To break the "whole" internet takes some doing. That said, a large scale distributed dns reflection attack or any number of other attacks can turn off large chunks of the internet more or less at will. Thirty minutes seems very optimistic, if the zombies are in place prior to the attack.
My favorite harvester unit response is "But what about the tiberium?".
The way he says it, completely concerned about not getting any more tiberium, in a shaky voice, all because you moved him away from the incoming attackers for a few seconds.
Not true! ARPANET was designed as it was because there were only a few super computing sites at the time, and they were separated by quite a bit. The redundancy comes in to play only because they didn't want to lose important access if a router broke somewhere, as they are wont to do. All it was designed for was to survive a single point of failure. But even that is distorted. Just because ARPANET was designed that way decades ago, doesn't mean that large corporations decided to keep with that philosophy when they took over!
"A memorandum published by the DoD in March 1982 declared that the adoption of TCP/IP as the DoD standard host-to-host protocol was mandatory and would provide for "host-to-host connectivity across network or subnetwork boundaries."
Military requirements for interoperability, security,
reliability and [b]survability[/b] are sufficiently pressing to
have justified the development and adoption of TCP and IP in
the absence of satisfactory nongovernment protocol
standards."
The DoD also approved the Space Shuttle's final dimensions on the basis of $100/lb launch costs and a constant schedule of military payloads... I think if you were to hand the DoD a purchase order for a pallet load of marshmallow peeps, they'd only be to happy to certify their nuclear/chem/bio survivability and tactical necessity. They just like to buy toys, and nobody questions them about wether they really need something, and nobody ever tests them to make sure they really use it...
At least in this case we ended up with the Internet, and not the spaceplane-that-wouldn't-die-and-syphons-science-money.
I think if you were to hand the DoD a purchase order for a pallet load of marshmallow peeps, they'd only be to happy to certify their nuclear/chem/bio survivability and tactical necessity.
That would be a mistake. They should only certify Twinkies.
If Family Guy has taught me anything, it's that everyone should go to the nearest Twinkie factory in the event of a nuclear holocaust.
It is the vulgar comedy of the day. It is fun to watch but just because they have people on their like Stewie and Brian on there waxing intellectual does not mean it is.
Too bad Family Guy has run out of funny jokes, and has taken to showing complete songs of Conway Twitty. A short clip might have been funny once, but the whole damn song? Come on.
Which shows exactly why Andy Kaufman wasn't really funny. Funny in the abstract, not in the execution. It's funny to hear the story of the joke being played on it's audience. It's absolutely painful to watch.
yes, it does syphon science money. Why is this a bad thing? Having focused expensive projects is a way to maintain interest in science in general and provide an opportunity for related projects to be developed. Sure, it is bad news for the ag seed libraries, but even these have benefited from our ridiculously expensive space program.
On a related note, I really like orange tang and appreciate the early space program.
We coulda built three superconducting supercolliders with the money spent on one ISS, and I don't think the ISS will ever deliver the science of the SSC. At least that's what Steven Weinberg thought [amazon.com], and he's better situated to know than either of us.
NASA didn't invent Tang [wikipedia.org]. They just drank it. In fact the space program didn't invent any of the things [movementarian.com] people think it did. There is however a long list of things [ethicalatheist.com] it has has done for us.
They just like to buy toys, and nobody questions them about wether they really need something, and nobody ever tests them to make sure they really use it...
Well, in the case of nukes, I guess we're all pretty glad that they're using supercomputers to test them now, and that they never 'really used' them...
Yes, they used them in Japan, and many tests in the South Pacific and Nevada.
Unfortunately, those uses were then, and this is now. The hardware we are counting on now hasn't been through real testing, only simulations. Make the right assumptions and a simulated twinkie can destroy a simulated continent.
Or maybe moving at close to the speed of light relative to the Earth's surface?
Hell, both put together, and you've got a delicious, hyper-kinetic anti-Twinkie with enough potential energy to punch a hole in the crust.
Plus, we don't have to assume it's snack sized; a Twinkie large enough to feed a small family for a few years is still a Twinkie. (This assumes that the small family in question is likewise made of antimatter of course.) I'm pretty sure Twinkieness is a question of composition and shape, not m
"Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds."
