|
Darren
06-11-2003
09:19 PM ET (US)
|
FYI, I've posted a kind of phone camera/butt photos state-of-play at http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/2003/06/11.html#a330. It's hard to keep up with these darned technology trends. DB.
|
|
Zwack
06-11-2003
01:31 PM ET (US)
|
Completely off topic...
But Will Xeni ever (want to) live the SARS folk art thing down?
Z. Who long ago learned to ignore the stories that didn't interest him and read the ones that did.
|
|
juck
06-11-2003
12:34 PM ET (US)
|
Hey are there any SARS people using Phonecams? I think you need to dig deeper there Xeni. You are missing great folk-digerati-art here. Hurry, hurry!
|
ArkhamAdept  06-11-2003
12:57 AM ET (US)
|
"This is Edison Carter, Live and Direct!"
|
Brian Carnell 06-10-2003
08:21 PM ET (US)
|
Nice mosaic, but wouldn't it have been really cool if the mosaic depicted a SARS mask?
|
|
Zwack
06-10-2003
05:42 PM ET (US)
|
I agree with Plugh. CACM is a Major Established Publication, but I'm sure it doesn't have "Wide Circulation". I remember, back in the old days reading disassembled code from the Internet Worm. I can't see the significance of WIRED publishing a commentary and disassembly. It's been done, but then again, I suppose we will be condemned because you can't just buy CACM from your local newsstand.
I think Eli has done a great job in pointing out that mobile phones with cameras are going to be used for many things other than "reporting" More likely in my opinion is a combination of instant web holiday album and instant voyeurism. I can't see the ability to post pictures instantly as meaning that "everyone will become an independent reporter" any more than desktop publishing meant that everyone became editor of a personal 'zine overnight. Some people did, and did it well, some tried it, some thought about it, most people did nothing with it.
Just my 2p (somewhat more than 2c)
Z.
What we really want now is a link to a photo taken with a mobile phone of someone disassembling the Slammer code while wearing a "SARS" mask... :-P
|
Eli the Bearded 06-10-2003
04:48 PM ET (US)
|
Plugh (/m11), what? You don't think slammer was disassembled
that night as well? You should check the bugtrak archives, I
think you will find slammer was analyzed right quick. Of course
it does take some time for that to filter down to the
publishing it level.
|
plugh 06-10-2003
04:38 PM ET (US)
|
I also forgot to mention that the incident was covered by John Markoff in the NYT (although he neglected to provide a disassembly :-)
|
plugh 06-10-2003
04:24 PM ET (US)
|
Well, I wasn't saying that a blogger covered the code, I was saying that a major refereed journal (CACM) published an analysis of the code of a worm, *16 years ago*. If you read the links, you'd find that Slammer used EXACTLY THE SAME TECHNIQUES as that worm did (buffer overflow, to be specific). The people involved disassembled the code that night, as the worm was spreading, not months later. And in fact, the Internet worm of '88 was vastly more sophisticated than Slammer.
People are far far to quick to judge things as "significant", IMHO. Significance is judged in retrospect, by what effect it has on future things, not at the moment.
The story I think the reporter missed is the similarities with the Internet worm of '88, not simply writing a breathy narrative from the point of view of some Akamai tech, along with an annotated hex dump.
|
xeni 06-10-2003
03:56 PM ET (US)
|
/m6 -- Plugh, I just don't agree. How have WIRED, and the writer behind that story, not done something new here? When a blogger or unpaid geek-community site publishes disassembled code, the risks, the reach, and the impact are different than when a Conde Nast publication does the same, along with new analysis of the worm and its impact on business/culture. I'm not saying that the former is less valuable, I'm just saying -- there's no denying that this was a significant first in media.
|
xeni 06-10-2003
03:41 PM ET (US)
|
Ernie, Eli -- don't tempt me...
|
Eli the Bearded 06-10-2003
03:40 PM ET (US)
|
ernie (/m1): http://www.mobileasses.com/
|
|
Ben Brown
06-10-2003
03:26 PM ET (US)
|
I'm confused. What I'm confused about is why every technology writer has to claim that whatever technology they're writing about now is the new journalism. Phone cams != embedded reporter. Hyperbole, anyone?
|
plugh 06-10-2003
03:13 PM ET (US)
|
I would say in this case that historic or not, Wired is following here, not leading.
|
ernie 06-10-2003
03:13 PM ET (US)
|
;)
|
xeni 06-10-2003
03:00 PM ET (US)
|
Of course the code's been out there for years. What's historic is the fact that a major, established publication with wide circulation chose to place this in print. Whether or not the disassembled code is a new thing isn't the point -- that publishing decision is a media "first."
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
2366
(Unique:
837
) / Subscribers:
1 | What's this?
