I would like to challenge your assumptions. While I agree that it may seem unjust that you would be punished twice for something, you have to remember the UCMJ is for the military dealing with military, and is outside of civilian court. It was also designed as a guide of conduct during war, an accountability system based on "The articles of war" and the later versions were designed so as to make uniform across all branches the system. The fact that it is designed as a system of accountability (though the amount it is actually followed or prosecuted is up for debate) during war is emphasized by the fact that the state national guards are not subject to the UCMJ except under federal order by the president. All that aside, the UCMJ definitely has room for improvement in many areas, but to call the entire thing useless and unjust (which you don't say, but imply, so correct me if I'm wrong) is simply non-pragmatic thinking. The alternative is to have civilian courts be involved in all military matters? What about when it involves TS information? I certainly don't trust some local judge to do such a thing.
Now that aside, the that you are a pacifist should have little to do with your opinion on soldiers. I greatly respect pacifists that stand up for what they believe in. Though I often think that these recent unjust wars (IMHO pretty much WWII and beyond) have soured people in regards to war. You must remember there are more than just the blanket pacifists, there are pragmatic pacifists, principled pacifists, etc, to cover a broad spectrum. I think there are cases when violence or war may be necessary, but they are few and far between, and must be met with much deliberation and thought. What I feel is that it is our nations leaders failed in so many ways in modern times to sufficiently justify war, or to even do it in a constitutional manner. But addressing your misled contempt for military personnel as "weaklings" is that for the most part, the bulk of our military are uneducated and poor, misled by culture from the time of birth to glorify the idea of war, and to see it through the lens of nationalism. How can such people really be expected to know any better? It is like expecting the child who was tied up in a basement until the age of 13 to know how to interact with people, it simply will not happen. This is the great tragedy of the military, that some people must experience it before they can learn the truth of it. It is the leaders of both the military and the government that misled the people who are the truly evil, malicious (be it via ignorance or otherwise), and generally despicable things. I know this because I am an USMC combat vet of the current wars, who started out misled by these same very ideas, but over time have learned the true nature of the beast, and could no longer consider myself to have integrity and continue to serve in unconstitutional wars mismanaged by politicians and blindly supported by the average American idiot. That you have come to the conclusions you have without having to sacrifice so much of your life you should be thankful for, but to degenerate the entire military as weaklings is misguided. That these people, who if led by better leaders, would be the ones to fight in war that is required (say, invasion for example), shows that they are anything but cowards, misused, lied to, abandoned, even ignorant maybe, but to call them that would face the fear of death for their brother beside them cowards does no not have any productive value, though I understand your viewpoint.
When are people going to learn that, though often the rhetoric we pay close attention to calls for action against the west because it is the "Great Satan", and all that goes with that, that the line many westerners have been fed in the lead up to the wars about Muslims hating the west because of its democracy, freedom of speech, and general ideals is a crock of shit. This is a line fed to the masses that has unfortunately become almost universally accepted by those with only cursory knowledge of Islam. Muslims hate the west for our international policy regarding them. A very good book I just recently finished explains this quite well (Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq ; Micheal Sheuer) even states that although our president and others starting talking about the importance that we bring democracy to the middle east, even bin Ladens early warning clearly stated the grievances muslims had with America in particular. Schueur says "the Islamists' indictment sheet against the united States has been precise...for more than a decade. 1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula and other parts of the Islamic world 2. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel 3. U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India, and Russia, and the Arab police states. 4. U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price
All of these things are facts of our policy, and our neglect or unwillingness to recognize these as some of the core issues feeding not only radical Islam, but even moderate Islam. (Really, be objective and put yourselves in their shoes, would you not feel the same way?) In fact, Bin Laden and his ilk were around during Ayatollah Khomeini's utter failure to get Muslims to kill themselves by attacking America because they drank beer, voted in elections, and attempted to ensure that women and men are treated equally. "Even the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who killed themselves in attacks against the U.S. and French targets in Beirut in 82-83 did so under the umbrella of the ayatolla's rhetoric, but they were in fact executing nationalist operations aimed at driving what they perceived as occupying Westerners out of Lebanon." For anyone to believe otherwise, that "The Islamists and their supporters are warring against the United States because they hate Americans as Americans, as well as everything they stand for in the politcal and social spheres, and in the end intend to eradicate our society from the planet....If true... our choice is black and white simple: we can completely abandon our beliefs, our lifestyles, and how we behave in the domestic, political, and social arenas to appease our enemies, or we can undertake the task of killing every last Muslim because that is what they intend to do to us."
