Three Blind Phreaks

Re:Leet.. by sadomikeyism · 2004-01-31 05:11 · Score: 1

When you dial with your middle finger, your pr0n is all tactical.

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves

Re:Leet.. by kmcg83 · 2004-01-31 05:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think that's their advantage. Less distraction.

Three Blind Mice by Fenis-Wolf · 2004-01-31 05:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Thats really cool. Reminds of the guy that first figured out that the Captain Crunch whistle exactly matched the long distance tones on the phone system.
The good ol' days when you could get long distance...
*sigh*

--

Re:Three Blind Mice by OS24Ever · 2004-01-31 05:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Would that be John 'Captain Crunch' Draper?

--
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Chess_the_cat · 2004-01-31 05:19 · Score: 1

What are you on about? John Draper wasn't blind.

--
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Re:Three Blind Mice by Paleomacus · 2004-01-31 05:29 · Score: 1

Draper wasn't the one who figured it out.
Re:Three Blind Mice by stankyho · 2004-01-31 05:31 · Score: 5, Informative

It was a blind phreaker named Denny that showed John Draper what the whistle could do. cap'n Crunch just got popular because of it.
Google's cache of the story.

--

---
eeww, I'll have a crab juice.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 05:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

This article just shows that even a blind person can be as big a dipsh!t, as anyone with sight. If they were ripping innocent people off without technology, there would be outrage. But the fact they are using "social engineering" and hacking techniques make them idols? Those who think this is cool, are more blind than the brothers.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:Three Blind Mice by Paleomacus · 2004-01-31 05:31 · Score: 1

IIRC. A group of blind phreaks with perfect pitch told him about it.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:02 · Score: 1, Informative

It was steve wozniak, I saw it on techtv, he was talking about it on the screen savers.
Re:Three Blind Mice by fingerbear · 2004-01-31 06:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't think they're cool because they're blind.

I think they're cool for the same reason I'm impressed by Olympic athletes -- they've trained their bodies to do something that I doubt I'd ever be able to do. (identifying touch tones from across the room, etc.)
Re:Three Blind Mice by Osrin · 2004-01-31 06:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

When we had analog exchanges in the UK you used to be able to simply play with the dialing codes for free long distance. Each town had a long distance code you had to dial to get to it (i.e. 0254), they also had short dials that would allow you to dial adjecent towns to your own (i.e. 91 used to get me from Blackburn to Preston).

If you could work it all out you used to be able to hop from town to town to town using the short dials. Long numbers to call, but much, much cheaper.

I know, I know... offtopic, I'd all but forgotten about this.
Re:Three Blind Mice by whovian · 2004-01-31 06:31 · Score: 1

A slightly different spin on what you said.

I think they are cool for showing they could overcome their physical impediment. Now contrast this with people who give up who don't have physical impediments.

But phreaking the system...yeah, that's criminal.

--
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Re:Three Blind Mice by telbij · 2004-01-31 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can still appreciate someone's talents even if you despise their morals. It's only about technology because it's on Slashdot, but I would be equally impressed by a brilliant criminal who didn't use technology. Problem is they usually exist only in Hollywood movies.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:43 · Score: 0

That'd be John Draper (aka Cap'n Crunch). He also did serious time in the pokey for phreaking the AT&T trunks.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Heisenbug · 2004-01-31 06:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

They're cool for the same reason that the guy in Catch Me If You Can is cool. It's an impressive display of skill. The cleverness is entertaining. It's also immoral and illegal, and ultimately isolating. I wouldn't do it.

They're still cool.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:00 · Score: 0

Actually no. The use of the Cap'n Crunch whistle to blow 2600Hz tones was originally discovered by a couple of blind phreaks and was well-known in certain circles long before John Draper adopted the moniker. He simply learned of the trick and started spreading its use around to a wider audience. In a sense, he was one of the earliest skript kiddies.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Rex+Code · 2004-01-31 07:04 · Score: 4, Informative

It was a blind phreaker named Denny that showed John Draper what the whistle could do. cap'n Crunch just got popular because of it.

Actually, the blind phreak was named Joe Engressia, and he didn't need the plastic whistle to produce 2600 Hz or other multifrequency tones. He could simply whistle them. IIRC, John did discover that the whistle would cause long-distance calls to drop. If only I could find my old '71 Esquire issue...

Trivia: Joe now lives in Minneapolis and has changed his name to Joybubbles.
Re:Three Blind Mice by catbutt · 2004-01-31 07:11 · Score: 1

Geez, lighten up. Have you never seen a movie where the protagonist was a clever, talented criminal? Did you ruin the movie for everyone by complaining that he is breaking the law so therefore no one should enjoy the movie or like the main character?

Yeah, what they did was illegal and immoral. So what? Don't do it yourself -- but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the story and have a little bit of admiration for the guys. Anyway, jail time was served.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 07:28 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Dude, Osama bin Laden is so damn cool. Did you see how on Sept. 11 he orchestrated a complex attack on the US, involving a collection of covert actions intricately interwoven to form a subtle web that was transparent to the casual observer, but from afar, in hindsite, would almost look to be like an extremely organized terrorist hit. You know you're right, appreciating and even praising people with utter disregard for others is fun. Thanks for convincing me, bud.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:Three Blind Mice by namespan · 2004-01-31 07:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dude, Osama bin Laden is so damn cool. Did you see how on Sept. 11 he orchestrated a complex attack on the US, involving a collection of covert actions intricately interwoven to form a subtle web

This is actually quite true. The terrorist actions were bold and devastatingly effective, the result of some clever thinking combined with a willingness to die.

Cool in the same way a nuclear bomb is cool. Horrifying, something you want to totally reject, even as it is impressive.

--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:46 · Score: 0

yah yah yah - I'm totally impressed by people that have nothing better to do all day than this BS. Anyone that can devote most of their waking hours to something is going to get pretty damn good at it. And, btw, why are these guys not in jail?
Re:Three Blind Mice by sethx9 · 2004-01-31 07:49 · Score: 1

The linked-to story is ambiguous/misleading when it says, "His "handle" came from the inclusion of a plastic whistle in Captain Crunch cereal in the 1960's which could, with proper manipulation, send out a control tone that would affect telephone systems of the time. Of course, Draper didn't actually discover that fact (the honor goes to a blind phone phreak named Joe Engressia)..."
To clarify: Engressia was born with perfect pitch and realized that by whistling a 2600 cycle tone he could trick the switching system into giving him free phone calls. Draper, who was not born with the same ability, realized he could make the same tone using a toy whistle that came in a box of cereal.
Google-ing either name will bring up a pile of links on the history of phreaking.
Of course you could old-school it and pick up a copy of 2600 magazine at your local newstand.

--
Sorry, I keep forgetting to add the tongue-in-cheek emoticon to the bottom of my posts...
Re:Three Blind Mice by sethx9 · 2004-01-31 07:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

While I agreee that what these three brothers did was criminal, to equate the actions of those who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon with a confidence scam (regardless of the amount of money in question) is wildly, grossly, disturbingly inappropriate.

--
Sorry, I keep forgetting to add the tongue-in-cheek emoticon to the bottom of my posts...
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 08:06 · Score: 0

Then again, Bush handles people with respect...
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 08:15 · Score: 0

Yeah, but it was Cap'n Crunch that got the jail time - hense his close relation to the story and the occasional mis-representations.

Draper, however, is clear to point out what he picked up from others, what he did with others and what he did himself. I think that's the most important aspect of any hacker/phreaker type. Give credit where credit is due, and such.

Draper is very ecclectic and.. in my conversations with him... um... I would lean toward almost a little "looney" - but he's a nice guy and still is a significant part of the 70's scene.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 08:16 · Score: 1

Terrorist action unequivocally requires repeated propogation of the description of their actions in order to justify their actions. They wouldn't do it, if they didn't get exposure. That is what I reject to. If you consider the propogation of this attitude cool, then you are implicitly endorsing the action itself.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:Three Blind Mice by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 08:26 · Score: 1

I'm not equating Al Qaeda's actions with the brothers. I'm attempting to represent the similarities between the spreading of the story of Al Qaeda's terrorist activities (as a demonstration to show that by doing this, their activities performed their purpose) and his spreading of his endorsement of the brothers thereby popularizing the use of technological theft.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 08:41 · Score: 0

Penis-Wolf said:

Reminds of the guy that first figured out that the Captain Crunch whistle exactly matched the long distance tones on the phone system.

Or Cap'n Crunch and his blue box. Here's the original article from Esquire that brought phreakers into the mainstream in 1971.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 09:07 · Score: 0

you are wrong on that point.

the new form of terrorism doesnt require that.

they simply want to destroy, kill and mame as much of america as possible.

no credit is required. that is their goal, to destroy america and britian.

past terrorists had a cause they wanted accomplished, the new form has grander visions of wiping out the enemy entirely.
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 09:23 · Score: 0

Why for Christ's sake, aren't you modded as a Troll?
Re:Three Blind Mice by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 09:26 · Score: 1

It is American culture and governing bodies they want to kill. If people don't see what they do, then it will effect no one alive, and therefore they would have accomplished nothing. Even the most basic terrorist organization can understand that. Also, they don't have the capacity to kill all of America, so they are going to have to settle for scare tactics. And that requires spreading the word. I am very right on my point. Terrorist's are no different now than any other time.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 12:01 · Score: 0

The Captain did not discover the whistle, he knew the guy who did, and just liked the name Captain Crunch. However Draper is never quick to dispell the rumors that he found it.

The person who discovered it was the blind phone phreak Joe Engressia (I'm sure I butchered the spelling of his last name).
Re:Three Blind Mice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 19:45 · Score: 0

kinda like the north american terrorist actions back in the late 1700's
Re:Three Blind Mice by sfjoe · 2004-02-04 09:10 · Score: 1

Dude, Osama bin Laden is so damn cool. Did you see how on Sept. 11 he orchestrated a complex attack on the US...

Liar!!! Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. I know it's true because George W. Bush told me so.

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

Blind Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:13 · Score: 5, Funny

A blind man was seen waiting at a street corner with his guide dog. After a short wait the dog started leading the blind man across the street against the red light.

First a car comes screeching to a halt inches away from him, but still the dog leads on, then a bicyclist almost wipes them out and curses as he goes by. Finally in the last lane a truck swerves and barely misses them.

After they reach the far corner the blind man reaches in his pocket and pulls out a cookie and offers it to the guide dog. At this point another person who has watched the entire episode interrupts asking why he was rewarding the dog after the dog had endangered his life and almost got him run over by a car, bicycle and truck.

The blind man responded: "I'm not rewarding him, I'm just trying to find out which end is his head so I can kick him in the ass."

Re:Blind Joke by Flozzin · 2004-01-31 06:46 · Score: 1

This blind man walks into a convience store with his seeing eye dog. The clerk, seeing that the man was blind, asks if he needs any help in finding anything. The blind man simply replies, No. The clerk had some work to do in the back so he tells the blind man he will be back shortly. When the clerk returns, the blind man is swinging the dog by his leash overtop of him. The shocked clerk asks, What are you doing?! The blind man replies, Just taking a look around.

--
"Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt

Best of all, they're not subject to things like.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:13 · Score: 5, Funny

... hidden links to Goatse or Tubgirl.

One advantage of their situation!!!

Re:Leet.. by Delphix · 2004-01-31 05:13 · Score: 2, Funny

did you mean tactile?

Nothing Special by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

from the article, "They called secretaries and said, 'I need to get in to do a repair. You need to give me the number and password.' Sometimes they succeeded, or else they'd get only the number and try to break the password by using proprietary programs."

sounds like normal boring phreakers to me.

But they make news because they are blind.

DAMNIT why could'nt I have been born blind so I could make the news!

Re:Nothing Special by Pyrrus · 2004-01-31 05:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Exactly. I remember reading in either The hacker crackdown
or Underground that there were some blind phreaks who had such a honed sense
of hearing that they could whistle tones more accuratly
than the teleco equipment. Now /that/ is impressive.
Re:Nothing Special by nelsonal · 2004-01-31 05:25 · Score: 1

One of the tricks they used in the article was almost perfect voice mimics. They could call an executive assistant and the person on the other line would think they were talking to their boss. It's rather amazing how tuned our senses can be if we take the time to hone them.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Nothing Special by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 05:26 · Score: 1

THAT would be a good article to make front page on /., but only young blind criminals seem to make headlines now adays.

Not that the story isn't interesting, but they way it was presented, it's like we are expected to look up to them.
Re:Nothing Special by aTMsA · 2004-01-31 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

sounds like normal boring phreakers to me.
But they make news because they are blind.

Well if you read the article carefully, you'll see this:
At one point during my visit with the Badirs, I pull out my cell phone and make a call. Before it even connects, Shadde, who is sitting across the room, recites all 12 digits perfectly.
Ramy smiles at the parlor trick. "It used to be disgusting to be blind," he says. "Today, you scare people. You possess skills that those with sight cannot possibly understand."

This is something normal people usually can't do, but i've known blind people that can do that kind of "tricks"(they can also tell you if you're standing or sitting while talking on the phone, for example). Certainly being blind gives them some good social-engineering-enabling abilities, and they can also play the poor-blind-victim that'll probably soften the most paranoid secretary;
Of course, if instead of touch-tone passwords these secretaries had been typing their passwords in a unix terminal, they would be screwed, and no amount of over-the-shoulder peeking would have helped them! ;)
Re:Nothing Special by Uber+Banker · 2004-01-31 05:33 · Score: 1

That was in the article you fool. Did you really read it?

'I need to get in to do a repair. You need to give me the number and password.' Sometimes they succeeded, or else they'd get only the number and try to break the password by using proprietary programs." At other times, a secretary would simply key in the code, providing what seemed like onetime access but actually enabling the brothers to hear touch tones and translate them into numbers they could then use whenever they pleased.

