are talking things like telnet-access, default-passwords, no-passwords and no update possibilities. All not hard to determine.
Block it at the borders. Customs still has authority over what gets into the country via legal channels. It is not like these IoT devices were smuggled in. Sure, that would need to be done in a lot of countries, but a concerted effort is the only thing that helps anyways.
Very much this. The script-kiddies are at best vandals. Vandals are never the root-cause of a problem, they are just an annoyance. Those that allow this to happen when they could prevent it are willfully endangering critical infrastructure and that is just completely unacceptable.
The tiny problem with that is that penalties have zero preventative effect. Criminals do not assume they will get caught. Hence while this does serve a primitive desire for revenge, it will not do anything about the problem at all.
In addition, the penalty is quite out of proportion to the crime. In fact, the actual access will not even be a crime in many legislations, because the devices were not secured at all, no hacking needed. The real problem is badly secured and not-secured IoT devices. If you put open barrels of gasoline all over the city, it is really no surprise if it burns down and the person providing the spark that triggers it has actually only a very small part of the blame.
What should happen is that those operating grossly insecure IoT devices like we are talking about here should be subject to fines, say $200, and a discovery, blocking and unblocking fee of, say $100 to the ISP. If the ISP refuses to identify and block, have them pay that fee per instance. Users/ISPs can then try to get that back from the manufacturer. (Fat chance...) That would cut down on this nonsense pretty fast.
You can. And you can even read up on how to do it right. Add cover-traffic, and there is no way to ever identify where commands have been inserted into the bot-net. You lose a bit on the real-time control side, but not much. Using Tor here is a _convenience_, it is not a _necessity_.
Indeed. Tor is not the problem here. Anybody running a bot-net can already implement command-insertion in such a way that a command can be sent to any member-note and then gets distributed. That is basically untraceable if cover-traffic is also added. It takes a tiny bit more effort in implementing this though.
Please get at least basic facts right in stories: It crashed these routers, but it did not get in, as the vulnerability exploited was not present. A DoS vulnerability remained unfortunately, and the port the service was running on was globally reachable. Bad, but not nearly as bad as being vulnerable to "hijacking".
Indeed. Well said. A race to the bottom effectively destroys a society, because everybody will necessarily only think of themselves because that is the only way to survive. That cannot work.
Why do you want to limit peoples' choices and options? For many people it would mean that instead of earning a little extra cash on their schedule to make ends meet, they wouldn't have that option and wind up seeking government assistance and/or become homeless.
I don't. I am just pointing out that what is paid there is far too little to "earning a little extra cash" that counts, unless they are in a country with very, very low cost of living. Hence any perceived positive impact of these "jobs" may be mostly fictional.
I had a look at it a while back, and the only way to get to a salary you will not starve on seems to be to do the jobs so badly and fast that they just barely get accepted. Actually following the description on what you should do will get you paid much lower than that minimum wage.
Still, it was not completely worthless. Marissa changed that with her bad policies that made the hack possible. At this time, the actual worth of the company is probably a few hundred millions in the negative. She will still get to keep all the money she got paid despite delivering less than nothing. Power without responsibility is something that never produces a good outcome.
As Trump does not care about actually doing something for the unemployed and the poor, but would (at this time) very much like to give the apparency of caring, these numbers are just what he needs. As most of the press will not look too closely and most Trump voters either understand what is going on and do not mind (a minority) or are too stupid to understand the reality of things and that they are getting screwed, this will work fine.
IBM has bled talented people for quite a while and sacked a lot of others. They probably got rid of quite a few more people than they can actually afford at the moment and now can sell re-hiring some of them as great contribution. And in a year or two, they can quietly fire most of them again.
Slashdot Mirror
"Assault with a deadly weapon" seems to best cover it. The malicious intent is obvious, so not an accident or a "joke".
Your posting exhibits a fascinating level of stupidity, even for an AC. The receiver in this case does not see the nature of the thing before he looks at it. That already is enough to cause damage. This is far more like a letter-bomb.
The criticism is wrongly targeted: If it is legal to have these sites online, it is not the purpose of a search-engines to make any moral judgments or judgments as to truth. If it is illegal to have these sites online, then remove them. Anything else is exceptionally dangerous.
Search-engine "optimization" is something different though. That is an attack on the workings of the search-engine.
Well, yes. But the techniques that can be used to achieve that (censorship, coercion, propaganda, religion, laws, penalties, ...) are dual-purpose and completely free of any inherent morality. In the past, whenever these were used, they were abused, and that is going to happen in the future as well. Allowing unrestricted free speech (well, with some limits as to inciting violence and slander targeted at individuals that are not public figures) is not a good solution. It is a pretty bad solution. But it is the best available one by a large margin.
You would also need to suppress all sites that claim there is _no_ live after death, because that is just as obviously bullshit. The actual scientific fact at this time is "nobody knows". Don't like that? Too bad.