If we truly were on a campaign for hearts and minds, it would require an out of the ordinary grasp of reality and common sense from the elite, and would also require that the last 3 presidents "recant most of what they have sworn to be true about our enemies motivations, to take on the Saudi and Israeli lobbies, and to begin to destroy the energy-policy status quo..."
"This is the reason why Americans hear so few "moderate Muslim voices" opposing bin Laden and the Islamists; the moderates are out there and often do not approve of the Islamists' military actions, but they hate U.S. policies with just as much venom and passion as the Islamists, per the polls by Pew, Gallup, BBC, and Zogby."
Most of this is the result of an western population, political elite and else, who have studied little of the widely varying cultures, nations, and peoples that make up the "Muslim nation". By increasing deamnation of the entire Muslim religion, we enrage and "contribute to their silent acquescence in the face of the Islamists' arguments and military actions."
Also, often the fundamental difference between Shia and Sunni Islam is often overlooked and misunderstood. If you look at the history of what we in the west consider o
Few people that are sane buy their product, their main customers are OEM's, who they pay assloads to preinstall their shit, and the computer illiterate. The only even semi-ok symantec product is the corporate version, but even that sucks big donkey dick. I have also worked with their nightmare of a backup system, it is just as much crap. Oh and their support is even worse (source: GP)
Chromes equivalent is very far behind noscript as far as I am aware, noscript gives me granular controls, and apparently you either allow all scripts on a page with the chrome version or not at all, but I could be wrong.
We already have cheaper smaller ways to destroy attacking countries. Besides through economics, rambling on about nuclear weapons while small arms kill thousands is a bit strange. I also find it objectively ironic that it is the countries with the most nuclear weapons (US, Israel (who didn't even sign the NPT) et al) who call for non-proliferation. Its like saying, ok, I now have a 120mm mortar technology, and have stockpiled lots of it, but I want everyone else to not develop it, and if you have, destroy it, because they are so dangerous (oh yeah, and we reserve the right to use them if you disagree)
Exactly, while my knowledge on NK is limited, I have been reading and learning up on Iran (and the strategic, tactical, and political factors) and the middle east in general. Often, people have almost no idea what they are talking about with regards to Iran, sticking to points they have heard as rumor or have heard in the news (worse than rumor IMHO). Robert Baer,(Farsi, Arabic speaker "[sic]more comfortable in the middle east than America" )former spook, has been trying to tell us for quite some time now that Iran has transformed from terrorist sponsor into a rational, logical entity. I even watched a FORA interview with that American Iranian girl who was a political prisoner, and even she tells about how they use Islam and religion as a cover, but they are rational entities with clear goals. On top of that, if we so hate Iran, and they are a credible threat, why did we not think about that when we removed the bread that contained them, (Iraq:Saddam and other Sunnis/Afghanistan:The Taliban). I tell you know we have created a situation where Iran is the victor of our mishaps in the middle east. They have used their experience using proxies in Lebanon as a learning tool, and have done well at it. As for the nuclear issue, I have been reading the facts (IAEA, UN Security Council) reports, and what it really comes down to is we are just following a path that intimidates Iran in order to try to reign in their power somewhat. It is a dangerous game. did you know that the IAEA's conclusion was (paraphrasing here) "we can not conclude that there are no enrichment facilities that we are unaware of" basically saying, we cant say they haven't started trying to go nuclear (weaponized) but what they also dont say is that they ARE. It is the US and others who claim this, with no proof, (unless the CIA has some intel we don't). Did you also know, that it may be a botched CIA operation that gave (via a Russian defector) Iran schematics on a nuclear device in the first place! (although modified to have a flaw, the defector, a scientist, concluded they could easily figure out the flaw and proceed with production). Iran mostly wants to reach nuclear "breakthrough", where they could virtually create a weapon if needed, but never do, thereby obeying the letter of the law, so they can use it as rattling of the saber to get things they want. One of the biggest cards in the Iran deck often overlooked, (especially when idiots tout for military action against them) is that they have so many silkworm missiles lining the straight of Hormuz that if they are ever provoked (by the US, Israel, et al) they could single handedly close the straight, and take out oil platforms to a degree that would send oil to at the minimum 200+ per barrel, which would send an already wounded US and Euro economy into a tailspin. Also, you have to look at it from the "enemy" (Iran) perspective. If someone just invaded two countries neighboring your borders, you'd want a good deterrent too! If anything, one of the most overlooked ideas I think are often not even considered is that we could be using Iran as our replacement in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan as we withdraw. Make some concessions, do some deals, and once again turn Iran into a US friendly superpower, all without revolution, just diplomacy. Of course this requires we have high level officials who can think things through the lens of history, which is obviously neigh impossible for us. I could go on, but I've already rambled enough. Also, I could always be wrong.
