Slashdot Mirror
The Internal Report Proving the FCC Made Up a Cyberattack (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: An investigation carried out by Federal Communication Commission's own inspector general officially refutes controversial claims that a cyberattack was responsible for disrupting the FCC's comment system in May 2017, at the height of the agency's efforts to kill off net neutrality. The investigation also uncovered that FCC officials had provided congressional lawmakers with misleading information regarding conversations between an FCC employee and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's cybercrime task force. A report from the inspector general's office (OIG) released Tuesday afternoon states that the comment system's downtime was likely caused by a combination of "system design issues" and a massive surge in traffic caused when Last Week Tonight host John Oliver directed millions of TV viewers to flood the FCC's website with pro-net neutrality comments.
Investigators were unable to "substantiate the allegations of multiple DDoS attacks" alleged by then-FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray, the report says. "At best, the published reports were the result of a rush to judgment and the failure to conduct analyses needed to identify the true cause of the disruption to system availability." [Here's an excerpt from the report:] "While we identified a small amount of anomalous activity and could not entirely rule out the possibility of individual DoS attempts during the period from May 7 through May 9, 2017, we do not believe this activity resulted in any measurable degradation of system availability given the minuscule scale of the anomalous activity relative to the contemporaneous voluminous viral traffic." Yesterday, before the report was released, FCC chairman Ajit Pai came clean on the fact that the hack of its comment system last year actually took place. Pai blamed the former chief information officer and the Obama administration for providing "inaccurate information about the incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people."
Investigators were unable to "substantiate the allegations of multiple DDoS attacks" alleged by then-FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray, the report says. "At best, the published reports were the result of a rush to judgment and the failure to conduct analyses needed to identify the true cause of the disruption to system availability." [Here's an excerpt from the report:] "While we identified a small amount of anomalous activity and could not entirely rule out the possibility of individual DoS attempts during the period from May 7 through May 9, 2017, we do not believe this activity resulted in any measurable degradation of system availability given the minuscule scale of the anomalous activity relative to the contemporaneous voluminous viral traffic." Yesterday, before the report was released, FCC chairman Ajit Pai came clean on the fact that the hack of its comment system last year actually took place. Pai blamed the former chief information officer and the Obama administration for providing "inaccurate information about the incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people."
I don't trust the government anymore. They abuse the trust we're forced to give them.
"Hey, let's just say we got DDOSed. No one will ever know afterward! We're the government!"
I'm not surprised, and they have a dangerous mentality as government officials in committing a fraud on the American people.
Perhaps you missed this really HUGE news in bad governance:
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/
EPA, the *ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency", “no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.”
Under this rule change, EPA does not consider the *environment* while decided if something is bad for the environment. Hence asbestos, which still kills 40,000 people a year, is now safe and allowed in products, because it's presence in air is no longer considered, so its presence in lungs is no longer considered, so its no longer toxic, according to the EPA.
So now Uralasbest can now export it from Russia to USA (its no longer made in USA). Here's a stock market quote of this company quoted in Moscow:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/urag?countrycode=ru
To invest in the Russian stock market, you'll need a Russian trading bank..... Alfabank is one of the biggest of those.
1+1=2, f**ing Russians.
in either the Mid Term or the next Presidential election? For all the bad press the Trump Admin has gotten (killing NN, the Helsinki debacle, opening trying to start a war with Iran, NK almost immediately going back to missile research after getting us to acknowledge Kim's govt as legitimate, raising inflation/interest rates being used to counter act economic over inflation brought on by those tax cuts for the rich, economic hits from the tariffs, etc, etc) Trump's poll numbers haven't budged an inch.
I''m starting to get some real fatigue here. Like it does't matter what the hell anyone does because no matter what comes out of this Administration or their party it doesn't change how people vote. At the end of the day if folks are still going to show up and vote for an anti-NN administration then all the dirty laundry in the world is irrelevant. At best it might be of historic interest in a thousand years when archeologists write papers on what the heck went wrong.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not another one. No, this didn't happen during the Obama administration's watch. It happened the first week of May, 2017. Someone else tried to use the "Obama's fault" card yesterday when Ajit Pai first admitted that his agency had not been hacked. How many times does this have to be shot down before you guys give up trying to lie about it?
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Here's the story from last July, so you can track Ajit Pai's weasily and pitiful lie in real time.
https://gizmodo.com/fcc-now-sa...
And here's the Slashdot story from yesterday.
https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
If one person you meet has bad information, well, that's that. If you think that "my office, Congress, and the American people" are all misinformed...maybe the problem is you.
No the signature move is calling it fake news. This is a refreshing change of pace.