Not only were these guys pretty 3|173, but they are free, prosperious and have a future h4x0r1ng which is what they love. As mentioned earlier, it is impressive how great our senses could be if we took the time and effort to train them.
Re:Nothing Special by decipher_saint · 2004-01-31 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

sounds like normal boring phreakers to me.
But they make news because they are blind.
That's for damn sure, I'm a visually impaired programmer what doesen't commit crimes, where's my news story?

Articles like these really piss me off. It makes it sound amazing that not only can blind people use computers but they can use them well enough to commit crime!

Yeesh next thing'll be "Blindsploitation" movies...
"Take that sighty!"

--
crazy dynamite monkey
Re:Nothing Special by timeOday · 2004-01-31 05:33 · Score: 1

Besides, it's just not the same now that the big fat lazy monopoly is history and long distance is only worth at most 5 cents per minute.
Re:Nothing Special by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 05:40 · Score: 1

Acutally, I DID read the article, and those parlor trick's once again are nothing that special. If I was blind from birth, then I would have honed my skills as well, being able to do alot of the things they talk about in the article, like voice mimic, and matching tones to numbers.

They say they will out-hack or out-program anyone, but from what they have shown us so far, they can only do better BECAUSE they are blind (as in the tones).
Re:Nothing Special by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 05:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just like I posted a second ago, yes I read the article.

The only advantage they have is being blind. And this somehow makes them better than the dedicated geek with vision who spent his time memorizing frequencies and tones. If you ask me, being blind only makes it easier for them to do these tricks, which once again, shows me that they are nothing special..
Re:Nothing Special by Mod+Me+God · 2004-01-31 05:58 · Score: 1

If you did read the article fully (before posting your diatribe) you would have read 'I need to get in to do a repair. You need to give me the number and password.' Sometimes they succeeded, or else they'd get only the number and try to break the password by using proprietary programs." At other times, a secretary would simply key in the code, providing what seemed like onetime access but actually enabling the brothers to hear touch tones and translate them into numbers they could then use whenever they pleased. (pointed out by Uber Banker) Emphasis showing the sentence you chose to omit.

Or you may have read At one point during my visit with the Badirs, I pull out my cell phone and make a call. Before it even connects, Shadde, who is sitting across the room, recites all 12 digits perfectly. (added by aTMsA).

And if you think being blind makes hearing better you are wrong, it doesn't (they are the same ears after all). If you chose to train your hearing rather than posting diatribe you may benefit.

Not to mention these hackers (unlike most) were successful.

--
-- FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
Re:Nothing Special by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 06:05 · Score: 1

My mistake, I thought he was talking about a different article, maybe about someone that WASN'T blind.
Re:Nothing Special by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 06:07 · Score: 1

So your telling me people that are blind only have good hearing because they chose to? BS, when your blind from birth, you only have your hearing to rely on, thus making you a much better listener.
Re:Nothing Special by BohKnower · 2004-01-31 06:19 · Score: 1

I can do in matter of minutes a software which can do what theses brothers spent a lifetime to learn.
Blind people can be useful in other wat than the criminal, there is a plenty of example out there.
Re:Nothing Special by Xemu · 2004-01-31 06:23 · Score: 1

Yeesh next thing'll be "Blindsploitation" movies...

You mean a Daredevil sequel? Noooo...

--
Tell your friends about xenu.net
Re:Nothing Special by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:26 · Score: 0

Come here, let me poke your eyes out.
Re:Nothing Special by flippet · 2004-01-31 06:44 · Score: 1

Noooo, you mean Blind Fury!
"A blind Vietnam vet, trained as a swordfighter, comes to America and helps to rescue the son of a fellow soldier..."
Phil

--
"Cattle Prods solve most of life's little problems."
Re:Nothing Special by dasunt · 2004-01-31 07:28 · Score: 1

At one point during my visit with the Badirs, I pull out my cell phone and make a call. Before it even connects, Shadde, who is sitting across the room, recites all 12 digits perfectly.

This is something normal people usually can't do, but i've known blind people that can do that kind of "tricks"(they can also tell you if you're standing or sitting while talking on the phone, for example).

Perhaps most "normal" people can do it, but don't train themselves. I remember a story by Richard Feynman where he realized that it was relatively easy to find out which book was recently touched in a bookshelf through sense of smell alone.

The rest of us may simply be using our eyes instead of other senses, and may not have ever put forth the effort to train our other senses.
Re:Nothing Special by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2004-01-31 08:59 · Score: 0

Well, that has two reasons to be:
1) People is stupid, and most of them are son of a bitches that _knows_ they don't diserve what they have (they have the gift of sight, and just use it to watch porn and bad movies); so they feel they are in dubt with you because you don't have such a gift.
2) Morbo. Rotten, Goatse, CNN, Iraq war on TV, blind crackers, they just love that stuff.

This society has a very strange way to treat people with some kind of impairing.

They just feel sory, and treat them in some special way, or they hate and discriminate 'em.

We should just learn that the fact that someone misses a leg or is blind or whatever, doesn't make him better or worse than anyone else, nor he needs any special treatement; besides the moral obligation of helping him if he need it.

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Re:Nothing Special by Inthewire · 2004-01-31 21:33 · Score: 1

...because a eunich's terminal somehow clickity-clicks differently than an uncastrated one?

--

Writers imply. Readers infer.
Re:Nothing Special by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-01 15:47 · Score: 0

You're missing something here. A blind person doing a bit of social engineering over the phone is at a supreme advantage over a seeing person at the other end. The seeing person hasn't spent a lifetime compensating for lack of visual input - something completely useless when you are on the phone. True of on-line interactions as well. I bet that if you do an IM with a blind person, they would end up knowing a hell lot more about you than you will about them.

Are they heroes? by ObviousGuy · 2004-01-31 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

It used to be cool to show off with these 'hacks' like phreaking and other service-theft tricks, but these days it seems that they would do better service to the name 'hacker' if they worked on things that made our world easier to live in, for both sightless and sighted folks.

I'm not about to tell them what they should or shouldn't be doing, but sometimes you really have to wonder how the hacker community can take having borderline criminals like these three brothers calling themselves part of hackerdom.

They are crackers, despite what they call themselves.

--
I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.

Re:Are they heroes? by 110010001000 · 2004-01-31 05:17 · Score: 1

I call them criminals. They should be put in prison for their crimes as well.
Re:Are they heroes? by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

They are heroes only because they overcame a handicap to break the law.

(oops forgot to add "in the eyes of the journalist" after heroes)
Re:Are they heroes? by alex_ant · 2004-01-31 05:31 · Score: 3, Funny

They are crackers, despite what they call themselves,

Looking at their photo they don't look very white to me.
Re:Are they heroes? by Archie+Steel · 2004-01-31 05:31 · Score: 1

One of them did do prison. He is now working on software to protect phone networks.

Please read the article. Thank you.

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Are they heroes? by Ian+Wolf · 2004-01-31 05:36 · Score: 1

Well, given a choice between young Palestinian men blowing themselves up in Cafes or hacking, I think I'd much rather see a story about the hackers.

--
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Re:Are they heroes? by ir0b0t · 2004-01-31 05:53 · Score: 1

Wired has an incentive to play up the romantic angle to sell the magazine. It may be worth a letter to the editor.

Is there a subversive meaning that does not present the word "hacker" as a cheap kind of criminal? Something is definitely lost in the meaning if hackers are presented as do-gooder Eagle Scouts, but the hacker-as-criminal meaning misses the mark even worse.

I think the romantic notion of hacker is someone with the brains, guts and ability to break only rules that are bad and wrong. But who can agree (or gets to decide) which rules are so bad and wrong as to require breaking? . . . Pickle, methinks.

--
I'm laughing at clouds.
Re:Are they heroes? by 110010001000 · 2004-01-31 06:57 · Score: 1

And he should still be in prison, given his attitude and continued cracking lifestyle.
Re:Are they heroes? by Archie+Steel · 2004-01-31 07:43 · Score: 1

Two things here:

a) you can't put someone in jail due to their attitude or lifestyle, unless they actually commit crimes. He did commit crimes, he went to jail, he's paid his debt. End of story.

b) nothing indicates that he's committed more crimes since his release - in fact, he seems ready to put his expertise to good (i.e. honest) use. So at this time there's no reason to put in back in jail.

--

Reminder: find a new sig
Re:Are they heroes? by MyFourthAccount · 2004-01-31 11:17 · Score: 1

but sometimes you really have to wonder how the hacker community can take having borderline criminals like these three brothers calling themselves part of hackerdom.

Borderline? One of them went to jail for 4 years. Not exactly borderline, I'd say; convicted criminal is more like it. They scammed $2 million.

I just love the quote "He and his sightless brothers have devoted their lives to proving they can out-think, out-program, and out-hack anyone with vision"

If they are so fucking smart, why do they resort to being criminals to prove their point?

Re:Best of all, they're not subject to things like by Patrik_AKA_RedX · 2004-01-31 05:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Blind people use their fingers to "read" books. Now what's worse? seeing a picture of the goatse guy, or feeling it...

a lil joke by Elusis · 2004-01-31 05:16 · Score: 0, Redundant

so these three blind phreaks go into this bar... with a preist, a nun, and michael jackson....

Re:a lil joke by MikeXpop · 2004-01-31 05:52 · Score: 1

Very little, it seems

--
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
Re:a lil joke by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:41 · Score: 0

> so these three blind phreaks go into this bar... with a preist, a nun, and michael jackson....

So the bar tender says... "What is this, some kind of joke?"

that's nice by andih8u · 2004-01-31 05:16 · Score: 4, Funny

three sightless brothers who 'have devoted their lives to proving they can out-think, out-program, and out-hack anyone with vision

I'm sure the judge will take that into consideration.

--

slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots

Re:that's nice by cloudmaster · 2004-01-31 05:28 · Score: 1

Why not - Wired somehow managed to decide that was somehow newsworth. I can't run very fast, but I'll bet I can loot and steal just as well as fast people... Maybe Wired will do an article on me, 'cause I'm "overcoming my disability" and therefore, a hero.

Trinity and Neo die in the new Matrix. by James+A.+E.+Joyce · 2004-01-31 05:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm more interested in the things they do, as opposed to the fact that they're blind. People shouldn't be defined in terms of their disability, but in what they do. (And judging by what these guys do, they seem like mere kiddies.)

--

FloodMT: crapflood Movab

Re:Trinity and Neo die in the new Matrix. by imbaczek · 2004-01-31 05:49 · Score: 1

No mere kiddie will tell you the phone number you're dialing without looking. Apart from that, the money has them.
Re:Trinity and Neo die in the new Matrix. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:24 · Score: 0

Anyone can learn musical notes by ear, with varying success and difficulty. People who are born blind can usually learn this much easier, and we're just talking 12 notes. There's no accomplishment here, just an easily impressed journalist and bunch of juvenile delinquents who spent their time on learning how to [h|cr]ack instead of learning something else. Lock'em up.
Re:Trinity and Neo die in the new Matrix. by bogie · 2004-01-31 07:44 · Score: 1

"Trinity and Neo die in the new Matrix"

So are like you one of those people who thought it was funny to post Sirrus Black died in Harry Potter all over the net?

In case you ever look at your enemy list and see my name now you'll know why. Don't need to read posts from people who think its funny to try to ruin a book or movie I haven't seen yet.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:Trinity and Neo die in the new Matrix. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:59 · Score: 0

waaaah..

somebuddy call the wahmbulance

Yeah, they're blind, so what by W32.Klez.A · 2004-01-31 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

They're still thieves. The article doesn't really display any sense of apology from the brothers, and it sounds like they're just giving bullshit lines to make it sound like they're doing the old 'I switched to the good side' thing. I have ten bucks that says they'll be back to the same old thefts within a month.

Re:Yeah, they're blind, so what by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:56 · Score: 0

sad that a basic opinion like this will get modded up to +5. Just goes to show that all the wrong people are getting all the mod points.
Re:Yeah, they're blind, so what by GoofyBoy · 2004-01-31 06:57 · Score: 1

>They're still thieves.

Ummm.. so what? Why is this comment "Interesting"?

Are are we reading up on these guys because they are "heros" or because its something to read?

The History channel is filled with war/criminals. Look in your newspaper. Look at movies. Not filled with people who you nessesary would want as role-models.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:19 · Score: 0

Sounds like these guys read a brail version of Mitnick....

Re:WHO CARES? by fafaforza · 2004-01-31 05:19 · Score: 1

Perhaps the parent was looking for something to read on /. on a Saturday morning only to find an article he finds no value in, and and article which he might, rightly so, be displacing a story he might find interest in.

So he has interest in this article in as much as it, in a limited way, prevents him from reading something of value to him.

I challenge them... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:24 · Score: 5, Funny

to a game of catch.

Re:I challenge them... by pipingguy · 2004-01-31 09:57 · Score: 1

Beep baseball

Re:Leet.. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:25 · Score: 0

... but how do they manage with the pr0n?

read the article, they billed phone sx to among others nortel

Another Blind Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Two nuns are ordered to paint a room in the convent, and the last instruction of the Mother Superior is that they must not get even a drop of paint on their habits. After conferring about this for a while, the two nuns decide to lock the door of the room, strip off their habits, and paint in the nude. In the middle of the painting, there comes a knock at the door.

"Who is it?", calls one of the nuns.

"Blind man," replies a voice from the other side of the door.

The two nuns look at each other and shrug, and, deciding that no harm can come from letting a blind man into the room, they open the door.

"Hi, ladies, nice boobs" says the man, "where do you want these blinds?"

All of them? by dan14807 · 2004-01-31 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I taught myself to program in all the languages: C, C++, Basic, Java, HTML, PHP, CGI..."

So that's it, huh? Makes me wonder about the validity of their claim to be "hackers".

Re:All of them? by dan14807 · 2004-01-31 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"I taught myself to program in all the languages: C, C++, Basic, Java, HTML, PHP, CGI..."

