Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Eric Scoles
73 followers
73 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
setting aside for a moment the usual admonitions that body cams are only as good as their implementation regime, this bit stood out for me:

[clip]
Alternately known as Downup, Downadup, and Kido, Conficker took hold in late 2008, a few days after Microsoft issued an emergency patch for a Windows vulnerability that allows self-replicating exploits. Within a few months, Conficker had enslaved as many as 15 million Windows PCs. Its sprawling botnet of infected machines eluded the vigorous takedown efforts of the Conficker working group, which was made up of Microsoft and more than a dozen partners in the security and domain registration industries.

....

To this day, researchers aren't sure what the purpose of the malware was. Remarkably, Conficker's unknown operators were never observed using the worm to steal bank account credentials, passwords, or any other type of personal data from the PCs they infected.
[/clip]

1: you can't catch a thief until they fence the goods. If they don't ever plan to fence the goods, you're unlikely to catch them.

2: the "goods" may never be something obviously saleable (and therefore trackable). The "goods" may simply be something as pragmatic as the ability to gain access -- to data-mine, or data-sharpshoot, as it were.

Not that this is a new idea or was even a new idea in 2008. In fact I'd say it's a really old idea.

http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2015/11/police-body-cams-found-pre-installed-with-notorious-conficker-worm/
Add a comment...

Excerpt of a letter from Raymond Chandler to Ray Stark, a radio agent who was working on a 'Philip Marlowe' radio production 1948-10-11: 

[clip]
The point about Marlowe is to remember that he is a first person character, whether he shows up that way in a radio script or not. A first person character is under the disadvantage that he must be a better person to the reader than he is to himself. Too many first person characters give an offensively cocky impression. That's bad. To avoid that you must not always give him the punch line or the exit line. Not even often. Let other characters have the toppers. Leave him without a gag, insofar as it is possible. Howard Hawks, a very wise hombre, remarked to me when he was doing The Big Sleep that he thought one of Marlowe's most effective tricks was just giving the other man the trick and not saying anything at all. That puts the other man on the spot. A devastating crack loses a lot of its force when it doesn't provoke any answer, when the other man just rides with the punch. Then you either have to top it yourself or give ground. 

Don't have Marlowe say things merely to score off the other characters. When he comes out with a smash wisecrack it should be jerked out of him emotionally, so that he is discharging an emotion and not even thinking about laying anyone out with a sharp retort. If you use similes, try and make them both extravagant and original. And there is the question of how the retort discourteous is delivered. The sharper the wisecrack, the less forcible should be the way it is said. There should not be any effect of gloating. 
[/clip]
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Michael Oman-Reagan has helpfully watched this all the way through and made some notes on Twitter [https://twitter.com/OmanReagan/status/685686818713505792] about the Bundy Militia's scheme for a new libertarian jihad, starting from Malheur and moving out, using a 'Committee of Safety' as their #Basij -- openly discussing plans to, if necessary, take the governor of Oregon prisoner. (I'm assuming these guys were homeschooled, so maybe in their childhood lessons The Terror was a good thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety].) 

#darkenlightenment folks won't claim this, but it's precisely out of their playbook: Rule by a minority, using force -- literal tyranny is what these guys are describing -- is righteous, if the goal is a moral order that's deemed righteous by that minority. But what if you suck at it, as in many ways these guys seem to do? Let's give Bundy & Payne the benefit of the doubt on this and assume they're genuine in their desires: They've described a system which is essentially designed to be co-opted by people who are better at organizational politics and more interested in pure power than ideology. And it's by no coincidence a system that is all about using force to gain and keep control. 

I daresay there were people in the audience chortling with glee as they watched this, imagining themselves as great Machiavellian ubermenschen about to swoop in and co-opt this movement. Certainly the net will be full of them. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
This appears to be striking chords. FTR, these mostly seem like sensible responses to mostly handwavy objections (to banning). 

WRT ethics, though: I still don't see very many people dealing with the fact that a system's ethics are an aspect (selectively amplified) of the ethos that spawned the system. This is actually illustrated by the fact that he has to draw a distinction between efficiency & effectiveness: Drones are demonstrably less effective, in certain dimensions, even as they're demonstrably more efficient in others. They tend to be less effective in areas that require human connection -- the sort of stuff infantry Captains have to do every day in Afghanistan, going out to drink tea with elders and listen when they tell you about how your drones just killed a bunch of their people. That strategic conflation of 'efficiency' with 'effectiveness' is the kind of ethical fact that, in practical terms, the drone will never take into account. 
Add a comment...

Post has shared content
Not really very radical. This is basically a theory for why a particular thing happened at a particular time. Dark Matter is really just the #ClickbaitMaguffin in this. 
Interesting theory about our solar system passing through a proposed dark matter disk every 25-32 million years, and that's when things happen.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
"Is it a legitimate Turing Test if the judges are horny middle-aged men? If so, Ashley Madison passed in a big way." --@StartupLJackson[https://twitter.com/StartupLJackson/status/636692587244445697]


The implicit question: can AIs be systems made in part of people? I've ever understood why not. Look to the vampire squid. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
The bigger problem is that people have the belief that Twitter must be or become a 'compelling consumer product.' It is what it is, and for that, it can be fantastic. (It can also be brutal, but the ways in which it's brutal have nothing to do with it's commercial success or lack thereof.) 

If I understand Palmer correctly, she's pointing out that Twitter will fail because it's 'not a compelling consumer product.' But the thing is, it's used by many millions of consumers, often obsessively, day-in, day-out. 

But it's 'not a compelling commercial product.'  So it will fail, even though everyone uses it. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
To paraphrase Brietbart.com:

How disturbing Breitbart.com doesn’t recognize a freakin’ joke.

This is America’s Conservative intelligentsia, folks.
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
I guess this makes it official? Eh, it was time. It will be interesting to see if they have the guts to write anything interesting around this. Like gags about Ned sounding different, or Mister Burns suddenly speaking like Smithers' startup-screen animation. ("Hello...Smithers...you're quite good at... turning me...on.")
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
"A good short-list isn’t a statement about what you should like, it’s an invitation to go beyond the limits of what you already know so you can experience and enjoy something new. Why limit an appreciation of a literature that’s built on the power of human imagination?"
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded