What's more important, enforcing some random law, or protecting the ideals and virtues of democracy? I imagine there are some laws from time to time which trump democratic action, from time to time, but I can't accept that as a general, default, rule. And when you look at this specific case (as posited by the poster, and now yourself) that a noise ordinance justified shooting people voicing their political views in the shadow of a visit by the President, there is no rational justification for the law trumping democracy. None.
Bingo. We do not want to become a country where the most minor of laws becomes an excuse to assault our own non-violent citizens exercising their basic Constitutional rights.
Some pushed, but the cops fired upon people who did not push.
Oh yeah, because that wouldn't give the rest of the crowd a flimsy excuse to act like even bigger cocks and escalate the situation further. That NEVER happens at protests...
It all comes down to whether you believe that there are a few problem cases or almost all are problem cases. I believe that there are a few, you seem to believe that most of them are problems.
Oh shit! Look out! It's a mild irritant designed to disperse large and unruly crowds before they get out of hand by making it slightly uncomfortable to stay in the same place! NAZIIIIIIIIIS!
Let's try to keep the Nazi chatter under control, okay? Thanks.
How old are you? Twelve? Thirteen?
40
I have an idea. Let's throw YOUR BITCH ASS into the middle of 500 people that disagree with each other and see how YOU react when you get pushed around.
Been there, done that. Germany in the 70's. I was military and we had hundreds of people protest us. We were assigned to keep people out of one of our sites. We did it without any conflicts even though we only had our squad at that site. It's actually very easy to do, if you follow the training.
Do you sit back and let the situation escalate into violence or do you take steps right then and there to make sure that doesn't happen?
Like I said, you remove the problem cases and leave the rest of them alone. As long as they don't try to break through, they can sit and sing as long as they want.
You're a fucking liar if you say you don't end it right there if you can.
No, I've just had more training and practical experience dealing with protests. The majority of the people, in my experience, are calm and reasonable. It's only when the cops over-react that they become problems.
I don't think even now we understand the full relationship between Saddam, the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd mess, Al-Queda (sp?), and other volatile groups, people, and events in this part of the world.
If you don't know, then, by definition, you do not have the facts.
Without the facts, you will not be able to make a logical risk assessment.
If leaders had to wait until all the facts are available, we would never have any action.
Incorrect.
For one, those who oppose those leaders would simply conceal some facts, and render those leaders incapable of action.
Why do you believe that? We did not know everything Japan was doing, but that did not stop us from war with them after Pearl Harbor. That was only one fact.
Strong leaders take action on educated (as informed as possible) guesses.
This isn't about "strong leaders". This is about, as you had previously stated, the consequences of our actions or non-actions.
There have been lots of "strong leaders" in the world who have lead unwisely.
If you suspect your teenage daughter of having sex, do you wait to see her pregnant before having a chat with her, or do you try to keep her from those consequences by a "pre-emptive" strike and talking to her before (hopefully) she ends up pregnant?
Fact: people have sex. Fact: sex can lead to pregnancy. Fact: my daughter falls under the category of "people". Conclusion: I need to speak to my daughter about sex.
Why would I have to wait? All of the facts indicate that I should have spoken to her about sex before she hit puberty.
Decisive leaders, like decisive fathers, act based on the preponderance of evidence, not on having all the facts.
Again, there have been lots of "decisive leaders" (and "decisive fathers") who have chosen unwisely.
Being "decisive" is not the same as being "correct". Remember that.
Once you have all the facts, it's too late. Once the first plane hit the tower, it was too late to stop the second plane!
1994. 10 years prior. Yet we took no action to prevent such an attack.
We had the facts, we could have taken action. We did not.
Again. Step #1. Know fact from fantasy/opinion.
You are operating under the fantasy/opinion that we did not know that there were risks or that we cannot take preventive actions until after an attack. Don't confuse your opinion with fact.
Something tells me that if we didn't go in to begin with, we'd be in a worse position after a generation or two of no consequences to committing terrorist acts.
But Iraq wasn't involved in any anti-US terrorist attacks. Wasn't that what the 9/11 commission wrote in their report?
Before you can assess the risks of any action (and taking no action is an action), you have to have the facts. Opinions and fantasies and nightmares don't count as facts.
I guess you missed the following in your thorough reading of the manual. "If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike"
No, I read that. And then I read the actions recommended. And they're short so I won't have to "summarize" them like you did. (Strange how your "summary" uses more words than were on that.jpg)
If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were.
Nope, it says (and I quote): 2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there[sic] techniques have been tried in the past).
- Issue a press release i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting - Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points - Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics - Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
Nothing at all about, as you claim, "if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were."
If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table.
I did. I quoted the.jpg in full. In no place does it say what you claimed it said.
You are completely correct in what the document says.
What it actually says.
The words printed upon it and what those words mean.
BUT! That has nothing to do with the attempts to spin it by various people (as seen here on/.). Spin is about emotion.
Could the posted.jpg be, in any way, interpreted to mean "make false accusations"? No.
So people will say that it says that anyway and hope that other, less intelligent, people react emotionally and will not bother reading the material dispassionately.
That's politics. It's just like religion. For many people, it is part and parcel of their religion.
Your analogy would be accurate, except that there are sufficient past cases of Republican interference.
You have no evidence that GodHead ever beat his wife nor that anyone in his family ever beat their wives. Nor that anyone he knows ever beat their wives.
Yet there are sufficient examples of past Republican problems. So saying that people should be watching for CURRENT Republican problems is just fine. (and prudent)
Anyway, the.jpg posted has NOTHING about claiming intimidation where it does not exist.
NOTHING.
It's all about making sure everyone (particularaly minorities who have been targetted in the past) knows the past attempts so that if they are attempted again they will not work.
But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
Don't worry. I'm sure they feel the same way about people who won't read the material and, instead, listen to what other, biased, sources say about it.
Wait for them to start asking about Vi@gra!
on
Search By.... Email?
·
· Score: 1
It's a cute idea, but it's going to be abused really quickly.
If there's ANY regularity to the message formats, look for the spammers to adopt it.
Also, can you think of a better way to collect real email address than by sending out crap and collecting the "on vacation" bounces?
Frank wants to know about Volvo repair.
on
Search By.... Email?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Alice wants to know about hair stylists. Bob wants to know about fishing sites. Charlie wants to know about CD's. Dave wants to know about guitars. Ethel wants to know about concerts. Frank wants to know about Volvo repairs. Gary wants to know about Vegas. Heidi wants to know about gyms.... Zak wants to know about legos.
So, what you're saying is that we should stop outsourcing to save a few Americans their nice jobs and keep Indians poor? That's just cold.
Who said anything about keeping Indians poor? We should be helping them develop. But we shouldn't be sending our jobs over there.
On the whole, the world is better off without borders and barriers to trade.
But individuals are not the whole. The "whole" might be better, but the individuals will suffer.
Opening up trade is the best way to improve the world wide standard of living.
So, making lots of unemployed people in the US is good for the world? That's pretty pathetic.
How about we FIRST establish some baselines rather then just send our jobs away to the person who will do it the cheapest?
I bet there are some pedophiles who would pay you for the priviledge of providing child care to your little darlings. Yes, saving money and making other people happy is what it's all about.
For my part, I'd prefer standards of environmental and worker protection rather than saving $5 on a toaster.
Parent is very insightful, but the senior positions won't move, unless entire projects are moved overseas.
The project might not be moved, but, eventually, the Indian companies will start their own projects.
They will have the junior coders turned intermediate coders turned senior coders turned management.
There is nothing about the USofA that will protect the management jobs.
At that point why not just license someone else's code?
As in EULA, as in "import".
Eccccccenomikz says that at that point, either HR will have to lower expectations (less bang for the buck from their point of view) or Pay more to get the top talent (Scarcity of resource drives price up).
You left out the option where there isn't a US company anymore so there isn't an HR department and the entire software package is imported from India.
Either way it's a long term negative for businuess in the USA, because of their short sighted goals.
It's worse than that. It's a long term negative with a very big crash coming in about 10 years. That's how long it will take for all those new Indian programmers to learn enough to move into management and such.
How can a US company compete with an Indian company where EVERYONE makes 1/10th what the US company makes.
Eventually, all the "senior" programmers in the US will either have moved to a different field or be maintaining some single system for some single company until they die (or the new CIO gets a quote from an Indian company that will migrate that system for 1/10th what that programmer is being paid).
But even the optimists believe that many basic programming jobs will go to foreign nations, leaving behind jobs for Americans to lead and manage software projects.
And in 2007, they will run an article about how few jobs there are for Americans looking to "lead and manage software projects".
Once you outsource the real skill needed, why wouldn't the jobs managing those workers be outsourced?
IE is used in Windows for a lot of different tasks: web browser, file browser, help browser, anything that can be made to involve browsing. It needs to have deeper access to system internals than a simple web browser like Firefox.
Right - It is used for a lot of stuff other than web browsing.
Wrong - I needs deeper access. All of the help files and such can easily be handled by handing the file off to the default browser, whatever that is. The directory browsing is also handled in Firefox. file:///c:/
Right - Firefox is Open Source.
Wrong - This does not make patching it any easier than by Microsoft's leagions of paid programmers.