I know, I know, this is/., but RTFA for once. The likelihood of this being used in the wild are rated at microsoft bla bla level 3 bla bla, which basically means very unlikely. Even then, all it would do is reboot, "Code execution, while possible in theory, would be very difficult due to memory randomisation, both in kernel memory and via Address Space Layout Randomisation (ASLR)." and more importantly, from the actual advisory, "vulnerability requires that a user view a specially crafted image file with an affected application. Only applications that use the APIs for GDI for rendering images are affected by this issue". So, while it looks like fairly wide array of apps might be vulnerable, my prediction is that by the time an in the wild exploit is release a patch will be out, not to mention this can easily be mitigated by not installing any new software and being careful about where you browse.
Society gains nothing from it, but that's not the point. These ultra-fast trading systems are one of the tools that help the big boys remain the big boys, and keep everyone else one trade behind. Do you really think some mid, small, or even some trading firms even have a chance at being allowed to use or implement in house this type of system? Its the good ol boy system, where old ceo's rotate from company to government to company, leaving a wake of money that they try to keep in the "big boy pool" and hope it doesn't splash into the everyday citizens.
One thing I find is that in todays "web 2.0" world, sites are increasingly javascript, flash, and other heavy things, prone. One of the main reasons I stick with FF is because primarily of the addons like noscript, adblocker, better privacy, etc, which all greatly improve my browsing speeds. Probably doesnt have much to do with things like render tests etc, but just a side note.
I just completed a course in computer forensics, and a faraday case or bag large enough for mobiles is one of the items that is suggested to have on your IRT, and sometimes even big enough to put a whole laptop in. Nothing new for these guys. But it does get expensive if you say, confiscate phones from a whole department or division of a company etc.
not sure where you're from, but not according to my CCW in Texas. Also, that's ridiculous no matter where it is. If I'm hiding of course I'm going to think about whether or not I'm going to shoot as soon as the unknown intruder breaks down the door...
The fact he used a 56k modem seemed interesting, this is/. after all, ya know, news for nerds. The US obviously does want to hang him (also obvious, that I don't mean literally) because the kind of trouble they have to go through to try to extradite someone like this is not slight in the least, it seems to be more of a political move to intimidate our brothers across the pond by setting precedent, "Hack our computers, and get to spend 50 years in a US jail!" Car analogy does fit, but if you disagree, can you explain how it does not? Even if you were to change the whole "replicate the ipod" bit with "steal the ipod", doesnt extradition and the proposed punishment seem out of proportion? Also, I actually googled to find the interview with him where he says exactly what I stated, though he also says specifically he doesn't think it means there are little green men, just that we have a secret space program. Though, I did'nt follow the source of the interview and therefore it could be a bad one, so that point is up for grabs. So, besides you calling me stupid, (which I often, against my own best intentions, often am), where do your arguments stand now?
I wonder with both statements, if they refer to just what they can see from the surface, or what is under the surface. Just because a surface slick may be close to the loop, the majority of the oil may not be close at all, and vice verse. Either way its not good.