And for those of you who don't actually know this: CGI is a protocol, not a language. Ugh. See parent. These kids are not hackers.
Re:All of them? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:49 · Score: 0

You don't "program" in HTML... What a bunch of losers.
Re:All of them? by jasonditz · 2004-01-31 05:51 · Score: 1

$10 says they "program" in HTML with Frontpage or GoLive
Re:All of them? by UserGoogol · 2004-01-31 06:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yeah, because a GUI is so useful when you're blind.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:All of them? by HeghmoH · 2004-01-31 06:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't forget that you're getting these quotes through at least two layers of indirection, namely the translator and the journalist. Despite the inverted commas, this is not necessarily anything resembling a direct quote.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:All of them? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:59 · Score: 0

The only problem is that the inclusion of HTML and CGI as languages is typical of the bragging you hear from script kiddies.

I have no doubt that the kid saw the article and if it were me, knowing what my reaction would be if someone quoted me as saying something like that, I would be all over Wired demanding a correction.
Re:All of them? by Sycraft-fu · 2004-01-31 07:10 · Score: 1

I've found that jornalists tend to be pretty careful about that. Often quotes are out of context, but if they are in quotes, they are direct. I've been interviewed several times and in all cases, anything in quotes was word for word what I said. Sometimes they get the context wrong, but never a deliberate altering of the actual quote.

I also worked at a paper, and they were careful about that. If they wanted to paraphrase you, they'd write something like: Sycraft said that he could program in basically any language, like C, C++, HTML, and so on. Which could have come from a larger conversation where I never claimed to program in HTML. These sort of things DO happen. But direct quotes are usually just that.

It's also not as uncommon as you'd think to claim you can "program" in HTML. I've seen people who really do know real programming languages claim that they program in HTML as well. Needless to say they aren't great programmers, but it's not just a total n00b mistake.
Re:All of them? by HeghmoH · 2004-01-31 07:44 · Score: 1

If he was quoting exactly what the guy said, it would have been written from right to left in Hebrew.

You're concentrating totally on the "journalist" layer and completely ignoring the "translator" layer. As someone who has to deal with translation and different languages every day, I find it completely plausible that the translator flubbed.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:All of them? by Krunch · 2004-01-31 08:28 · Score: 1

I have no doubt that the kid saw the article[...]
I doubt he "saw" the article.

--
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
Re:All of them? by bsd+troll · 2004-01-31 10:29 · Score: 0

Probably something was lost in the translation, arrogant, you condescending Slashdot prick (hope that came out right, english isn't my first language).

Wired Slashdot? by Sinus0idal · 2004-01-31 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

lol what has happened to Slashdot!

"well, Wired said..."

If we want Wired, we can read Wired! :) Want some originality...

text to voice by plams · 2004-01-31 05:28 · Score: 5, Funny

so they use a text-to-voice module?

Muzher: hey d00de, ping that server to see if it's still up
Shadde: ok, bro.. *clickety*

Voice: pinging.. one hundred... twenty.. seven.. dot.. zero!.. dot.. zero!.. dot.. one with.. thirty.. two... bytes.. of.. data.. colon..

newline.... newline...

reply from.. one hundred... twenty.. seven.. dot.. zero!.. dot.. zero!.. dot.. one.. colon.. bytes equals.. thirty two.. time... one.. M..S.. TEE-TEE-L equals.. one hundred.. twenty.. eight...

Ramy: wait a minute.. hey! you're pinging yourself you stupid blind fuck!

Re:text to voice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:52 · Score: 0

I hope they don't read Slasdot with that kind of system...
Re:text to voice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:29 · Score: 0

> I hope they don't read Slasdot with that kind of system...

BOOOOH! WOOOHOOO! HELLO YOU DUMB FUCKS! I HOPE YOU GET LOCKED UP IN AN ISRAELI PRISON AND GET RAPED BY A HAIRY HIZBOLLAH AND THAT YOUR FAMILY'S HOUSE IS DEMOLISHED BY THE I.D.F!

.

...
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

No shit?
Re:text to voice by netsharc · 2004-01-31 07:51 · Score: 1

They probably don't, because it would be a waste of time (assuming they can only read slower in comparison to people with perfect sight), so they probably spent their time more productively..

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:text to voice by Inthewire · 2004-01-31 21:40 · Score: 1

Transplant, eh?
Missing like "wants back" or missing like "can't locate?"

--

Writers imply. Readers infer.

Romanticism aside... by JediDan · 2004-01-31 05:29 · Score: 1

The dark side of hacking/phreaking hurts the customer as prices soar trying to protect a system.

On the flip side, systems are continually being secured tighter and tighter which makes systems better protected against the amature.

I guess it depends on how much you value one or the other: security and the cost to go with it or obscurity.

--
- Dan

take that by Hubert_Shrump · 2004-01-31 05:30 · Score: 1

have devoted their lives to proving they can out-think, out-program, and out-hack anyone with vision.

you know, though - how often do you hear about what those sighted people are doing?

--
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!

Re:Leet.. by TheViciousOverWind · 2004-01-31 05:31 · Score: 2

Actually they ripped of several phonesex companies, so they managed quite fine ;) I find it really fascinating that the older brother learned to program in a lot of languages while blind, it must take an awful lot of time, if every error has to be machine-read, and if the error isn't really that saying ("parse error on line 10").

--
My <1000 UID is with a hot chick

braille display by BitwizeGHC · 2004-01-31 05:45 · Score: 1

RTFA. They used braille displays. Whether alone or in conjunction with voice recognition, I can't say, but for things like source listings and such, a braille display would probably be a boon to the hacker who lacks the convenience of sight.

--
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:45 · Score: 0

They are not defective - they are the next stage in evolution. You are the ape.

CGI, HTML Programming Languages? by nick_urbanik · 2004-01-31 05:45 · Score: 4, Funny

"I taught myself to program in all the languages: C, C++, Basic, Java, HTML, PHP, CGI.

I'm not as advanced. I know the Perl language, but I havn't learned the CGI language. Also, I still haven't learned how to write a loop in HTML.

Re:CGI, HTML Programming Languages? by retrev · 2004-01-31 05:53 · Score: 1

Write a loop in Haskell.

Not that HTML is turing complete, but you don't need loops to be.
Re:CGI, HTML Programming Languages? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:15 · Score: 0

Well, you can easily create loop constructs similar to those in conventional imperative languages in Haskell, using recursion.
Re:CGI, HTML Programming Languages? by mobby_6kl · 2004-01-31 06:28 · Score: 2, Funny

>how to write a loop in HTML

create an IFRAME and make it point to itself ;)

/ps I know it doesn't work/
Re:CGI, HTML Programming Languages? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 08:14 · Score: 0

Use .

This just goes to show by teamhasnoi · 2004-01-31 05:46 · Score: 5, Funny

what you can achieve when you're not looking at porn all day.

MOD PARENT DOWN - PUNISH IN METAMOD by Mod+Me+God+Too · 2004-01-31 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

OK, I hate this sort of post normally but this time it is justified.

Normal phreakers cannot hear and instantly memorise touch tones, normal phreakers don't get away with large-scale crime taking down a p0rn empire, normal phreakers don't get away with it.

As mentioned in replies earlier, these guys were elite hackers, and as far as I know elite hackers _do_ get a mention on /. and wired. How about you hone your skills as well as them, then start wishing to be blind.

You quoted They called secretaries and said, 'I need to get in to do a repair. You need to give me the number and password.' Sometimes they succeeded, or else they'd get only the number and try to break the password by using proprietary programs, did you read the following sentence?

--
-- It is not the commies, the government, the nigger, nor the corporates. It is your paranoia.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - PUNISH IN METAMOD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:53 · Score: 0

word the fuck up
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - PUNISH IN METAMOD by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:37 · Score: 0

If they were that elite they wouldn't have got caught in the first place.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN - PUNISH IN METAMOD by Doc+Ruby · 2004-02-05 12:43 · Score: 1

No, you love this sort of flaming, metamod-whining post - a role you obviously set your sights on when you created your insipid user ID. Your post history is pockmarked with them. Why not learn something sometime, or merely rebut with a little class, rather than just spewing venom on other Slashdotters?

--
--
make install -not war

Phreaking is only fun and games by WolfWithoutAClause · 2004-01-31 05:47 · Score: 3, Funny

until someone loses an eye... ok- you know what I mean.

And these super duper blind phreakers are so good they never got cau... um. I'm sure I've got a point here somewhere.

Ok, perhaps not :-)

Why is this news exactly?

--

-WolfWithoutAClause

"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"

Re:Phreaking is only fun and games by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 07:34 · Score: 1

*cough*click_here*cough*

LOL I tried to make the same point but it didn't quite come out as funny as yours.

Re:Best of all, they're not subject to things like by p4ul13 · 2004-01-31 05:47 · Score: 1

that really really made me cringe.

--
Paul Lenhart writes words!

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by sisukapalli1 · 2004-01-31 05:48 · Score: 1

Hold on there... You are probably trolling, and I'll bite... I will resist comparison with Hitler and all...

I can understand the first kid coming out blind, but when that happened, the parents should have stopped breeding.

May be the parents didn't know much about genetic disorders and were just hoping that the new borns will be fine -- also, the first child was fine. Hope in the face of setbacks has been one of the biggest strengths of humanity (and of all life forms in general).

but at least two of them should never have been born.

Just to paraphrase a statement from LOTR, don't be quick to give out death as a judgement. Many that deserve to die live, and many that deserve to live die.

S

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by gmhowell · 2004-01-31 05:49 · Score: 1

Troll, troll, troll, troll, troll... But I'll bite.

Probably recessive genes. The odds that their kids will be blind, not much. The odds that their kids are carriers? Higher than for most folks. Now, you wouldn't be one to advocate eliminating the inferior? I won't make a statement that would allow you to invoke Godwin's law, but I will suggest that you probably carry more than a few recessive genes that would call for your eradication. Or at least sterilization.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:49 · Score: 0

And a big Heil Hitler right back at you, Champ.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 05:51 · Score: 1, Troll

They are not defective - they are the next stage in evolution. You are the ape.

Then I hope that one of these genetically superior beings becomes the driver of the short bus that takes you to school.

from record by Mod+Me+God+Too · 2004-01-31 05:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

you posted from the article, "They called secretaries and said, 'I need to get in to do a repair. You need to give me the number and password.' Sometimes they succeeded, or else they'd get only the number and try to break the password by using proprietary programs." sounds like normal boring phreakers to me. But they make news because they are blind. DAMNIT why could'nt I have been born blind so I could make the news!

The only advantage they have is being blind.
Being blind is not an advantage. If you think it is you are a damn fool. You have a pair of ears, becoming blind does not magically make your hearing better but reliance on hearing increases. Have you ever tried training hearing, if not then stop posting BS saying if you ask me, being blind only makes it easier for them to do these tricks, how about you sit down an hour a day and do some training? Better that than posting crap.

--
-- It is not the commies, the government, the nigger, nor the corporates. It is your paranoia.

Re:from record by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 06:03 · Score: 1

Your point is redundant, yes because they are blind, they have better hearing. Im not saying it comes instantly, but being blind from birth would make your hearing much better than any person with sight, and if that doesnt make it easier to pull those tricks, then I retract my comment.
Re:from record by Misinformed · 2004-01-31 06:16 · Score: 1

eing blind from birth would make your hearing much better than any person with sight

No. The hearing is just the same, the ear drum beats the same way, sound waves don't get amplified. They just notice it more, and you could too if you tried. I can also do the touch tone trick (saw it on a film so learnt it), you can too if you tried.

To me it sounds like you are moaning these guys were mentioned on /. when they are good hackers, and good hackers get mentioned on /., plain and simple. Don't be jealous because they did it.

--
-- Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by jasonditz · 2004-01-31 05:53 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Oh sure, I make a post suggesting innocent people shouldn't be killed for convenience sake and I get modded a fucking -1 troll... this fellow starts espousing eugenics and he gets modded up for being insightful.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:53 · Score: 0

Who are you to tell somebody they shouldn't breed. Is the next gene nazi party on it's way to exterminate all those with bad genes?

HOW DID THIS GET MODDED UP??? Stoopid f$ck

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by r.jimenezz · 2004-01-31 05:54 · Score: 1

One fourth brother is not blind.

I hope you've already got kids, and that they're fine. If not, I sincerely wish you they are healthy when they come. I hope you don't have any cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer or such in your family, and if you do, I hope you don't catch any of it.

Because if you do, I don't know how are you going to go through it. You'll probably suicide.

--
The revolution will not be televised.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 05:55 · Score: 0, Troll

Now, you wouldn't be one to advocate eliminating the inferior?

No. I'm advocating that those with genetic defects adopt rather than breed.

I won't make a statement that would allow you to invoke Godwin's law, but I will suggest that you probably carry more than a few recessive genes that would call for your eradication. Or at least sterilization.

If I had the same genetic defect, recessive or not, that lead to the blindness of those boys, then, yes, sterilization would be appropriate.

Re:just idolizing a bunch of delenquents... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 05:55 · Score: 0

bravo

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by frost22 · 2004-01-31 05:56 · Score: 1

... but at least two of them should never have been born.

That suggestion of yours is called "eugenics". The last guy who was into eugenics large-style was some guy called Adolf Whatshisname from a pretty city called "Braunau". Go Figure!

(and yes, I just pullled a Godwin)

--
...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Peyna · 2004-01-31 05:58 · Score: 1

Obviously these men are proving that their "defect" is in fact not a hinderance to their existence at all, therefore nullifying your argument.

--
What?

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 05:59 · Score: 1

Who are you to tell somebody they shouldn't breed.

An intelligent person who understands that perpetuating genetic defects is a bad idea.

Is the next gene nazi party on it's way to exterminate all those with bad genes?

