assumption (-smpshn) n. 1.The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation. 2.The act of taking over: assumption of command. 3.The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory. 4.Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption. 5.Presumption; arrogance. 6.Logic. A minor premise. jackass (jks) n. 1.A male ass or donkey. 2.A foolish or stupid person; a blockhead: "You've acted like an irrational jackass and it's time you stopped" (Margaret Truman). -- or alternately -- jackass \Jack"ass`\, n. [2d jack + ass.] 1. The male ass; a donkey. 2. A conceited dolt; a perverse blockhead.
With all due respect to the passion of the poster, I feel I must point out that this response was a bit childish and ill-formed. I understand your desire to express your attachment to the culture of the United States (I, too, am American). However, it is important to approach such discussions of comparison in varied cultures carefully, making sure to maintain one's proper composure. For future reference, the intelligent means of making your point follows: "whatever, asshole, we've got the fucking bat."
I find it interesting (and somewhat comforting) that no one has even mentioned the classically recommended course of action when learning of a friend or loved one's physical self-abuse or desire to die - that of reporting this problem to "someone who can help" as opposed to trying to handle it on your own.
Many thanks to Paul for the hard work, dedication, and numerous security holes he has contributed to this project over the past 10 years (relax, it's a joke).
Keep making the connection between Disney and Microsoft... here are some articles that may assist you: http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=480100 173&CONTEXT=927615702.1359151130&hitnum= 33 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0310/5905042a.htm http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=7387941&serve r=db96q5&CONTEXT=868407087.24842&hitnum= 2 http://www.iamaw.org/news/releases/dec_23.htm http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=8659436&serve r=db96q3&CONTEXT=868407087.24842&hitnum= 8 http://falcon.laker.net/webpage/disdolby.htm http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-97052 1-011506.html http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/welfare/eisne r.htm http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=489116 424&CONTEXT=929330231.75628573&hitnum=1
Capitolism does not have a net positive benefit (redundancy is greybeard's, not my own). In fact, Capitolism tends to have more problems than your grammar or katz's thesis. It is, however, what works best (so far) in certain situations. Maybe technology is like this. It is what works best (so far) in certain situations. What's good? What's bad? Read a Pirsig book. What works? Talk to an engineer.
OK, just to clarify this ridiculous banter to the point at which we all agree that it is pointless and decide to just go back to straight bashing JP, JP != HFG HFG == HFG leave alone, damnit, i am laughing too hard to type...
I was, at one time, responsible for the implementation of network security and cryptographic measures for a large health care provider (these duties are handled by on-staff security personell now that the provider is associated with a large cola corporation:/). Having been in your shoes before, I can tell you right off the bat that there are people out there who are VERY determined to gain access to medical information. For the sake of exercise, imagine your oponents (the would-be hackers) as having a large amount of skill and unbelieveable resources (think VERY large insurance companies and actuarial firms). Once you have firmly established in your mind the potential threat, now you have a fresh perspective with which to view your situation. The question that arises is one of your loyalties. Are you devoted to the most security you can have, within reason, for this sensitive data? One might even possibly believe that you have an ethical responsibility to protecting this data (there is no official hipocratic oath for security professionals - though maybe there should be). Are you, on the other hand, devoted only to meeting a standard? The law has it's own unique ideas on what your responsibilities are. At the very least, I recommend following the standard, in which case you are absolutely fine with username and password, along with some means of data integrity assurance (to cover all of your bases). But the fact of the matter is, this can be defeated easily. I might add that this is not a numbers game. It will happen. So with that in mind, you might sleep most comfortably by implementing some more hefty security to protect that data, in which case there are thousands of potential solutions, including (but not limited to) the PKI and PGP (I COULD recommend GnuPG - heh) suggested here. If you do decide to pursue PKI, do yourself a favor. Call up Verisign and just talk to them. Tell them what it is that you are trying to do, and they will give you a great plan.
When the statute of limitations comes into effect for the HFG hacks, the members may or may not reveal themselves. At that point, will you and JP and everyone else stop making assumptions about the identities of these hackers? I have noted your sarcasm, I just thought it a bit reckless.
In a recent article on Antionline entitled "Can You Trust Them?" you discuss the responsibilities of major security firms to their clients.One of your concerns is that these major companies (well, you only name one) sometimes keep contacts with known malicious hackers. As you yourself have demonstrated in the past, those responsible for bringing security-related information to the public often speak to known malicious hackers to get the inside story. How do you feel the need to verify sources differs for the press and security professionals? Where should security professionals go to get the inside story? The press? Where do editorials fit into the search for trustworthy security information? Please outline the differences in responsibility between press and security professionals.