Also, it's more possible for the community as a whole to take the initiative regarding security; while a kludged security risk may be left in a commercial product to make a ship date, it is likely to be replaced fairly quickly in an Open Source environment by a volunteer.
That's getting to the point.
Microsoft's products are based upon MARKETING's desires. If a design is completely wrong from a SECURITY standpoint, but it helps advance MARKETING, it will go in and security be damned.
So you end up with a system that is riddled with holes and, essentially, un-securable (if it is still connected to a network/floppy/CD-drive).
Microsoft's FIRST step towards security would be to rip out everything NOT 100% necessary for the core OS functionality and make those things modular and removable.
The problem is FORCING people to take it and building into the.dll's in such a way that it cannot be completely removed.
No one would care if IE had been bundled with Windows, as long as you could get it replaced with an alternative by the OEM and you could completely remove it.
As it is, you cannot completely remove IE and because it is so "integrated" with the OS, the IE exploits become SYSTEM exploits.
Anti-virus: Viruses/worms are a failure of the security model. If Microsoft fixed their security model, you wouldn't see many viruses/worms.
I have to agree with Bill on this one. Even if you are not paying a fee for your virus proection, it is a service that someone provides.
Nope. Remember the old macro viruses for Word and Excel? You had to download updated virus definitions all the time because different attacks were based upon those.
Finally, Microsoft figured out that macros should not AUTOMATICALLY run when you open the document/spreadsheet. Since then, macro-viruses have dropped to almost nothing.
Virus infections are a failure of the security model of your system.
This is diffrent from an automobile with airbags because you typicaly don't have to update/replace your airbags. You do have to pay to get your car serviced and you do have to update your virus definations.
Your car is a physical object that will degrade over time. Software is not the same.
Now given that windows will auto update, you could argue that this is something that microsoft should provide out of the box.
No, the Windows Update service should be patching the holes that allow the viruses to spread.
Why is it that a virus from 5 years ago will infect a brand new XP box? Why hasn't that security hole been patched yet?
The simple answer is that Microsoft is not interested in fixing those holes because doing so would impact the "ease of use" that they are so focused upon (even to the detriment of security).
It's easier for Microsoft to blame other people and demand that you have a continuing band-aid system to react to the latest attacks rather than fixing their model to prevent those attacks.
His software was written specifically for spammers.
It has the capability to bounce messages through an open proxy.
It has the capability to take in a list of names and sort out the ones with "admin" "abuse" or "fbi" in them.
And, last of all, his program can be used by one person to annoy millions of innocent people.
A p2p program needs to be used by 2 consenting people. They might both be breaking the law, but that's something they have to both decide to do.
He wrote a program designed to send and conceal spam, knowing that it would be used to send and conceal spam and then he sold it to spammers who he knew would be using it to send and conceal spam.
The difference seems fairly obvious to me.
I've used bit torrent to download Knoppix images. Yet I don't believe that any of the people he sold his software to would be bouncing mail off of open relays for legitimate purposes.
IT's a free market and the program isn't illegal, so what's the beef? That this kid has different morals than you or I?
The "beef" is that he's using his skills to add to the ills of the world.
Stop whining and get over it: this guy isn't you, doesn't have the same needs, skills, motivations, and it's damned unreasonable for all you hypocritical smug whiners to judge him when he hasn't broken any laws.
Ah, the old "if it isn't specifically illegal then it is moral/ethical. Sorry, that doesn't work.
In my book he's demonstrating the strength of the free-market, capitalistic system: there's demand for a legal product and he has the skills to meet that demand.
The same can be said about demand for illegal products such as drugs. They are also sold in a "free-market, capitalistic system". Just one that happens to be illegal under our current laws.
He's an entrepreneur. If the market doesn't agree, his product won't sell and he'll have to try something else.
Again, the same can be said of dealers/pushers. The only difference are the morals/ethics.
Would you prefer that he starve to death demonstrating the 'moral superiority' of whatever belief system those of you who disagree with him subscribe to? How disgusting!
When was the last time you heard about an 18 year old guy in the US starving to death? Really.
And don't say that you wouldn't do it.
Why not? I wouldn't.
Have you ever been homeless? Walked miles back and forth to a minimum wage job that *just* fed you enough to survive to the next paycheck, because that was literally the only job available?
The janitorial job I had was enough to afford a cheap apartment close to the airport. But it sufficed.
How many of you have ever sat in front of a doctor and listened to her tell you that your spouse/child isn't ever going to get better, ever, but that with expensive treatment that your insurance isn't about to pay for, they can learn to 'manage the pain'?
Okay....... where do you see that in the article?
