When Check Point Software Technologies (a company that produces Internet security products, such as FireWall-1) had its own IPO, some investor gladly bought Checkpoint Systems's stock (at the time, producing store exit security systems for preventing theft).
Shachar
Obviously, being the one that this happens to sucks big time. There is a huge difference, however, between "50,000 people a year cannot fly on reserved tickets" and "500 people a year cannot fly on reserved tickets".
The point I'm making is that this isn't a one sided move by the airliners. This has direct impact on you. If they cannot overbook by 10%, then your tickets will be 10% more expensive.
The anecdotal evidence here is that this happens at a higher frequency than I was aware (then again, all such evidence came for ACs). Let's assume that this is right, and I'm wrong. It's easy enough to solve. Just sue the #@%!)@# out of the bastards. The formula they use takes the expected cost of being wrong into account. If the cost of being wrong goes up, the airlines will organically overbook by less, and you got your wish.
I'll re-iterate: It sucks to not be able to make the game because of overbooking, but it also sucks to not be able to make the game because of bad weather, strikes, mechanical failures or bad traffic to the airport. If each of those, individually, are more likely than missing a game because of overbooking, then the "sucks" part is somewhat irrelevant.
I get it that this is a particularly infuriating reason to miss the game, as it was done on purpose. Still, the alternative cost is to pay more for tickets.
Has that ever happened to you? To someone you met?
I once flew with someone to whom it happened on the flight right before (i.e. - that was the flight they took in lieu of the flight they were supposed to take). Once. And that was 15 years ago.
You are much, much more likely to miss your game due to delays, technical problems or strikes than because of overbooking.
Shachar
That is pure misinformation. What does happen is that 50,000 passengers a year get an offer to fly at a later flight for compensation, and they accept that offer!
The number of people who don't fly on a flight for which they have a confirmed ticket without their consent is near zero.
To make matters worse, Google says it is aware that this critical Windows vulnerability is being actively exploited in the wild.
How does that make matters worse? Exploit being used in the wild is the standard reason to expedite public disclosure. If the bad guys already know about the bug, there is no sense in keeping the legitimate users in the dark.
Scott Adams is not an authority. He did say it. It's true (I read it as well). So what?
Attacking the source on unrelated charges is a sign of believing the charges (not of guilt, because the people doing the attacking are not the people in a position to know). Attacking the source for being unreliable, on the other hand, is completely legitimate.
Saying "the accuser has been known to repeatedly lie and manufacture evidence in the past" is on the point and relevant.
Akamai cached sites don't move between IPs. They are hosted on all of them. Anycast is used to direct your request to the DNS server nearest you, which then goes on to direct your actual HTTP request to the server nearest you. If the attacking computers are geographically located in a certain area, that area will suffer gravely, but other areas won't be affected at all.
As such, ANY Akamai hosted site is DDoS protected by nature. A few years ago, an iOS update was slugish to arrive. Afterwards, we were told that there were considerable slowdowns to web sites not hosted by Akamai. In other words, it was not that the Akamai network couldn't handle the load of many people downloading the update at once. The Internet couldn't handle that load.
There might be something technical I'm not aware of, but as far as I know, the DDoS protection product is a marketing thing, not a technical thing. You are, essentially, buying insurance against having to pay Akamai a whole lot of money for the DDoS traffic it served on your behalf. I am not 100% certain, but I do not think Akamai serve DDoS protected sites and regular CDN hosted sites differently.
Whether it is bad PR or not is not for me to say. I do think that a host provider that gives a pro-bono service has a legitimate claim to say that non-paying customers should not be costing it more than it is willing to give. On the other hand, I also agree that, in this case, the DDoSers won.
Shachar
P.S.
Akamai used to publish real time information on how much traffic the entire network was carrying. The page is still there, but it no longer carries that information. I don't know why.
I believe that the reason Akamai kicked him out was because they didn't want to risk their entire network for one client, at least not without him paying considerably more than he does. At the end of the day, there is a limit to what even Akamai's network can take.
Which is another way of saying that the attackers won.
Shachar
Disclaimer: I've worked for Akamai for a year and a half, up until two years ago, in a technical role. I do not speak for Akamai.
To be fair, though, the comment you refer to is not a good comment. It is argumentative, tries very hard to push an agenda, and bears little relevance to the comment it is replying to. Then again, the exact same argument (only swinging to the other side of this argument) can be said about the original comment, and that one got +5 insightful.
It was only moderated that way because Slashdot refuses to add the much sought after "-1 I disagree with your opinion and your challenging my prejudices offend me deeply".
Some go the extra mile, and seek out other comments by the same user on that article and mod them as well. This is how I got a point knocked out on this comment (also marked as troll). Not because of anything I said on that comment, but because I expressed a pro-Israeli position in another comment in the same article.
Human nature at its best...
Shachar
P.s. Just to be clear, I've seen some pro-Israeli moderators do this as well. I find it equally unjustified.