Ok, first off, this "hacker" with aspergers, if I remember correctly, used a 56k modem, while being constantly high, to scan for windows boxes with blank passwords.... And the US wants to hang him high? Car analogy incoming: If you leave your car (computer system) on the internet (imagine Cuidad Jaurez) with its window down (ports open, blank passwords), and someone comes along and replicates the iPod in your car, still leaving your iPod there, is it really that bad? As for the things he found, he said the most interesting things were lists of "non-terrestrial" officers and lists of ships that don't exist in any US fleet, but again, he was very high, and is therefore unreliable. I just figure this is a honeypot system (or disinfo) setup to track similar attempts from foreign governments, which are good at getting info and keeping it secret, whereas joe schmo 56k modem (I still lol @ this, but remember, wardialing (though it's not what he did) isn't quite so dead as you may think) finds info like this and is like"omg, I found possible evidence of secret spaceships!" Regardless, its just pathetic that even Robert Gates at the time admitted to over 300 successful penetrations, not attempts, of government systems per day! Blank passwords, tsk tsk.
I was actually responding to bolthole, but nonetheless the majority of your response is true. Also, you state that we differ, but in reality we are stating the same things when I say "You do not have the right to NOT be offended." and you say "I have the right to be offended." Of course you can be offended by something someone says or does within the law, but that is it. Just because I am deeply offended by you saying "fuck" doesn't mean all of a sudden it should be passed as a law to be enforced. This is the crux of that matter. As for the police force, I am generally speaking about the overall situation in the country. My particular county has had a handful of "dirty" or "bad" cops lately, but the difference is that instead of just covering it up, the DA and to a lesser extent the local force, after proper trial, have condemned and punished all involved. On a larger scale though, I have seen increasingly disturbing things regarding the police forces, namely, the increasing militaristic attitude, (namely, the use of no-knock warrants, swat teams, and general excessive force) an increase in corruption (which seems to be very localized due to demographics of certain areas), a general lack of knowledge of the laws they are trying to enforce (and I'm not talking about obscure, "it's illegal to spit on the sidewalk in Texas" stuff, I'm talking about, arresting someone who is standing outside their house but has no ID on them, arresting someone for loitering when they were on public property with an obvious purpose etc.), and yes, I also agree, how can you expect a citizen to know everything but a not law officer? ("ignorance of the law is no excuse.") Also, the generally deceitful tactics used in interrogation by law enforcement. My mother works with some of the best attorneys in my current city, and in all things dealing with them, I have been told basically, in all situations, be as curt and polite as possible, but as soon as things go sour, tell them your name, and say you want an attorney, nothing more, because undoubtedly they will try to hang you. My very top concern regarding the police forces though, is as bl968 put it, the lack of "peace officer" attitude. This is why I have my CCW, and I make all the females I know carry at minimum pepper spray, because instead of being a proactively involved force, they are increasingly a reactive force, there to clean up your blood after someone killed you, and then track down who did it. For all of their inadequacies, small Texas towns have one thing right, and that is the local Sheriff being well informed and knowledgeable about and with the local populace. He visits different places, talks to people, and is much more a "beat" cop. In the city, this is lost, where officers often get in a car, and spend all day responding to calls, or writing tickets for mundane bullshit. In short, I don't hate police, but I do distrust them, as precedence has been set, and I think the only thing they can do to remedy the increasing distrust is return to their roots as the prevention and detection of crime instead of response thereto.
Yep. Basically, if a "terrorist" was smart, motivated, and had proper training and funding, they could recreate 9/11 in a heartbeat. Mostly through the lax measures regarding personal aircraft. The security normal people go through is simply just made up shit from an organization TSA and Homeland Security, that inconveniences us, but does almost nothing to prevent attacks by anyone but the most idiotic attackers. Even if there were absolutely no security on flights all across the nation, you are still more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist threat. By restricting freedom we have fallen in the trap they laid for us in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
One more reason I love noscript.