You'd be amazed what you'll do for money, when the need is more important that whether you can afford to buy the newest game system. You haven't walked in his shoes and you ought to consider that when you're passing judgement on him.
No, but we did read the article and the only thing that he's complaining about is rent money.
I've always tried to do what I needed to do to meet my family's needs. Sometimes we got by and sometimes we didn't.
If you didn't get by then you or your family are dead.
I haven't been desperate enough to do anything illegal and I hope that I've got more faith and courage than to go that route -- but I've been close before and there's no guarantee that I won't get closer in the future.
So your family didn't "get by" it legally, but you never resorted to anything illegal. So, mathematically, your family died.
You asked: "Actually, I'm a little surprised you would say such a thing. It's *far* from clear. What line did he cross?"
From the article:... Kittridge says he and other hackers will continue to consort with spammers.
He wrote DDoS code. That's it. He was raided by the FBI for source code. You cannot tell me in one breath that source code is free speech and then say that the FBI was justified for the raid.
Again, from the article: Kittridge, who uses the online nickname Bysin, earned a reputation as a "black hat" hacker after bursting onto the scene in 2001. Just 15 at the time, he gained notoriety for releasing knight.c, a program designed to perform distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. The tool was cited in a July 2001 federal advisory to home PC users, and the FBI raided Kittridge's home and took six computers away as evidence. (He says the agency notified him last month that it was dropping the case and would return the equipment.)
Writing the code is fine. Releasing the code is okay. When your code is used in a DDoS attack, then the FBI will come to your house and take all your toys.
So, yes, source code is protected speech, but the FBI is justified for raiding the house of a person known to have distributed the tools to perform the attack.
You cannot say that the people who implement a law punishing this kid for his source code aren't going to simply turn around and likewise punish developers of DVD decoding software. Or worse, creators of tools like nmap, tcpdump, and more.
Right....... and how many people do DDoS attacks on their own network? Yet I use nmap and tcpdump on the networks I administer.
I'm sorry, I'd rather live in a world where my biggest fear is a Windows virus than a world where coding in "that hacker OS *nix" is forbidden save for those "authorized" to do so.
The article shows how talented but morally challenged techies are becoming stooges of 'spammers, con artists, and other criminals.'
He was prostituting his skills, and he knew he was doing it and he chose to do so. From the article: Kittridge's impetus to write Fahrenheit was seeing spamware selling for thousands of dollars.
In fact, he's pissed that he didn't get more money from his Johns. Kittridge says he overlooked one key feature in Fahrenheit: copy protection. That fact, combined with his three-day, money-back guarantee, has resulted in lots of unauthorized copying and lost revenue, he says.
Coders who lack the necessary financial or social rewards in their lives sometimes choose the dark side of the force.
While people with higher morals/ethics would choose to switch professions rather than contribute to the ills of the world. Instead, he chose to add to the spam problem for some quick cash.
Heres an article from the daily times of pakistan talking about the new pipeline. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as p?page=st ory_22-12-2002_pg4_9 Please note no unocal and its a new pipeline, but I suppose if the Afghanis ever lay pipe it will upset you.
You found one story that did not mention any company involved in the pipeline? And you think that supports your position?
Here's the BBC on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.s tm
And they do specifically mention the issue with Unocal. And they give a specific person's name as a reference.
Seeing as you decided to use a retracted retraction to brand 240 vets liars lets go to the source 1. Kerry has retracted his story about being in cambodia on nixons orders christmas 69 (neat trick being seared in his memory and all) 2. Kerry has retracted the story his boat was the only one that stayed to help, it turned out his was the only one that left when Jim Rasmussen was rescued. 3. Kerry insisted there was 3 kilometers of enemy fire, but they stayed in the firezone for half an hour. And not a hole in the boat.
You're misguided on that. My position was that the "Swift Boat" people used black (or at best, grey) propaganda.
In order to refute that, you'd have to show that the facts I presented were not accurate. Not that other people had said other things. But it was a nice try anyway.:)
Slashdot Mirror
What's more important, enforcing some random law, or protecting the ideals and virtues of democracy? I imagine there are some laws from time to time which trump democratic action, from time to time, but I can't accept that as a general, default, rule. And when you look at this specific case (as posited by the poster, and now yourself) that a noise ordinance justified shooting people voicing their political views in the shadow of a visit by the President, there is no rational justification for the law trumping democracy. None.
Bingo. We do not want to become a country where the most minor of laws becomes an excuse to assault our own non-violent citizens exercising their basic Constitutional rights.
Some pushed, but the cops fired upon people who did not push.
Oh yeah, because that wouldn't give the rest of the crowd a flimsy excuse to act like even bigger cocks and escalate the situation further. That NEVER happens at protests...
