Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Poppycock! (Score 3, Interesting) 77

Where do you get the idea that Sunzi was fixated on the idea of armies controlled by a single entity? He explicitly states, in one instance, that the generals on the field can disobey a prince. Sunzi's idea of war was about coordination of multiple entities each doing their own thing to win a war.

And I contest that contexts are dramatically different. The contexts for tactics may be different, but overall strategies are still the same. Identify weak spots while hide or disguise your own. Borrow your enemies resources to attack them. Usage of spies. etc etc. The main reason why Sunzi was opposed to protracted warfare was the cost to the citizens. If what you say is true, that costs in cyberwarfare are negligible, then that concern of Sunzi doesn't apply. However, given how much money has to be spent on something like the NSA and still be completely ineffective, then your critique is wrong and the concern of protracted warfare does apply and the strategies to suit.

Comment Re:Know thyself... (Score 3, Interesting) 77

The "knowing yourself" part is to know your own security vulnerabilities, capabilities etc. Knowing your enemy's dirty laundry is fine only if they don't know yours. The essence of that Sunzi quote is about winning decisively at little to no cost to yourself. Winning a hundred battles is hard if you have nothing to fight with after the first battle, and knowing where you stand (and that you can stand) after any number of battles is key.

Comment Re:Frozen (Score 1) 79

"Is it round" is even worse because it doesn't explain anything. And no, that wasn't their goal. The goal was to actually define what a planet means, because there wasn't one, and the discovery of more Kuiper belt objects meant the word was becoming meaningless.

And no, it doesn't ignore extrasolar planets or wandering planets. They'll get a category of their own when we find them. Like how adding the word "dwarf" to Pluto-class objects. There is absolutely NO trouble to add the word "extrasolar", for example, to denote the new category. It is simply not a problem. Adding an extra word as a qualifier has never been a problem. The world isn't going to end.

Comment Re:Frozen (Score 1) 79

Your imprecision is allowing a moon to be called a planet.

Pluto is called a dwarf planet. Your other points are non-problems. Yes, the planets that have been smashed up? They are no longer planets. Do you want to call the entire asteroid belt a planet just because it may have been one in the past?

Giving similar objects different names in context is not strange to science. Do you also complain about the difference between meteor, meteoroid and meteorite? They literally are the same object but at different points in its life. Get over it.

And yes, we should pick scientific definitions that at least tries to avoid confusion with pseudoscience. Like it or not, that is the reality of the world, and the average person has a much harder time telling the difference between the two. Leave the overreaching definitions to the quacks and the postmodernists.

Comment Re:Defensive (Score 1) 97

Sorry, I should have used "patent lawsuits" instead of "patent trolls". Didn't think I have to draw intestines on stick figures, but there you go. Some people need hand holding to generalize upon an idea, and I guess you're one of these people.

It's as if you didn't even read the summary. The patents are filed with help from pro-bono lawyers working on behalf of Khan Academy. It costs them NOTHING to file patents.

Comment Re:Defensive (Score 1) 97

Doesn't matter if the suing party is a bona fide patent troll or a frivolous suit from a "legitimate" company. You nitpick on the "patent troll" part. The issue is simple: Khan Academy doesn't have that much money to defend itself against patent lawsuits, no matter who they come from.

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller