Calling this a "plan" makes it sound like someone was ready to act on it, and since they haven't (apparently), it's a fair guess that they weren't particularly serious about it. The US government is always considering ways to achieve its own ends by various (often very silly or stupid) means. I'd be cautious about attaching any particular significance to this. As a matter of fact, I'd be more surprised if they hadn't thought about trying to poison or marginalize wikileaks.
I'm sure Iranians read and participate here, and I don't mean to imply that they know nothing about hacking, computers, etc. I was simply saying that the action doesn't seem to be particularly sophisticated. Smashing down a website is simple cyber vigilantism. If the Iranian govt truly believed that these were linked to the CIA, they would likely have more to gain by observing them than destroying them.
Your original statement implies that the US has claimed it was attacked by Iran, when in fact the perpetrators are likely someone else. That is not the case. The Iranian government is claiming it attacked these websites because of alleged US espionage.
Also, let me clarify my original reply. By "the Iranians themselves", I meant "the Iranian government". Second, the government and their controlled media outlets may not be particularly trustworthy, but it's obvious that this was a release sanctioned by the Iranian government. If you don't believe Fars, see also: Link to official Iranian govt news.
To summarize: The US didn't blame them. They made this claim themselves, apparently as a PR move to justify shutting down human rights websites and arresting innocent people, and as an attempt to drum up more anti-US sentiment.
This latest blurb shouldnt be surprising to anyone who has heard the saber-rattling emanating from Tehran.
Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports
on
Iran Hacks US Spy Sites
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".
Nick is actually based on an inside joke with friends... make of it what you will, AC. Speculation doesn't make you look smarter.
Additionally, see the subject-line above, & realize 1 thing: Since your *NIX variants allow javascript to run in webbrowsers or HTML-based emails, or other scriptable document types even (such as Adobe.pdf files that are malcripted), they're just as attackable... period.
Actually, no. Or, to be more precise, they may be attackable, but the consequences are generally far, far less. Let's say I'm browsing an attack site, and my OS is Solaris. If $evil_javascript executes on my system, in almost all cases the damage is limited only to what my user privileges can do, and I guarantee you I don't run as root when I browse.
Furthermore, in a properly administered system, a user account might be granted some administrator rights (run a backup program as root, for example), without being granted all administrator rights. So, even if a powerful account is compromised, the entire power of root is not automatically given to an attacker. There is no pop-up nagware box that allows me to bypass system security, and there shouldn't need to be one.
The only reason your *NIX variants aren't attacked as much is that they don't represent enough of an "attack surface"
Security through obscurity is an illusion, and anyone who knows anything about security knows that. It's easy to claim that ankle-biter script kiddies don't bother with us because they essentially play a numbers game, and the only way to win is to follow the numbers. But there's another reason malware is focussed on Win platforms. Crackers are predators, and predators prefer to pick off the sick, old, and weak from a herd because they represent the most gain for the least effort and risk. If *NIXes were security-free, they would be the preferred targets.
I fix computers for family and friends. One of the last ones through here was a Vista box that was a card-carrying member of the Zeus botnet. I'm not impressed by Windows' improvements.
Managed by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, the OTV program is shrouded in secrecy, but military officials occasionally release information on the the spaceplane's progress.
The reason a user can overwrite something in system32 is more an OS security issue than an antivirus security issue. An exploit often runs with administrator rights, (because that's how many Windows users run) and therefore can overwrite anything in the system. The problem isn't just the security vendors' fault. The problem also lies with OS writers who create a product that either a) defaults the user to superuser/admin, or b) is useless and annoying unless you are running as superuser/admin. Stripping away superuser rights through RBAC would not solve the issue, but would go a long way towards making such exploits more difficult.
Actually, Facebook gained popularity by doing very much the opposite. At first, it was just for Harvard students. Then just for Ivy league. They created an exclusive club, and gradually opened it to more and more people.
So? That's irrelevant. You judged modern Christians by the acts of historical Christians. I simply did the same with atheists, while simultaneously pointing out that the worst atrocities in the world are certainly not the fault of religion or its followers.
Quoting outmoded snippets of the Bible and Koran doesn't prove your case either. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, how long have nuns been teaching in Catholic schools? Like I said, religion tends to reflect the culture of the tribe it exists in. You are getting hung up on writings that likely had some practical historical roots a couple thousand years ago in a tribe far different from the modern "tribes" you or I are members of today.
Understood. I assumed the success rate for tubal ligation was higher than an IUD, but apparently I should have googled it. Plus, I figured that tubal ligation would offer a permanent solution.
Just to recap, in case you hadn't read it earlier: She has one child already, and childbirth nearly killed her. Another pregnancy will probably be the last thing she does. Literally. So, you think she might want to die in childbirth later in life, just not now?