It all comes down to whether you believe that there are a few problem cases or almost all are problem cases. I believe that there are a few, you seem to believe that most of them are problems.
Oh shit! Look out! It's a mild irritant designed to disperse large and unruly crowds before they get out of hand by making it slightly uncomfortable to stay in the same place! NAZIIIIIIIIIS!
Let's try to keep the Nazi chatter under control, okay? Thanks.
How old are you? Twelve? Thirteen?
40
I have an idea. Let's throw YOUR BITCH ASS into the middle of 500 people that disagree with each other and see how YOU react when you get pushed around.
Been there, done that. Germany in the 70's. I was military and we had hundreds of people protest us. We were assigned to keep people out of one of our sites. We did it without any conflicts even though we only had our squad at that site. It's actually very easy to do, if you follow the training.
Do you sit back and let the situation escalate into violence or do you take steps right then and there to make sure that doesn't happen?
Like I said, you remove the problem cases and leave the rest of them alone. As long as they don't try to break through, they can sit and sing as long as they want.
You're a fucking liar if you say you don't end it right there if you can.
No, I've just had more training and practical experience dealing with protests. The majority of the people, in my experience, are calm and reasonable. It's only when the cops over-react that they become problems.
...the protest was peaceful until a few people started pushing police. Police reacted...
The correct reaction would be to grab the person who pushed and arrest him/her.
This takes the few violent individuals out of the general protest.
Instead, the cops reacted by shooting at everyone.
Just a bit of a mob mentality (two opposing sides yelling at each other - it'll get heated!), and a few self-preserving cops.
Rather, cops who know they won't face repercussions for excessive use of force and have seen one too many Rambo movies.
I don't think even now we understand the full relationship between Saddam, the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd mess, Al-Queda (sp?), and other volatile groups, people, and events in this part of the world.
t _8 969.html
If you don't know, then, by definition, you do not have the facts.
Without the facts, you will not be able to make a logical risk assessment.
If leaders had to wait until all the facts are available, we would never have any action.
Incorrect.
For one, those who oppose those leaders would simply conceal some facts, and render those leaders incapable of action.
Why do you believe that? We did not know everything Japan was doing, but that did not stop us from war with them after Pearl Harbor. That was only one fact.
Strong leaders take action on educated (as informed as possible) guesses.
This isn't about "strong leaders". This is about, as you had previously stated, the consequences of our actions or non-actions.
There have been lots of "strong leaders" in the world who have lead unwisely.
If you suspect your teenage daughter of having sex, do you wait to see her pregnant before having a chat with her, or do you try to keep her from those consequences by a "pre-emptive" strike and talking to her before (hopefully) she ends up pregnant?
Fact: people have sex.
Fact: sex can lead to pregnancy.
Fact: my daughter falls under the category of "people".
Conclusion: I need to speak to my daughter about sex.
Why would I have to wait? All of the facts indicate that I should have spoken to her about sex before she hit puberty.
Decisive leaders, like decisive fathers, act based on the preponderance of evidence, not on having all the facts.
Again, there have been lots of "decisive leaders" (and "decisive fathers") who have chosen unwisely.
Being "decisive" is not the same as being "correct". Remember that.
Once you have all the facts, it's too late. Once the first plane hit the tower, it was too late to stop the second plane!
http://www.fact-index.com/a/ai/air_france_fligh
1994. 10 years prior. Yet we took no action to prevent such an attack.
We had the facts, we could have taken action. We did not.
Again. Step #1. Know fact from fantasy/opinion.
You are operating under the fantasy/opinion that we did not know that there were risks or that we cannot take preventive actions until after an attack. Don't confuse your opinion with fact.
Something tells me that if we didn't go in to begin with, we'd be in a worse position after a generation or two of no consequences to committing terrorist acts.
But Iraq wasn't involved in any anti-US terrorist attacks. Wasn't that what the 9/11 commission wrote in their report?
Before you can assess the risks of any action (and taking no action is an action), you have to have the facts. Opinions and fantasies and nightmares don't count as facts.
I guess you missed the following in your thorough reading of the manual. "If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike"
.jpg)
.jpg in full. In no place does it say what you claimed it said.
No, I read that. And then I read the actions recommended. And they're short so I won't have to "summarize" them like you did. (Strange how your "summary" uses more words than were on that
If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were.
Nope, it says (and I quote):
2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" (particularly well-suited to states in which there[sic] techniques have been tried in the past).
- Issue a press release
i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state
ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting
- Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points
- Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics
- Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls
Nothing at all about, as you claim, "if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were."
If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table.
I did. I quoted the
You are completely correct in what the document says.
/.). Spin is about emotion.
.jpg be, in any way, interpreted to mean "make false accusations"? No.