I would like to challenge your assumptions. While I agree that it may seem unjust that you would be punished twice for something, you have to remember the UCMJ is for the military dealing with military, and is outside of civilian court. It was also designed as a guide of conduct during war, an accountability system based on "The articles of war" and the later versions were designed so as to make uniform across all branches the system. The fact that it is designed as a system of accountability (though the amount it is actually followed or prosecuted is up for debate) during war is emphasized by the fact that the state national guards are not subject to the UCMJ except under federal order by the president. All that aside, the UCMJ definitely has room for improvement in many areas, but to call the entire thing useless and unjust (which you don't say, but imply, so correct me if I'm wrong) is simply non-pragmatic thinking. The alternative is to have civilian courts be involved in all military matters? What about when it involves TS information? I certainly don't trust some local judge to do such a thing.
Now that aside, the that you are a pacifist should have little to do with your opinion on soldiers. I greatly respect pacifists that stand up for what they believe in. Though I often think that these recent unjust wars (IMHO pretty much WWII and beyond) have soured people in regards to war. You must remember there are more than just the blanket pacifists, there are pragmatic pacifists, principled pacifists, etc, to cover a broad spectrum. I think there are cases when violence or war may be necessary, but they are few and far between, and must be met with much deliberation and thought. What I feel is that it is our nations leaders failed in so many ways in modern times to sufficiently justify war, or to even do it in a constitutional manner. But addressing your misled contempt for military personnel as "weaklings" is that for the most part, the bulk of our military are uneducated and poor, misled by culture from the time of birth to glorify the idea of war, and to see it through the lens of nationalism. How can such people really be expected to know any better? It is like expecting the child who was tied up in a basement until the age of 13 to know how to interact with people, it simply will not happen. This is the great tragedy of the military, that some people must experience it before they can learn the truth of it. It is the leaders of both the military and the government that misled the people who are the truly evil, malicious (be it via ignorance or otherwise), and generally despicable things. I know this because I am an USMC combat vet of the current wars, who started out misled by these same very ideas, but over time have learned the true nature of the beast, and could no longer consider myself to have integrity and continue to serve in unconstitutional wars mismanaged by politicians and blindly supported by the average American idiot. That you have come to the conclusions you have without having to sacrifice so much of your life you should be thankful for, but to degenerate the entire military as weaklings is misguided. That these people, who if led by better leaders, would be the ones to fight in war that is required (say, invasion for example), shows that they are anything but cowards, misused, lied to, abandoned, even ignorant maybe, but to call them that would face the fear of death for their brother beside them cowards does no not have any productive value, though I understand your viewpoint.
When are people going to learn that, though often the rhetoric we pay close attention to calls for action against the west because it is the "Great Satan", and all that goes with that, that the line many westerners have been fed in the lead up to the wars about Muslims hating the west because of its democracy, freedom of speech, and general ideals is a crock of shit. This is a line fed to the masses that has unfortunately become almost universally accepted by those with only cursory knowledge of Islam. Muslims hate the west for our international policy regarding them. A very good book I just recently finished explains this quite well (Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq ; Micheal Sheuer) even states that although our president and others starting talking about the importance that we bring democracy to the middle east, even bin Ladens early warning clearly stated the grievances muslims had with America in particular. Schueur says "the Islamists' indictment sheet against the united States has been precise...for more than a decade.
1. The U.S. military and civilian presence in the Arab Peninsula and other parts of the Islamic world
2. Unqualified U.S. support for Israel
3. U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India, and Russia, and the Arab police states.
4. U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil and suppression of its price
All of these things are facts of our policy, and our neglect or unwillingness to recognize these as some of the core issues feeding not only radical Islam, but even moderate Islam. (Really, be objective and put yourselves in their shoes, would you not feel the same way?) In fact, Bin Laden and his ilk were around during Ayatollah Khomeini's utter failure to get Muslims to kill themselves by attacking America because they drank beer, voted in elections, and attempted to ensure that women and men are treated equally. "Even the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters who killed themselves in attacks against the U.S. and French targets in Beirut in 82-83 did so under the umbrella of the ayatolla's rhetoric, but they were in fact executing nationalist operations aimed at driving what they perceived as occupying Westerners out of Lebanon." ...If true... our choice is black and white simple: we can completely abandon our beliefs, our lifestyles, and how we behave in the domestic, political, and social arenas to appease our enemies, or we can undertake the task of killing every last Muslim because that is what they intend to do to us."
