In the article linked by the post on Danger Room, they do explicitly aim for user, even root access on "Any and All" computers, at will. Actually, that's the sensationalist headline I was referring to. The only place the phrase "Any and All computers" is mentioned is in the headline. Even the first sentence in the blog article states:
The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give it "access" to -- and "full control" of -- any kind of computer there is. Emphasis on "kind". That states any "kind" (as in type) of computer. Not all computers or everyone's computers.
The "Any and All" seems to be taken out of context from further down in the article where they quote:
Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access...to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms... any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware. Again, that is any and all "Techniques", not "Computers". Big difference. And that's "techniques to enable user and/or root level access..." They stop far short of stating "techniques to gain access to the computers of the general public."
The article goes on to explain how they intend to use these techniques against adversaries, not the general public:
The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then "stealthily exfiltrat[ing] information" from adversaries' networks. Again they go on to state:
But, in the end, the Air Force wants to see all kinds of "techniques and technologies" to "Deceive, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, [or] Destroy" hostile systems. No where in the rest of that article or any other article I've seen yet actually states that the Air Force is interested in hacking unsuspecting user's PCs of the general public. In fact the quote I posted earlier from last week's article states exactly the opposite:
The U.S. would not, and need not, infect unwitting computers as zombies. We can build enough power over time from our own resources. If you've found an article that actually states they are out to get us, please post a link because I'd be very interested in seeing it. Preferably one with an Air Force official's quote, not from some blogger with a tinfoil hat.
Actually, other than the sensationalist headline, I've seen nothing in this lame blogger's article or the one from the other day that indicates the Air Force is interested in taking over the worlds PCs. Infact from the other day's article:
The U.S. would not, and need not, infect unwitting computers as zombies. We can build enough power over time from our own resources. Note the emphasis on "would not, and need not". Not that the submitter of this story would actually read the articles...
And from this lame blogger post:
Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access...to both fixed (PC) or mobile computing platforms... any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware." The operative word here is "techniques."
Basically, this tells me they are trying to learn what the hackers already know and use that knowledge against our adversaries. They are not trying to hack or build a bot net out of any unsuspecting citizen's PC.
Freakin' lame bloggers need to ditch the sensationalist headlines. And shame on Slashdot for cut-n-paste sensationalism. At least he doesn't try to convince us of that claim in his article.
Of course, you don't need to because it's not monolithic.
Windows is absolutely monolithic. Even though you can dynamically extend it with drivers/kernel modules, it is still monolithic. As is Linux. When the module is inserted, it essentially becomes part of the operating system.
You are likely thinking of a Microkernel architecture which separates services into completely independent components. However, the difference being if one component goes down, it does not take the entire system with it.
Well, I've always wanted a way to filter out results from experts-exchange.com. They always show up when I search for something technical. The site might be useful except it costs $$$ to actually get to the answer. My employer certainly isn't going to buy me a subscription so the site is instead a c*ck tease and a waste of time. I would love a way to get them removed from my search results!
Slashdot used to be better than this, but it seems almost impossible to have any reasoned, objective discussion about copyright-related issues here now.
The sad part is 3 or 4 years ago, the Slashdot groupthink would be all in favor of sharing free information in public forums because information wanted to be free. That was the foundation of the internet and the origin of Usenet in the first place... i.e. a Users Network. But today, with copyrighted this and imaginary property that and patented other thing..., the consensus is no longer in support of the free exchange of information that was so dominant but rather the brainwashed "damnit you better adhere to the letter of the law or face serious consequences" groupthink.
Meanwhile, while this flame war is taking place here on slashdot, the users over at Usenet continue sharing information with each other freely as has been done for nearly 30 years now without concern and without thought of the cold chill of a copyright lawsuit crawling up their spine.
Disclaimer: IANAL either. First, GPL licensed code != questionably licenced code. Obviously, if GPLed code is posted in a response to a newsgroup posting, it is likely accompanied by the GPL license (or indication of such a license) which moots the whole argument. Whether or not GPLed code has been litigated in court is irrelevant.