There is a big difference between the so-called "eugenics" practiced by the Nazis and sound scientific reasoning. I don't advocate killing anyone nor do I think superficial traits like hair and eye color are the basis for determining "superiority."

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by univgeek · 2004-01-31 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

And while eye-sight was required for survival centuries ago, intelligence is required to survive now. Evolution doesn't need these brothers to be weeded out. Survival of the fittest means that if these brothers survive because of intelligence, then their lives are not worthless for the next generation of humans.

So go back to your cave, troll...

--
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!

My my... by CODiNE · 2004-01-31 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

As a deaf guy I just have to say... living your life based on revenge and sticking it to others is a sad way of living. All you do is repeat the unfair sort of situations that made you so PO'ed and produce an army of other angry PO'ed people... ooohhh... negative feedback loop! Cutting people off on the freeway and tailgating doesn't solve your problems. It's funny how people in left hand turn lanes get upset at people running red lights keeping them from making their turn... so they in "revenge" run their red light and cause different people to miss THEIR turn, who then in return... blaaahhh... just live by "The Golden Rule" and everybody is a little bit happier.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz

Re:My my... by plasm4 · 2004-01-31 08:23 · Score: 0

in los angeles if you don't run a red light you will NEVER be able to make a left turn. Ok so I'm exaggerating a little bit, but if you are driving in traffic and there is no protected left turn signal, then you have to wait until it turns red before you turn. Usually 1 or 2 cars will follow you. The trick is to pull out in the intersection as far as possible while you wait, that way the maximum number of cars will be able to follow you through. I was once stuck behind someone trying to make a left turn, but didn't want to run the red. After the light turned red for the third time he finally just went, with 5 or 6 honking cars following on through.
Re:My my... by MyHair · 2004-01-31 09:29 · Score: 1

... just live by "The Golden Rule" and everybody is a little bit happier.

Except for me--living the rest of my life in the left-turn lane--and the people in the cars behind me.
Re:My my... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 10:52 · Score: 0

"your life based on revenge and sticking it to others is a sad way of living."

As Ghandi always said, An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind... ;)

I was a bit dissapointed ... by SuperDuG · 2004-01-31 06:00 · Score: 1

My favorite hacker of all time in the best hacker movie of all time also suffered from an afliction of being sightless.

While this movie was in fact "Made In America (TM)" and these boys are in Israel, I am upset.

Not one of them in the story claimed to have used the alias "Whistler" .

BTW - Being blind and being a hacker isn't exactly something thats new to us people in "The Industry".

--
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:00 · Score: 0

These genetically defective people (your quote) may very well be more suitable to breed than you are. And you said "when [the first kid coming out blind], the parents should have stopped breeding". But that's not for you (or them) to decide.

These blind phreakers can call your bank, your auto company and the local government and either socially or electronically engineer their way into any internal system. They can empty your bank account, suspend your drivers' license and reposess your car. After they're done, you'll be penniless and stranded and you won't have any resources to impress the opposite sex in order to attract a mate. So what makes you more qualified to breed than the parents of the blind phreakers? It seems to me that they're probably more capable at acquiring resources than most of us sighted folk.

And what makes you qualified to decide whose genes are suitable for propagation? The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that individuals can breed as often as they damn well please and nature will sort it out. So go breed, you clueless fuck, and keep your mouth shut and let everyone else do the same. A healthy competition for resources will decide whose genes win in the end.

Hmm by bezuwork's+friend · 2004-01-31 06:00 · Score: 1

"I am inventing a PBX firewall," [Ramy] says. "I know all the weakest spots of a telephone system. I can protect any system from infiltration."

Oh sure ... and how much do you want to bet that it doens't have a back door in it?

Mod parent up. by khasim · 2004-01-31 06:01 · Score: 1

Would they still be as cool if they were 3 blind spammers?

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:02 · Score: 0

their parents probably needed more welfare money to fund their crack addiction. This is the most common cause of genetically defective "human" procreation.

Double standard.... by NeoSkandranon · 2004-01-31 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

If they had their sight, they would be criminals.

Since they're blind they are....?

Still criminals. Though the wired story would have you believe otherwise.

--
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)

No offense... by chipster · 2004-01-31 06:03 · Score: 1

I don't care if they are blind or not. They seem to me like a bunch of spoiled-rotten punk-asses. Who cares if they can crack this-and-that? Does being blind make it more 1337? This is probably the worst article I have read - and has no value or relevance to me.

"See" me flip you punk-asses off - "trio".

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:03 · Score: 0, Troll

And while eye-sight was required for survival centuries ago, intelligence is required to survive now. Evolution doesn't need these brothers to be weeded out.

And what will stop them from having blind children who are stupid?

Survival of the fittest means that if these brothers survive because of intelligence, then their lives are not worthless for the next generation of humans.

They are not surviving because of intelligence. They are surviving because society is providing for their needs. Are you suggesting that all blind people who live to a ripe old age are intelligent? Get real!

So go back to your cave, troll...

I am not a "troll." I am expressing my beliefs, which, apparently, others share.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Neophytus · 2004-01-31 06:03 · Score: 1

they also killed off most of those in care homes, though

A thief is a thief is by Talsin · 2004-01-31 06:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

a thief. Regardless of how "skilled" they are who cares? All they did was cheat, steal and lie. I really dont get the point of this article, why do we reward criminals?

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by jalet · 2004-01-31 06:05 · Score: 1

Why this post moderated as insightful instead of nazi troll is beyond me

--
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !

Blind C Coder by Qwell · 2004-01-31 06:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is slightly off topic, but I feel that it's interesting and related none-the-less.

Several years ago, I used to be the primary admin/coder of a MUD(Multi User Dungeon{A game online...}). I was randomly watching people play, and I noticed that there was one player who had no "prompt(a status bar that you see after every action)". I questioned this player, as to why he didn't have one, and he went on to explain that he was completely blind, and it made his text-to-speech software go nuts, because it was far too much information, too quickly.

Anyhow, one day, he asked if he could help out with a little bit of coding...I was intrigued. I asked him to write me a small command, and he was done in about 30 minutes. I'll admit, I'm not the best coder in the world, but this was some of the cleanest code I had ever seen. A blind man named Dave(I think), was a better coder then most people I know... If that isn't inspiring, I don't know what is.

--
As of 10/06/03, I hate COBOL developers.

Re:Blind C Coder by I+Like+Pudding · 2004-01-31 07:40 · Score: 0

This doesn't really surprise me. I find it's easier to visualize how code works/should work when I'm closing my eyes. On top of that, I'll usually be listening to some thumping 4/4 electronic beats to blot the unordered ambient sounds around me - a sort of drummer to march my thoughts to. Conversly, it's impossible for me to concentrate when I'm talking with someone.
Re:Blind C Coder by Danny+Rathjens · 2004-01-31 10:59 · Score: 1

That's not that impressive considering most people can type without looking and most people are capable of listening.
I was more impressed with the blind guy that beat me at a game of chess once. And german shepherd seeing eye dogs are cool, ;)

You don't have to be blind to do that. by khasim · 2004-01-31 06:07 · Score: 1

As long as you have normal hearing, you can learn to do so. There are only a dozen tones you need to distinguish. You can easily learn it by working on one tone a day and be done in less than 2 weeks.

Re:You don't have to be blind to do that. by a.deity · 2004-01-31 07:09 · Score: 1

Don't forget, though, there are the somewhat defunct A, B, C, and D tones that are one harmonic higher than 3, 6, 9, and #, to make for a total of 16. You're right, though. I'm only half trained on it, but if I've got a few minutes to waste I might try. I'd say musicians would be great at this, because they already need to tune instruments, so they could identify the key of each tone.

--
Option-Shift-K.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:09 · Score: 0

They prove they can be criminals regardless of their blindness. They do not prove in any way that they can help advance the human race.

fmaxwell actually has a rather valid point. He's not suggesting the killing of these "inferior" humans, he's not blaming the brothers themselves for anything, he's not even trying to forbid the parents to breed or anything. He's just suggesting that when parents have children with genetic defects they should decide to stop reproducing. If such people want more children they'd do the human race a lot more good by adopting a child.

Evolution of the human race as it originally existed has been slowed down somewhat by our acts of compassion. Though perhaps genetic engineering can speed it up again sometime in the future.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by evilviper · 2004-01-31 06:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

the parents should have stopped breeding. Now there are three more genetically defective people who can keep those defective genes into the gene pool.

Wow... I thought we'd heard the end of this with the death of Hitler's Nazis, and Margaret Sanger.

I would say the best thing about our society, is that physical abilities do not mean life or death. I would assume that you are a skinny geeky guy (possibly not, but likely since you are posting here) and in the world of hunting and gathering, you would be dead, because you are not the strongest, and fastest.

If you think that all geeks should die off, then you are a moron who can just discard the contributions that less-physically-fit people have made.

The best example that comes to mind is Stephen Hawking... He should be dead by most measures, but he is alive, and contributing to the betterment of all society.

What do you know? Are you certain that blind people have nothing to contribute to society? People though the same thing about Blacks, Hispanics, etc., yet they've been proven wrong time and time again.

Before "civilization", nature would weed out genetic defects like that using starvation, wolves, lions, bears, etc. Now you have people perpetuating defective genetic lines just because they can.

First off, you are assuming that there was a time before civilization. Animals like wolves have a natural pack instinct, and humans show the same traits. It would seem that humans would have always sought-out civilization...

Well, I suppose crap like this is why I marked you as a FOE in the first place...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Isbiten · 2004-01-31 06:10 · Score: 1

The nazis called, they want their 1930 propaganda back.

--
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.

He now claims that he is. by khasim · 2004-01-31 06:12 · Score: 1

But he won't name anyone involved or show any code.

Personally, I won't believe it until I see it. Not to mention that I would NOT trust a firewall written by a convicted criminal UNLESS it was Open Source.

Re:He now claims that he is. by Archie+Steel · 2004-01-31 06:31 · Score: 1

Well, it's his right not to reveal much about his project at this point. I'd probably do the same in his position. I think he probably knows that there's a good chance he'll make more money legitimately by helping telcos catch crook than by continuing with his scams. This is exactly what Frank Abagnale did, and in fact a lot of security experts followed the same path.

--

Reminder: find a new sig

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:12 · Score: 1

And what makes you qualified to decide whose genes are suitable for propagation?

Intelligence. When someone produces a child that is genetically defective (blind, Down Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, etc.), it's rather obvious that their genetic material does not belong in the gene pool.

The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that individuals can breed as often as they damn well please and nature will sort it out.

Fine. Put them in the woods to hunt and gather food, as nature intended, and see how well they survive.

Using your reasoning, some kid who lives out life in a bubble with no immune system and then uses artificial insemination to get someone pregnant is being selected by nature. Absurd.

blind script kiddies by krappie · 2004-01-31 06:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry, but I wasnt really impressed by these people. I've always heard that blind people make the best phone phreakers. Thats probably true. When you deal with an entire system based on sound frequencies I can see blind people having an advantage.

But whats the point of the article? They're just 3 blind script kiddies that think they can hack the planet. I see people with vision every day committing credit card fraud. Why are these guys bragging about it on Wired? THEY EVEN GOT CAUGHT. GENIUSES!!

And what is this?!

But Ramy was too ambitious to stop there. "I taught myself to program in all the languages: C, C++, Basic, Java, HTML, PHP, CGI.

CGI isnt a language! And thats a direct quote from him. What kind of idiot says "I can program in CGI."

Sorry, but these are just three script kiddies causing the usual problems that script kiddies cause. Am I supposed to be impressed?

Re:blind script kiddies by Anime_Fan · 2004-01-31 06:28 · Score: 1

CGI isnt a language! And thats a direct quote from him. What kind of idiot says "I can program in CGI."

What kind of idiot complains of someone who says he can program in CGI when HTML was on the list?

Also, I don't consider Basic to be a language. It's an ugly hack at best.
Re:blind script kiddies by rootlocus · 2004-01-31 06:43 · Score: 1

CGI isnt a language! And thats a direct quote from him. What kind of idiot says "I can program in CGI."

This kind
Re:blind script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:48 · Score: 0

Very good. But CGI still isn't a language, which was the parent poster's point.
Re:blind script kiddies by hswoolve · 2004-01-31 07:01 · Score: 1

Actually, I found the I can program in CGI. amusing more than appalling, ditto the HTML "programming." They probably even think that their "L3337" skills will get them a date with an Angelina Jolie, to complete the "Hackers" fantasy.

And as a language, Basic is a learning tool.
Re:blind script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:45 · Score: 0

What kind of idiot (...) I can program in CGI (...)

You can program in what ?!?!
Re:blind script kiddies by randomdef · 2004-01-31 08:04 · Score: 1

or maybe the word "programming" in arabic means all three things, programming, scripting and tagging. not all languages (as in spoken ones) translate into your ebonix.
Re:blind script kiddies by krappie · 2004-01-31 08:28 · Score: 1

haha.. yeah.. I let HTML slide.. since the L stands for language. It still isnt really something to brag about..

and as for Basic.. hahaha.. yeah.. :)
Re:blind script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 10:25 · Score: 0

Good think you're just an idiot posting on Slashdot, not someone whose thoughts other people would actually care about.

Linux is an ugly hack, at best, too.
Re:blind script kiddies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 19:30 · Score: 0

HTML = HyperText Markup Language.

It's not a programming laguage.

Re:Best of all, they're not subject to things like by JohnnyBigodes · 2004-01-31 06:14 · Score: 1

Talk about being sucked into a void, starting by your hand...

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:16 · Score: 1

The nazis called, they want their 1930 propaganda back.