What it actually says.
The words printed upon it and what those words mean.
BUT! That has nothing to do with the attempts to spin it by various people (as seen here on
Could the posted
So people will say that it says that anyway and hope that other, less intelligent, people react emotionally and will not bother reading the material dispassionately.
That's politics. It's just like religion. For many people, it is part and parcel of their religion.
Your analogy would be accurate, except that there are sufficient past cases of Republican interference.
You have no evidence that GodHead ever beat his wife nor that anyone in his family ever beat their wives. Nor that anyone he knows ever beat their wives.
Yet there are sufficient examples of past Republican problems. So saying that people should be watching for CURRENT Republican problems is just fine. (and prudent)
It said people should pre-emptively issue a press release reviewing the past Republican tactics.
It said people should pre-emptively issue a press release quoting other people denouncing such tactics.
It said people should pre-emptively prime people with talking points for the media.
It said people should pre-emptively express their concern.
It said people should pre-emptively warn newspapers about false or misleading ads.
Hmmm, nothing at all about what you said it said.
Seems that you've lied.
Oh, sorry. I forgot I was on /.
.jpg posted has NOTHING about claiming intimidation where it does not exist.
Anyway, the
NOTHING.
It's all about making sure everyone (particularaly minorities who have been targetted in the past) knows the past attempts so that if they are attempted again they will not work.
But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
Don't worry. I'm sure they feel the same way about people who won't read the material and, instead, listen to what other, biased, sources say about it.
It's a cute idea, but it's going to be abused really quickly.
If there's ANY regularity to the message formats, look for the spammers to adopt it.
Also, can you think of a better way to collect real email address than by sending out crap and collecting the "on vacation" bounces?
Alice wants to know about hair stylists. ...
Bob wants to know about fishing sites.
Charlie wants to know about CD's.
Dave wants to know about guitars.
Ethel wants to know about concerts.
Frank wants to know about Volvo repairs.
Gary wants to know about Vegas.
Heidi wants to know about gyms.
Zak wants to know about legos.
And that's just on Monday.
So, what you're saying is that we should stop outsourcing to save a few Americans their nice jobs and keep Indians poor? That's just cold.
Who said anything about keeping Indians poor? We should be helping them develop. But we shouldn't be sending our jobs over there.
On the whole, the world is better off without borders and barriers to trade.
But individuals are not the whole. The "whole" might be better, but the individuals will suffer.
Opening up trade is the best way to improve the world wide standard of living.
So, making lots of unemployed people in the US is good for the world? That's pretty pathetic.
How about we FIRST establish some baselines rather then just send our jobs away to the person who will do it the cheapest?
I bet there are some pedophiles who would pay you for the priviledge of providing child care to your little darlings. Yes, saving money and making other people happy is what it's all about.
For my part, I'd prefer standards of environmental and worker protection rather than saving $5 on a toaster.
Parent is very insightful, but the senior positions won't move, unless entire projects are moved overseas.
The project might not be moved, but, eventually, the Indian companies will start their own projects.
They will have the junior coders turned intermediate coders turned senior coders turned management.
There is nothing about the USofA that will protect the management jobs.
At that point why not just license someone else's code?
As in EULA, as in "import".
Eccccccenomikz says that at that point, either HR will have to lower expectations (less bang for the buck from their point of view) or Pay more to get the top talent (Scarcity of resource drives price up).
You left out the option where there isn't a US company anymore so there isn't an HR department and the entire software package is imported from India.
Either way it's a long term negative for businuess in the USA, because of their short sighted goals.
It's worse than that. It's a long term negative with a very big crash coming in about 10 years. That's how long it will take for all those new Indian programmers to learn enough to move into management and such.
How can a US company compete with an Indian company where EVERYONE makes 1/10th what the US company makes.
Eventually, all the "senior" programmers in the US will either have moved to a different field or be maintaining some single system for some single company until they die (or the new CIO gets a quote from an Indian company that will migrate that system for 1/10th what that programmer is being paid).
But even the optimists believe that many basic programming jobs will go to foreign nations, leaving behind jobs for Americans to lead and manage software projects.
And in 2007, they will run an article about how few jobs there are for Americans looking to "lead and manage software projects".
Once you outsource the real skill needed, why wouldn't the jobs managing those workers be outsourced?
IE is used in Windows for a lot of different tasks: web browser, file browser, help browser, anything that can be made to involve browsing. It needs to have deeper access to system internals than a simple web browser like Firefox.
Right - It is used for a lot of stuff other than web browsing.
Wrong - I needs deeper access. All of the help files and such can easily be handled by handing the file off to the default browser, whatever that is. The directory browsing is also handled in Firefox. file:///c:/
Right - Firefox is Open Source.