I'm less certain how to handle cases where the commenter was probably not trying to troll, but is so hateful and misinformed that the comment does not contain any usable signal. I usually prefer to answer the comment rather than moderate it, but maybe that's just me.
This is not a question of forgiveness. It's a question of context. Israel has an obvious obligation to try and minimize civilian casualties, and had it ignored it, you could go ahead and not forgive it. Hamas doing its thing is no excuse for Israel. However, judging whether that is the case cannot ignore the context in which Israel has to operate, due to Hamas's actions.
If you judge its action in the context of Hamas's use of civilians as shields, the only reasonable conclusion is that Israel does above and beyond that minimal obligation.
It is only if you ignore this context, and simply count the number of civilians hurt, that there is any way you can conclude anything else.
Haven't read the post, but if you use BGP to hijack the IPs on which the DNS reside, then you have hijacked the DNS. A literal reading of the sentence you quote supports that theory, IMHO.
Use of Internet is less a fundamental right than freedom of movement, and that has also been limited for them. That is what you do when you catch criminals. You limit their freedom.
So how do you explain the fact they were arrested? Is it so incomprehensible to you that and Israeli may be an asshole without being an agent of the state of Israel?
These misquotes and fabrications come straight from the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan web site. Some cannot be explained simply because the quotes do not exist in the Talmud. Some references are to a book that does not exist in Talmud or any Jewish literature. Others are taken seriously out of context, or add words or thoughts that are not in the original.
So, let's see how to distinguish between legitimate criticism and anti-semitism.
If someone says "Since they are in Israel, they won't get punished" (as some here did), that's criticism of Israel. It is incorrect criticism, devoid of any substantiation and relation to the truth, but it is a legitimate criticism. We can conduct a facts based discussion to sort out whether it is true or not.
If someone reflects from those two people to their entire nationality, not to mention entire religious group, with no bearing to any half reasonable reason to do so, that's racism.
You, dear frovingslosh, have made a racist comment as a first post, and got +4 insightful on it. Well done, Slashdot. Well done.
Slashdot Mirror
So far, no major revolts with Republicans.
Shachar
When Check Point Software Technologies (a company that produces Internet security products, such as FireWall-1) had its own IPO, some investor gladly bought Checkpoint Systems's stock (at the time, producing store exit security systems for preventing theft). Shachar
Woosh
No, that's not correct.
Obviously, being the one that this happens to sucks big time. There is a huge difference, however, between "50,000 people a year cannot fly on reserved tickets" and "500 people a year cannot fly on reserved tickets".
The point I'm making is that this isn't a one sided move by the airliners. This has direct impact on you. If they cannot overbook by 10%, then your tickets will be 10% more expensive.
The anecdotal evidence here is that this happens at a higher frequency than I was aware (then again, all such evidence came for ACs). Let's assume that this is right, and I'm wrong. It's easy enough to solve. Just sue the #@%!)@# out of the bastards. The formula they use takes the expected cost of being wrong into account. If the cost of being wrong goes up, the airlines will organically overbook by less, and you got your wish.
I'll re-iterate: It sucks to not be able to make the game because of overbooking, but it also sucks to not be able to make the game because of bad weather, strikes, mechanical failures or bad traffic to the airport. If each of those, individually, are more likely than missing a game because of overbooking, then the "sucks" part is somewhat irrelevant.
I get it that this is a particularly infuriating reason to miss the game, as it was done on purpose. Still, the alternative cost is to pay more for tickets.
Shachar
Has that ever happened to you? To someone you met? I once flew with someone to whom it happened on the flight right before (i.e. - that was the flight they took in lieu of the flight they were supposed to take). Once. And that was 15 years ago. You are much, much more likely to miss your game due to delays, technical problems or strikes than because of overbooking. Shachar
That is pure misinformation. What does happen is that 50,000 passengers a year get an offer to fly at a later flight for compensation, and they accept that offer!
The number of people who don't fly on a flight for which they have a confirmed ticket without their consent is near zero.
Shachar
What's the difference between this "attack" and inserting a live CD?
They should keep their mouth shut or else what? The bad guys will start exploiting it?
Read the summary. The bad guys are already exploiting it.
Shachar
How does that make matters worse? Exploit being used in the wild is the standard reason to expedite public disclosure. If the bad guys already know about the bug, there is no sense in keeping the legitimate users in the dark.
Shachar
That's true. I, for one, will jump ship from a company as soon as the only choice they give me is a Mac. Shachar
Scott Adams is not an authority. He did say it. It's true (I read it as well). So what?
Attacking the source on unrelated charges is a sign of believing the charges (not of guilt, because the people doing the attacking are not the people in a position to know). Attacking the source for being unreliable, on the other hand, is completely legitimate.
Saying "the accuser has been known to repeatedly lie and manufacture evidence in the past" is on the point and relevant.