If you don't understand the difference between Nazi Eugenics, which was based on superficial traits and aimed for "racial purity", and a desire to prevent children from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, or with Huntington's Disease, then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

Social Engineering by LordoftheFrings · 2004-01-31 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like stories like this that don't portray people who play with phone systems and computers in an intrusive way as reclusive introverts. It clearly shows that these brothers are experts at social engineering. They manipulated people with such expertise and skill that the people did anything the brothers wanted. That can be the most dangerous aspect of security.

--
Canadian Cynic, canadian politics is less boring than you

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:20 · Score: 1

Thank you for defending me when I voiced an unpopular, but what I consider to be correct, belief.

Re:John F--king Kerry by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:21 · Score: 0

You want ketchup with that?

maybe they can't see it themselves by KalvinB · 2004-01-31 06:23 · Score: 1

but they can hear the screams of anguish all to clear from those standing behind them

Ben

--
Work Safe Porn

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:23 · Score: 1

That suggestion of yours is called "eugenics". The last guy who was into eugenics large-style was some guy called Adolf Whatshisname from a pretty city called "Braunau". Go Figure!

Nazi Eugenics was a program with the absurd, unscientific goal of producing a "racially pure" Aryan (AKA Nordic) race. How is that, in any way, the same as advocating that people with severe genetic defects adopt, rather than breed?

Idle hands... by SJS · 2004-01-31 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is no indication in the article that the brothers actually have had jobs or other responsibilities. It's no wonder they they got into this sort of thing...

And, of course, there are other amusing bits...

But Ramy was too ambitious to stop there. "I taught myself to program in all the languages: C, C++, Basic, Java, HTML, PHP, CGI."

That's a pretty... limited view of what "all the (programming) languages" are.

I'll grant that they're clever; that, and too much time on their hands made 'em dangerous and irresponsible.

After encountering their first computer, in 1989, at Tel Aviv's Center for the Blind, Ramy and Muzher became enchanted with the IBM clones.

No wonder they turned out to be criminals!

--
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by iminplaya · 2004-01-31 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

"They are surviving because society is providing for their needs."

Yeah? And who's providing for your needs like roads, electricity, food, etc.? Satan? Can you build all these services yourself? It appears to me that we all need "society" to provide for our needs.

--
What?

Society by marijnm · 2004-01-31 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

This sounds so familiar. While I'm not blind, but spastic, society treats you like you're some moron. Your esteem for other people kinda drops when you get treated like an idiot day in, day out. If you are able to convert your anger towards other people into something good, ie. acquiring skills, you definitely have an edge.

How you use your skills is another thing, but you generally don't respect the rules of society as much as you should because you feel society doesn't respect you as much as itt should.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:25 · Score: 1

I hope you've already got kids, and that they're fine.

Thank you.

If not, I sincerely wish you they are healthy when they come. I hope you don't have any cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer or such in your family, and if you do, I hope you don't catch any of it.

I would adopt based on my own medical history.

definitely like mitnick by ibmman85 · 2004-01-31 06:28 · Score: 1

seems like Takedown II would be about them.. definitely mitnick-like. Free Kevin Mitnick! Oh wait, he's already free.

from the article.... by pocketfullofshells · 2004-01-31 06:29 · Score: 1

So why are they good hackers? because they are blind? Why does everyone insisnt on assuming I'm trying to flame these guys? I understand being blind doesnt instantly make your hearing better. If you'd bother'd to read the article as well, you would notice even the three brothers acknowledge the fact that they can do these things BECAUSE they are blind....

At one point during my visit with the Badirs, I pull out my cell phone and make a call. Before it even connects, Shadde, who is sitting across the room, recites all 12 digits perfectly.

Ramy smiles at the parlor trick. "It used to be disgusting to be blind," he says. "Today, you scare people. You possess skills that those with sight cannot possibly understand."

Eddie Murphy had a bit about Stevie Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:29 · Score: 0

"Wanna impress me? Try and take the Wheel for a while motherfu(ker!"

Shows what a person can do with computers by chegosaurus · 2004-01-31 06:31 · Score: 0, Redundant

when they don't have all that pr0n to distract them.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:32 · Score: 0

They should've given up any plans to breed the moment they discovered they were filthy semites.
Blind arabs/jews are just good. They're easier to kill, if they don't kill themselves.

Re: Depends on who you "rip off" though.... by King_TJ · 2004-01-31 06:32 · Score: 1, Informative

It looks to me like these 3 guys were being rather selective in who they scammed. The credit cards they stole were from a phone sex mogul, and so one could morally make a decision that "If you're wasting your money on phone sex hotlines, you deserve some hassles with your credit card...."

Their "big target" was the govt. sponsored radio/propaganda station .... again, not exactly like charging phone calls to the general public or a small business.

YHL - LEAVE IT ALONE by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:33 · Score: 0

So why are they good hackers? RTFA... again, and note their achievements (successful hacking, money, l33tn355 and a career). Very very very few hax0rs get that.

Now, be a good boy and FOAD.

MODERATORS; Troll alert by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:34 · Score: 0

Moderators, click on the link in the parent post (or maybe better don't--it's disgusting): the parent is a troll.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:38 · Score: 0

If you were Insightful, you'd realise it's partly because there is no "nazi troll" moderation option, and partly because it's not a "nazi troll".

If you know that your children will be mentally/physically retarded or severely handicapped, it's a good idea to abstain from getting children (of your own). WTF is so strange about that? It happens every day, everywhere. At least everywhere where people are lucky enough to have access to foetal diagnostics and knowledge about genetic defects.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:38 · Score: 1

Wow... I thought we'd heard the end of this with the death of Hitler's Nazis, and Margaret Sanger.

You are (still) an idiot. You don't understand the difference between unscientific stupidity like Nazi Eugenics (based on "racial purity") and a desire to keep kids from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease and other genetic defects.

I would assume that you are a skinny geeky guy (possibly not, but likely since you are posting here) and in the world of hunting and gathering, you would be dead, because you are not the strongest, and fastest.

You would be wrong, but a very good example of prejudice.

The best example that comes to mind is Stephen Hawking... He should be dead by most measures, but he is alive, and contributing to the betterment of all society.

But that doesn't mean that he should have kids. Sure he, like the three boys mentioned in the article, has done amazing things, but that doesn't mean that the genes for Lou Gehrig's Disease should be in the gene pool.

What do you know? Are you certain that blind people have nothing to contribute to society? People though the same thing about Blacks, Hispanics, etc., yet they've been proven wrong time and time again.

I never said anything even remotely similar to that. Many blind people have contributed substantially to society. But that doesn't mean that we want to breed more blind people.

Well, I suppose crap like this is why I marked you as a FOE in the first place...

That would have really hurt my feelings if it had come from someone whose opinion I respect.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 06:43 · Score: 1

Keep your Nazi/White Supremicist crap off of Slashdot. Being non-"Aryan" has nothing to do with genetic defects you ignorant ass.

Re: Depends on who you "rip off" though.... by aardvarkjoe · 2004-01-31 06:43 · Score: 1

So it's OK, as long as they steal from people who you don't like? Reminds me of that overused and rather stupid "...there was nobody left to speak out for me" quote.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?

RE: PBX firewalls by King_TJ · 2004-01-31 06:44 · Score: 1

Like so much "computer security" out there, I think this is one of those devices that could generate lots of revenue - but ultimately, is a waste.

If they're smart, they *won't* put in a back door, because any hint of its existance leaking out would totally destroy their sales.

The bigger issue is, why are corporate PBX's getting hacked in the first place? I'd say it's mainly due to lack of knowledge of their functionality by their owners!

99% of businesses I've run across have a fairly complex PBX system installed, yet they pay hourly fees to a 3rd. party company to do maintenance and updates to the system. (EG. We understand our city added a new phone prefix that our PBX needs to know is "local". Can someone come out and reprogram it so it knows not to treat this as long distance anymore?)

Most PBX functions can be password protected, preventing easy modification/enabling of features - but I'm willing to bet most companies still have the passwords set to system defaults, or some password the main servicer of that brand of PBX's in their city uses for all the systems they work on.

Instead of shelling out a bunch of money for some PBX firewall, companies would do better to send a few of their I.T. people (or heck, even the "administrative assistants" who put the phone in "night mode" before they leave each night and so on) to training, so they can maintain their own PBX.

So theft isn't theft? by Infonaut · 2004-01-31 06:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nothing like selective morality.

So if you use phone sex hotlines you deserve to have your money stolen? If you use a dating service do you deserve the same thing? If you subscribe to a right-wing or left-wing newspaper do you deserve to be ripped off by someone?

As for ripping off a government-sponsored radio station, who do you think is paying for it? Where does the government's money come from? It's not takin money from mom and pop directly, but it's not as though their not hurting the general public. People like to rail against government inefficiency and complain of mismanaged tax dollars. It's odd to me that someone would not be outraged by criminals directly stealing those tax dollars.

These guys aren't exactly Robin Hoods.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Re:So theft isn't theft? by King_TJ · 2004-01-31 06:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I didn't say "Slashdot readers should accept what these guys did as morally right." I'm just pointing out that they did shows a considerable amount of selective scamming - which I have to think was intentional.

The bottom line is, whatever you choose to do (or not do), say (or not say), you have to be comfortable with it in your own mind. Some folks just don't seem to have any conscience at all, so they go about doing whatever pleases them - with no guilt. (Murder someone just for fun? Why not!) Most of us, though, have our own personal definition of what's morally right and wrong - and we try to act within those boundaries.

I think these guys fall into the latter category. Stealing from government is a prime example of something you can look at from two, opposite ways. If you've worked honest jobs and watched a large part of your income get involuntarily sucked away by the govt. - you might consider stealing from them to be equivalent to getting back what you earned in the first place. (This viewpoint depends to large extent on how strongly you believe government is wasting/misusing the money you're being forced to contribute to them.)
Re:So theft isn't theft? by Kent+Recal · 2004-01-31 08:01 · Score: 1

They should really have attacked SCO and Mikerowesoft for some more positive feedback here on slashdot. ;-)
Re:So theft isn't theft? by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 08:43 · Score: 1

I completely agree.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:So theft isn't theft? by t0qer · 2004-01-31 09:10 · Score: 1

So if you use phone sex hotlines you deserve to have your money stolen? If you use a dating service do you deserve the same thing?

There's a big difference between someone making a phone call to jerk themselves off, and someone making a phone call to find a life partner to jerk them off.

I personally think the former is a bigger loser than the latter.
Re:So theft isn't theft? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 09:49 · Score: 0

Absolute morality doesn't exist, so stop whining on the account that you have the perfect principles and priorities.

What's important is that these guys have an ethic, a set of values that does not encompass Government propaganda and are sticking to it, living by standards and principles.

It is what every people seek to do, and the reason for much of the violence in the United-States; when someone reject the "public" morality, there is no accepted alternative.
Re:So theft isn't theft? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 10:21 · Score: 0

wrong, your argument can be applied for any criminal. All criminals think they have internal consistency. Just because its internally consistent with thier own values, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. Maybe you are just sympathetic with the little criminals.
Re:So theft isn't theft? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 19:42 · Score: 0

Who gives a shit what you think?

Re:Best of all, they're not subject to things like by Bagels · 2004-01-31 06:45 · Score: 1

Mind you, it'd have to be the ASCII version.

--
--- Bwah?

I bet their hearing is quite accute by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:51 · Score: 0

They can hear all the detailed sounds of soap being dropped that the sighted might not appreciate.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:56 · Score: 0

If he is living, then it is natural selection. Humans are not animals. We do not live by natural selection since 3 million years. We are differently structured then wolf packs. Except for people like you.

MOD PARENT UP!! WITTY!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 06:57 · Score: 0

Can you not see how it relates to the article?

Re:Best of all, they're not subject to things like by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:01 · Score: 0

especially since goatse was yanked a bit ago tardy!

Makes sense by Infonaut · 2004-01-31 07:01 · Score: 1

Ahh...

OK, I'll buy that argument. Their actions have internal consistency, whether you agree with them or not.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:04 · Score: 0

You have no right to talk. You've shown time and time again that you're a racist. I've read through your posting history and I'm disgusted.

You make me sick.

No, the title is by Sycraft-fu · 2004-01-31 07:05 · Score: 1

CGI programming, with Perl. In otherwords, how to program CGI applications in Perl. It's just like you don't program in sockets, you write a program that uses scokets to do something. Likewise with CGI.

The story works because by philipkd · 2004-01-31 07:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

1) First, hackers are heroes to the tech community. Actually, hackers are heroes in a all communities. Keaneu Reeves in the Matrix, Matthew Broderick in WarGames, Ed Furlong in T2, and the guys from Office Space. There is something about sticking it to the man through technology. One because you don't see the victim as you would when someone robs a liquor store, two because there is no physical violence, and three if its done against a major corporation then it's like they deserve it somehow. Plus there is the whole "concentrated gain, dispersed loss" thing For a big telco, three phreakers using free service does not dent their pocket book but certainly helps the attackers.

2) It's in a foreign country. Americans have a numbness to foreign pain. Look how the 20,000 large death toll from Iranian's earthquake did not rattle Americans. So when we hear about Israelis getting hacked by blind Palestinians we are equally passive, especially since many feel the Israeli's deserve it in someway.

3) Their blind and they're overcoming challenge.

"People said that God cursed our mother by giving her three blind sons," recalls Ramy. "Children beat us on the backs of our legs. Those abuses left scars on our hearts. But they also forced us to grow stronger."

When you hear that it cannot help but make you feel proud for these guys. Overcoming their obstacle of blindness is just amazing in general. It's a testament to human resilience and therefore the type of story that inspires hope--something much needed in our outsourcing-paranoid IT workers.

If these were, on the other hand, three blind robbers in San Francisco who stole purses from Old Grannies, yeah, this wouldn't get the same coverage.

--

Philosophistry

Re:The story works because by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 13:37 · Score: 0

The USA is the largest supplier of relief aid to Iran - just like in Afganistan, Iraq, Israel, etc.

