*Mandate* that all carriers use a specific cell technology or implementation, and have absolutely no alternatives? Yeah. That's going to be just swell.
In all seriousness, for the sake of technological innovation and advancement, something like that shouldn't be a government order. It should be mutually agreed upon by a consortium of cellular companies and vendors. Government regulation, especially in an industry with two very strong competing products (GSM and CDMA), never works out very well.
Thanks for noticing, it's additional knowledge. I did a little research before I submitted, and according to @LulzSec on Twitter, they targeted WoW Customer Service as well.
FWIW, my original headline focused on the FBI and HBGary. But for whatever reason, samzenpus thought "Blizzard" fit better in there... not quite sure why.
But will it teach me to revolutionize outside the paradigm?
I'd love to stay and chat but I've got to go read the latest Gartner models to optimize some processes and use my mind-mapping software to shift some variables into profit centers.
Would you be deriding this article if it had a left-leaning slant as opposed to its obvious right-wing spin?
I must ask this because someone with a 5 digit UID must have surely seen the dozens of other non-tech political articles that have made their way past our ever-diligent editors and the mighty Firehose.
Whoops. See my reply below this post, I clicked the wrong "Reply to this" link.
Anyway, nice talking to you. Based on your description of yourself, you're not someone I would much prefer to talk to if all you wish to do is destroy me for my personal views. Have a great day!
Good on you for not wavering in your viewpoints. Not to invoke Godwin's law here or anything, but a lot of very bad people in this world sought to merely *destroy* their enemies rather than resolve their differences through respectful debate. al-Qaeda, the National Socialist Party, the Russian Empire vs. the Circassians, the Ming dynasty vs. the Bo people, and so on.
It's good that you really believe in what you're saying and that you're not merely a follower hopelessly clinging to someone else's ideology, but at the same time, wow! Your stance on conflict resolution is fucked up.
The idea that another person's viewpoints should be respected does not mean that you are validating their opinion. What it means is that you should respect their right to hold and share such a viewpoint, and I feel that if we have mutual respect for each other's viewpoints, we can engage in meaningful and respectful discussion in which I can convince you, or you can convince me, that a particular viewpoint is better.
When I think about respecting another person's viewpoint, I don't think about shouting matches on TV. I don't think about name-calling, bashing, mud-slinging, ad hominem attacks, etc. I think about two people sitting down in a polite manner and discussing, not screaming, their viewpoint. THAT is respect for another's viewpoints. As I stated above, it is not about *validating* or approving of another person's viewpoint on a particular subject. It is perfectly possible to *respect* someone else's viewpoint without agreeing with it, and it is perfectly reasonable to respect someone else's viewpoint *and* work to convince them that they are wrong. Our ongoing discussion is a perfect example of this.
At the end of your response is where you become wrong for possibly the first time in this discourse:
I do not reject homosexuality. I don't partake in it, but I do tolerate it just as I tolerate those who live that way. Please don't jump to conclusions about me or my logic based on my responses in which I make no suggestions to which side is actually "right".
You are right, and this saddens me. Not merely because you are right, but because what you are saying is true.
However, thanks to geographic dispersion and despite the far-reaching effects of the internet, "society" is still a relative term. "Society" in San Francisco differs wildly from "society" in Provo, Utah.
I grew up in a society that taught me to respect others and their beliefs, including when those beliefs counteract your own. Unfortunately many other societies tend to take a more one-sided approach and appear to, in the name of "freedom", hypocritically suppress any speech that they determine to be "bad" or "anti-free". This is the signal of the end of "Free Speech" as we know it. Meet its new successor, "Majority Speech" - any speech that favors the viewpoint of the majority.
And why is an app that you can choose NOT to download, on a phone that you can choose NOT to buy, infringing on anyone's right to a determined identity?
You have no control over a person screaming out their window interrupting your sleep. Nor do you have control over whether some jackass yells "Fire" in a crowded theater. But you CAN control whether or not you download one app in an app store of 60,000+.
You are no worse off by not downloading the app. Therefore, the existence of the app in the store is not in any way denying you a right.
We all have to put up with people we don't like. Just because we don't like them, however, doesn't mean that they can't exist. That would be infringing on their right to exist. All we can do is choose not to associate with them or put ourselves in a position to be around them.