For anyone to believe otherwise, that "The Islamists and their supporters are warring against the United States because they hate Americans as Americans, as well as everything they stand for in the politcal and social spheres, and in the end intend to eradicate our society from the planet.
If we truly were on a campaign for hearts and minds, it would require an out of the ordinary grasp of reality and common sense from the elite, and would also require that the last 3 presidents "recant most of what they have sworn to be true about our enemies motivations, to take on the Saudi and Israeli lobbies, and to begin to destroy the energy-policy status quo..."
"This is the reason why Americans hear so few "moderate Muslim voices" opposing bin Laden and the Islamists; the moderates are out there and often do not approve of the Islamists' military actions, but they hate U.S. policies with just as much venom and passion as the Islamists, per the polls by Pew, Gallup, BBC, and Zogby."
Most of this is the result of an western population, political elite and else, who have studied little of the widely varying cultures, nations, and peoples that make up the "Muslim nation". By increasing deamnation of the entire Muslim religion, we enrage and "contribute to their silent acquescence in the face of the Islamists' arguments and military actions."
Also, often the fundamental difference between Shia and Sunni Islam is often overlooked and misunderstood. If you look at the history of what we in the west consider o
Its not the camels who will suffer...
Few people that are sane buy their product, their main customers are OEM's, who they pay assloads to preinstall their shit, and the computer illiterate. The only even semi-ok symantec product is the corporate version, but even that sucks big donkey dick. I have also worked with their nightmare of a backup system, it is just as much crap. Oh and their support is even worse (source: GP)
Chromes equivalent is very far behind noscript as far as I am aware, noscript gives me granular controls, and apparently you either allow all scripts on a page with the chrome version or not at all, but I could be wrong.
We already have cheaper smaller ways to destroy attacking countries. Besides through economics, rambling on about nuclear weapons while small arms kill thousands is a bit strange. I also find it objectively ironic that it is the countries with the most nuclear weapons (US, Israel (who didn't even sign the NPT) et al) who call for non-proliferation. Its like saying, ok, I now have a 120mm mortar technology, and have stockpiled lots of it, but I want everyone else to not develop it, and if you have, destroy it, because they are so dangerous (oh yeah, and we reserve the right to use them if you disagree)
Exactly, while my knowledge on NK is limited, I have been reading and learning up on Iran (and the strategic, tactical, and political factors) and the middle east in general. Often, people have almost no idea what they are talking about with regards to Iran, sticking to points they have heard as rumor or have heard in the news (worse than rumor IMHO). Robert Baer,(Farsi, Arabic speaker "[sic]more comfortable in the middle east than America" )former spook, has been trying to tell us for quite some time now that Iran has transformed from terrorist sponsor into a rational, logical entity. I even watched a FORA interview with that American Iranian girl who was a political prisoner, and even she tells about how they use Islam and religion as a cover, but they are rational entities with clear goals. On top of that, if we so hate Iran, and they are a credible threat, why did we not think about that when we removed the bread that contained them, (Iraq:Saddam and other Sunnis/Afghanistan:The Taliban). I tell you know we have created a situation where Iran is the victor of our mishaps in the middle east. They have used their experience using proxies in Lebanon as a learning tool, and have done well at it. As for the nuclear issue, I have been reading the facts (IAEA, UN Security Council) reports, and what it really comes down to is we are just following a path that intimidates Iran in order to try to reign in their power somewhat. It is a dangerous game. did you know that the IAEA's conclusion was (paraphrasing here) "we can not conclude that there are no enrichment facilities that we are unaware of" basically saying, we cant say they haven't started trying to go nuclear (weaponized) but what they also dont say is that they ARE. It is the US and others who claim this, with no proof, (unless the CIA has some intel we don't). Did you also know, that it may be a botched CIA operation that gave (via a Russian defector) Iran schematics on a nuclear device in the first place! (although modified to have a flaw, the defector, a scientist, concluded they could easily figure out the flaw and proceed with production). Iran mostly wants to reach nuclear "breakthrough", where they could virtually create a weapon if needed, but never do, thereby obeying the letter of the law, so they can use it as rattling of the saber to get things they want. One of the biggest cards in the Iran deck often overlooked, (especially when idiots tout for military action against them) is that they have so many silkworm missiles lining the straight of Hormuz that if they are ever provoked (by the US, Israel, et al) they could single handedly close the straight, and take out oil platforms to a degree that would send oil to at the minimum 200+ per barrel, which would send an already wounded US and Euro economy into a tailspin. Also, you have to look at it from the "enemy" (Iran) perspective. If someone just invaded two countries neighboring your borders, you'd want a good deterrent too! If anything, one of the most overlooked ideas I think are often not even considered is that we could be using Iran as our replacement in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan as we withdraw. Make some concessions, do some deals, and once again turn Iran into a US friendly superpower, all without revolution, just diplomacy. Of course this requires we have high level officials who can think things through the lens of history, which is obviously neigh impossible for us. I could go on, but I've already rambled enough. Also, I could always be wrong.