It's the rest of the world that did nothing. (Canada, New Zealand, most of Europe, etc.)

I suggest you get a clue.
Re:The story works because by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 13:39 · Score: 0

The US is also the largest aid/troop supplier in Bosnia/Serbia. They are also in charge of the mass graves - in Europe's back yard!!
Re:The story works because by mericet · 2004-01-31 20:51 · Score: 1

Just a small correction, they are not palestinians (although some of their accomplices were), they are Israeli arabs.

--
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Re:The story works because by sweet+reason · 2004-02-03 12:03 · Score: 1

Their blind and they're overcoming challenge.

and there spelling is consistent.

--
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.

morality is always selective by my+sig+is+bigger+tha · 2004-01-31 07:08 · Score: 1

Perhaps you were thinking of the law, which is supposed to be "not selective" (although it is, of course).

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by evilviper · 2004-01-31 07:11 · Score: 1

You don't understand the difference between unscientific stupidity like Nazi Eugenics (based on "racial purity") and a desire to keep kids from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease and other genetic defects.

Okay, then let's disregard the Nazis, and say you are more on-terms with the form of eugenics that Sanger supported. Even planned-parenthood doesn't support those ideas of Sanger (their founder).

You would be wrong, but a very good example of prejudice.

No, you just don't understand what prejudice is.

that doesn't mean that the genes for Lou Gehrig's Disease should be in the gene pool.

It's quite simple. If people believe they would be better off not having been born, it only takes a couple minutes for them to rectify that problem if they choose. Who are you or I to tell them that they would be better off not having been born? They contribute to society, the do not take away from it, so what possible reason can you have to justify condeming people? It's not like it's a contageous disease that is going to spread.

Many blind people have contributed substantially to society. But that doesn't mean that we want to breed more blind people.

Sorry, but I just can't reconcile that statement...

You know that blind people have contributed to society, but don't think that they should ever be born. Are you saying you'd be happy to live without any contributions blind people have made?

That would have really hurt my feelings if it had come from someone whose opinion I respect.

...said the troll...

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Re:Wired Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:14 · Score: 0

/. 's news is always a day late compared to fark and a bunch of other sites. nothing original here.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by c.emmertfoster · 2004-01-31 07:21 · Score: 1

Stop bothering with the Godwin argument, everyone. The Nazis did not invent eugenics, they merely popularized it. Regardless of common belief, the term was invented in the ninteenth century by an Englishman scientist named Francis Galton. In the late eightteen-hundreds the idea was popular with the upper class all over the world. Incidentally he was Charles Darwin's first cousin.

Fun fact: by 1931, thirty US states passed laws calling for the sterilization of institutionalized insane. By 1958, 60,926 imbeciles morons and idiots were sterilized in the United States.

Hell, even Plato suggested improving society by arranged marriage.

Note that I'm not condoning this line of thought, just thought I would provide you with a little bit more background. I suggest the book Strange Creations for a bit more info.

--
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die!

Mittens and earplugs... by qtp · 2004-01-31 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

The biggest only thing that is leading some to consider these jerks "heros" is thier disability. Reading the article, I find little to respect about thier "skilz" as it seems that most of thier tech-dependant exploits were performed using software not written by themselves. Knowing what script to run does not necessarily imply an understanding of how it works.

The sad thing is that it seems that those with little or no skill garner acolades if they also demonstrate an accompanying lack of restraint or outright dishonesty. While contientious tech explorers and practitioners go unnoticed by the media, loud mouthed script kiddies and clueless "experts" get to tout thier wares and mythical skills to the most respected security companies.

As to whether thier sentancing was apropriate, it seems a little light to me. In keeping with Mitnik's extended probation from computing equipment, these jerks should be sentanced to mittens and earplugs for the next five years.

--
Read, L

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by seestuffgo · 2004-01-31 07:29 · Score: 1

You claim that you are An intelligent person who understands that perpetuating genetic defects is a bad idea.

Are you kidding me? Where you do you think creativity, intelligence, and other good "abnormalities" come from? It's all the same genes. One base pair flipped and something changes...the good, the bad, and all. You know the association between certain types of mental illness and 'genius' of various types, right? e.g., bipolar That's not to claim that all negative genetic issues have a positive side to them -- but you'd be rediculously shortsighted to think that you can just add a little chlorine to the genetic pool by not having kids if there's some kind of genetic defect in your line. It's not that simple. If you want to get rid of genetic defects, and if you know anything about evolution at all, you probably know how freakin' good variation is for the general improvement (evolution) of a species is...and how freakin' bad normalcy/nonvariance is. People with blindness develop special abilities above and beyond what seeing people can do. This is an advantageous trait in itself. See how it works? I don't claim to glorify genetic disorders, but to use blindness as an example of people who shouldn't have kids is just a bad example.

I don't advocate killing anyone nor do I think superficial traits like hair and eye color are the basis for determining "superiority."

And what would you call blindness? Profound? Incapacitating? Hardly. You're walking a slippery slope with that argument...

Any basis of judging the "goodness" of one person over another cannot be justified unless it is based on such a reduced quality of life that no life would be better than any life at all (potential examples: down syndrom, twins conjoined at the heart, etc). ANd I would hardly file "blindness" under that category. If you think that people with those types of defects ought not breed, that's ultimately the same problem as thinking you can kill them.

If parents decide they don't want to have kids for that reason, that's their decision. I am pro-choice and pro-euthanasia for those reasons. But to have some ultimate idea that the general quality of our society can be improved by "sound scientific reasoning" about what is a good contribution and bad contribution to man-kind's general gene pool -- that is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 07:37 · Score: 1

Nice try, troll-boy.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:43 · Score: 0

What does a pedophiliac comic book character have anything to do with phreaking??

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 07:57 · Score: 1

Okay, then let's disregard the Nazis, and say you are more on-terms with the form of eugenics that Sanger supported. Even planned-parenthood doesn't support those ideas of Sanger (their founder).

Nor do I support her ideas. You have to remember that Margaret Sanger believed in the fallacy of superior and inferior races. I do not.

No, you just don't understand what prejudice is.

If prejudging me based on your preconceived notions about Slashdot users isn't prejudice, what is it?

It's quite simple. If people believe they would be better off not having been born, it only takes a couple minutes for them to rectify that problem if they choose.

So you're advocating suicide for those with genetically inherited conditions? Wow, you are out there.

They contribute to society, the do not take away from it, so what possible reason can you have to justify condeming people?

I did not suggest "condemning" anyone. I said that the parents should have voluntarily stopped breeding when it became clear that they had a genetic flaw that leads to blindness.

You know that blind people have contributed to society, but don't think that they should ever be born.

No, that is not even close to what I said. People disfigured by fire have also contributed to society, but I don't support dousing people in gasoline and throwing matches at them. There is a difference between saying that we should not pass on genetic flaws once they become apparent and saying that people born with those flaws in the past should have been killed, urged to commit suicide, etc.

Another: by itomato · 2004-01-31 07:57 · Score: 1

Their sensory abilities, rerouted to other I/O devices due to outages on those ports (/dev/eyes) illustrate the range of ability humans have to take in and process information.

The context is cool, because it is modern, and not shiny-happy-flowers-special-olympiad plastic.

These are real, modern, *technologically-in-tune* people. And they shine.

Re:Another: by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 08:39 · Score: 0

You are so naive. Trying to grasp anything, that can possibly differentiate yourself from the rest of the world. Does everything you possess obtain the qualities of dull-depressed-shit-generic-wannabe recycled paper product? If not, then how can you rest knowing you have not totally differentiated yourself from humanity, and in the process effectively promoted everything that is shit, like the representation of your life which you just portrayed?

These brothers are only *shining*, because they used this technology to intentionally steal, harm, and otherwise attempt to illegally seperate one from what is rightfully theirs. Theft is not a game, life is not a movie, and these people are by no means a good basis for *technologically-in-tune* people, when they are so out of tune with the rest of the world. This just shows what a ego-damaged physically capacitated person will do, to prove he is still human. In all reality it is a sad desperation, just begging for attention. I feel pity for these people, I don't want to be them.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:Another: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 10:03 · Score: 0

good god, somebody take that guy's comma key away from him.
Re:Another: by Directrix1 · 2004-01-31 11:27 · Score: 1

Don't bug me man, I was on a roll :-P.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF

Fucking rat jews by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 07:58 · Score: 0

Not only because they are blind, but because they are rat jews.

The only real hero here is Hitler.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Woy · 2004-01-31 08:04 · Score: 1

Before "civilization", nature would weed out genetic defects like that

And this is nature weeding out the weakest races. If a species has a tendancy to weaken itself it will be less "fit" in the battle for survival with the other species. Other species like viruses that thrive in 3rd world countries we don't really care about and endlessly combine to be deadlier. It's like a wound that we wont heal. Or we can lose to other species that can live without endlessly destroying their environment, which in the end, are the only ones that live.

Now you made me sound like those greenpiece weirdos...

--
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire

Re:Wired Slashdot? by Idarubicin · 2004-01-31 08:05 · Score: 2, Informative

If we want Wired, we can read Wired! :) Want some originality...

Right, and that's what Slashdot does--it tells you about interesting articles on Wired. And in the New York Times, and the Guardian, and on Groklaw. Slashdot produces very little of its own content. There are a few book reviews and interview, but the bread and butter of Slashdot is providing links to interesting and/or useful articles in other news sources...and providing a venue in which its readers can comment on those stories.

--
~Idarubicin

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 08:07 · Score: 1

Where you do you think creativity, intelligence, and other good "abnormalities" come from?

An abnormality is not always a defect. Being abnormally strong, intelligent, athletic, etc. are not defective traits. Being blind, deaf, or with severe combined immunodeficiency ("bubble-boy" syndrome) are defects.

Any basis of judging the "goodness" of one person over another cannot be justified unless it is based on such a reduced quality of life that no life would be better than any life at all (potential examples: down syndrom, twins conjoined at the heart, etc). ANd I would hardly file "blindness" under that category.

So it's up to you to decide. I see.

But to have some ultimate idea that the general quality of our society can be improved by "sound scientific reasoning" about what is a good contribution and bad contribution to man-kind's general gene pool -- that is one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard.

Do you think that someone born blind, by and large, has the same quality of life as someone born sighted? Do you think that someone born with Huntington's Disease has as good a quality of life as someone without it? Why pass on genetic traits which reduce quality of life and which may spring up generations later (when they are recessive genes)?

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 08:14 · Score: 1

If he is living, then it is natural selection. Humans are not animals.

Did they even have biology class at your school?

We do not live by natural selection since 3 million years. We are differently structured then[sic] wolf packs.

That's basically correct (except for the timeframe). And that's why it's important for people to make intelligent and compassionate choices. If you and your wife have a genetic defect which causes blindness, then is it fair to pass on those genes, knowing that doing so could result in other sighted couples decades from now giving birth to blind children? Is that your idea of fairness?

Except for people like you.

You are an ass.

One advantage of being blind... by Frubjub · 2004-01-31 08:16 · Score: 1

No eyestrain from all-night hacking sessions!

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by evilviper · 2004-01-31 08:17 · Score: 1

So you're advocating suicide for those with genetically inherited conditions?

Nope. I'm saying there's no reason to stop someone from being born in the first place, regardless of physical or medical conditions.

There is a difference between saying that we should not pass on genetic flaws once they become apparent and saying that people born with those flaws in the past should have been killed, urged to commit suicide, etc.

There is a difference, but it is a VERY SMALL one.

I'm done with this conversation. You're just trolling, and enjoy twisting around anything I've said.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

These guys... by centralizati0n · 2004-01-31 08:24 · Score: 1

Really piss me off. Yeah, sure, they're blind, but who cares? They ripped off the phone system and people's tax dollars for their own personal profit. Read the part of the story where the guy gets out of prison, and they're building his (very very expensive) new house?

Please. by Icephreak1 · 2004-01-31 08:32 · Score: 1

They're crooks and they were caught. Where's the real news?

- IP

Getting very off-topic here, but no... by Kjella · 2004-01-31 08:41 · Score: 1

And while eye-sight was required for survival centuries ago, intelligence is required to survive now.

If you want to be rich and successful, perhaps. However, most people today actually survive and procreate regardless of eye-sight or intelligence, which is why there's been a population explosion over the last century or so.

And unlike in most other creatures living in a social structure like a pack or a herd, I don't see much tendency among humans that the "genetically superior" procreate more (think compared to the alpha male of a wolf pack or a flock of chimps).

Face it, evolution in humanity is practically at a halt, or perhaps even degenerating except for purely sexual traits. "Survival of the attractive" far more than "Survival of the fittest".

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Getting very off-topic here, but no... by TSage · 2004-01-31 15:17 · Score: 1

My intention here isn't to try to disprove you wrong or anything, merely to start a meandering post about issues you raised.

Having said that: I believe I've heard that more attractive people seem attractive precisely because their attractiveness is an indication of something that is generally good for the species. For example, if memory serves, a woman with a small chin shows low testosterone levels and those full pouty lips that are all the rage are a sign of higher estrogen levels.

Also, apparently people choose mates on other things not previously known (or perhaps only conjectured). Women actually depend (at least somewhat) on the smell of their mate. Apparently, a woman will find a man's natural scent more attractive if their immune systems are opposite. Thus if they mated, their children would have a better immune system.

The evidence for this last example went something like this: a several men wore a t-shirt when they went to bed. Each wore it for a while (say maybe a week) and then they placed them into a ziplock bag and gave it to the researchers. They, in turn, gave it to a group of women who were then asked to smell each bag and then rate the smell. The results showed a correspondence in preferred smells and the aforementioned immune system differences.

So to a point survival of the attractive really does help bring about the survival of the fittest, at least marginally.

However, as you pointed out, the more successful in our society do not generally have many offspring and I'm not sure exactly how that might play out. Too, with modern cosmetics and 'beauty' enhancements, we may not be following our natural signals properly (meaning we're being duped to some degree).

