Using the card-decks had one great advantage. It discouraged software bloat. If you wrote a 10,000 line program, that was 5 big boxes of cards. You'd need a cart to move them around. Young people these days have no self-discipline when it comes to bloat.
And on the subject of the ethics of saving 600,000 people's private data from falling into the hands of black-hats, look at this example.
1. You see a house on fire and a kid is trapped inside.
2. You break the window, grab the kid and bring it out to safety.
3. You get arrested for breaking and entering, and abducting a minor.
Of course, all burglary is criminal and all abduction of minors is criminal.
Solution: Let the kid die in the fire.
Nope. Luckily the police and judges are not idiots.
There are just a couple of comments speculating about where the boundary between "having a look" and hacking lies. Ultimately, I think it's PHP that must be blamed for 90% of all of the hackable sites, and the programmers who use PHP in a weakly structured way. And maybe the maximum blame goes on the software outsourcing managers who think only of budgets and deadlines, while forgetting about security. So-called "risk management" by insuring against intrusions and making the contractors take out liability and indemnity insurance is a very ignorant way to protect a web site. The best form of protection is well-structured code which passes all HTTP and SQL interface events through well engineered security modules.
But I thought I'd throw in my 2 bits anyway.
I haven't posted on slashdot for years.
So I guess this is a great opportunity to test if I can use the new GUI.
The new GUI is nice.....
The best policy is out-in-the-open.
Bruce Schneier doesn't use pseudonyms.
My only pseudonym on the internet is this slashdot account.
My other slashdot account has my real name...
Chimps have been well documented to have tribes no larger than a hundred or so. Aiello and Dunbar published studies showing a strong positive correlation between the range of vocalizations and the size of social groups in a wide range of species of monkeys.
The point here is that it is difficult to know who is "us" and who is "them" if you don't have language. It is difficult to identify so many individuals. (By comparison, humans need team uniforms to distinguish teams when there are more than 2 or so on each team.) But language permits you to very quickly identify an outsider from your group. Therefore language capability enables super-tribes or clans of thousands to be formed. That was really my point, that _big_ tribes can be formed when you've got language, and the incoming homo sapiens had that sort of language, and almost certainly that kind of large-tribe bonding.
The number 250,000 is not far from the median of what people think of as the beginning of language, I think. And remember that we could also argue that chimps and lemurs have language. By this definitions, humans got language 6 million or more years ago (probably). If you ask for something a bit more like modern language, you might have to say about 100,000 or less years ago (probably). I don't think a slashdot item is the best place to expound all the theories of palaeolinguistics.
In my (humble) opinion, it is no coincidence that the explosion of cave art about 40,000 years ago in Europe shortly preceded the extinction of the Neanderthals 35,000 years ago. The subject of cave art was mostly hunting scenes, where the modern humans could teach each other what to do during the hunt and learn vocabulary etc. The Neanderthals apparently did not have cave art. So they would not have been anywhere near as skilled at hunting in groups.
So into Europe come these humans, which were very highly trained group-hunters, against Neanderthals who could not hunt anywhere near as effectively, partly because of very poor language ability. So first, the modern humans would out-compete the Neanderthals for resources. But secondly, the Neanderthals would not be recognized as fully human because they could not speak in such a sophisticated way. So the Neanderthals would seem like animals.
The reason cave art is mostly about hunting scenes is that teaching vocabulary for static objects can be done with the objects themselves. For fast moving objects like prey, you need to have drawings, and caves are the only places where the drawings survived for us to find.
Some people are perplexed that modern humans make war (not love). The reason is clear. The modern human species gained its ascendancy through genocide and cannibalism tens of thousands of years ago. It's programmed into the genes.
Not only that, those made-available computers actually _are_ exploited for evil acts.
So aren't the purveyors of dodgy software liable for damage caused by DDoS attacks?
Blaming the DDoS controlling people for the attacks is a bit like blaming the downloaders of music/videos for downloading copyright stuff instead of blaming the makers-available.
Just a thought....
15:07:13.666770 IP 220.127.116.11.17498 > 18.104.22.168.53: 36407+ NS? . (17)
15:07:13.750783 IP 22.214.171.124.61231 > 126.96.36.199.53: 46118+ NS? . (17)
15:07:13.831834 IP 188.8.131.52.44626 > 184.108.40.206.53: 51544+ NS? . (17)
Except that that source IP address doesn't look like a Network Solutions address to me.
Is it possible that there is a DDoS technique where the source IP addresses on DNS packets to 3rd party DNS servers are spoofed so as to generate the appearance of an attack from a different source? I guess that's what they're saying. But it doesn't seem to multiply the power of an attack much. They just get 17 bytes of DNS response from each 17 byte request.
It's all a bit confusing really....