Slashdot Mirror
assumption (-smpshn) n. 1.The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation. 2.The act of taking over: assumption of command. 3.The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory. 4.Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption. 5.Presumption; arrogance. 6.Logic. A minor premise. jackass (jks) n. 1.A male ass or donkey. 2.A foolish or stupid person; a blockhead: "You've acted like an irrational jackass and it's time you stopped" (Margaret Truman). -- or alternately -- jackass \Jack"ass`\, n. [2d jack + ass.] 1. The male ass; a donkey. 2. A conceited dolt; a perverse blockhead.
With all due respect to the passion of the poster, I feel I must point out that this response was a bit childish and ill-formed. I understand your desire to express your attachment to the culture of the United States (I, too, am American). However, it is important to approach such discussions of comparison in varied cultures carefully, making sure to maintain one's proper composure. For future reference, the intelligent means of making your point follows: "whatever, asshole, we've got the fucking bat."
I find it interesting (and somewhat comforting) that no one has even mentioned the classically recommended course of action when learning of a friend or loved one's physical self-abuse or desire to die - that of reporting this problem to "someone who can help" as opposed to trying to handle it on your own.
Doesn't Sapphire do streaming?
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? Get a fucking grip. -- more intelligent debate will be posted should you rise to the occasion --
Many thanks to Paul for the hard work, dedication, and numerous security holes he has contributed to this project over the past 10 years (relax, it's a joke).
Keep making the connection between Disney and Microsoft... here are some articles that may assist you: http://x31.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=480100 173&CONTEXT=927615702.1359151130&hitnum= 33 http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0310/5905042a.htm http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=7387941&serve r=db96q5&CONTEXT=868407087.24842&hitnum= 2 http://www.iamaw.org/news/releases/dec_23.htm http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=8659436&serve r=db96q3&CONTEXT=868407087.24842&hitnum= 8 http://falcon.laker.net/webpage/disdolby.htm http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-97052 1-011506.html http://www.feminist.org/other/budget/welfare/eisne r.htm http://x25.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=489116 424&CONTEXT=929330231.75628573&hitnum=1
Capitolism does not have a net positive benefit (redundancy is greybeard's, not my own). In fact, Capitolism tends to have more problems than your grammar or katz's thesis. It is, however, what works best (so far) in certain situations. Maybe technology is like this. It is what works best (so far) in certain situations. What's good? What's bad? Read a Pirsig book. What works? Talk to an engineer.
OK, just to clarify this ridiculous banter to the point at which we all agree that it is pointless and decide to just go back to straight bashing JP, JP != HFG HFG == HFG leave alone, damnit, i am laughing too hard to type...
Some group of hackers that were not nearly as cool as the Ashtray Lumberjacks. heh.
I was, at one time, responsible for the implementation of network security and cryptographic measures for a large health care provider (these duties are handled by on-staff security personell now that the provider is associated with a large cola corporation :/). Having been in your shoes before, I can tell you right off the bat that there are people out there who are VERY determined to gain access to medical information. For the sake of exercise, imagine your oponents (the would-be hackers) as having a large amount of skill and unbelieveable resources (think VERY large insurance companies and actuarial firms). Once you have firmly established in your mind the potential threat, now you have a fresh perspective with which to view your situation. The question that arises is one of your loyalties. Are you devoted to the most security you can have, within reason, for this sensitive data? One might even possibly believe that you have an ethical responsibility to protecting this data (there is no official hipocratic oath for security professionals - though maybe there should be). Are you, on the other hand, devoted only to meeting a standard? The law has it's own unique ideas on what your responsibilities are. At the very least, I recommend following the standard, in which case you are absolutely fine with username and password, along with some means of data integrity assurance (to cover all of your bases). But the fact of the matter is, this can be defeated easily. I might add that this is not a numbers game. It will happen. So with that in mind, you might sleep most comfortably by implementing some more hefty security to protect that data, in which case there are thousands of potential solutions, including (but not limited to) the PKI and PGP (I COULD recommend GnuPG - heh) suggested here. If you do decide to pursue PKI, do yourself a favor. Call up Verisign and just talk to them. Tell them what it is that you are trying to do, and they will give you a great plan.
When the statute of limitations comes into effect for the HFG hacks, the members may or may not reveal themselves. At that point, will you and JP and everyone else stop making assumptions about the identities of these hackers? I have noted your sarcasm, I just thought it a bit reckless.
In a recent article on Antionline entitled "Can You Trust Them?" you discuss the responsibilities of major security firms to their clients.One of your concerns is that these major companies (well, you only name one) sometimes keep contacts with known malicious hackers. As you yourself have demonstrated in the past, those responsible for bringing security-related information to the public often speak to known malicious hackers to get the inside story. How do you feel the need to verify sources differs for the press and security professionals? Where should security professionals go to get the inside story? The press? Where do editorials fit into the search for trustworthy security information? Please outline the differences in responsibility between press and security professionals.