Incidentally, and I think your and my example shows that nicely, the core problem with any kind of censorship is that as soon as you have a decision process on what is "true" and what is not, that process is open to manipulation.
And incidentally, suppressing free speech is not a good idea, regardless of how stupid that speech may be.
The second part we had recently, I think several times. Watson starting to swear and that Microsoft Nazi killer teenage girl chatterbot come to mind.
Better AI is not even on the horizon though, as AI is still not something we have in any meaningful way. Got to have a thing before you can improve it.
Soooo disappointing.
In other news, search engines find what other people put out there, and page-rank sorts according to the links to the content.
So you do not mind the problem persisting as long as you can brutalize or kill a few people? Talk about a cave-man mindset.
You need to have a serious look into the literature. Nothing you propose works. And, incidentally, how is prevention not a goal, when getting one guy just frees up the whole bot-net to be grabbed by the next one?
And how does that happen, say, for children's toys containing lead? The problem seems to be pretty similar to me...
We are not talking about hard to find vulnerabilities either. We are talking things like telnet-access, default-passwords, no-passwords and no update possibilities. All not hard to determine.
Block it at the borders. Customs still has authority over what gets into the country via legal channels. It is not like these IoT devices were smuggled in. Sure, that would need to be done in a lot of countries, but a concerted effort is the only thing that helps anyways.
Very much this. The script-kiddies are at best vandals. Vandals are never the root-cause of a problem, they are just an annoyance. Those that allow this to happen when they could prevent it are willfully endangering critical infrastructure and that is just completely unacceptable.
The tiny problem with that is that penalties have zero preventative effect. Criminals do not assume they will get caught. Hence while this does serve a primitive desire for revenge, it will not do anything about the problem at all.
In addition, the penalty is quite out of proportion to the crime. In fact, the actual access will not even be a crime in many legislations, because the devices were not secured at all, no hacking needed. The real problem is badly secured and not-secured IoT devices. If you put open barrels of gasoline all over the city, it is really no surprise if it burns down and the person providing the spark that triggers it has actually only a very small part of the blame.
What should happen is that those operating grossly insecure IoT devices like we are talking about here should be subject to fines, say $200, and a discovery, blocking and unblocking fee of, say $100 to the ISP. If the ISP refuses to identify and block, have them pay that fee per instance. Users/ISPs can then try to get that back from the manufacturer. (Fat chance...) That would cut down on this nonsense pretty fast.
You can. And you can even read up on how to do it right. Add cover-traffic, and there is no way to ever identify where commands have been inserted into the bot-net. You lose a bit on the real-time control side, but not much. Using Tor here is a _convenience_, it is not a _necessity_.
Indeed. Tor is not the problem here. Anybody running a bot-net can already implement command-insertion in such a way that a command can be sent to any member-note and then gets distributed. That is basically untraceable if cover-traffic is also added. It takes a tiny bit more effort in implementing this though.
Please get at least basic facts right in stories: It crashed these routers, but it did not get in, as the vulnerability exploited was not present. A DoS vulnerability remained unfortunately, and the port the service was running on was globally reachable. Bad, but not nearly as bad as being vulnerable to "hijacking".
Indeed. Well said. A race to the bottom effectively destroys a society, because everybody will necessarily only think of themselves because that is the only way to survive. That cannot work.
Why do you want to limit peoples' choices and options? For many people it would mean that instead of earning a little extra cash on their schedule to make ends meet, they wouldn't have that option and wind up seeking government assistance and/or become homeless.
I don't. I am just pointing out that what is paid there is far too little to "earning a little extra cash" that counts, unless they are in a country with very, very low cost of living. Hence any perceived positive impact of these "jobs" may be mostly fictional.
I had a look at it a while back, and the only way to get to a salary you will not starve on seems to be to do the jobs so badly and fast that they just barely get accepted. Actually following the description on what you should do will get you paid much lower than that minimum wage.
Still, it was not completely worthless. Marissa changed that with her bad policies that made the hack possible. At this time, the actual worth of the company is probably a few hundred millions in the negative. She will still get to keep all the money she got paid despite delivering less than nothing. Power without responsibility is something that never produces a good outcome.
China has an overpopulation problem. Why ever would they clamp down on pornography? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
And without this bone, the standard is much shorter? Fascinating.
As Trump does not care about actually doing something for the unemployed and the poor, but would (at this time) very much like to give the apparency of caring, these numbers are just what he needs. As most of the press will not look too closely and most Trump voters either understand what is going on and do not mind (a minority) or are too stupid to understand the reality of things and that they are getting screwed, this will work fine.
IBM has bled talented people for quite a while and sacked a lot of others. They probably got rid of quite a few more people than they can actually afford at the moment and now can sell re-hiring some of them as great contribution. And in a year or two, they can quietly fire most of them again.