Own a Dire Wolf?

Well here is an interesting article about a breed of dog that is similar to the "Dire Wolf". Loveable and expensive to feed...(not to mention cleaning up giant poo)..it is not not for every family, but with a lot of time, space, and energy, it might be for you.

Your Dreams of Owning a Dire Wolf Can Finally Come True (Sort Of)

• BY RACHEL EDIDIN
• 03.26.13
• 2:01 PM

<< Previous | Next >>

American Alsatian puppies might be as close to a dire wolf as Game of Thrones fans can come.
Photo: Kel McDonald

You’ve been reading or watching Game of Thrones. You’ve lovingly lingered over the descriptions of Gray Wind running into battle with Rob. You cried for Lady and cheered when Nymeria used Joffrey’s arm as a chew toy. Perhaps you’ve even caught yourself looking back over your lease agreement and wondering if “dire wolf” qualifies as an exotic pet.

Unfortunately, you’re a few millennia late for the real thing: While real dire wolves once roamed the Americas, Canis dirus went extinct about 10,000 years ago, with no descendant species. Northern Inuit Dogs — HBO’s choice for dire-wolf stand-ins — more closely resemble the modern gray wolf, Canis lupus, which is not only illegal to keep as a pet in the United States but more likely to share the temperament of the feral, skittish Shaggydog than gentle Lady.

But while wolf-dog hybrids often come with many of the same temperamental and legal issues as their wilder cousins, there may be another option for those seeking a large, wolfy companion: the Dire Wolf Project, undertaken by the American Alsatian Breeders Association.

According to breed founder Lois Schwarz, the Dire Wolf Project is an attempt to bring back the look of the extinct dire wolf in a domesticated companion dog breed. How close have they come? I visited Schwarz Kennels, home of the Dire Wolf Project, in White City, Oregon, to find out.

Lois Schwarz has been breeding dogs since 1975, and began developing the American Alsatian breed in 1987 with the goal of a large, long-lived companion dog. Schwarz wanted a wolflike appearance, but with a wider and heavier-set physique than the slender gray wolves; her project found its name when her daughter pointed out that the physical characteristics Schwarz was aiming for might better describe a prehistoric dire wolf.

It’s worth noting that the Dire Wolf Project isn’t a true breeding back project; there are no known surviving samples of dire wolf genetic material, and Schwarz’s selective breeding for aesthetics is entirely different from scientifically based de-extinction projects like the effort to resurrect the passenger pigeon. Schwarz hasn’t made a detailed study of dire wolf physiology or bone structure, or sought significant input from a paleontologist or geneticist. And even if she had, no concrete evidence as to the coloration or coat of C. dirus exists.

That said, American Alsatians look really cool. They’re distinctly wolfy, but wider, shaggier and warmer in color than huskies, malamutes or modern gray wolves. Basically, they’re the kind of fantasy wolves that wouldn’t look out of place howling at a T-shirt moon, which may be exactly the sort of pet that a lot of would-be members of House Stark are looking for.

Topping out at 130 pounds, American Alsatians are not quite up to dire wolf size, but in that regard Schwarz says the breed will be informed more by practicality than accuracy. Few families are looking for a 160-pound dog, and Schwarz is anxious to avoid American Alsatians ending up at the pound.

And what Schwarz’s dogs lack in prehistoric dire wolf minutiae, they make up for with their pleasant temperament. The cluster of characteristics she claimed to be able to breed for consistently — intelligent, alert pups who would seek human contact but sit calmly instead of chasing or barking — seemed unlikely, especially for a breed whose ancestors were primarily working dogs.

Then, I met my first American Alsatian puppies. At four weeks, they crawled up wide-eyed and alert to investigate my shoes, as their mother Autumn sat patiently by.

“Watch this,” Schwarz told me. “This is a temperament test.” She dropped a large chest of tools on the ground with a clang. I jumped, but the puppies just glanced lazily over before continuing about their business. Even as puppies, American Alsatians are noticeably calm, whether they’re exploring their environment or scooped up in your arms; it’s easy to believe Schwarz’s claim that many end up companion or therapy dogs for owners with special needs.