I would contest that human evolution has completely halted. Yes, we are "in control" of most of our evolutionary environment. However, there is one facet where we still are evolving, and hopefully fairly rapidly: our immune system. Even though we have modern drugs (which can actually hurt the survivability population in some sense), our immune systems are still going, and any major epidemic (like on the level of the spanish flu in 1918) would ultimately cull those with weaker immune systems out of the gene pool if we didn't create a drug quickly enough.

To wrap up, we may be 18, but we're still under the roof of Mother Nature and we play by her rules.

Tsage

Read this on snopes.com by spun · 2004-01-31 08:47 · Score: 1

Evidently it's not just a joke, but a long running urban legend. In the old days, it was just some housewife, and she wasn't naked. She thought the man with the blinds was collecting for the blind and gave him a dollar.

Now we want more titillation from our urban legends, so the housewife is naked (either because she is cleaning and doesn't want to get her outfit dirty, or because she is in the shower.) This nun-based version (also on snopes, verbatim) is even funnier, as naked nuns would be even more embarassed than naked housewives.

In other versions, the housewife is doing laundry naked (she's washing her outfit) and she puts on her son's football helmet to protect her new hairdo (yeah, it's a stretch) when the meter reader comes in. "Hope your team wins" is the punchline.

Finally, there is the "lucky milkman" story. Naked housewife hides in back porch closet when she hears what she thinks is the milkman coming. Meter reader opens the door, she says, "Oh, I thought you were the milkman!" and he says, "lucky milkman!" Badum-pcha. Thanks, I'll be here all week.

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 08:49 · Score: 0

I'm calling Flounce.

Why I played with the phone by billsf · 2004-01-31 08:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Phreaking" was hacking with a cause. Nothing like Cyber (trolls) Hippies or some dipshit "community spirit". When I was a very young kid, my bluebox (R1) was was my ticket to ride. With all the people I met, I am what I am today. You'd never know in America (where I grew up) what a crock Vietnam was from the start, the "Cold War" was a farce, Nixon was a super crook and on and on. __People__ told me what the press dared not report!

Due to an obscure Federal law, it was a crime to get priviladged service from the only 'provider' there was then: Ma Bell. It never bothered me to break a stupid law and never at any time was using a circuit that would have been otherwise idle wrong. In the early days, it may have cost a few bucks to make an international call but times were to change, but the rates didn't reflect that.

Europe, 1989, and wow, its legal! Armed with the knowledge that a transAtlantic call cost about $0.05/min and the consumer was charged about $3.00/min brought a new cause. Here in Europe, we took it to the press and won our case. While we were paying a few cents a minute to call, Americans were still paying a few dollars. Yes, they made it somewhat illegal in 1993 but the battle was won and then and only then was it associated with a bunch of Amiga lamers and criminals that made one-trick boxes.

As a 'phreak' I applied what i knew about Unix and its rather crude scheduling at the time. Finding a new 'trick' was a treat. First one in a hacker, copycats, criminals. Like writing code, it can take allot of persistence. Often more as the only feedback was sound and ofcourse, social engineering. I took great pride in asking the switchman if he noticed me in his system and the answer always: "No". Those musical Amigas enevitably played at the wrong level was always a giveaway: You could hear the timbre of an Amiga in the crosstalk!

Except for possibly mobile phones, there is no reason to do this stuff today. Unix and Internet are more interesting anyways. Phreaking was my way in to the Unix crowd and all the hackers that make 'mousing arround' possible for so many today. And guess what: You sheep out there spam, flood, use html attachments and cause general mayhem for a system that is as fragile as the phone was in the past. Criminal I'm not. And you with your software out of a cerial box? Did it ever occur to you why commercial software is packaged like that?

Believe it, it takes alot of skill to twidle a call. It takes nothing to ruin the Internet and so many of you are doing it now. I'm very proud it did it and still benefit today by not doing it. It is nice to know if there is ever a war or situation that requires it, I can do it and with computers, so much more.

"Three Blind Mice", nice to hear the story again. Blind people can type and often run a Votrax (the real speech synthesiser) at 200 WPM or more. I'm sighted and can read alot faster than that, but most can't.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Krunch · 2004-01-31 09:02 · Score: 1

And the day you will discover your adopted child is genetically "deficient", you will kill him or just sterilize him ?

--
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.

Way to go by myg · 2004-01-31 09:16 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Way to go Slashdumb. Idolize a bunch of Islamic terrorists. Cyber-terrorists none the less, but terrorists.

Re:Wired Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 09:25 · Score: 0

I think slashdot is more about the comments of the community than the actual story it self.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 09:28 · Score: 0

you should read "the bell curve". It explains in excruciating detail that in an intellectually stratified society there are differential rates of reproduction as a function of intelligence, with the least intelligent reproducing most readily and the most intelligent reproducing the least. This explains why the undesirable trash in america have so profoundly outnumbered the desirables in the last few decades, dragging down the mean IQ in the process. As the genectically defective hacker family has many children, they are likely on the short end of the stick intellectually and thus reproduce as a consequence of the own uncontrollable lasciviousness rather than through reasoned deliberation.

thats great by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 09:29 · Score: 0

this guy gets out of prison and has money to buy a $20,000 car, why not just give all our money to the terrorists - they seem to be winning.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-01-31 09:37 · Score: 1

And the day you will discover your adopted child is genetically "deficient", you will kill him or just sterilize him ?

I'd urge him/her to adopt when they grow up.

Sue Thomas, FB Eye. These cats should be FBI! by jazzmanjac · 2004-01-31 09:44 · Score: 1

Why aren't these guys looking at fuzzy surveillance cam recordings of suspected terrorists and decoding their conversations through lip reading? If they aren't doing so, they are probably AL Quide and should be sent to Guantanamo Bay immediately!

Sue Thomas would be proud. (And I'm sure Levi would be as well.)

J.

--
Some cats swing, and others don't. Don't you be the kind that won't.

The good ole' days... by Vanguard(DC) · 2004-01-31 10:12 · Score: 1

I sure as hell miss them! if it weren't for the late 80's and all the freedoms we HAD back then to experiment, then like them, i wouldn't be the highly paid security consultant i am today!
getting nailed also turned me around, but i was 17, so i got to switch sides early!

as long as these guys do nothing to harm me or my country, more power to 'em! there is no denying that the best of the best are the ones who learned how to get in before applying that and teaching others to keep people out. Screw the PhD's and all the "Educated" folk... real hacks know how to get the job done right without learning it from a book in a classroom! they will always be 2 steps behind, and wannabes! lol...

-vanguard

--
"I think, therefore I get paid."

A thief is a thief is a thief by any name by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 10:33 · Score: 0

Robin Hood wasn't fucking Robin Hood.
A thief is a thief is a thief by any name, regardless of what he do with what he steals.

I know all of those words... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 11:06 · Score: 0

but I can't parse this.

What are you smoking, so I know what hot new drug to avoid killing my braincells with?

Why don't they channel that into something useful? by mark-t · 2004-01-31 11:10 · Score: 1

These guys could probably do well to teach security courses in post-secondary education. Wisdom like that would be invaluable to the undergrad who may be hoping to get his first sysadmin job within the next few years.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

See How They Run by Cruxus · 2004-01-31 11:33 · Score: 1

Three blind phreaks

See how they run

Away from law enforcement!

--
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.

Re:Sue Thomas, FB Eye. These cats should be FBI! by CB-in-Tokyo · 2004-01-31 11:44 · Score: 1

"Why aren't these guys looking at fuzzy surveillance cam recordings of suspected terrorists and decoding their conversations through lip reading? If they aren't doing so, they are probably AL Quide and should be sent to Guantanamo Bay immediately!" .....or perhaps they are blind.

Re:Best of all, they're not subject to things like by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 11:54 · Score: 0

This one?

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by gmhowell · 2004-01-31 11:55 · Score: 1

If I had the same genetic defect, recessive or not, that lead to the blindness of those boys, then, yes, sterilization would be appropriate.

Okay, so blindness is on your list of things to sterilize for. Deafness is a no brainer, right? What about diabetes? Heart disease? Depression? Allergies? Where is the rational point where the line is drawn? Or is it like porno; "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it?"

And what level of blindness is/isn't worth sterilization? Extreme nearsightedness? Color blindness?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Ha Ha Ha. by multiplexo · 2004-01-31 12:09 · Score: 1

Yah. You blind muthafuckas are really L33t, til I move your furniture around. Now who's l33t?

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.

Re:Ha Ha Ha. by multiplexo · 2004-01-31 12:15 · Score: 1

Actually though there was a really good story by either Greg Bear or Joe Haldeman about a how in the future people have their eyes removed so they can be smarte, the theory being that if the part of your brain that is occupied with decoding visual images were freed from that task it would be available for other things, such as cogitation, ratiocination, thinking, et al.

It is a love story where a brilliant man falls in love with a woman who is visually impaired, but not blind, he then arranges to remove her eyes under the guise of repairing them. But when she recovers she is so intelligent that she sees right through him (figuratively speaking anyways) and dumps him.

The surgery becomes more and more popular until there is a upper class of blinded, really smart people who run everything and a second class of sighted servants who basically function as human guide dogs.

I wish I could remember the title and author. I read it in Analog many, many years ago.

--
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by qtp · 2004-01-31 12:29 · Score: 1

So you're advocating suicide for those with genetically inherited conditions?

He wasn't advocating anything, he was simply acknowledging that the decision of whether or not someone should exist (come into existance, cease to exist, etc) is not to be made by you or I.

I said that the parents should have voluntarily stopped breeding when it became clear that they had a genetic flaw that leads to blindness.

Who are you to say they should not breed? Are you assuming that those who are blind are universally suffering? Are you assuming that blind people are too costly for a society to tollerate? That they are not as productive as your average sighted person?

Do you have siblings? Do they share similar ideas? Perhaps your parents should have stopped breeding rather than bring yet another asshole into this world.

--
Read, L

human sonar by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 12:34 · Score: 0

I saw an episode on the discover channel where these blind guys have learned to use clicking sounds as human sonar. They were able to ride mountain bikes without any sight at all. So blind people can possibly out program and out ride you.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by qtp · 2004-01-31 12:37 · Score: 1

If you don't understand the difference between Nazi Eugenics, which was based on superficial traits and aimed for "racial purity", and a desire to prevent children from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, or with Huntington's Disease, then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

All I see is an asshole attempting to force his standards of judgement as to who is worthy to exist. Most arguing against you would not disagree with the idea that parents should have the option to know about the potential handicaps thier children may possess due to inherited traits, but the decision to act on this knowledge should remain with the parents, not a government, or a commitee of "the enlightened", and definately not you.

--
Read, L

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 12:46 · Score: 0

I never said anything even remotely similar to that. Many blind people have contributed substantially to society. But that doesn't mean that we want to breed more blind people.

Are you sure? The blindness gives someone an impetus to prove himself able, and worthy of being in a society. He might do this by honing something he still has, like his intelligence for example. This kind of thing, as you said, contributes sometimes in a substantial way to the human race as a whole.

What reason would "normal" people have to develop their abilities, like their intelligence, beyond than what would be considered "normal"? They definitely wouldn't contribute much, or anything interesting at least.

The Golden Rule. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 13:16 · Score: 0

They who have the gold, make the rules.

hypocrites by scottking · 2004-01-31 14:09 · Score: 1

i see a lot of "theft is theft" posts around here, and i agree... stealing bad... but i can't help wondering how many people saying that just finished downloading pirated software/music/movies.

i'm just sayin'...

also there seems to be a lot of "they're terrorists" comments, and i can't help but wonder if the same would be said if they were blind american hackers/phreakers/criminals.

i think as a community we've become sort of judgemental and short sighted.

--
scott king

link to esquire article by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 15:10 · Score: 0

http://mbay.net/~mpoirier/lbb.html

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 15:37 · Score: 0

Are you certain that blind people have nothing to contribute to society? People though the same thing about Blacks, Hispanics, etc., yet they've been proven wrong time and time again.

Ouch; I agree with your general point, but I would be careful with that comparison. Blind people are, on average, less capable than the nonblind. Being blind is an undesirable thing, no matter how you look at it. On the other hand, people of different skin color are basically the same as whites. So viewing blind people as inferior is not nearly as unreasonable as viewing blacks as inferior. That said, I still agree with you that parents should be allowed to make children as much as they like, but a simple comparison with racism doesn't hold.

How far behind the curve can /. get? by PHAEDRU5 · 2004-01-31 15:56 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Subject line says it all.

--
668: Neighbour of the Beast

Moderated -1 because /. is two weeks behind. by PHAEDRU5 · 2004-01-31 16:29 · Score: 0, Troll

What a collection of fascist morons.

--
668: Neighbour of the Beast

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 16:31 · Score: 0

YHBT, HTH, HAND.

Loop? its easy my friend by kerb · 2004-01-31 16:35 · Score: 1

for (i=0; i

more proof... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 17:22 · Score: 0

That arabs are terrorists. In this case, telecomm terrorists

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-31 17:30 · Score: 0

Beats the shit out of me -- ask your folks.

Why only those with vision? by npsimons · 2004-01-31 20:54 · Score: 1

have devoted their lives to proving they can out-think, out-program, and out-hack anyone with vision.

Why only those with vision? Seems awfully prejudiced to me. Or maybe they're just saying that to provoke a reaction. To be perfectly honest, I highly doubt they can out-program or "out-hack", oh say, Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond or Linus Torvalds.

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad to see people rising above their limitations, no matter what it is. It's just that statement could have been just as true and not so inflammatory if it had read thusly:

have devoted their lives to proving they can out-think, out-program, and out-hack anyone

Still, that's a rather bold statement, putting it politely. Putting it bluntly, someone needs to deflate their egos.

