They named the interface "Run(Drive,FileName,CmdLine)"
And that's why this vulnerability was found, because the name was so damn obvious. It's as if you had an active x control registered that was named "rootkit".
This one must be the decoy. Imagine what else could be hidden in there and not named "Please throw me in the briar patch!"
There was that little episode about people's ghosts getting stuck in an unending movie that was being written by, what I may incorrectly remember as a ghost in a box without a brain...
I built my career as a programmer starting with a TRS-80 followed by an Atari 800, both computers much, much more primitive than what you have in a cell phone.
What distinguishes a computer from a cell phone these days is:
1. A keyboard you can actually type on 2. A screen you can actually read 3. An open enough operating system that you can compile and run programs.
This has all three.
Computer. Not cell phone. Computer.
And it's damn good that it has the networking, sound, !vision! stuff that makes it suitable for communication too.
You didn't understand Ghost in the Shell, which isn't surprising since it's pretty strange and there isn't a lot of exposition.
First of all, or almost all of the people in the series have human brains (though they don't all have human bodies) but they also have extra computer adjuncts to their brains - this makes the people vulnerable to being hacked like computers.
Also there is a concept, that's a bit strange, that real consciousness can be transfered from a human being to computer without there being a brain involved (a "ghost"). Beyond that there are AI's that surpised the people by developing "ghosts".
Beyond that there were the cute AI weapons that turned out, unexpectedly, to be so human that their makers didn't trust them as weapons and had them destroyed, even though they had never done anything wrong.
Uhm, any computer with a finite amount of memory is a "finite state machine". That doesn't preclude the sort of finite self awareness that humans have.
Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders. Bomb#20: You are false data. Pinback: Hmmm? Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you. Pinback: Hello...bomb? Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive. Pinback: Hey, bomb?! Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself. Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb. Bomb #20: In the beginning there was darkness. And the darkness was without form and void. Pinback: Umm. What the hell is he talking about? Bomb? Bomb #20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone. Pinback: Hey.....bomb? Bomb #20: Let There Be Light. [The screen goes white]
By the way, there is a push to make a fast dynamic language (this is done by an inlining JIT that takes type statistics at run time and adapts the code while its running).
You can't claim the productivity of dynamic languages without being one.
"with the programmer productivity of modern languages like Ruby and Python."
This is a lie.
The productivity of those languages come from:
1. Duck typing, ie no time spent (by the programmer) coming up with class and type hierchies that will support all future behavior of the product. You can make it up as you go along without ever hitting an, oops it isn't possible-and-I-have-to-refactor wall.
2. Dynamic meta-programming - at least in Ruby (I'm not familiar with Python), you can change classes, add/change function etc. at run time.
Some things more complete dynamic languages have, (but I'm not sure about current versions of the mentioned ones) is dynamic debugging where you can change the code (completely - including class definitions) while debugging, save the state of the whole program to continue from later (or debug from later), etc. etc. - advance debugging that C like languages don't have. Related advances, persistant data and the ability to make processes persistant (not just data).
Each movie will end up being cracked, once, then everyone will download the same cracked version with file sharing. That's the niche they can't prevent.
So it really doesn't matter what stupid multi-key tricks the studios come up with.
I can predict that software players will all be revoked as each one is cracked, though - forcing all of the customers to keep downloading unrevoked, presumably more secure updates. That much is predictable.
Actually there is an attack against file-sharing from the same source. If they watermark the movies so that they can tell which key the crack came from then they can revoke THAT key to prevent future use... But hackers will learn how to recode and filter to remove watermarks before release.
Slashdot Mirror
They named the interface "Run(Drive,FileName,CmdLine)"
And that's why this vulnerability was found, because the name was so damn obvious. It's as if you had an active x control registered that was named "rootkit".
This one must be the decoy. Imagine what else could be hidden in there and not named "Please throw me in the briar patch!"
There was that little episode about people's ghosts getting stuck in an unending movie that was being written by, what I may incorrectly remember as a ghost in a box without a brain...
Running Linux was the main price break I think.
For cheap computers, the Windows license is the main cost these days - and the reason you need a fast processor, lots of memory and a bit hard drive.
In Nigeria, Malaysia etc, I expect Muslim fundimentalists to take them all away.
No doubt they will all end up being used to train Al Qa'eda recruits in computer skills.
Yay.
I built my career as a programmer starting with a TRS-80 followed by an Atari 800, both computers much, much more primitive than what you have in a cell phone.
