Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Stop Calling Communication War (Score 1) 951

by rhinokitty (#26354645) Attached to: Israel, Palestine Wage Web War
Hi. I am the Internet. I am a communications medium. People use me to communicate with one another on an unprecedented scale.

I am a "read/write" medium. That means that a lot of the times people can add-on to the creations of others. Sometimes they can even completely erase the communications of others. This is OK, and is not war, but just another form of communication. Granted, I appreciate it when everyone "plays fair," and there are many people (like Slashdot moderators, wink, wink) that help keep things fair for everyone.

I take offense when people refer to communication as war. There are many people who work for many militaries who use me to communicate (sometimes they are pretty angry). That is OK with me, as long as they play fair. This is not war, but communication.

Some might even think about it as a kind of grassroots diplomacy. Wouldn't it be great if more people could talk with those who their government tells them are the "enemy?" More communication usually tends to alleviate misunderstanding, which can lead to resolution or conflict (aka peace).

Please stop referring to what I do as war, I find it inaccurate and distasteful.
Government

Chinese Hacking of American Military Networks On the Rise 205

Posted by Soulskill from the secure-the-international-tubes dept.
Anti-Globalism writes with this excerpt from the Guardian: "China is stealing sensitive information from American computer networks and stepping up its online espionage, according to a US congressional panel. Beijing's investment in rocket technology is also accelerating the militarization of outer space and lifting it into the 'commanding heights' of modern warfare, the advisory group claims. ... A summary of the study, released in advance, alleges that networks and databases used by the US government and American defense contractors are regularly targeted by Chinese hackers. 'China is stealing vast amounts of sensitive information from US computer networks,' says Larry Wortzel, chairman of the commission set up by Congress in 2000 to investigate US-China issues." The full study addresses these issues and others relating to the US-China relationship (PDF).
Security

Cyber Attacks against Tibetan Communities 193

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the that's-right-all-the-tea dept.
UnderAttack writes "The SANS Internet Storm Center reports about an increasing number of sophisticated and targeted cyber attacks against Tibetan NGOs. These attacks appear to be related to attacks against other anti-chinese groups like Falun Gong. 'There is lots of media coverage on the protests in Tibet. Something that lies under the surface, and rarely gets a blip in the press, are the various targeted cyber attacks that have been taking place against these various communities recently. These attacks are not limited to various Tibetan NGOs and support groups. They have been reported dating back to 2002, and even somewhat before that, and have affected several other communities, including Falun Gong and the Uyghurs.'"
Enlightenment

Submission + - Bust 2.0

Submitted by rhinokitty
rhinokitty writes: I am sorry, but I must tell you this.

Web 2.0 is about to go bust. The way that the markets have self-built is an exact copy of the way that the original dot-com build up happened, but with an additional patina of socialness. It is an inevitable part of markets that this will happen. People are already over-extended. The user is saturated with new web applications. The latest startups are getting overly niche specific. And the many first time stumblers upon any website are saying, "Who cares?"

And that is the point, no one. Marketing has pushed the hype beyond its limits, and the buzz words are already tired again. We are around the same block and back at the beginning again. Its a shame, but the party had to end some time. I hate to break it to you, but Web 2.0 is about to go bust.

The problem is that businesses can not help but operate the way they do and instead of investing in the long term they are bound by the rules of the game, which are to invest in the next quarter and pray for the best. At this point the Internet simply moves faster than the market and the level of denial that companies have is higher than a myopic senior at a slot machine in Atlantic City. When your career is on the line and venture capital is available, you take what you can get.

Just look at the latest GigaOm Web 2.0 hyped product, WeBot (of course it is beta). It is yet another typical web app that performs yet another totally redundant function. They even resort to using profanity on their home page to try to shock people into thinking, "Wow, this must really be cutting edge." A desperate attempt at hype.

And that is the only thing that can make any individual temporarily apex above the swarm, hype. Yet this hype is self defeating — it shows the chink in the armor of the Web 2.0 fad. Companies are competing each other into the ground.

