Fundamental principle of any intelligent life form is that it will compete for resources within its ecosystem. It is conceivable that we don't understand something about the nature of our galaxy, but to our best knowledge everything is finite, even in Very Large but Finite universe.
Therefore any "hard to explain" places would have its own ecosystem constrained by finite resources. At this point two possibilities remain - newcomer to already occupied ecosystem (likely), breakthrough into the new territory creating a new niche (unlikely). In the first case existing ecosystem will be leveraged to full extent (converted into computronium) to help establish a foothold in the new niche, in the second case "pulling up the ladder" to protect the new niche, because what would stop the humanity from re-loading from backups to create second round and new competition for recently departed?
In ether case humanity is toasted. There is just no good outcomes in emergence/singularity cases where it is not human or human-based minds that are doing emergence/singularity.
I think humanity's best chance is to create human-like AIs, and have them carry our legacy. Currently, this AI field does not approach things this way. We are not focusing on "what makes our minds human", instead "what makes it more efficient at task X". As such, AIs will be alien beings, nothing like us (and are naturally efficient at fighting and sending spam) and completely devoid of ethics, compassion, creativity and all other aspects that we typically associate with humanity.
No, not again. I... why does it say time jam when there is no time jam? I swear to God, one of these days, I just kick this piece of shit out the window.
It is all about specific types ofintelligence - logical-mathematical. In layman's terms - geeks do better in our techno-centric society. The ethnicity with most geeks ends up with an advantage, then the resulting socioeconomic factors cement the advantage..
Every time advertising industry develops a new way to track you, every time you unquestionably surrender your data in exchange for some trendy app you invite and enable this kind of abuse. The only defense is strong privacy laws and consumer push-back against tracking.
Why this technology exists? Because people accepted invasion of privacy from pioneers like Foursquare, so it was feasible to commercially develop this technology to the point where any totalitarian government can purchase 'turnkey solution' for a couple millions. Now every Banana Republic dictator can deploy it against unwilling citizens.
I am going to break the pattern here and not assume that Philip Guo knows what he is talking about and not at his arguments. These are feel-good assertions and anecdotes, where is the evidence?
>>> "We're also developing new Android platform features that will enable the car itself to become a connected Android device"
I prefer my cars air-gaped. Why? First, I don't trust automotive manufacturers to introduce adequate security measures. Second, I don't trust automotive manufacturers to stay on top of patching security holes over car's expected useful lifetime.
For people downvoting above - the reason you are still single is because you have unrealistically high opinion of your own charm, attractiveness, generosity, and achievements. Relationships are about getting along and building trust, not about putting yourself on a pedestal with a puffed-up profile. Unlike job interviews, it hurts relationships to over-sell yourself by introducing inevitable disappointment and distrust at the very early stages of it.
This is where evolution backfired. It used to be the case that physical characteristics highly correlated with reproductive success, so we are hard-wired to look for them. Sometimes this takes strange detours into fetishes-obsessions, but most of the time we just looking for "good looking".
Journals are only partially to blame for dysfunction of scientific publishing. By far the most harmful actor is pressure to publish papers regardless of quality and sometimes even fraudulently.
"Publish or perish" is a unique pressure on mid-career academics to churn out publications. It is administrative metric that when applied can lead to career-ending outcomes for academics that are deemed "unproductive" This highly arbitrary metric looks at a number of papers published and sometimes journal impact factor, but it fails to measure scientific contribution to the field. Application of this metric linked to all kinds of scientific misconduct - from correlation fishing expeditions, to questionable practices in formulating research questions, to outright 'data cooking' and fraud.
The article premise boils down to "there will be no streaming music at some point in the future". To that I responded that I think they are WRONG because of REASONS. What is your point exactly?
Please, music is in human nature. If everything else fails (for any definition of fails) "the next generation" will still be sitting around campfires beating cow-skin drums and chanting. "Without music" will never happen.
The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.
Sure, current generation of services might die off, but as long as there is demand there will be a way to make money off it. Just look at the radio - they found a way to keep music "streaming" and pay the bills for the past 100 years or so. It is just a matter of finding correct monetization strategy.
As someone that used to work with mobile security - this is tiny minority that got caught. If you carry your mobile phone with you, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Treat your smartphone as a combination of public WiFi and a court-assigned GSP tracking ankle bracelet.
Information can transfer faster than light via quantum entanglement. As such, in your hypothetical example of observational outpost we had a way to know "NOW" 3.8b ago.
It was determined in Toyota's case by low-level code analysis that under some very unlikely conditions ECU would lock up until brake pedal is completely released. Seeing how gear shifter is not mechanical, you can see the car not responding to shifting to N. If it happen to be accelerating at this point - well we know how that story ends.
A lot of modern cars no longer have mechanical link to transmission. Buy a stick-shift if you want to be completely safe.
The question is not "what if there was a vulnerability", the question is when people realize these systems are out there and start looking. The answer is - now. We had similar conversations about Internet during 90s, this is the same thing, only now we know how it all turned out.