Shachar
Akamai cached sites don't move between IPs. They are hosted on all of them. Anycast is used to direct your request to the DNS server nearest you, which then goes on to direct your actual HTTP request to the server nearest you. If the attacking computers are geographically located in a certain area, that area will suffer gravely, but other areas won't be affected at all.
As such, ANY Akamai hosted site is DDoS protected by nature. A few years ago, an iOS update was slugish to arrive. Afterwards, we were told that there were considerable slowdowns to web sites not hosted by Akamai. In other words, it was not that the Akamai network couldn't handle the load of many people downloading the update at once. The Internet couldn't handle that load.
There might be something technical I'm not aware of, but as far as I know, the DDoS protection product is a marketing thing, not a technical thing. You are, essentially, buying insurance against having to pay Akamai a whole lot of money for the DDoS traffic it served on your behalf. I am not 100% certain, but I do not think Akamai serve DDoS protected sites and regular CDN hosted sites differently.
Whether it is bad PR or not is not for me to say. I do think that a host provider that gives a pro-bono service has a legitimate claim to say that non-paying customers should not be costing it more than it is willing to give. On the other hand, I also agree that, in this case, the DDoSers won.
Shachar
P.S.
Akamai used to publish real time information on how much traffic the entire network was carrying. The page is still there, but it no longer carries that information. I don't know why.
I believe that the reason Akamai kicked him out was because they didn't want to risk their entire network for one client, at least not without him paying considerably more than he does. At the end of the day, there is a limit to what even Akamai's network can take.
Which is another way of saying that the attackers won.
Shachar
Disclaimer: I've worked for Akamai for a year and a half, up until two years ago, in a technical role. I do not speak for Akamai.
No. If each report earns up to 1 million miles, and Pickren got 15 mil, it means he reported at least 15 severe bugs.
Shachar
To be fair, though, the comment you refer to is not a good comment. It is argumentative, tries very hard to push an agenda, and bears little relevance to the comment it is replying to. Then again, the exact same argument (only swinging to the other side of this argument) can be said about the original comment, and that one got +5 insightful.
Shachar
It was only moderated that way because Slashdot refuses to add the much sought after "-1 I disagree with your opinion and your challenging my prejudices offend me deeply".
Some go the extra mile, and seek out other comments by the same user on that article and mod them as well. This is how I got a point knocked out on this comment (also marked as troll). Not because of anything I said on that comment, but because I expressed a pro-Israeli position in another comment in the same article.
Human nature at its best...
Shachar
P.s.
Just to be clear, I've seen some pro-Israeli moderators do this as well. I find it equally unjustified.
I'm less certain how to handle cases where the commenter was probably not trying to troll, but is so hateful and misinformed that the comment does not contain any usable signal. I usually prefer to answer the comment rather than moderate it, but maybe that's just me.
That is not 100% accurate.
This is not a question of forgiveness. It's a question of context. Israel has an obvious obligation to try and minimize civilian casualties, and had it ignored it, you could go ahead and not forgive it. Hamas doing its thing is no excuse for Israel. However, judging whether that is the case cannot ignore the context in which Israel has to operate, due to Hamas's actions.
If you judge its action in the context of Hamas's use of civilians as shields, the only reasonable conclusion is that Israel does above and beyond that minimal obligation.
It is only if you ignore this context, and simply count the number of civilians hurt, that there is any way you can conclude anything else.
Shachar
Haven't read the post, but if you use BGP to hijack the IPs on which the DNS reside, then you have hijacked the DNS. A literal reading of the sentence you quote supports that theory, IMHO.
Shachar
Maybe. The countries immediately surrounding Israel either have bigger issues to deal with, or don't have a very good rule of law.
How is that a good thing, though?
Shachar
I will say one thing in your favor. Your inability to distinguish private and state actors isn't limited to Israel.
The US did not spot them. A security researcher did.
Shachar
Use of Internet is less a fundamental right than freedom of movement, and that has also been limited for them. That is what you do when you catch criminals. You limit their freedom.
Shachar
So how do you explain the fact they were arrested? Is it so incomprehensible to you that and Israeli may be an asshole without being an agent of the state of Israel?
Shachar
This does not appear to be government sponsored operation. That was precisely my point.
Shachar
And here's the truth.
Quick exert:
Shachar
So, let's see how to distinguish between legitimate criticism and anti-semitism.
If someone says "Since they are in Israel, they won't get punished" (as some here did), that's criticism of Israel. It is incorrect criticism, devoid of any substantiation and relation to the truth, but it is a legitimate criticism. We can conduct a facts based discussion to sort out whether it is true or not.
If someone reflects from those two people to their entire nationality, not to mention entire religious group, with no bearing to any half reasonable reason to do so, that's racism.
You, dear frovingslosh, have made a racist comment as a first post, and got +4 insightful on it. Well done, Slashdot. Well done.
Shachar