I bet you're the type of person who if I were to tell to "Have a nice day", you could "read between the lines" that I actually said that I hope your everyone in your immediate family gets AIDS and that you should go skydive naked into a field full of cacti.
There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".
Excuse me... would you mind telling me where the "dig" is at the President?
The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."
That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.
But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.
...Wringing out a sponge, trying to get all the water out of it.
While most people are happy with squeezing most of the water out and letting it be, these insolent pricks in the financial sector want to get every little molecule out of that sponge even if it means ripping the sponge apart and incinerating the pieces.
Replace sponge with stock market, water with money.
You make a great point, but you missed something. Take "Wireless Syncing" and put it under what normal people DID get. The iOS 4.3 release will support Home Sharing, which allows for wireless transfer of music and movies from your computer. Granted, it's not a full-fledged sync but it does what most people consider to be "syncing".
I don't see anything illegal in an employer cutting your pay by $10,000. Does it suck? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Just say "Fuck you" and go get a different job. Slandering an employee, on the other hand, is illegal. But other than attempting to inciting needless emotion in your readers, how the hell else does slander factor into this story?
If Last.fm doesn't like Apple's pricing policy, they can get the fuck over it and take their toys to a different sandbox. Because unlike a monopoly, nobody's *forcing* you to use the iPhone and nobody's *forcing* them to provide content through the Apple App Store.
I would love to see more people switch to Android over this policy change. Android needs a broader market base. What I don't love is people bitching about this. It's business, grow a pair and take your money elsewhere.
This is California, the state built on the foundation of "Save the Trees, Kill the Children."
Is there any mystery why the fuck they're in massive amounts of debt and suffering the biggest budget crisis of the state's history? Their answer to EVERY problem is to throw money at it. Kids not learning as well? Let's give them all iPads. Kids not eating well? Instead of teaching them healthy choices, let's remove all the vending machines. Kids not showing up at school? Instead of making school more appealing to them, let's tag them like cattle.
California is a state where passing the buck (literally and figuratively) has become not only a regular occurrence, but a fucking pastime.
They think that this is a good idea because showing up in crowded areas and making a disturbance is an excellent way to remain anonymous.
Your post seems to suggest that Anonymous is smart enough to not show up in person, and that HBGary is only using this as a scapegoat. You seem to think that Anonymous is logical and believes that staying online is the best course of action to preserve their anonymity.
Samsung's awesome paper-plane-drop idea was nowhere near as environmentally disastrous as the amount of CO2 the author of TFA released while hyperventilating over this harmless stunt.
ITWorld is now the world's number-one emitter of smug.
(Credit for the idea of "smug" pollution goes to South Park season 10 episode 2)
Do you really expect film execs to know how to use Google? I mean Christ, they're the same people who have kept Michael Bay gainfully employed. Can't be much there in terms of ingenuity.
Hate to break it to ya, bud. Amazon isn't a public institution. They're a business and they can do business with whomever they please, and refuse service to whomever they please.
I appreciate what you're saying and love the three Adams excerpts you posted. Just the fact that you went to such length to discuss this with me makes me respect you more. However, your logic that Amazon is "censoring" WikiLeaks by dropping their hosting account is fatally flawed.
Dissemination of harmful information is in direct violation of almost every major web hosting TOS I've read, Amazon's included. Amazon deemed their leaks to be harmful information, and so they shut down their account.
They're not preventing them from going somewhere else. They're just saying they don't want to get caught up in the mess. It sounds like a completely responsible thing for a business to do, doesn't it?
I was Anonymous long before Anonymous began their stupid campaigns of brute-force idiocy and their ridiculous Guy Fawkes masks and their "hey guyz let's all flashmob this place k? lololol we r legion!"
Years ago before the newfags, gaiafags, etc. were herded into/b/, I was Anonymous in the sense that I could talk with other people in a sensible and responsible fashion about shit that I actually gave a damn about, and nobody had to know who I am. I faced no backlash for my VIEWS, rather than facing no backlash for my ACTIONS. Once the newfags invaded with their "eww look she's eating poop" and their "lololol im an oldfag i've been here all summer" I picked up my dignity and got the fuck out.
I can never go back, mostly because it's turned into an inane hellhole, but also because I have a significant other. The latter is what immediately disqualifies me from Anonymous status.