Have you followed Toyota runaway acceleration court case? They were forced by courts to undergo low-level code analysis for Toyota's control software. Verdict was that code was unmaintainable. I think they lost the case because they couldn't even demonstrate that it would be possible to know with certainty that known bugs could be fixed!
We both know automotive guys have nearly zero domain expertise in InfoSec. Up to this point this was acceptable, but then they started networking things. Just like SCADA systems. It just a matter of time until someone figures out how to index connected cars. Plus we know these cars will be on the road for DECADES! Good luck trying to secure 2015 model year car in the year 2030!
>>>Much in the same way as the PCI bus on your computer has "no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system". The bus does not need to be secured.
Absolutely correct. CAN bus itself does not need to have internal security mechanism - it just has to be properly isolated. By an air gap.
>>>The entry points to the bus need to be secures much in the same way as the Ethernet card provides secure access to the PCI bus.
I don't think I have to explain that "much the same way" is largely unsuccessful in case of Ethernet. Moment you add application layer, be it in a form of infotainment system or Car-to-Car communication for self-driving applications, all lower-level security gets circumvented.
Work by Dr. Charlie Miller showed that in-auto networks have zero security. It wasn't a problem up to this point because such networks were secured by air-gap. Unfortunately automakers decided that facebook integration for the car is worthwhile feature and decided to open Pandora's box. If you are planning to buy a new car, make sure it has no connectivity capability of any kind. This includes On-Star systems, this definitely includes any kind smartphone integration or mobile hotspot technologies.
Car's CAN Bus is ring network with no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system. If you can broadcast into it, then you can affect operation of the car in very drastic ways. Since it has to be real-time and responsive (e.g. controlling engine timing) there is no time for any kind of authentication. Insanity is allowing things like Entertainment/Navigation/OnStar system access to it, but this is how auto engineers do it. Why? Because they don't know any better, they are not IT Security guys.
I agree with this being just a red herring. We are not teaching math to get universally good scores, we are teaching to produce educated, productive, and innovative population of adults. Where is innovation coming from these Asian countries? What about population-normalized number of scientific papers? What about population-normalized number of patents? They are still only known for cheaply manufacturing Western designs and innovations. Who cares how they do on math if these are the outcomes?
Slashdot Mirror
Likely as a Robotic Overlord.
Fundamental principle of any intelligent life form is that it will compete for resources within its ecosystem. It is conceivable that we don't understand something about the nature of our galaxy, but to our best knowledge everything is finite, even in Very Large but Finite universe.
Therefore any "hard to explain" places would have its own ecosystem constrained by finite resources. At this point two possibilities remain - newcomer to already occupied ecosystem (likely), breakthrough into the new territory creating a new niche (unlikely). In the first case existing ecosystem will be leveraged to full extent (converted into computronium) to help establish a foothold in the new niche, in the second case "pulling up the ladder" to protect the new niche, because what would stop the humanity from re-loading from backups to create second round and new competition for recently departed?
In ether case humanity is toasted. There is just no good outcomes in emergence/singularity cases where it is not human or human-based minds that are doing emergence/singularity.
I think humanity's best chance is to create human-like AIs, and have them carry our legacy. Currently, this AI field does not approach things this way. We are not focusing on "what makes our minds human", instead "what makes it more efficient at task X". As such, AIs will be alien beings, nothing like us (and are naturally efficient at fighting and sending spam) and completely devoid of ethics, compassion, creativity and all other aspects that we typically associate with humanity.
Soon when you upgrade OS, your old one keeps the house and half of your assets.
No, not again. I... why does it say time jam when there is no time jam? I swear to God, one of these days, I just kick this piece of shit out the window.
It is all about specific types ofintelligence - logical-mathematical. In layman's terms - geeks do better in our techno-centric society. The ethnicity with most geeks ends up with an advantage, then the resulting socioeconomic factors cement the advantage..
Every time advertising industry develops a new way to track you, every time you unquestionably surrender your data in exchange for some trendy app you invite and enable this kind of abuse. The only defense is strong privacy laws and consumer push-back against tracking.
Why this technology exists? Because people accepted invasion of privacy from pioneers like Foursquare, so it was feasible to commercially develop this technology to the point where any totalitarian government can purchase 'turnkey solution' for a couple millions. Now every Banana Republic dictator can deploy it against unwilling citizens.
I am going to break the pattern here and not assume that Philip Guo knows what he is talking about and not at his arguments. These are feel-good assertions and anecdotes, where is the evidence?
As a consumer, why would this entice me to purchase a car from Ford?
I am afraid with this type of use-case, driver issues are here to stay.
>>> "We're also developing new Android platform features that will enable the car itself to become a connected Android device"
I prefer my cars air-gaped. Why? First, I don't trust automotive manufacturers to introduce adequate security measures. Second, I don't trust automotive manufacturers to stay on top of patching security holes over car's expected useful lifetime.