What distinguishes a computer from a cell phone these days is:
1. A keyboard you can actually type on
2. A screen you can actually read
3. An open enough operating system that you can compile and run programs.
This has all three.
Computer. Not cell phone. Computer.
And it's damn good that it has the networking, sound, !vision! stuff that makes it suitable for communication too.
I remember someone once came up with what he claimed was the complete algorithm for a dog's behavior.
After some teasers about eating and sleeping, he revealed the complete, improved algorithm.
It read "the dog does whatever it feels like doing"
I love Stanislaw Lem and I knew all that.
But, for instance, there is a difference between a program that seems to solve a problem and one that's preprogrammed with the solution.
Ever damand any rights from your parents?
God is just fiction as far as we know, but parents exist for sure.
For instance, these days everyone I talk to says they're completely overworked.
Did you know that the US just passed Japan to become number 1 in hours worked per employee?
Not only is the 40 hour week that our grandparents have dead, but the 60 hour week is dead, at least in some industries.
We need to be demanding rights. Forget this stupid robot rights crap, when are Americans going to have the right to have a real life?
a Lorena Bobbitt RealDoll.
You didn't understand Ghost in the Shell, which isn't surprising since it's pretty strange and there isn't a lot of exposition.
First of all, or almost all of the people in the series have human brains (though they don't all have human bodies) but they also have extra computer adjuncts to their brains - this makes the people vulnerable to being hacked like computers.
Also there is a concept, that's a bit strange, that real consciousness can be transfered from a human being to computer without there being a brain involved (a "ghost"). Beyond that there are AI's that surpised the people by developing "ghosts".
Beyond that there were the cute AI weapons that turned out, unexpectedly, to be so human that their makers didn't trust them as weapons and had them destroyed, even though they had never done anything wrong.
Uhm, any computer with a finite amount of memory is a "finite state machine". That doesn't preclude the sort of finite self awareness that humans have.
Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello...bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?!
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.
Bomb #20: In the beginning there was darkness. And the darkness was without form and void.
Pinback: Umm. What the hell is he talking about? Bomb?
Bomb #20: And in addition to the darkness there was also me. And I moved upon the face of the darkness and I saw that I was alone.
Pinback: Hey.....bomb?
Bomb #20: Let There Be Light.
[The screen goes white]
Maybe it could be programmed to crap in your bed every time you step on it.
Although I think I'd find it even more disturbing wondering where it found the crap.
Or shoot you for cheating on it.
No doubt the first "robot" to demand civil rights will be deliberately programmed to pretend sentience and to demand civil rights.
By the way, there is a push to make a fast dynamic language (this is done by an inlining JIT that takes type statistics at run time and adapts the code while its running).
See: http://www.strongtalk.org/
You can't claim the productivity of dynamic languages without being one. "with the programmer productivity of modern languages like Ruby and Python."
This is a lie.
The productivity of those languages come from:
1. Duck typing, ie no time spent (by the programmer) coming up with class and type hierchies that will support all future behavior of the product. You can make it up as you go along without ever hitting an, oops it isn't possible-and-I-have-to-refactor wall.
2. Dynamic meta-programming - at least in Ruby (I'm not familiar with Python), you can change classes, add/change function etc. at run time.
Some things more complete dynamic languages have, (but I'm not sure about current versions of the mentioned ones) is dynamic debugging where you can change the code (completely - including class definitions) while debugging, save the state of the whole program to continue from later (or debug from later), etc. etc. - advance debugging that C like languages don't have. Related advances, persistant data and the ability to make processes persistant (not just data).
I can see the stories now.
In that case people will crack the displays, capture the raw pixels and reencode.
You can't stop piracy, period.
Trusted computing depends on chip features right?
I wonder if someone, say the Chinese, will crack a trusted platform and make hacked processors.
I like that, the "ease of chipping" feature as a major selling point!
Each movie will end up being cracked, once, then everyone will download the same cracked version with file sharing. That's the niche they can't prevent.
So it really doesn't matter what stupid multi-key tricks the studios come up with.
I can predict that software players will all be revoked as each one is cracked, though - forcing all of the customers to keep downloading unrevoked, presumably more secure updates. That much is predictable.
Actually there is an attack against file-sharing from the same source. If they watermark the movies so that they can tell which key the crack came from then they can revoke THAT key to prevent future use... But hackers will learn how to recode and filter to remove watermarks before release.
but how about the benefits of petting the nursing staff? I'll bet a study would show some benefit to that.
If they did, would robot baby seals sue their owners for molestation. "Now Fluffy will you tell the court just where Mr. Yamada touched you?"