Slashdot Mirror
DECAF Was Just a Stunt, Now Over
An anonymous reader writes to tell us of the de-activation of all copies of DECAF. The creators have announced that the DECAF project was nothing more than a "stunt to raise awareness for security and the need for better forensic tools." Originally DECAF was billed as a tool to stop Microsoft's forensic tool "COFEE" and was covered here earlier this week. In addition to their message of security the authors somehow manage to interject a discussion about religion, so who knows what the real goal was.
0xDECAFBAD
Ceci n'est pas une
When after reading that I reply with "WTF?"
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
I can see what they are getting at but it is a real douche thing for them to be all "shame on you!" for downloading and using software that they themselves created, provided, and handed out. I can't see a whole lot of people taking them seriously, as a result.
When I saw the original announcement of this program, I was skeptical of what it was actually for. However, I didn't see this type of angle coming! LOL, wow!
If you actually downloaded this thing, let this be a valuable lesson. Don't be gullible. This could have been a virus for your computer, instead of one for your mind.
Considering that all but the first paragraph of the article was the religious message its self, I'd say that it is pretty clear what the goal was.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I think you meant this:
1. Make fake software.
2. Make fake software work like it will outshine proprietary software.
3. ???
4. Prophet
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Yeah well the atheists and libertarians that you don't like are merely posting comments on this site. I may not like libertarians, but I can't remember the last time one of them wrote a timebomb malware program, to go off at a set point, and give me a pro-libertarian screed.
Ironic that the message to be learned from a group of people pushing a religious agenda is "Don't be gullible."
You're doing it wrong.
Which of these are bad? And why? I've often heard that getting a personal message out via publicity stunts is a good thing (The Yes Men) and now all the sudden it's bad, and we should pay no attention to these reprehensible people whose only method is deceit?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Well, I guess Greenspan's economic policies aren't exactly a program, in the CS sense of the term; but they otherwise fit the bill pretty well...
Well, in the original Slashdot DECAF article, there were a large number of folks who guessed that this might be a piece of malware, or at least not be what it appeared. Given that they were essentially right and the author's credibility now has to be seen as zero, what weight should be given to his profession of faith? I have to wonder if he isn't a non-Christian, since deceiving people is against Christian principles.
DECAF was a meta-troll.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Perhaps most of us are Windows users that did not download and install the program?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I found that last part a little out of place, but then that's their site, so let them post whatever testimonial they want.
It's their site and their right, but in general using a technical discussion to shoehorn in religious promotion is considered bad form, to put it mildly.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
a Pun AND a Meme.
This deserves to be a Score:6 comment.
"REMEMBER TO DRINK YOUR DECAF"
A crummy commercial. Son of a bitch!
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
"deceiving people is against Christian principles. " != "no self-professed Christian has ever deceived anyone"
So, sorority chicks???
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being a self-righteous prick with that last statement regarding Christianity. Deceiving people is against the tenets of many, many religions; likewise, there are a frightening volume of scammers, swindlers, abusers, liars, deceivers, moral pretenders, and downright assholes flying under the banner of Christianity. Just because someone is deceiving folks doesn't mean they're not a Christian, and a statement to that effect is along the lines of why the more evangelical Christian community bugs the shit out of everyone else.
But why do you hate the ideas? I'm a weak libertarian myself and find that personal liberty is important. Don't generalize and say all libertarians are extremists. We don't all want to abolish the government. I'm curious about your ideas since I feel a decentralized government that helps those who truly need it, while not having ideas to force upon you about religion and ethics (marriage, alcohol, etc) would be the best deal. This is libertarianism for you.
Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty. For just that reason, it cannot be tolerated by anyone who stants to profit from this status quo. Such people include powerful politicians and influential members of the media. These are people who can influence the society and the prevailing opinions of the day quite a bit more than most people would like to admit.
It's no surprise to me that denigrating Libertarianism is another trendy bandwagon. That bandwagon is intended for people who won't personally investigate it and see what it's about on their own. If they did that, they'd quickly find that the Founding Fathers are some of the truest Libertarians who ever lived, except that back then it did not have such a name. They'd also see that throwing out those freedoms for any reason and with them the traditions of this nation is always a mistake, no matter how tempting.