Not being a lawyer, I am not aware of case law that may involve use of code posted to a public forum without notice of license. It likely isn't very common or groups like comp.lang.foo would not have existed very long and this question wouldn't have been asked here.
Yes, copyright is still owned by the author. That being said, the author would have been unlikely to provide help if he was concerned said help might actually be used.
As I said, it's the social norm in some forums like Usenet. Perhaps the code came from here or maybe even here? My point is that sharing of pieces of code like this has been done for years on a share and share-alike basis without the ugliness of first legalizing, licensing and contract signing in triplicate.
While your point may be absolutely 100% correct, the social norm on public forums such as Usenet is typically a free exchange of information. If that were not the case, comp.lang.*, comp.os.* and others would never have been very useful. So while Joe Blogger might not want you to copy his code from his ASP.Net tutorial (blech!), I would expect my answer to a call for help in comp.lang.c be used, poked, prodded and polished by anyone who finds it useful.
The social norm in places like Usenet seems to provide an implicit non-exclusive license otherwise we would have been seeing copyright lawsuits flying since the early '80s.
I'd download it to try it except I just finished cleaning out all the crappy "Try AOL" shortcuts that were installed in every dark corner of my computer the last time I did something silly like that.
I think the point was that 5 days with 3 kids in Tina Gasperson's cozy comfy home is hardly a test of ruggedization for normal use in a developed country let alone the conditions that may be encountered in a third world country.
In one college class around 95-96 we built a preprocessor that used a symbol table. The symbol table was a hash table of linked-list buckets. A separate list of linked-lists was used to denote scope. Each list for a given scope snaked through the symbol table through the symbol-nodes that were part of that scope. As a symbol was added, it was put in the hash table and the current scope list. To lookup a symbol you queried the hash table which walked the linked-list buckets. When the preprocessor reached the end of scope, removing the symbols from the table involved simply walking the current scope list and deleting the nodes that are encountered. So yeah, each node was a member of 2 completely separate and independent lists simultaneously.
there are an awful lot of people in the world that would honestly like the U.S. to stop "protecting their interests".
And you can count the majority of the American population in that "awful lot of people". I think this past mid-term election shouted that out loud and clear.
We burger eating, SUV driving, football watching, apple pie screwing, potpouri of all you other countries do not support current policy in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Bush will be president for another 2 years. In the mean time, there isn't much we can do about it except bitch a lot and vote when it counts.
In this case, if they take an ad spot, they lose the opportunity to sell that ad spot to somebody else.
I think the original argument from yesterday's article was that they actually DID sell that ad spot to somebody else... Then, that somebody else got bumped to the number two spot and Google took the top spot for themselves.
Actually, prohibition was a prime example that you can't enforce a law that the people aren't willing to obey.
The proponents of that law were in the extreme minority with little to gain by the population obeying it. For a law to succeed there has to be some resulting benefit desireable by the majority of the population. Murder is illegal because the majority of us desire to live in peace and without fear.
The RIAA on the other hand has a lot to gain and more resources to effectively make a dent in the enforcement. Copyright law no longer serves to protect the interest of the majority. Anymore it protects only those with deep pockets who want to keep it that way, so the majority don't hold it to high regard anymore. The RIAA will continue to stink the place up. Hopefully we will eventually see reform. Copyright law must be reshaped to represent its original intent: To assimilate content (art,music,literature,etc...) into culture with _limited_ protection on the copyright holder.
Yes, that's right folks, it was originally _limited_ protection, not _infinite_!
...it's kind of a joke that you would want to verify the source files to make sure they weren't tampered with, since I doubt a virus can be embedded into a PDF file.
Nothing in TFA or the Wikipedia article or the specification itself says anything about DRM or any kind of copy protection. The only "unknown" so far is licensing mentioned in TFA. Other than Microsoft is Evil(TM) or Slashdot Group Think(TM), where did this DRM business come from?
Dell, HP, Gateway (I don't know Acer) are US companies with US Gov't contracts and have to undergo thorough investigation by US Gov't Agencies to get those contracts. Parts (or even whole components) may be manufactured in China but you can bet those companies do everything they can to ensure the security of their product facing stiff US penalties. (Note that this applies to machines purchased under contract for use in secure networks and gov't agencies, not consumer machines you and I may purchase.)