--
Nathan's blog

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Inthewire · 2004-01-31 22:05 · Score: 1

Perhaps your parents should have stopped breeding rather than bring yet another asshole into this world.

Why?
Yours didn't.

--

Writers imply. Readers infer.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by Inthewire · 2004-01-31 22:11 · Score: 1

But do you see how your argument doesn't specify a point of view?
You are against something, not for something - you never name a trait you support or disdain, you merely acknowledge that people can be sorted.
Imagine your positive traits are negative.
Your arguments still apply.
Now do you understand how vacant your position is?

--

Writers imply. Readers infer.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by hummassa · 2004-01-31 23:24 · Score: 1

I am not a "troll." I am expressing my beliefs, which, apparently, others share.
I therefore claim Godwin's Law take over this thread. Those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it ... repeat it ... repeat it ... repeat it ...

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by hummassa · 2004-01-31 23:31 · Score: 1

Please don't feed the troll. He thinks all blind people are in welfare or something. I know ten or more system engineers that make real big bucks and ... yes, they are blind! They get the car they paid with their salary, with the driver they pay with their salary, go to work, work 8-12 hrs a day (to worth what they are paid), go back home to their wife and kids, play with them, listen to the TV along with them, sometimes read a good book if there is a Braille version or listen to it if it's an audio book.
Oh, guess what ... he lives a life exactly like mine. As to the Braille part, oh, yes, I can't read a book if there is only a version in Greek, too... so, they not depend on the "society" more than me! pff...

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by hummassa · 2004-01-31 23:52 · Score: 1

There is more, qtp. As you or someone else appointed, there are the Hawkins' of the world. People with genetical "disabilities" and other (possibly genetical, too) abilities that greatly benefit the society and humanity as a whole.

What escapes fmaxwell is that:

1. filtering society is like filtering music for noise: yes, you can lower the noise at the cost of dynamic range... and beauty.

2. it's not intelligence the trait that permit humans to thrive... it's intelligence + society (as in social, strong helps weak and weak can breed).

oh, I'm done with this thread. good night.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

I talked to Joybubbles by DesertFalcon · 2004-02-01 01:19 · Score: 1

I grew up in St. Paul, and when I was a freshman in college tried to build my own black (or was it blue?) box. This was in 1997. I was very disappointed to discover that the phone systems had all changed and that it wouldn't work.

All of my reading did lead me to tracking down Joey Engressia, though. I thought it was indescribably cool that a cultural icon like him was living practically next door to me. I eventually got ahold of him on the phone and we talked for about an hour about his past exploits, his decision to change his name to Joybubbles (it was part of a kids' television show that he hosted, iirc,) and what he does with phones nowadays (tests the phone systems and reports problems to the phone company, for free, in case you're wondering.)

--
--- 11 meters/second, or 24 miles per hour - the airspeed velocity of an unladen European swallow. Really.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by qtp · 2004-02-01 01:41 · Score: 1

You are against something,

Yes, I am against the idea that you should be the arbiters of what is survivable. In other words, I am recognising that culture and social structures have become part of the *environment* in which we live, and that a society that supports those who have a visibly obvious defect may benefit from other non-visibly obvious traits that individual may have. I also do not believe that our understanding of genetic language and mechanism has developed to the extent that we fully understand how to recognise the beneficicial (and often non-obvious) traits, or how they are encoded in our genetic makeup. We may have a map, but not only do we not know how to read it, it is sorely incomplete, does not come with a useful legend, and is missing more elements than it displays.

you never name a trait you support or disdain,

I thought the implication of my words was rather clear, I disdain that trait that leads some to believe that they are qualified to judge whether or not another family should "breed".

you merely acknowledge that people can be sorted.

where? I thought it was a given that all things that have differing traits can be classified. What crieria and how it should be applied is a more appropriate question. Who should be applying that criteria and how universal or far reaching the action taken is another.

Imagine your positive traits are negative.
Your arguments still apply.
Now do you understand how vacant your position is?

Been attending "The Forum" much? You are not addressing anything in my argument. You are basing your argument on a position that I did not state nor do is it one that I hold (that I, or you, or the poster who started this thread, should be the one to decide for others whether or not the children of another family are fit to exist).

My point of view is that it is a waste of time and effort to judge the worthiness to exist of those uninvolved directly in your immediate life. I also believe that the tendancy to pronounce such judgements based on percieved inferiority is harmful to society and to the human race as a whole, as nature has developed mechanisms that handle these selections. Local communities also have developed such mechanisms, but they do not scale to a great extent. What may be a disadvantage in one locale may be an advantage elsewhere, such as is the case with sicle-cell anemia.

Get off your high horse and quit accusing those who disagree with you position of avoiding a position. They are not, thier position just happens to be one that differs from your own, and it is one that displays a greater understanding of the issue being debated.

--
Read, L

from the funny-as-fuck department by bonaldi · 2004-02-01 01:44 · Score: 1

That's the single funniest department tag I've ever seen on any /. story. Evar.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-02-01 02:04 · Score: 1

Who are you to say they should not breed?

Because perpetuating genes for blindness results in needless suffering for generations to come and because being blind is such a devastating hurdle to overcome. Recessive genes for blindness can surface many generations later, causing a couple with no suspicion whatsoever to give birth to a blind child. That couple may not have the resources to raise a blind child.

That they are not as productive as your average sighted person?

No, they are not. The average blind person is shut out of countless opportunities that sighted persons have. But productivity is not the issue. I'm not some right-winger who thinks that everyone is on the Earth to drive up the GNP of their respective countries.

Have a little compassion. Think about families a few generations down the road that will have blind children because these people perpetuated these recessive genes. Think about how devastating that will be for them. Think about what your quality of life would be if you had been born blind.

Perhaps your parents should have stopped breeding rather than bring yet another asshole into this world.

You are living proof that it's possible for a woman to conceive and give birth to a living turd after she's been ass-f*cked.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-02-01 02:12 · Score: 0, Troll

What reason would "normal" people have to develop their abilities, like their intelligence, beyond than what would be considered "normal"? They definitely wouldn't contribute much, or anything interesting at least.

Yeah, think about what would Einstein, Plato, and Kasparov achieved if they had been born sighted. Oh, wait... They were.

Most people are driven to better themselves. They read challenging books, participate in difficult activities, whether mental or physical, and learn new skills. I did not decide to stop learning just because I reached "normal." Did you?

You are ignoring the big picture. What happens to the poor couple that gives birth to a child with Down's Syndrome, blindness, deafness, and a non-functional immune system because they happened to get the unlucky set of recessive genes together?

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-02-01 02:18 · Score: 0, Troll

Deafness is a no brainer, right? What about diabetes? Heart disease? Depression? Allergies? Where is the rational point where the line is drawn? Or is it like porno; "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it?"

There is no black and white answer as you astutely point out. I would hope that parents would make ethical choices. If something is debillitating, then it should not be passed on. Mild allergies to seafood are not in that category. Allergies to peanuts that cause anaphylactic shock just from smelling peanuts probably is.

If I discovered that I had a gene for blindness, deafness, Down's Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, or SCID, then I would not pass that gene on. If I wanted a child, I would adopt.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-02-01 02:33 · Score: 1

While a poetic expression, it hardly will be comforting to the family that gives birth to a deaf, blind, immuno-compromised, Down's Syndrome child that requires 24/7 care. And that's what happens when recessive genes for these traits are propagated through the gene pool. The traits become more and more frequent and combine with one another.

There is Stephen Hawking and then there are the other millions of people with Huntington's Disease, most of whom lack his intelligence and many of whom spend their foreshortened lives in nursing homes. Before you go advocating the propagation of such horrible genetic defects through the gene pool, read about them. Here's how the Hundinton's Disease Society of America describes the condition:

Huntington's Disease(HD) is a devastating, degenerative brain disorder for which there is, at present, no effective treatment or cure. HD slowly diminishes the affected individual's ability to walk, think, talk and reason. Eventually, the person with HD becomes totally dependent upon others for his or her care. Huntington's Disease profoundly affects the lives of entire families: emotionally, socially and economically.

Named for Dr. George Huntington, who first described this hereditary disorder in 1872, HD is now recognized as one of the more common genetic disorders. More than a quarter of a million Americans have HD or are "at risk" of inheriting the disease from an affected parent. HD affects as many people as Hemophilia, Cystic Fibrosis or muscular dystrophy.

Early symptoms of Huntington's Disease may affect cognitive ability or mobility and include depression, mood swings, forgetfulness, clumsiness, involuntary twitching and lack of coordination. As the disease progresses, concentration and short-term memory diminish and involuntary movements of the head, trunk and limbs increase. Walking, speaking and swallowing abilities deteriorate. Eventually the person is unable to care for him or herself. Death follows from complications such as choking, infection or heart failure.

HD typically begins in mid-life, between the ages of 30 and 45, though onset may occur as early as the age of 2. Children who develop the juvenile form of the disease rarely live to adulthood. HD affects males and females equally and crosses all ethnic and racial boundaries. Each child of a person with HD has a 50/50 chance of inheriting the fatal gene. Everyone who carries the gene will develop the disease.

And that's the kind of thing that you are in favor of perpetuating through the gene pool?

P.S. I find it absurd that you would mark me as a "FOE" simply because we disagree. How intellectually hollow!

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-02-01 02:36 · Score: 1

Touche. My hat is off to you for a great one-liner -- even if it was at my expense.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by qtp · 2004-02-01 05:51 · Score: 1

I'm not some right-winger who thinks that everyone is on the Earth to drive up the GNP of their respective countries.

You sure sounded like one. Perhaps you are simply the kind of right-winger who believes that certain families should not be permitted to "breed". It's very considerate of you to distance yourself from your economic determinist allies, I'm sure they will return the favor someday.

Think about families a few generations down the road that will have blind children because these people perpetuated these recessive genes.

What do we know about this family? They have three intelligent children who were blind from birth. Do we know that this blindness was caused by a genetic predisposition? It certainly seems to be implied by circumstance, but it is by no means a given. Without knowing about environmental conditions (industrial pollutants, natural mutagens, etc) drug use (medications) by the mother, and a score of other possible causes that effect the developing feotus, we do not know if this blindness was caused by a genetic anomoly.

Think about how devastating that will be for them. Think about what your quality of life would be if you had been born blind.

I cannot imagine how devastating it would be to be born blind, but the one person I've met was rather open about the fact that he didn't much mind, although he does wish he could expirience a painting or photograph firsthand.

You are living proof that it's possible for a woman to conceive and give birth to a living turd ...

I attempt to illustrate my point byu putting you on the recieving end of your judgements and you turn it into an obscenity fest, how mature, and it is as aproximately as genuine as your attempt to use "compassion" as an argument for removing a families "breeding" rights.

--
Read, L

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-02-01 06:12 · Score: 1

What do we know about this family? They have three intelligent children who were blind from birth. Do we know that this blindness was caused by a genetic predisposition? It certainly seems to be implied by circumstance, but it is by no means a given. Without knowing about environmental conditions (industrial pollutants, natural mutagens, etc) drug use (medications) by the mother, and a score of other possible causes that effect the developing feotus, we do not know if this blindness was caused by a genetic anomoly.

Now you are simply wasting my time. In my original post, I quoted the Wired article:

Ramy, along with two of his three brothers, has been blind since birth due to a genetic defect.

Since you didn't read the article, didn't read my posting, and simply used this as an excuse to call me an "asshole", I guess I've just been trolled.

I attempt to illustrate my point byu putting you on the recieving end of your judgements and you turn it into an obscenity fest

You were the one who called me an "asshole", so it was you who started in with the gratuitous vulgarity and insults. (By the way, obscenity and vulgarity are not the same thing.)

And luck. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-01 07:31 · Score: 0

Don't forget the element of luck in everything we do. Good and bad luck, that is.

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by hummassa · 2004-02-01 10:27 · Score: 1

You know, you really is right. About your PS, of course. I am irritated by any elaboration on eugenics, because I know many (many many) people especifically with Down's Syndrome that have beauty and bring beauty to their families lifes.
My wife has an uncle that has cerebral paralysis
and, altough have 50 years old, has the development of a 9 months old baby. And you know what? He teaches us things. We would be worse people, if it was not for his presence. This is important for us to learn.

--
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048

Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding? by fmaxwell · 2004-02-01 11:38 · Score: 1

You know, you really is right. About your PS, of course.

Thanks. You're on my friends list, too, now. We may not agree, but I respect you.

I am irritated by any elaboration on eugenics, because I know many (many many) people especifically with Down's Syndrome that have beauty and bring beauty to their families lifes.
My wife has an uncle that has cerebral paralysis
and, altough have 50 years old, has the development of a 9 months old baby. And you know what? He teaches us things. We would be worse people, if it was not for his presence. This is important for us to learn.

All very valid and I, in no way, want you or anyone else to think that I am wishing someone now with us had never been born. Some of the most intellectually and emotionally gifted people in the world have genetic disorders, diseases, and handicaps.

I went to school with someone who lost his sight from a sports injury. He was well-adjusted and graduated with honors and we all learned much about courage from him. But just as I would not purposely try to destroy someone else's sight, neither would I knowingly pass on genes for blindness.

We may disagree, but what I am suggesting is not eugenics. Eugenics are attempts to improve the human race through controlled selective breeding. I'm not suggesting that anyone control breeding or select who may have kids. But I do think that parents should consider if it is fair to bring a child into the world with a potentially devastating genetic problem. And they should consider the effect that such genes could have on other parents many generations removed.

hysterically blind by Doc+Ruby · 2004-02-05 12:39 · Score: 1

Being blind is their advantage 1> in motivating them to practice listening, and 2> the absence of distractions to their focus on listening. But how does that explain how you apparently can read and type, but cannot think in between? You're too distracted by the ease of typing and the merry flow of the syllables to have the discipline to know what you're talking about?

--

--
make install -not war

313 comments