Why make up new ones when the old ones work time and time again, and can be refined to pass the "Post test"
Does it make me a brown noser if I say I actually like slash?
One of the better posts, well articulated, that I have seen on /. in a while! Keep it up.
[citation and sources please]
I know, I know, this is /., but RTFA for once. The likelihood of this being used in the wild are rated at microsoft bla bla level 3 bla bla, which basically means very unlikely. Even then, all it would do is reboot, "Code execution, while possible in theory, would be very difficult due to memory randomisation, both in kernel memory and via Address Space Layout Randomisation (ASLR)." and more importantly, from the actual advisory, "vulnerability requires that a user view a specially crafted image file with an affected application. Only applications that use the APIs for GDI for rendering images are affected by this issue". So, while it looks like fairly wide array of apps might be vulnerable, my prediction is that by the time an in the wild exploit is release a patch will be out, not to mention this can easily be mitigated by not installing any new software and being careful about where you browse.
I was sickened when the smell stopped.
Why would the banks want to fix a system they make lots of money off of?
Society gains nothing from it, but that's not the point. These ultra-fast trading systems are one of the tools that help the big boys remain the big boys, and keep everyone else one trade behind. Do you really think some mid, small, or even some trading firms even have a chance at being allowed to use or implement in house this type of system? Its the good ol boy system, where old ceo's rotate from company to government to company, leaving a wake of money that they try to keep in the "big boy pool" and hope it doesn't splash into the everyday citizens.
One thing I find is that in todays "web 2.0" world, sites are increasingly javascript, flash, and other heavy things, prone. One of the main reasons I stick with FF is because primarily of the addons like noscript, adblocker, better privacy, etc, which all greatly improve my browsing speeds. Probably doesnt have much to do with things like render tests etc, but just a side note.
I just completed a course in computer forensics, and a faraday case or bag large enough for mobiles is one of the items that is suggested to have on your IRT, and sometimes even big enough to put a whole laptop in. Nothing new for these guys. But it does get expensive if you say, confiscate phones from a whole department or division of a company etc.
not sure where you're from, but not according to my CCW in Texas. Also, that's ridiculous no matter where it is. If I'm hiding of course I'm going to think about whether or not I'm going to shoot as soon as the unknown intruder breaks down the door...
The fact he used a 56k modem seemed interesting, this is /. after all, ya know, news for nerds. The US obviously does want to hang him (also obvious, that I don't mean literally) because the kind of trouble they have to go through to try to extradite someone like this is not slight in the least, it seems to be more of a political move to intimidate our brothers across the pond by setting precedent, "Hack our computers, and get to spend 50 years in a US jail!" Car analogy does fit, but if you disagree, can you explain how it does not? Even if you were to change the whole "replicate the ipod" bit with "steal the ipod", doesnt extradition and the proposed punishment seem out of proportion? Also, I actually googled to find the interview with him where he says exactly what I stated, though he also says specifically he doesn't think it means there are little green men, just that we have a secret space program. Though, I did'nt follow the source of the interview and therefore it could be a bad one, so that point is up for grabs. So, besides you calling me stupid, (which I often, against my own best intentions, often am), where do your arguments stand now?