I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery
On the facts? Your facts are incomplete, since you do not include the positive aspects of religion, including the community support that churches provide, etc. etc. Cherry-picking facts to suit your bias is the same as lying, and reveals your own lack of rationality. As far as knowing a lot of history, I'd suggest you reread some of it. You will find society shapes religion as much if not more than religion shapes society, and that much of the violence and persecution attributed to religious zeal is more political and/or tribal in nature than religious. Also, the worst atrocities in history took place at the command of avowed atheists, such as Stalin and Mao. Should the world judge atheists by the examples of those? Or is it perhaps wrong to judge groups of people based on the actions of others?
First, people here want to argue that conservatives are selfish, money-hoarding, ignorant jerks. When that is disproved, they want to argue over what constitutes a charity. What I am mostly objecting to is the sleight of hand he uses in swapping "wealthy" in place of "conservative". They are two completely different things. Actually, quite opposite, most of the time. Despite indulging in a little bullshitting, he gets a +5 Informative from the slashdot groupthinkers anyway.
Carrying the vials themselves would likely be a violation, unless they were doing so as a personal demonstration of their faith, which would likely be protected unless they did it in the courtroom, which likely would not be protected.
Another solution would be to provide funding for faith-based initiatives to carry the holy water instead of the judiciary, but leave the initiative open to all faiths and denominations. I'm not sure if others (Hindus, for example) use holy water, or if it any more effective than good ol' Catholic holy water, but by leaving participation open to all, you would likely solve the Constitutional issues.
Not defending the GP, just pointing out a logical fallacy: "Failing to implant" is more analogous to "spontaneously dying from a brain hemorrhage" than murder. Murder involves intent and action, as does abortion. Failing to implant does not.
If the consequences of her giving birth are that serious, it makes me wonder why she didn't elect to have a tubal ligation, instead of relying on a less perfect form of birth control.
GP referenced "conservatives", and you substituted "wealthy". Although that nicely fits with slashdot groupthink, it's inaccurate. "Wealthy" does not necessarily mean "conservative". GP is referring to research that showed that conservatives give more of their own money to help others, and that these conservatives tend to be LESS WEALTHY than their liberal counterparts. I don't doubt that lots of rich folks like to hide their money from Uncle Sam. That doesn't alter the GP's point.
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
... and personal bias or agendas are one of the greatest weaknesses of meta-studies like this, along with publication bias. This is one step above junk science.
Slashdot Mirror
Calling this a "plan" makes it sound like someone was ready to act on it, and since they haven't (apparently), it's a fair guess that they weren't particularly serious about it. The US government is always considering ways to achieve its own ends by various (often very silly or stupid) means. I'd be cautious about attaching any particular significance to this. As a matter of fact, I'd be more surprised if they hadn't thought about trying to poison or marginalize wikileaks.
WHOOOOOOSH ...
I'm sure Iranians read and participate here, and I don't mean to imply that they know nothing about hacking, computers, etc. I was simply saying that the action doesn't seem to be particularly sophisticated. Smashing down a website is simple cyber vigilantism. If the Iranian govt truly believed that these were linked to the CIA, they would likely have more to gain by observing them than destroying them.
Your original statement implies that the US has claimed it was attacked by Iran, when in fact the perpetrators are likely someone else. That is not the case. The Iranian government is claiming it attacked these websites because of alleged US espionage.
Also, let me clarify my original reply. By "the Iranians themselves", I meant "the Iranian government". Second, the government and their controlled media outlets may not be particularly trustworthy, but it's obvious that this was a release sanctioned by the Iranian government. If you don't believe Fars, see also: Link to official Iranian govt news.
To summarize: The US didn't blame them. They made this claim themselves, apparently as a PR move to justify shutting down human rights websites and arresting innocent people, and as an attempt to drum up more anti-US sentiment.
This latest blurb shouldnt be surprising to anyone who has heard the saber-rattling emanating from Tehran.
Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".
Who is the "they" you are referring to? Just to clarify, the Iranians themselves are claiming they hacked these sites, not the US.
Additionally, see the subject-line above, & realize 1 thing: Since your *NIX variants allow javascript to run in webbrowsers or HTML-based emails, or other scriptable document types even (such as Adobe .pdf files that are malcripted), they're just as attackable... period.
Actually, no. Or, to be more precise, they may be attackable, but the consequences are generally far, far less. Let's say I'm browsing an attack site, and my OS is Solaris. If $evil_javascript executes on my system, in almost all cases the damage is limited only to what my user privileges can do, and I guarantee you I don't run as root when I browse.
Furthermore, in a properly administered system, a user account might be granted some administrator rights (run a backup program as root, for example), without being granted all administrator rights. So, even if a powerful account is compromised, the entire power of root is not automatically given to an attacker. There is no pop-up nagware box that allows me to bypass system security, and there shouldn't need to be one.