The DoD also approved the Space Shuttle's final dimensions on the basis of [stuff]... and a constant schedule of military payloads...
And how many military satellites has the shuttle been used to launch, I wonder? All of the GPS satellites to begin with, I'd guess. Maybe the DoD got exactly what they wanted out of the shuttle.
All it was designed for was to survive a single point of failure.
(note that I'm quoting canajin here in case there is any confusion)
What makes you think survivability implies the ability to survive nuclear war? The fact that you've heard as much parroted anecdotally countless times in the past?
Excellent points all, Good Citizen canajin56. A small amount of the proper explosive or incendiary device distributed among seven IXP sites should be sufficient. (Note I said IXP, not ISP!)
OK, then what about by a Cylon invasion? (Which of course, would begin with a nuclear strike.) I doubt that our toaster children would have any trouble with Mccafree or Norton products.
OK, then what about by a Cylon invasion? (Which of course, would begin with a nuclear strike.) I doubt that our toaster children would have any trouble with Mccafree or Norton products.
In my experience if we did have a Cylon invasion McAfee and Norton may be our ONLY defense. Upload it and watch as they can no longer function
OK, then what about by a Cylon invasion? (Which of course, would begin with a nuclear strike.) I doubt that our toaster children would have any trouble with Mccafree or Norton products.
In my experience if we did have a Cylon invasion McAfee and Norton may be our ONLY defense. Upload it and watch as they can no longer function
You're horrible. Not even the Cylons deserve Norton and McAfee.
I am keeping Microsoft Bob [wikipedia.org]. Nothing even remotely compares to its crappiness, imagine a UI that relied almost completely on clippy like interactions.
If it was the Borg, we just need to upload Norton Internet Security. Based on the complete lack of network access I experienced last time I installed that piece of garbage, installing it on the Borg networks will cause them to loose connectivity to the collective.
In the olden days, the Borg were taken out by Microsoft's lawyers. It should be much easier to handle the Cylons today - just send an anonymous tip to **AA.
Actually, this is exactly what it's supposed to survive.
Well, I'm reasonably certain my computer can't withstand a nuclear attack, and I don't think most porn stars are radiation-resistant, so it's really trivial to me whether or not there is still an internet after a nuclear war.
The stars may not survive, but their videos could in a datastore underground. And your computer could survive in a bomb shelter. Underground. You know, where you live. In your mama's basement. Heh heh
Is the AC talking to rcamans or me? Because if it's me, my mamma's basement ain't big enough for the both of us. Neither is my bomb shelter porn collection.
"Well, I'm reasonably certain my computer can't withstand a nuclear attack, and I don't think most porn stars are radiation-resistant, so it's really trivial to me whether or not there is still an internet after a nuclear war."
Remember, after a nuclear war, there will only be two things left, cockroaches and Keith Richards [independent.co.uk].
that's not the only issue... where I live, each time there is some big worldwide news and consequent heavy use of the nearby cell tower, my cellular Internet connection (you know, those "nifty" 3G USB sticks) stops working altogether...
or whatever it is that causes large middle eastern countries to lose all access to the outside world for days at a time (apart from satellite feeds) on multiple occasions all with multiple cable failures at the same time.
Heck, it'd go even quicker if the Vogons decided to build a hyperspace bypass! Come to think of it, if somebody travelled backwards in time incorrectly and destroyed the universe, the internet would probably be destroyed in negative minutes!!
Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or a new strain of rapidly spreading electricity-consuming tiberium.
Or me.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
To break the "whole" internet takes some doing. That said, a large scale distributed dns reflection attack or any number of other attacks can turn off large chunks of the internet more or less at will. Thirty minutes seems very optimistic, if the zombies are in place prior to the attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior question is, at what point does a network become "internet".
Do two networks connected make a internet... 3, maybe 4.... When do you call it "internet".
If its a large number of networks, then a ship with its anchor down in red sea can pretty quickly bring down the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If it's lower-case i internet as in your post, then yes, two or more connected networks make an internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it would take several DIFFERENT networks' router-jockeys horking up their BGP rules at the same time...
That was *mostly* tongue-in-cheek.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite harvester unit response is "But what about the tiberium?".