Lenovo on the other hand being a Chinese company is completely out of US control over such matters.
Slashdot Mirror
D!ZONE
wow... nostalgia...
Source please.
Oh, ok. So obviously, it must be happening!
It's a conspiracy I tell you! ... or perhaps it just isn't happening.
The "Any and All" seems to be taken out of context from further down in the article where they quote: Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access
The article goes on to explain how they intend to use these techniques against adversaries, not the general public: The preferred attack consists of lying quiet, and then "stealthily exfiltrat[ing] information" from adversaries' networks. Again they go on to state: But, in the end, the Air Force wants to see all kinds of "techniques and technologies" to "Deceive, Deny, Disrupt, Degrade, [or] Destroy" hostile systems. No where in the rest of that article or any other article I've seen yet actually states that the Air Force is interested in hacking unsuspecting user's PCs of the general public. In fact the quote I posted earlier from last week's article states exactly the opposite: The U.S. would not, and need not, infect unwitting computers as zombies. We can build enough power over time from our own resources. If you've found an article that actually states they are out to get us, please post a link because I'd be very interested in seeing it. Preferably one with an Air Force official's quote, not from some blogger with a tinfoil hat.
And from this lame blogger post: Of interest are any and all techniques to enable user and/or root level access
Basically, this tells me they are trying to learn what the hackers already know and use that knowledge against our adversaries. They are not trying to hack or build a bot net out of any unsuspecting citizen's PC.
Freakin' lame bloggers need to ditch the sensationalist headlines. And shame on Slashdot for cut-n-paste sensationalism. At least he doesn't try to convince us of that claim in his article.
Windows is absolutely monolithic. Even though you can dynamically extend it with drivers/kernel modules, it is still monolithic. As is Linux. When the module is inserted, it essentially becomes part of the operating system.
You are likely thinking of a Microkernel architecture which separates services into completely independent components. However, the difference being if one component goes down, it does not take the entire system with it.
Well, I've always wanted a way to filter out results from experts-exchange.com. They always show up when I search for something technical. The site might be useful except it costs $$$ to actually get to the answer. My employer certainly isn't going to buy me a subscription so the site is instead a c*ck tease and a waste of time. I would love a way to get them removed from my search results!
The sad part is 3 or 4 years ago, the Slashdot groupthink would be all in favor of sharing free information in public forums because information wanted to be free. That was the foundation of the internet and the origin of Usenet in the first place... i.e. a Users Network. But today, with copyrighted this and imaginary property that and patented other thing..., the consensus is no longer in support of the free exchange of information that was so dominant but rather the brainwashed "damnit you better adhere to the letter of the law or face serious consequences" groupthink.
Meanwhile, while this flame war is taking place here on slashdot, the users over at Usenet continue sharing information with each other freely as has been done for nearly 30 years now without concern and without thought of the cold chill of a copyright lawsuit crawling up their spine.
Nice! Just when I thought I was participating in an insightful conversation you had to pull that out. Nice chatting with you.
Disclaimer: IANAL either. First, GPL licensed code != questionably licenced code. Obviously, if GPLed code is posted in a response to a newsgroup posting, it is likely accompanied by the GPL license (or indication of such a license) which moots the whole argument. Whether or not GPLed code has been litigated in court is irrelevant.
Not being a lawyer, I am not aware of case law that may involve use of code posted to a public forum without notice of license. It likely isn't very common or groups like comp.lang.foo would not have existed very long and this question wouldn't have been asked here.
Yes, copyright is still owned by the author. That being said, the author would have been unlikely to provide help if he was concerned said help might actually be used.
As I said, it's the social norm in some forums like Usenet. Perhaps the code came from here or maybe even here? My point is that sharing of pieces of code like this has been done for years on a share and share-alike basis without the ugliness of first legalizing, licensing and contract signing in triplicate.
While your point may be absolutely 100% correct, the social norm on public forums such as Usenet is typically a free exchange of information. If that were not the case, comp.lang.*, comp.os.* and others would never have been very useful. So while Joe Blogger might not want you to copy his code from his ASP.Net tutorial (blech!), I would expect my answer to a call for help in comp.lang.c be used, poked, prodded and polished by anyone who finds it useful.