The Internet does not have the same safeguards against a total spin out that a market based on physical goods and services has. The Internet will collectively outrun any individual "product" because of the fundamental disconnect between a communications network and a market. Trying to make a communications network into a market will fail again and again, because selling and buying information as if it were a physical good ignores the fact that there is no actual scarcity of any particular data. There is only inacessability. All data can be copied indefinitely without any degradation, the only way to create scarcity (and hence value) is to restrict access in some clever way.

Further reducing the idea of data to the idea of "interest" or "mindshare" to be bought and sold will yield the same results. Imposing artificial scarcity by means of locking down information using crippled technology will also yield the same results.

The crucial downfall of web 2.0 (and 3.0, and 4.0) has already been sealed. Many business models are based on capturing user data and keeping it locked up in the CMS somehow. Has AOL taught us nothing? This can not work. Flickr, YouTube, del.icio.us, twitter, etc all are based on the same idea. Get users to go to your site, create content, then continue to use their site because of the initial time investment, and the fact that your friends and family are also invested. Can you export your photos from Flickr? How much does it cost? What about your friend network?

When the initial glow wears off people realize they are doing something that their computer could already do, but they have to go through a middle man to do it. This explains the extremely short shelf life of social networking sites. Remember Friendster? How played out is MySpace already? How many years old is it?

After a few rounds people realize they have been duped. Social networking (yes, even Second Life) goes the way of the chat room and marketers will have to continue the arms race of engaging an increasingly bored public by selling them ever more inane bits of proprietary code to keep them dazed enough to be open to the next salvo. Each new cycle of this arms race will end the same way the first one did, with another dot-com bust.

"Don't say that, shareholder and consumer confidence is the only thing keeping my business model afloat!"

Boom, bust, boom, bust.

Any real attempt to intervene in this endless cycle requires that the people building the sites and the people using the sites share a common and mutually beneficial interest.

The Open Source and Free Software community has already taken this oath to protect the freedoms of users and programmers alike. There is still money to be made, but is is not the wild west. It is a sustainable model of computer software development (and web apps) that takes into consideration the totality of its effects on society, not just profit margins.

Code is created collaboratively and in a way that is responsive to the community of users. Services are provided to average users by communal forums, those who need custom work done can hire a programmer or a company to develop new software, with the caveat that anything developed from existing works must be made available to the community that collectively created those works.

Instead of screwing over users who will then have to be won over again by a different, re-branded service that does the same thing, with a different API, users are listened to and the software can develop incrementally, serving both the developer and the user community and keeping out the middle man.
Security

Submission + - Script Kiddies Pay Big Bucks (bbc.co.uk)

Submitted by rhinokitty
rhinokitty writes: It seems that some folks are paying upwards of 500 pounds to get the latest in preprogrammed "Cyber Crime Toolkits." Doesn't the fact that they are ready-made pretty much preclude them being at the cutting edge of functionality/dangerousness?
Enlightenment

Submission + - Free Energy: Please Debunk (blogspot.com)

Submitted by rhinokitty
rhinokitty writes: So it seems this scientist has come up with a way to seemingly produce energy al la a perpetual motion machine. He claims it puts out more energy than is put into it. Every physicists wet dream? Please debunk this, I couldn't find any holes in his logic.
Security

Submission + - Creepy Cops

Submitted by rhinokitty
rhinokitty writes: Witness the most smarmy and disingenuous attempt of police to "get inside the heads" of kids. Poorly produced and clearly not based on a real life situation. Also has a very informative explanation of a "Blog" in star wars lettering for good measure. Note the kiddy porn-like web design of the page. Makes me feel icky inside.
The Media

Submission + - Direct Observation on Dissapearance of Bees

Submitted by
rhinokitty
rhinokitty writes: "I was on vacation at the beach in Moss Landing, California on Sunday May 6th and I discovered about 50 bees and around 50 ladybugs that were waterlogged and nearly dead. It seemed that the sandpipers on the beach were eating them.

It came to me that this could possibly explain the news reports of the mysterious disappearance of all the bees, if they went into the ocean there would be no evidence of them on land. I was walking at a brisk pace for about an hour, and every couple of minutes I would find another bee or another ladybug. I do not want to speculate on what this means — I will leave it to the experts — but I think this information is important.

Has anyone else observed a similar phenomenon where they are?"

Slashdot Top Deals

May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!

Close