Such people who form strong opinions and beliefs about things they have not investigated are sometimes called "useful idiots." They are extremely useful anytime you want to deceptively campaign against something. They are so useful because they will accept ideas from others and adopt them as if they independently came up with those ideas on their own. Look at the methods used here. The negative portrayal of Liberterianism is based almost exclusively on pretending like its most extreme form is its only form, and so anyone who calls himself a Libertarian is immediately equated with an anarchist or anarco-capitalist. This is a classic example of straw-man or red-herring demagoguery in the media. It's so easily refuted that there can be nothing accidental about it.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Your answer clarifies the problem.
I'm going to do a bit of politics myself and see if I can influence things then. I actually went to a town hall meeting this month for the first time. I know one person who is a municipal councillor and he invited me because of my interests in politics. I suppose we should all do this and slowly nudge the laws towards liberty ourselves. If most politicians want power for power's sake like you say, that would be the only way to change things.
He did tell me that if I was really interested I could become influential with time, but that you had to know people that are already in the game to play it properly...
Sad isn't it?
Yeah but theres no advantage to it. Its sorta like a prostitute doing volunteer work
Would that be pro boner work?
First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.
In shockingly unexpected news, it turns out that a closed-source alleged anti-malware software was not trustworthy.
Who would have guessed.
What DECAF giveth, DECAF taketh away.
It's not particularly trendy, it's just given the variety of positions people can take, not everyone will choose a particular one. When Libertarians *cough* assert that everyone would be one if only they would look into it, they're being ridiculous.
I was a libertarian for many years. I eventually changed my positions.
You're very ignorant about the founding fathers. They were by no means posessed of any modern political ideologies - they had different issues, different positions, and radically different ways of framing issues. Do you want to claim both the Federalists (Washington, Adams) *and* the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson) as being libertarian parties? I assert that neither I nor you could claim either of them.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Not everyone who isn't a libertarian is ignorant or malicious.
Ignoring the possibility that someone could understand your ideas, yet still have sincere, fundamental disagreements with them is one of the ways our brains filter out contradictory information. Don't fall into that trap.
Libertarianism is one of those few ideas that, if implemented and accepted, really would reverse the current trend of ever-expanding intrusive government and the general decline of personal liberty.
Your words seem to be an extension of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
You'd have to start by telling us which version of Libertarianism you think will solve America's ills before we can have a learned discussion on the matter.
As a general comment though, history has shown that time and time again, when ideology and reality meet, ideology usually fails.
A more pointed comment is that America tried laissez faire economics (a principle key of most libertarian ideology) and its own excesses earned it a well deserved death.
Agencies like the EPA, FDA, SEC, FTC, etc were all formed as a direct response to libertarian practices.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I know of no tenet of Libertarianism which states that these things are forbidden. Some people who call themselves Libertarians may believe that these have no place in government, but you'd have to take it up with those people, for that is their personal interpretation of the concept.
I can confidently say I've never met anyone who identified themselves as Libertarian who would even *entertain* the idea of Healthcare being a legitimate service of Government. Heck, you're lucky to even get firefighters out of most of them, and about the only more basic government services than that is the army and police.
The only other thing I'll say is that if you study the works of folks like John Taylor Gatto, the assumption that government education is the only effective education is shown to be the farce that it is.
I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting "government education is the only effective education". The point of Government-funded education is so that everyone has *access* to education.
Gatto affirms that it takes about 50 contact hours to transmit basic literacy and mathematics skills; from that point on, the person is capable of educating themselves.
No, they're not, because they're only going to "educate themselves" in things they're interested in. If you want to see where "educating themselves" leads to, look at Creationists.
In this era of personal helplessness and the decline of self-sufficiency, that sounds unreasonable, though this was the way things were done in the USA until right about the late 1800s.
Personally, I have zero interest in living in the 1800s.
To that I say: live within your means, spend less money than you make, and put away savings.
Sorry, born poor. Only young, so never had the chance to accumulate any meaningful savings, and the hospital bills already chewed through what little were there.
Anyone who does that won't be ruined by an illness or an accident.
Rubbish.
No massive social spending programs are necessary to achieve this. They only seem necessary when conspicuous consumption is our first priority and people refuse to live within their means.
I know plenty of people for whom "conspicuous consumption" is an anathema, and the only reason they (and their children) are even alive is because of "massive social spending programs". Thanks to those, they can actually live some semblence of a normal life, rather than being begging out of a cardboard box in the street, or dead.
People who do this really would need a government to come along and bail them out of their poor financial decision-making.
Most poor people are poor because of someone else's poor financial decision making, not theirs.