The social norm in places like Usenet seems to provide an implicit non-exclusive license otherwise we would have been seeing copyright lawsuits flying since the early '80s.
It's also a lot less than you would get for handing out adult mags to neighborhood kids.
I'd download it to try it except I just finished cleaning out all the crappy "Try AOL" shortcuts that were installed in every dark corner of my computer the last time I did something silly like that.
I think the point was that 5 days with 3 kids in Tina Gasperson's cozy comfy home is hardly a test of ruggedization for normal use in a developed country let alone the conditions that may be encountered in a third world country.
I choose:
(o)I slept through a college lecture about this.
In one college class around 95-96 we built a preprocessor that used a symbol table. The symbol table was a hash table of linked-list buckets. A separate list of linked-lists was used to denote scope. Each list for a given scope snaked through the symbol table through the symbol-nodes that were part of that scope. As a symbol was added, it was put in the hash table and the current scope list. To lookup a symbol you queried the hash table which walked the linked-list buckets. When the preprocessor reached the end of scope, removing the symbols from the table involved simply walking the current scope list and deleting the nodes that are encountered. So yeah, each node was a member of 2 completely separate and independent lists simultaneously.
We burger eating, SUV driving, football watching, apple pie screwing, potpouri of all you other countries do not support current policy in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Bush will be president for another 2 years. In the mean time, there isn't much we can do about it except bitch a lot and vote when it counts.
I think the original argument from yesterday's article was that they actually DID sell that ad spot to somebody else... Then, that somebody else got bumped to the number two spot and Google took the top spot for themselves.
Actually, prohibition was a prime example that you can't enforce a law that the people aren't willing to obey.
The proponents of that law were in the extreme minority with little to gain by the population obeying it. For a law to succeed there has to be some resulting benefit desireable by the majority of the population. Murder is illegal because the majority of us desire to live in peace and without fear.
The RIAA on the other hand has a lot to gain and more resources to effectively make a dent in the enforcement. Copyright law no longer serves to protect the interest of the majority. Anymore it protects only those with deep pockets who want to keep it that way, so the majority don't hold it to high regard anymore. The RIAA will continue to stink the place up. Hopefully we will eventually see reform. Copyright law must be reshaped to represent its original intent: To assimilate content (art,music,literature,etc...) into culture with _limited_ protection on the copyright holder.
Yes, that's right folks, it was originally _limited_ protection, not _infinite_!
Here's a hoot! That site seems to be blocked by the filtering software my employer uses to keep us from misbehaving on the net.
I wonder. Could this be the beginning of a conspiracy theory?
http://secunia.com/advisories/16466
Stranger things have happened.
It wants you to key in the last 8 bits of your ip address manually.
it's unlikely to be the first Windows Media format from Microsoft NOT to have DRM capability, wouldn't you say?
How very true. The AVI format introduced by Microsoft in 1992 didn't have DRM capability so this definitely wouldn't be the first.
It is better to ship a product with a known quality level than to ship a product full of surprises.
So, if all the known bugs were fixed, then the product would ship but be full of surprises (since we assume it has bugs we don't know about).
But if you don't fix the known bugs... the product would ship full of bugs and surprises?
hmmm...
Nothing in TFA or the Wikipedia article or the specification itself says anything about DRM or any kind of copy protection. The only "unknown" so far is licensing mentioned in TFA. Other than Microsoft is Evil(TM) or Slashdot Group Think(TM), where did this DRM business come from?
Dell, HP, Gateway (I don't know Acer) are US companies with US Gov't contracts and have to undergo thorough investigation by US Gov't Agencies to get those contracts. Parts (or even whole components) may be manufactured in China but you can bet those companies do everything they can to ensure the security of their product facing stiff US penalties. (Note that this applies to machines purchased under contract for use in secure networks and gov't agencies, not consumer machines you and I may purchase.)
Lenovo on the other hand being a Chinese company is completely out of US control over such matters.
Actually, once you hit 40, even though it's still downhill, everything else seems more like uphill... a very steep uphill...