The only reason your *NIX variants aren't attacked as much is that they don't represent enough of an "attack surface"
Security through obscurity is an illusion, and anyone who knows anything about security knows that. It's easy to claim that ankle-biter script kiddies don't bother with us because they essentially play a numbers game, and the only way to win is to follow the numbers. But there's another reason malware is focussed on Win platforms. Crackers are predators, and predators prefer to pick off the sick, old, and weak from a herd because they represent the most gain for the least effort and risk. If *NIXes were security-free, they would be the preferred targets.
I fix computers for family and friends. One of the last ones through here was a Vista box that was a card-carrying member of the Zeus botnet. I'm not impressed by Windows' improvements.
Managed by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, the OTV program is shrouded in secrecy, but military officials occasionally release information on the the spaceplane's progress.
TFA is there for a reason.
The reason a user can overwrite something in system32 is more an OS security issue than an antivirus security issue. An exploit often runs with administrator rights, (because that's how many Windows users run) and therefore can overwrite anything in the system. The problem isn't just the security vendors' fault. The problem also lies with OS writers who create a product that either a) defaults the user to superuser/admin, or b) is useless and annoying unless you are running as superuser/admin. Stripping away superuser rights through RBAC would not solve the issue, but would go a long way towards making such exploits more difficult.
Actually, Facebook gained popularity by doing very much the opposite. At first, it was just for Harvard students. Then just for Ivy league. They created an exclusive club, and gradually opened it to more and more people.
Actually, they're probably HP boxes. Of course, those HPs are similar to low-end Sun x86s.
There is no 'Bible' of atheism.
So? That's irrelevant. You judged modern Christians by the acts of historical Christians. I simply did the same with atheists, while simultaneously pointing out that the worst atrocities in the world are certainly not the fault of religion or its followers.
Quoting outmoded snippets of the Bible and Koran doesn't prove your case either. In the case of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, how long have nuns been teaching in Catholic schools? Like I said, religion tends to reflect the culture of the tribe it exists in. You are getting hung up on writings that likely had some practical historical roots a couple thousand years ago in a tribe far different from the modern "tribes" you or I are members of today.
Understood. I assumed the success rate for tubal ligation was higher than an IUD, but apparently I should have googled it. Plus, I figured that tubal ligation would offer a permanent solution.
Just to recap, in case you hadn't read it earlier: She has one child already, and childbirth nearly killed her. Another pregnancy will probably be the last thing she does. Literally. So, you think she might want to die in childbirth later in life, just not now?
I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery
On the facts? Your facts are incomplete, since you do not include the positive aspects of religion, including the community support that churches provide, etc. etc. Cherry-picking facts to suit your bias is the same as lying, and reveals your own lack of rationality. As far as knowing a lot of history, I'd suggest you reread some of it. You will find society shapes religion as much if not more than religion shapes society, and that much of the violence and persecution attributed to religious zeal is more political and/or tribal in nature than religious. Also, the worst atrocities in history took place at the command of avowed atheists, such as Stalin and Mao. Should the world judge atheists by the examples of those? Or is it perhaps wrong to judge groups of people based on the actions of others?
First, people here want to argue that conservatives are selfish, money-hoarding, ignorant jerks. When that is disproved, they want to argue over what constitutes a charity. What I am mostly objecting to is the sleight of hand he uses in swapping "wealthy" in place of "conservative". They are two completely different things. Actually, quite opposite, most of the time. Despite indulging in a little bullshitting, he gets a +5 Informative from the slashdot groupthinkers anyway.
Carrying the vials themselves would likely be a violation, unless they were doing so as a personal demonstration of their faith, which would likely be protected unless they did it in the courtroom, which likely would not be protected.
Another solution would be to provide funding for faith-based initiatives to carry the holy water instead of the judiciary, but leave the initiative open to all faiths and denominations. I'm not sure if others (Hindus, for example) use holy water, or if it any more effective than good ol' Catholic holy water, but by leaving participation open to all, you would likely solve the Constitutional issues.
Not defending the GP, just pointing out a logical fallacy: "Failing to implant" is more analogous to "spontaneously dying from a brain hemorrhage" than murder. Murder involves intent and action, as does abortion. Failing to implant does not.
Then, er, don't hang out on "Idle".
If the consequences of her giving birth are that serious, it makes me wonder why she didn't elect to have a tubal ligation, instead of relying on a less perfect form of birth control.
If you're going to be pedantic, then I think you meant zygote, or possibly embryo, since it isn't a fetus until well after the time RU-486 is useful.
It's like nobody remembers The Bell Curve
Proof that our IQ really is dropping?
Conservatives simply don't believe in charity; they believe in mutually beneficial exchanges at best -- no handouts.
Patently and provably untrue. you are stating your bias as fact.
Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
[Citation]
... and personal bias or agendas are one of the greatest weaknesses of meta-studies like this, along with publication bias. This is one step above junk science.