So how close are they to actual dire wolves? Extinct canid expert Xiaoming Wang of the Vertebrate Paleontology Department at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles told Wired that an actual genetic connection is very unlikely, given that dogs originated much later than — and on a different continent from — dire wolves. And Schwarz herself admits that the reconstruction on which she’s basing the breed’s coat and stature are more wishful and fantasy-oriented than scientific, matched more to the needs of prospective owners than prehistoric fact.

Still, if what you’re after is a friendly, mellow dog with that shaggy, fantasy-wolf look, an American Alsatian might be your best bet. Don’t get too excited, though: Even if you can hack the $3,000 price tag, there’s a long waiting list for puppies, which Schwarz expects will get even longer as more Game of Thrones fans find their way to her kennels.

Still wanna be a hacker?

Still want to be a hacker? Maybe you might want to invest in a bomb shelter or something...check these articles out:

Why Legal Experts Say It's Okay To Kill A Civilian Hacker In Cyber Warfare

And why their reasoning is not all that surprising

By Kelsey D. AthertonPosted 03.21.2013 at 4:30 pm11 Comments

Arrest? No longer the worst consequence of cyber attacks. wikimedia commons

Cyberspace makes for a strange battlefield. Attacks are launched from offices, combatants fight with keystrokes, and the targets are usually just information, financial data, and trade secrets. For the vast majority of cyber attacks, that is as big as the threat will be. The biggest exception: cyber attacks that become part of a larger war. When that happens, according to a set of proposed international rules commissioned by NATO and written in conjunction with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the US Cyber Command, even civilian hackers participating in the conflict can be targeted. By bombs and bullets.

That has generated lots of panicky headlines across the web, as you might imagine. The document, called the "Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare", was written by 20 legal scholars and practitioners, and represents those experts' best reasoning at how current international law applies to cyber war. It covers everything from how to avoid civilian casualties to who's considered a combatant in a court of law. Here's the part folks are really riled up about:

Civilians are not prohibited from directly participating in cyber operations amounting to hostilities, but forfeit their protection from attacks for such time as they so participate.

That's legalese, and the sentences almost reads better backwards, so here it is in plain talk: Civilians, normally off-limits as targets in war, stop being off limits if they engage in cyber attacks. This rule explicitly carves out an exception to Geneva Convention rules against targeting civilians, noting that civilians engaged in cyber attacks are participating in the conflict, but hardly proper armed combatants. The Tallinn Manual goes on to specify that these civilians enjoy all the other protections of civilians, except the exemption from targeting.

Okay, great. So what does all this mean?

1. Not much, unless countries are actually at war.
There are circumstances where a cyber attack can constitute an act of war, but those attacks are clearly going to be different from the normal kind of data-targeting cyber attack. To constitute an act of war, the cyber attack probably has to kill someone, or cause a large and obvious infrastructure failure, like shutting down a power grid or breaking dam controls.

2. People who are fighting a war are legal targets in that war.
Perhaps the best way to explain the logic of the proposed rule is to look at drone pilots. Most of them, especially in the Air Force, fly their war machines from bases in the United States, usually the Nevada desert. Yet they are undeniably engaged in the war; it's hard to describe what they do as anything else, and they do so in uniform, meeting the standards of lawful combatants. The Department of Defense has acknowledged that . That means that if someone kills them in war, that person cannot be tried for war crimes.

The proposed rule on civilians engaged in cyber is a lot like that. Granted, these are civilians, not uniformed soldiers, so it's slightly different, but not by a lot. If there is a war on, and it involves civilians committing cyber attacks, those civilians can probably be targeted just as if they were actively fighting the war.

3. This is probably about China.
Last month, the New York Times revealed details about one of the Chinese Army's cyber units, including the unit's likely location in Shanghai. China is at the forefront of cyber attacks right now--an advantage that isn't likely to go away any time soon. To balance that out, and to deter cyber attacks, NATO's best bet is to establish rules where a crippling cyber attack is met with deadly force. The Tallinn rule is part of that.