The way he says it, completely concerned about not getting any more tiberium, in a shaky voice, all because you moved him away from the incoming attackers for a few seconds.
nah. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this is exactly what it's supposed to survive.
Re:nah. (Score:5, Informative)
NAH (Score:5, Interesting)
"A memorandum published by the DoD in March 1982 declared
that the adoption of TCP/IP as the DoD standard host-to-host
protocol was mandatory and would provide for "host-to-host
connectivity across network or subnetwork boundaries."
Military requirements for interoperability, security,
reliability and [b]survability[/b] are sufficiently pressing to
have justified the development and adoption of TCP and IP in
the absence of satisfactory nongovernment protocol
standards."
Emphasis mine.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/tcpdigest_paper.txt [columbia.edu]
Re:NAH (Score:5, Insightful)
The DoD also approved the Space Shuttle's final dimensions on the basis of $100/lb launch costs and a constant schedule of military payloads... I think if you were to hand the DoD a purchase order for a pallet load of marshmallow peeps, they'd only be to happy to certify their nuclear/chem/bio survivability and tactical necessity. They just like to buy toys, and nobody questions them about wether they really need something, and nobody ever tests them to make sure they really use it...
At least in this case we ended up with the Internet, and not the spaceplane-that-wouldn't-die-and-syphons-science-money.
Re:NAH (Score:4, Funny)
I think if you were to hand the DoD a purchase order for a pallet load of marshmallow peeps, they'd only be to happy to certify their nuclear/chem/bio survivability and tactical necessity.
That would be a mistake. They should only certify Twinkies.
If Family Guy has taught me anything, it's that everyone should go to the nearest Twinkie factory in the event of a nuclear holocaust.
Re:NAH (Score:5, Funny)
If Family Guy has taught me anything, it's that everyone should go to the nearest Twinkie factory in the event of a nuclear holocaust.
If Family Guy has taught you anything, then may god have mercy on us all.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Learning from Family Guy (Score:2)
I think we all have a duty to learn from Family Guy.
There. I've said it.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad Family Guy has run out of funny jokes, and has taken to showing complete songs of Conway Twitty. A short clip might have been funny once, but the whole damn song? Come on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which shows exactly why Andy Kaufman wasn't really funny. Funny in the abstract, not in the execution. It's funny to hear the story of the joke being played on it's audience. It's absolutely painful to watch.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
That reminds me of the time Ron Perlman taught my economic 101 class while high on meth.
Re: (Score:1)
It's nucular you dummy! The s is silent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On a related note, I really like orange tang and appreciate the early space program.
Re: (Score:2)
We coulda built three superconducting supercolliders with the money spent on one ISS, and I don't think the ISS will ever deliver the science of the SSC. At least that's what Steven Weinberg thought [amazon.com], and he's better situated to know than either of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They just like to buy toys, and nobody questions them about wether they really need something, and nobody ever tests them to make sure they really use it...
Well, in the case of nukes, I guess we're all pretty glad that they're using supercomputers to test them now, and that they never 'really used' them...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to reply to my own post - of course they sued them. How could I forget Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Apologies.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, those uses were then, and this is now. The hardware we are counting on now hasn't been through real testing, only simulations. Make the right assumptions and a simulated twinkie can destroy a simulated continent.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the twinkie made of antimatter?
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe moving at close to the speed of light relative to the Earth's surface?
Hell, both put together, and you've got a delicious, hyper-kinetic anti-Twinkie with enough potential energy to punch a hole in the crust.
Plus, we don't have to assume it's snack sized; a Twinkie large enough to feed a small family for a few years is still a Twinkie. (This assumes that the small family in question is likewise made of antimatter of course.) I'm pretty sure Twinkieness is a question of composition and shape, not m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... I don't even know what a twinkie is
Re:NAH (Score:4, Funny)
"That's a big Twinkie."
Re: (Score:2)
And how many military satellites has the shuttle been used to launch, I wonder? All of the GPS satellites to begin with, I'd guess. Maybe the DoD got exactly what they wanted out of the shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
YAH!! (Score:2)
Survivability.. so maybe
All it was designed for was to survive a single point of failure.