I don't think you get how this works. You don't have to be in favor of someone to criticize them. In fact, the most critical people might be the ones who are...most critical.
Brother, you've come to the right place:
Here is a comprehensive list of every false claim Donald Trump has made since Inauguration Day to two weeks ago, listed in reverse chronological order and cross-referenced by topic. There are 2,083, and again, that's not counting the past two weeks. Each false claim is accompanied by a citation, and apparently they were pretty conservative when making this list because I can name at least 24 false claims not listed here that Trump made in June and July. This list is under continual review and has been open to challenges. None have been successful so far. Other such projects have put the number at just over 3,000, but let's give our big, wet, boy the benefit of the doubt, shall we?
http://projects.thestar.com/do...
Now, the most expansive (and I do mean expansive) list of the false claims of Barack Obama, assembled by a some nutty alt-right too-crazy-for-Breitbart blogger out of rural Pennsylvania, is 1,375. And that's over eight years. Trump as amassed his 2,083 over the course of 1.5 years. That puts him on course to out-lie Barack Obama by a ten to one margin.
So yes, we haven't seen anything of this scale before. Also, we haven't seen a degenerate president collude with a hostile foreign power to sway an election and attempt to pay them back with policy. So ithe difference isn't just qualitative, it's quantitative. Treason trumps hyperbole every time.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Years ago, sites were Slashdotted, nowadays they get Olivered and Colberted.
How many times does this have to be shot down before you guys give up trying to lie about it?
They will never stop lying about it, because for a significant proportion of the electorate all they need to hear is "it's Obama's fault" and they stop listening, move on to the next thing. They never even notice it being debunked.
The people saying it have a tactic for handling your debunking too. Just watch, one of the replies to your post will demonstrate it. Change the subject, move on to the next lie. You have to remember that they are playing to their audience who is already hostile to your leftist Marxist alt-left MSM biased attacks, they aren't here for a rational debate.
Slashdot is a little less bad because there is at least a sort of functional moderation system, but in general it's best not to waste too much time on debunking (reacting, playing defence) and just concentrate on getting your own narrative based on the truth out. The "gotcha" take-down is satisfying and even works pretty well as click-bait, but I don't think it really changes people's minds.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You are completely missing what I am trying to say. Let us pretend we are attending a conference on qualfonic energy, which is completely made up. Let us suppose that someone has just given an address with a serious criticism of this form of energy. Would you be more likely to trust this criticism if it came from someone who has had nothing good to say about it or from someone who was a major proponent of it? Hopefully you can understand why people might take the comments from the latter person more seriously given no other information.
Neither. They both have motivations to lie. I'd want to fact check the claims of either person because the first one might be inventing a criticism and the second one may be omitting other major problems. You're a fool if you think either of them is more trustworthy than the other. Furthermore, a proponent admitting a minor flaw, is a classic hustle technique to get you to buy into the product that they're pitching.
If this were not the case you would understand why a source pointing out all of the things that Trump has lied about or misrepresented is not sufficient proof of your claim. You need to compare it to other politicians and I am not convinced that Trump is significantly worse. He certainly is not a truthful politician, but few are and we tend to forget the myriad lies and cover-ups of controversies that surround past politicians. I suspect that if we were discussing some subject where you were not in agreement with the conclusion, you would be quick to employ the same arguments I have used here, but you dislike Trump so much that your emotions blind you to reason.
Trump's lies corrode democracy.
There's a long history of presidential untruths. Here's why Donald Trump is 'in a class by himself.
How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?
Trump’s Lies vs. Obama’s
Donald Trump running the most dishonest White House ever, says historian
Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter
Are Clinton and Trump the Biggest Liars Ever to Run for President?
That is not to say you are a bad person, because everyone is that way about something that they take personally. My point is that in this particular area, you are not a good source absent significant and quality evidence.
How much evidence do you need? If you're really interested, there's a lot more stuff on Trump's lack of honesty and his place in the world of American politics in respect to that, but I think it's telling that presidential historians (who ought to know quite a bit about past presidents) have (spoilers) ranked him last place out of all of America's presidents. That's pretty unusual, most politicians get ranked in the middle somewhere during their terms, neither best nor worst.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
In a twisted weird point of view, the EPA is actually right :
accidental small exposure to asbesto aren't dangerous, it's the chronic long-term exposition that is highly carcinogenic.
Asbestos is dangerous even in small quantities, because it can easily be lodged in the epithelial wall. It depends mostly on the type of asbestos; shorter fibers mean less ability for cilia to sweep it out of your lungs. Any persistent lung irritant can cause cancer, asbestos is just spectacular at persisting because the body can't break it down.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"