Scotland Yard isn't investigating "Anonymous". They're investigating the people involved in the DDoS attacks. If you're a member of Anonymous but you don't participate in attacks, you're alright because nobody knows who you are, or that you're even a member of Anonymous.
However, the minute you start attacking, you are immediately identifiable.
"lulz yeah but we r anonymus. we r legionz!!!1 omg for the first time in my life i can actually identify with something. cool! are there any lonely girls here???/"
Protip: When you're on the internet, you are NOT anonymous. Most of Anonymous is just a bunch of teen-angst lemmings who will only join the DDoS effort if somebody puts up a Rapidshare link to the LOIC software. None of them have any kind of initiative to do it themselves.
"i'm not gonna get caught. lulz, i'll use a proxy"
Furthermore, because they're all just angsty, lonely, horny teenagers (and even some 20-somethings), they have no foresight. They have no clue that their IP address can and will identify them in most cases. If they use a proxy, they're just creating a bottleneck, slowing the DDoS effort and providing their target with a single IP to block for mitigation.
"hey man, ip address is just a number, man... i'm not a number!"
None of them realize that your IP address can and will be stripped from logs and submitted to RIRs and ISPs, and they will obtain your subscriber details (more likely your parent's details) through the legal system in your country of origin. An IP address is just a number when taken out of context, but when it's put IN context your IP is your identity on the internet, and it CAN be linked back to the real world.
"Amazon kicked WikiLeaks off of their servers because BUSH... i mean, OBAMA... sent an executive order to Amazon telling them that he would personally torture their mothers if they didn't! OMG! Attack Amazon because they're a business that chooses not to do business with certain people!!!"
The last thing humanity needs is a bunch of angsty teenagers throwing a fit because their favorite website has to change providers. WikiLeaks violated their contract with Amazon. It is a BUSINESS matter. Get the fuck over it, pick up your toys and go to school.
Don't like what I'm saying? Then suppress my freedom of speech and DDoS me. My IP is 127.0.0.1. And I'll even turn off my firewall for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Force everyone to be compatible?
*Mandate* that all carriers use a specific cell technology or implementation, and have absolutely no alternatives? Yeah. That's going to be just swell.
In all seriousness, for the sake of technological innovation and advancement, something like that shouldn't be a government order. It should be mutually agreed upon by a consortium of cellular companies and vendors. Government regulation, especially in an industry with two very strong competing products (GSM and CDMA), never works out very well.
^^^ THIS. I lack mod points, but this form of recognition I feel is much more public...
Thanks for noticing, it's additional knowledge. I did a little research before I submitted, and according to @LulzSec on Twitter, they targeted WoW Customer Service as well. FWIW, my original headline focused on the FBI and HBGary. But for whatever reason, samzenpus thought "Blizzard" fit better in there... not quite sure why.
But will it teach me to revolutionize outside the paradigm?
I'd love to stay and chat but I've got to go read the latest Gartner models to optimize some processes and use my mind-mapping software to shift some variables into profit centers.
Would you be deriding this article if it had a left-leaning slant as opposed to its obvious right-wing spin? I must ask this because someone with a 5 digit UID must have surely seen the dozens of other non-tech political articles that have made their way past our ever-diligent editors and the mighty Firehose.
Whoops. See my reply below this post, I clicked the wrong "Reply to this" link.
Anyway, nice talking to you. Based on your description of yourself, you're not someone I would much prefer to talk to if all you wish to do is destroy me for my personal views. Have a great day!
Good on you for not wavering in your viewpoints. Not to invoke Godwin's law here or anything, but a lot of very bad people in this world sought to merely *destroy* their enemies rather than resolve their differences through respectful debate. al-Qaeda, the National Socialist Party, the Russian Empire vs. the Circassians, the Ming dynasty vs. the Bo people, and so on.
It's good that you really believe in what you're saying and that you're not merely a follower hopelessly clinging to someone else's ideology, but at the same time, wow! Your stance on conflict resolution is fucked up.
The idea that another person's viewpoints should be respected does not mean that you are validating their opinion. What it means is that you should respect their right to hold and share such a viewpoint, and I feel that if we have mutual respect for each other's viewpoints, we can engage in meaningful and respectful discussion in which I can convince you, or you can convince me, that a particular viewpoint is better.