(note that I'm quoting canajin here in case there is any confusion)
What makes you think survivability implies the ability to survive nuclear war? The fact that you've heard as much parroted anecdotally countless times in the past?
Re: (Score:1)
What else would survivability have meant to the DoD in 1982?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, I don't know.. maybe it could have meant the ability to survive a single point of failure?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that not having a single point of failure was considered part of "reliability" even back then.
Or in other words (Score:2)
The DoD doesn't like losing their pr0n anymore than anyone else does.
What do you expect, they slap themselves on the forehead in 1990-something, saying "Oh s***! We forgot to design it to survive a war!"
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent points all, Good Citizen canajin56. A small amount of the proper explosive or incendiary device distributed among seven IXP sites should be sufficient. (Note I said IXP, not ISP!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't start with a nuclear strike. They had operatives on the ground already. Watch the 1st episode again. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:nah. (Score:5, Funny)
OK, then what about by a Cylon invasion? (Which of course, would begin with a nuclear strike.) I doubt that our toaster children would have any trouble with Mccafree or Norton products.
In my experience if we did have a Cylon invasion McAfee and Norton may be our ONLY defense. Upload it and watch as they can no longer function
Re:nah. (Score:5, Funny)
OK, then what about by a Cylon invasion? (Which of course, would begin with a nuclear strike.) I doubt that our toaster children would have any trouble with Mccafree or Norton products.
In my experience if we did have a Cylon invasion McAfee and Norton may be our ONLY defense. Upload it and watch as they can no longer function
You're horrible. Not even the Cylons deserve Norton and McAfee.
Re:nah. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm saving my copy of windows ME just for the cylon revolt.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't work. Jeff Goldblum taught us that the aliens are all using apples.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm saving my copy of windows ME just for the cylon revolt.
I've got a Mac book to interface with alien technology in case this sort of thing happens, so between us we should be ok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I read that as upload it and watch as Norton and McAffee no longer function, meaning there goes our only defense.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was the Borg, we just need to upload Norton Internet Security. Based on the complete lack of network access I experienced last time I installed that piece of garbage, installing it on the Borg networks will cause them to loose connectivity to the collective.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they would function, only the red "knight rider" light on their faces would move back and forward really, really, slowwwwwllllllyyyyyy.
Anyone waiting for Norton to finish a full scan of the C: drive knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
In the olden days, the Borg were taken out by Microsoft's lawyers. It should be much easier to handle the Cylons today - just send an anonymous tip to **AA.
Re:nah. (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, this is exactly what it's supposed to survive.
Well, I'm reasonably certain my computer can't withstand a nuclear attack, and I don't think most porn stars are radiation-resistant, so it's really trivial to me whether or not there is still an internet after a nuclear war.
Re:nah. (Score:4, Funny)
The stars may not survive, but their videos could in a datastore underground. And your computer could survive in a bomb shelter. Underground. You know, where you live. In your mama's basement.
Heh heh
Re: (Score:2)
Is the AC talking to rcamans or me? Because if it's me, my mamma's basement ain't big enough for the both of us. Neither is my bomb shelter porn collection.
Mutant Porn! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't this called Hentai?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, after a nuclear war, there will only be two things left, cockroaches and Keith Richards [independent.co.uk].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By a nuclear war for example.
That doesn't count.
Unless of course, you'd be worried about your WoW account while billions of people are dying.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
By a nuclear war for example.
Why go to such extremes?
root@internet# shutdown -h +30 "Teh Intarwebs are going down!"
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By a nuclear war for example.
Why go to such extremes?
root@internet# shutdown -h +30 "Teh Intarwebs are going down!"
Why shut it down when you can blow it up?
root@inernet# yum install Windows-Vista.x86_64
Re: (Score:1)
root@internet# rm -rf *
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Or by throwing anchor in Mediterranean sea :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By a nuclear war for example.
Heck, it'd go even quicker if the Vogons decided to build a hyperspace bypass! Come to think of it, if somebody travelled backwards in time incorrectly and destroyed the universe, the internet would probably be destroyed in negative minutes!!
Look at me, I'm Mr. Insightful, mod me up!
Re: (Score:2)
Easier to just flush some paper towels down it and clog up the tubes.
Re: (Score:1)