For people downvoting above - the reason you are still single is because you have unrealistically high opinion of your own charm, attractiveness, generosity, and achievements. Relationships are about getting along and building trust, not about putting yourself on a pedestal with a puffed-up profile. Unlike job interviews, it hurts relationships to over-sell yourself by introducing inevitable disappointment and distrust at the very early stages of it.
This is where evolution backfired. It used to be the case that physical characteristics highly correlated with reproductive success, so we are hard-wired to look for them. Sometimes this takes strange detours into fetishes-obsessions, but most of the time we just looking for "good looking".
Garbage In Garbage Out.
Who writes honest truth in the online dating profile? It is all about posturing and posing.
Forever and not a second longer than it has to. If your dirty secrets are around, but nobody cares to look - does it make a sound?
Journals are only partially to blame for dysfunction of scientific publishing. By far the most harmful actor is pressure to publish papers regardless of quality and sometimes even fraudulently.
"Publish or perish" is a unique pressure on mid-career academics to churn out publications. It is administrative metric that when applied can lead to career-ending outcomes for academics that are deemed "unproductive" This highly arbitrary metric looks at a number of papers published and sometimes journal impact factor, but it fails to measure scientific contribution to the field. Application of this metric linked to all kinds of scientific misconduct - from correlation fishing expeditions, to questionable practices in formulating research questions, to outright 'data cooking' and fraud.
The article premise boils down to "there will be no streaming music at some point in the future". To that I responded that I think they are WRONG because of REASONS. What is your point exactly?
Please, music is in human nature. If everything else fails (for any definition of fails) "the next generation" will still be sitting around campfires beating cow-skin drums and chanting. "Without music" will never happen.
The article is FUD. Why? Because there is still demand for this service.
Sure, current generation of services might die off, but as long as there is demand there will be a way to make money off it. Just look at the radio - they found a way to keep music "streaming" and pay the bills for the past 100 years or so. It is just a matter of finding correct monetization strategy.
As someone that used to work with mobile security - this is tiny minority that got caught. If you carry your mobile phone with you, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Treat your smartphone as a combination of public WiFi and a court-assigned GSP tracking ankle bracelet.
Information can transfer faster than light via quantum entanglement. As such, in your hypothetical example of observational outpost we had a way to know "NOW" 3.8b ago.
It was determined in Toyota's case by low-level code analysis that under some very unlikely conditions ECU would lock up until brake pedal is completely released. Seeing how gear shifter is not mechanical, you can see the car not responding to shifting to N. If it happen to be accelerating at this point - well we know how that story ends.
A lot of modern cars no longer have mechanical link to transmission. Buy a stick-shift if you want to be completely safe.
The question is not "what if there was a vulnerability", the question is when people realize these systems are out there and start looking. The answer is - now. We had similar conversations about Internet during 90s, this is the same thing, only now we know how it all turned out.
Have you followed Toyota runaway acceleration court case? They were forced by courts to undergo low-level code analysis for Toyota's control software. Verdict was that code was unmaintainable. I think they lost the case because they couldn't even demonstrate that it would be possible to know with certainty that known bugs could be fixed!
We both know automotive guys have nearly zero domain expertise in InfoSec. Up to this point this was acceptable, but then they started networking things. Just like SCADA systems. It just a matter of time until someone figures out how to index connected cars. Plus we know these cars will be on the road for DECADES! Good luck trying to secure 2015 model year car in the year 2030!
>>>Much in the same way as the PCI bus on your computer has "no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system". The bus does not need to be secured.
Absolutely correct. CAN bus itself does not need to have internal security mechanism - it just has to be properly isolated. By an air gap.
>>>The entry points to the bus need to be secures much in the same way as the Ethernet card provides secure access to the PCI bus.
I don't think I have to explain that "much the same way" is largely unsuccessful in case of Ethernet. Moment you add application layer, be it in a form of infotainment system or Car-to-Car communication for self-driving applications, all lower-level security gets circumvented.
Work by Dr. Charlie Miller showed that in-auto networks have zero security. It wasn't a problem up to this point because such networks were secured by air-gap. Unfortunately automakers decided that facebook integration for the car is worthwhile feature and decided to open Pandora's box. If you are planning to buy a new car, make sure it has no connectivity capability of any kind. This includes On-Star systems, this definitely includes any kind smartphone integration or mobile hotspot technologies.
Car's CAN Bus is ring network with no authentication whatsoever and rudimentary priority system. If you can broadcast into it, then you can affect operation of the car in very drastic ways. Since it has to be real-time and responsive (e.g. controlling engine timing) there is no time for any kind of authentication. Insanity is allowing things like Entertainment/Navigation/OnStar system access to it, but this is how auto engineers do it. Why? Because they don't know any better, they are not IT Security guys.
I agree with this being just a red herring. We are not teaching math to get universally good scores, we are teaching to produce educated, productive, and innovative population of adults. Where is innovation coming from these Asian countries? What about population-normalized number of scientific papers? What about population-normalized number of patents? They are still only known for cheaply manufacturing Western designs and innovations. Who cares how they do on math if these are the outcomes?