When I think about respecting another person's viewpoint, I don't think about shouting matches on TV. I don't think about name-calling, bashing, mud-slinging, ad hominem attacks, etc. I think about two people sitting down in a polite manner and discussing, not screaming, their viewpoint. THAT is respect for another's viewpoints. As I stated above, it is not about *validating* or approving of another person's viewpoint on a particular subject. It is perfectly possible to *respect* someone else's viewpoint without agreeing with it, and it is perfectly reasonable to respect someone else's viewpoint *and* work to convince them that they are wrong. Our ongoing discussion is a perfect example of this.
At the end of your response is where you become wrong for possibly the first time in this discourse:
I do not reject homosexuality. I don't partake in it, but I do tolerate it just as I tolerate those who live that way. Please don't jump to conclusions about me or my logic based on my responses in which I make no suggestions to which side is actually "right".
You are right, and this saddens me. Not merely because you are right, but because what you are saying is true.
However, thanks to geographic dispersion and despite the far-reaching effects of the internet, "society" is still a relative term. "Society" in San Francisco differs wildly from "society" in Provo, Utah.
I grew up in a society that taught me to respect others and their beliefs, including when those beliefs counteract your own. Unfortunately many other societies tend to take a more one-sided approach and appear to, in the name of "freedom", hypocritically suppress any speech that they determine to be "bad" or "anti-free". This is the signal of the end of "Free Speech" as we know it. Meet its new successor, "Majority Speech" - any speech that favors the viewpoint of the majority.
And why is an app that you can choose NOT to download, on a phone that you can choose NOT to buy, infringing on anyone's right to a determined identity?
You have no control over a person screaming out their window interrupting your sleep. Nor do you have control over whether some jackass yells "Fire" in a crowded theater. But you CAN control whether or not you download one app in an app store of 60,000+.
You are no worse off by not downloading the app. Therefore, the existence of the app in the store is not in any way denying you a right.
We all have to put up with people we don't like. Just because we don't like them, however, doesn't mean that they can't exist. That would be infringing on their right to exist. All we can do is choose not to associate with them or put ourselves in a position to be around them.
I bet you're the type of person who if I were to tell to "Have a nice day", you could "read between the lines" that I actually said that I hope your everyone in your immediate family gets AIDS and that you should go skydive naked into a field full of cacti.
There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".
Excuse me... would you mind telling me where the "dig" is at the President?
The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."
That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.
But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.
...Both of them.
...Wringing out a sponge, trying to get all the water out of it.
While most people are happy with squeezing most of the water out and letting it be, these insolent pricks in the financial sector want to get every little molecule out of that sponge even if it means ripping the sponge apart and incinerating the pieces.
Replace sponge with stock market, water with money.
Other people's retirement funds. Hobbyist/part-time investors. Humanity.
You make a great point, but you missed something. Take "Wireless Syncing" and put it under what normal people DID get. The iOS 4.3 release will support Home Sharing, which allows for wireless transfer of music and movies from your computer. Granted, it's not a full-fledged sync but it does what most people consider to be "syncing".
You'll see... 2011 is SO going to be the Year of the Cow! And no, I'm not talking about Chinese astrology.
I don't see anything illegal in an employer cutting your pay by $10,000. Does it suck? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Just say "Fuck you" and go get a different job. Slandering an employee, on the other hand, is illegal. But other than attempting to inciting needless emotion in your readers, how the hell else does slander factor into this story?
If Last.fm doesn't like Apple's pricing policy, they can get the fuck over it and take their toys to a different sandbox. Because unlike a monopoly, nobody's *forcing* you to use the iPhone and nobody's *forcing* them to provide content through the Apple App Store.
I would love to see more people switch to Android over this policy change. Android needs a broader market base. What I don't love is people bitching about this. It's business, grow a pair and take your money elsewhere.
This is California, the state built on the foundation of "Save the Trees, Kill the Children."
Is there any mystery why the fuck they're in massive amounts of debt and suffering the biggest budget crisis of the state's history? Their answer to EVERY problem is to throw money at it. Kids not learning as well? Let's give them all iPads. Kids not eating well? Instead of teaching them healthy choices, let's remove all the vending machines. Kids not showing up at school? Instead of making school more appealing to them, let's tag them like cattle.
California is a state where passing the buck (literally and figuratively) has become not only a regular occurrence, but a fucking pastime.