Wrong - This does not make patching it any easier than by Microsoft's leagions of paid programmers.
Also, it's more possible for the community as a whole to take the initiative regarding security; while a kludged security risk may be left in a commercial product to make a ship date, it is likely to be replaced fairly quickly in an Open Source environment by a volunteer.
That's getting to the point.
Microsoft's products are based upon MARKETING's desires. If a design is completely wrong from a SECURITY standpoint, but it helps advance MARKETING, it will go in and security be damned.
So you end up with a system that is riddled with holes and, essentially, un-securable (if it is still connected to a network/floppy/CD-drive).
Microsoft's FIRST step towards security would be to rip out everything NOT 100% necessary for the core OS functionality and make those things modular and removable.
That will never happen.
The problem is FORCING people to take it and building into the .dll's in such a way that it cannot be completely removed.
No one would care if IE had been bundled with Windows, as long as you could get it replaced with an alternative by the OEM and you could completely remove it.
As it is, you cannot completely remove IE and because it is so "integrated" with the OS, the IE exploits become SYSTEM exploits.
Anti-virus: Viruses/worms are a failure of the security model. If Microsoft fixed their security model, you wouldn't see many viruses/worms.
I have to agree with Bill on this one. Even if you are not paying a fee for your virus proection, it is a service that someone provides.
Nope. Remember the old macro viruses for Word and Excel? You had to download updated virus definitions all the time because different attacks were based upon those.
Finally, Microsoft figured out that macros should not AUTOMATICALLY run when you open the document/spreadsheet. Since then, macro-viruses have dropped to almost nothing.
Virus infections are a failure of the security model of your system.
This is diffrent from an automobile with airbags because you typicaly don't have to update/replace your airbags. You do have to pay to get your car serviced and you do have to update your virus definations.
Your car is a physical object that will degrade over time. Software is not the same.
Now given that windows will auto update, you could argue that this is something that microsoft should provide out of the box.
No, the Windows Update service should be patching the holes that allow the viruses to spread.
Why is it that a virus from 5 years ago will infect a brand new XP box? Why hasn't that security hole been patched yet?
The simple answer is that Microsoft is not interested in fixing those holes because doing so would impact the "ease of use" that they are so focused upon (even to the detriment of security).
It's easier for Microsoft to blame other people and demand that you have a continuing band-aid system to react to the latest attacks rather than fixing their model to prevent those attacks.
My Linux box is "targetted" as frequently as any Windows box.
Of course, since most of those attempts are from compromised Windows boxes, looking for other unsecured Windows boxes, the attacks don't get very far.
It just that the overwhelming majority of compromised machines are Windows machines that are now looking for other Windows machines.
His software was written specifically for spammers.
It has the capability to bounce messages through an open proxy.
It has the capability to take in a list of names and sort out the ones with "admin" "abuse" or "fbi" in them.
And, last of all, his program can be used by one person to annoy millions of innocent people.
A p2p program needs to be used by 2 consenting people. They might both be breaking the law, but that's something they have to both decide to do.
He wrote a program designed to send and conceal spam, knowing that it would be used to send and conceal spam and then he sold it to spammers who he knew would be using it to send and conceal spam.
The difference seems fairly obvious to me.
I've used bit torrent to download Knoppix images. Yet I don't believe that any of the people he sold his software to would be bouncing mail off of open relays for legitimate purposes.
IT's a free market and the program isn't illegal, so what's the beef? That this kid has different morals than you or I?
The "beef" is that he's using his skills to add to the ills of the world.
Stop whining and get over it: this guy isn't you, doesn't have the same needs, skills, motivations, and it's damned unreasonable for all you hypocritical smug whiners to judge him when he hasn't broken any laws.
Ah, the old "if it isn't specifically illegal then it is moral/ethical. Sorry, that doesn't work.
In my book he's demonstrating the strength of the free-market, capitalistic system: there's demand for a legal product and he has the skills to meet that demand.
The same can be said about demand for illegal products such as drugs. They are also sold in a "free-market, capitalistic system". Just one that happens to be illegal under our current laws.
He's an entrepreneur. If the market doesn't agree, his product won't sell and he'll have to try something else.
Again, the same can be said of dealers/pushers. The only difference are the morals/ethics.
Would you prefer that he starve to death demonstrating the 'moral superiority' of whatever belief system those of you who disagree with him subscribe to? How disgusting!
When was the last time you heard about an 18 year old guy in the US starving to death? Really.
And don't say that you wouldn't do it.
Why not? I wouldn't.
Have you ever been homeless? Walked miles back and forth to a minimum wage job that *just* fed you enough to survive to the next paycheck, because that was literally the only job available?