4. The future of cyber war is just war.
Ultimately, shocking though the headlines might look, they could be just as accurately written as "people who launch deadly attacks in war are legal targets in war." That's not catchy, but it's just as accurate. By interpreting the laws of war for the 21st century, the Tallinn Manual just reinforces the fundamental standard of conflict: if an enemy is trying to kill people, it is okay to use force to stop him. Even if that enemy is a hacker.

NATO cyberwar directive declares hackers military targets

Get short URL

Published time: March 19, 2013 21:38
Edited time: March 20, 2013 08:26

Reuters / Andrew Burton

Share on Tumblr

Tags

Immigration, Information Technology,NATO, War

As the United States and its adversaries move from using missiles to malware on its targets, a group of specialists have drafted preliminary guidelines for the world’s ramped-up cyberwars.

The rule book published this week, The Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, was curated by NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence and calls upon two dozen experts from around the world to help lay the groundwork for cyberwar guidelines as attacks aimed at computer grids, networks and systems increasingly become the target of foreign agents.

Michael Schmitt, a professor with the US Naval War College and the editor of the manual, told the Associated Press before publication that the guidelines come at a time when few laws formally exist governing the use of so-called cyberweapons. Just like bombs and missiles, hackers and state-sponsored parties can use malicious code to wipe out entire databases, break down machinery and otherwise render enter infrastructures useless.

"Everyone was seeing the Internet as the 'Wild, Wild, West,'" Schmitt told the AP. "What they had forgotten is that international law applies to cyberweapons like it applies to any other weapons."

In order to bring a bit more structure, Schmitt and roughly two dozen others from law schools and militaries around the world met in the Estonian city of Tallinn during the last three years to try and at least set up some sort of rules that might be adopted. For now, though, the Tallinn Manual is nothing more than a collection of suggestions that Schmitt and company would like nations around the world to heed as recommendations.

Adding to the AP, University of Westminster international law professor Marco Roscini predicts, "I'm sure it will be quite influential.” In the meantime, though, The Tallinn Manual is merely an example of how future wars might be waged — and what rules will help guide them.

The Tallinn Manual contains 95 “black letter rules” that have borrowed from existing battlefield behavior guidelines like those developed in the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration and the 1949 Geneva Convention. Taking into account the cybersphere, though, the Tallinn Manual doesn’t just stop with who and how to attack — but with what kinds of methods should be allowed in twenty-first century warfare.

Within the 302 pages of the report, international law experts try to pinpoint what exactly a cyberwar is and what other rules of engagement could be borrowed from past doctrines to guide battles of the future. The specialists decide that a cyberattack can be narrowly defined as a cyber-operation, either offensive or defensive, “that is reasonably expected to cause injury or death to persons or damage or destruction to objects.” But while civilians cannot be lawfully targeted with such an attack, the experts write, persons unaligned to a military can still be considered fair game for assault — with cyberweapons or otherwise—if they pose a threat.

“Consider the example of an individual hacktivist who has, over the course of one month, conducted seven cyber attacks against the enemy’s command and control system. By the first view, the hacktivist was only targetable while conducting each attack. By the second, he was targetable for the entire month. Moreover, in the absence of a clear indication that the hacktivist was no longer engaged in such attacks, he or she would have remained targetable beyond the period.”

Elsewhere in the manual, NATO’s crew defined a hacktivist as “a private citizen ho on his or her own initiative engages in hacking for, inter alia, ideological, political, religious or patriotic reasons.” Even if that “hacktivist” isn’t directly working with an official military, though, NATO says they could still be targeted for attack.

“An act of direct participation in hostilities by civilians renders them liable to be attacked, by cyber or other lawful means,” reads an excerpt from the manual.

Kount Kreepy: While my feelings on "Hackers" and "Hacker culture" remain mixed, I don't believe that any military should have a right to bomb, shoot, or maim civilian targets. On the flip side go ahead and bomb that guy that created the virus that screwed up my computer a few years ago.