They think that this is a good idea because showing up in crowded areas and making a disturbance is an excellent way to remain anonymous.
Your post seems to suggest that Anonymous is smart enough to not show up in person, and that HBGary is only using this as a scapegoat. You seem to think that Anonymous is logical and believes that staying online is the best course of action to preserve their anonymity.
I think you have some reading to do.
Samsung's awesome paper-plane-drop idea was nowhere near as environmentally disastrous as the amount of CO2 the author of TFA released while hyperventilating over this harmless stunt. ITWorld is now the world's number-one emitter of smug. (Credit for the idea of "smug" pollution goes to South Park season 10 episode 2)
Do you really expect film execs to know how to use Google? I mean Christ, they're the same people who have kept Michael Bay gainfully employed. Can't be much there in terms of ingenuity.
Hate to break it to ya, bud. Amazon isn't a public institution. They're a business and they can do business with whomever they please, and refuse service to whomever they please.
I appreciate what you're saying and love the three Adams excerpts you posted. Just the fact that you went to such length to discuss this with me makes me respect you more. However, your logic that Amazon is "censoring" WikiLeaks by dropping their hosting account is fatally flawed.
Dissemination of harmful information is in direct violation of almost every major web hosting TOS I've read, Amazon's included. Amazon deemed their leaks to be harmful information, and so they shut down their account.
They're not preventing them from going somewhere else. They're just saying they don't want to get caught up in the mess. It sounds like a completely responsible thing for a business to do, doesn't it?
I was Anonymous long before Anonymous began their stupid campaigns of brute-force idiocy and their ridiculous Guy Fawkes masks and their "hey guyz let's all flashmob this place k? lololol we r legion!"
/b/, I was Anonymous in the sense that I could talk with other people in a sensible and responsible fashion about shit that I actually gave a damn about, and nobody had to know who I am. I faced no backlash for my VIEWS, rather than facing no backlash for my ACTIONS. Once the newfags invaded with their "eww look she's eating poop" and their "lololol im an oldfag i've been here all summer" I picked up my dignity and got the fuck out.
Years ago before the newfags, gaiafags, etc. were herded into
I can never go back, mostly because it's turned into an inane hellhole, but also because I have a significant other. The latter is what immediately disqualifies me from Anonymous status.
Scotland Yard isn't investigating "Anonymous". They're investigating the people involved in the DDoS attacks. If you're a member of Anonymous but you don't participate in attacks, you're alright because nobody knows who you are, or that you're even a member of Anonymous.
However, the minute you start attacking, you are immediately identifiable.
"lulz yeah but we r anonymus. we r legionz!!!1 omg for the first time in my life i can actually identify with something. cool! are there any lonely girls here???/"
Protip: When you're on the internet, you are NOT anonymous. Most of Anonymous is just a bunch of teen-angst lemmings who will only join the DDoS effort if somebody puts up a Rapidshare link to the LOIC software. None of them have any kind of initiative to do it themselves.
"i'm not gonna get caught. lulz, i'll use a proxy"
Furthermore, because they're all just angsty, lonely, horny teenagers (and even some 20-somethings), they have no foresight. They have no clue that their IP address can and will identify them in most cases. If they use a proxy, they're just creating a bottleneck, slowing the DDoS effort and providing their target with a single IP to block for mitigation.
"hey man, ip address is just a number, man... i'm not a number!"
None of them realize that your IP address can and will be stripped from logs and submitted to RIRs and ISPs, and they will obtain your subscriber details (more likely your parent's details) through the legal system in your country of origin. An IP address is just a number when taken out of context, but when it's put IN context your IP is your identity on the internet, and it CAN be linked back to the real world.
"Amazon kicked WikiLeaks off of their servers because BUSH... i mean, OBAMA... sent an executive order to Amazon telling them that he would personally torture their mothers if they didn't! OMG! Attack Amazon because they're a business that chooses not to do business with certain people!!!"
The last thing humanity needs is a bunch of angsty teenagers throwing a fit because their favorite website has to change providers. WikiLeaks violated their contract with Amazon. It is a BUSINESS matter. Get the fuck over it, pick up your toys and go to school.
Don't like what I'm saying? Then suppress my freedom of speech and DDoS me. My IP is 127.0.0.1. And I'll even turn off my firewall for you.