The janitorial job I had was enough to afford a cheap apartment close to the airport. But it sufficed.
How many of you have ever sat in front of a doctor and listened to her tell you that your spouse/child isn't ever going to get better, ever, but that with expensive treatment that your insurance isn't about to pay for, they can learn to 'manage the pain'?
Okay....... where do you see that in the article?
You'd be amazed what you'll do for money, when the need is more important that whether you can afford to buy the newest game system. You haven't walked in his shoes and you ought to consider that when you're passing judgement on him.
No, but we did read the article and the only thing that he's complaining about is rent money.
I've always tried to do what I needed to do to meet my family's needs. Sometimes we got by and sometimes we didn't.
If you didn't get by then you or your family are dead.
I haven't been desperate enough to do anything illegal and I hope that I've got more faith and courage than to go that route -- but I've been close before and there's no guarantee that I won't get closer in the future.
So your family didn't "get by" it legally, but you never resorted to anything illegal. So, mathematically, your family died.
Sorry to hear that, dude.
You asked: "Actually, I'm a little surprised you would say such a thing. It's *far* from clear. What line did he cross?"
... Kittridge says he and other hackers will continue to consort with spammers.
....... and how many people do DDoS attacks on their own network? Yet I use nmap and tcpdump on the networks I administer.
From the article:
He wrote DDoS code. That's it. He was raided by the FBI for source code. You cannot tell me in one breath that source code is free speech and then say that the FBI was justified for the raid.
Again, from the article:
Kittridge, who uses the online nickname Bysin, earned a reputation as a "black hat" hacker after bursting onto the scene in 2001. Just 15 at the time, he gained notoriety for releasing knight.c, a program designed to perform distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. The tool was cited in a July 2001 federal advisory to home PC users, and the FBI raided Kittridge's home and took six computers away as evidence. (He says the agency notified him last month that it was dropping the case and would return the equipment.)
Writing the code is fine. Releasing the code is okay. When your code is used in a DDoS attack, then the FBI will come to your house and take all your toys.
So, yes, source code is protected speech, but the FBI is justified for raiding the house of a person known to have distributed the tools to perform the attack.
You cannot say that the people who implement a law punishing this kid for his source code aren't going to simply turn around and likewise punish developers of DVD decoding software. Or worse, creators of tools like nmap, tcpdump, and more.
Right
I'm sorry, I'd rather live in a world where my biggest fear is a Windows virus than a world where coding in "that hacker OS *nix" is forbidden save for those "authorized" to do so.
So you support the freedom to run phishing scams?
The article shows how talented but morally challenged techies are becoming stooges of 'spammers, con artists, and other criminals.'
He was prostituting his skills, and he knew he was doing it and he chose to do so. From the article: Kittridge's impetus to write Fahrenheit was seeing spamware selling for thousands of dollars.
In fact, he's pissed that he didn't get more money from his Johns.
Kittridge says he overlooked one key feature in Fahrenheit: copy protection. That fact, combined with his three-day, money-back guarantee, has resulted in lots of unauthorized copying and lost revenue, he says.
Coders who lack the necessary financial or social rewards in their lives sometimes choose the dark side of the force.
While people with higher morals/ethics would choose to switch professions rather than contribute to the ills of the world. Instead, he chose to add to the spam problem for some quick cash.
Sorry not me
;-)
I didn't say it was. The person who posted it understands the reference.
But your paranoia is showing
Hardly. You have a problem assuming that I'm talking about you when I'm not. Try to keep everything in perspective.
Heres an article from the daily times of pakistan talking about the new pipeline.s p?page=st ory_22-12-2002_pg4_9
s tm
:)
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.a
Please note no unocal and its a new pipeline, but I suppose if the Afghanis ever lay pipe it will upset you.
You found one story that did not mention any company involved in the pipeline? And you think that supports your position?
Here's the BBC on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.
And they do specifically mention the issue with Unocal. And they give a specific person's name as a reference.
Seeing as you decided to use a retracted retraction to brand 240 vets liars lets go to the source
1. Kerry has retracted his story about being in cambodia on nixons orders christmas 69 (neat trick being seared in his memory and all)
2. Kerry has retracted the story his boat was the only one that stayed to help, it turned out his was the only one that left when Jim Rasmussen was rescued.
3. Kerry insisted there was 3 kilometers of enemy fire, but they stayed in the firezone for half an hour. And not a hole in the boat.
You're misguided on that. My position was that the "Swift Boat" people used black (or at best, grey) propaganda.
In order to refute that, you'd have to show that the facts I presented were not accurate. Not that other people had said other things. But it was a nice try anyway.