I wonder with both statements, if they refer to just what they can see from the surface, or what is under the surface. Just because a surface slick may be close to the loop, the majority of the oil may not be close at all, and vice verse. Either way its not good.
Ah correction, it appears "he did admit he may have deleted some government files by accidentally pressing the wrong key"
Ok, first off, this "hacker" with aspergers, if I remember correctly, used a 56k modem, while being constantly high, to scan for windows boxes with blank passwords.... And the US wants to hang him high? Car analogy incoming: If you leave your car (computer system) on the internet (imagine Cuidad Jaurez) with its window down (ports open, blank passwords), and someone comes along and replicates the iPod in your car, still leaving your iPod there, is it really that bad? As for the things he found, he said the most interesting things were lists of "non-terrestrial" officers and lists of ships that don't exist in any US fleet, but again, he was very high, and is therefore unreliable. I just figure this is a honeypot system (or disinfo) setup to track similar attempts from foreign governments, which are good at getting info and keeping it secret, whereas joe schmo 56k modem (I still lol @ this, but remember, wardialing (though it's not what he did) isn't quite so dead as you may think) finds info like this and is like"omg, I found possible evidence of secret spaceships!" Regardless, its just pathetic that even Robert Gates at the time admitted to over 300 successful penetrations, not attempts, of government systems per day! Blank passwords, tsk tsk.
I was actually responding to bolthole, but nonetheless the majority of your response is true. Also, you state that we differ, but in reality we are stating the same things when I say "You do not have the right to NOT be offended." and you say "I have the right to be offended." Of course you can be offended by something someone says or does within the law, but that is it. Just because I am deeply offended by you saying "fuck" doesn't mean all of a sudden it should be passed as a law to be enforced. This is the crux of that matter. As for the police force, I am generally speaking about the overall situation in the country. My particular county has had a handful of "dirty" or "bad" cops lately, but the difference is that instead of just covering it up, the DA and to a lesser extent the local force, after proper trial, have condemned and punished all involved. On a larger scale though, I have seen increasingly disturbing things regarding the police forces, namely, the increasing militaristic attitude, (namely, the use of no-knock warrants, swat teams, and general excessive force) an increase in corruption (which seems to be very localized due to demographics of certain areas), a general lack of knowledge of the laws they are trying to enforce (and I'm not talking about obscure, "it's illegal to spit on the sidewalk in Texas" stuff, I'm talking about, arresting someone who is standing outside their house but has no ID on them, arresting someone for loitering when they were on public property with an obvious purpose etc.), and yes, I also agree, how can you expect a citizen to know everything but a not law officer? ("ignorance of the law is no excuse.") Also, the generally deceitful tactics used in interrogation by law enforcement. My mother works with some of the best attorneys in my current city, and in all things dealing with them, I have been told basically, in all situations, be as curt and polite as possible, but as soon as things go sour, tell them your name, and say you want an attorney, nothing more, because undoubtedly they will try to hang you. My very top concern regarding the police forces though, is as bl968 put it, the lack of "peace officer" attitude. This is why I have my CCW, and I make all the females I know carry at minimum pepper spray, because instead of being a proactively involved force, they are increasingly a reactive force, there to clean up your blood after someone killed you, and then track down who did it. For all of their inadequacies, small Texas towns have one thing right, and that is the local Sheriff being well informed and knowledgeable about and with the local populace. He visits different places, talks to people, and is much more a "beat" cop. In the city, this is lost, where officers often get in a car, and spend all day responding to calls, or writing tickets for mundane bullshit. In short, I don't hate police, but I do distrust them, as precedence has been set, and I think the only thing they can do to remedy the increasing distrust is return to their roots as the prevention and detection of crime instead of response thereto.
Yep. Basically, if a "terrorist" was smart, motivated, and had proper training and funding, they could recreate 9/11 in a heartbeat. Mostly through the lax measures regarding personal aircraft. The security normal people go through is simply just made up shit from an organization TSA and Homeland Security, that inconveniences us, but does almost nothing to prevent attacks by anyone but the most idiotic attackers. Even if there were absolutely no security on flights all across the nation, you are still more likely to die in a car accident than a terrorist threat. By restricting freedom we have fallen in the trap they laid for us in the first place.