yeah...ain't that nice, they said they didn't...maybe i am just paranoid, but i already changed my passwords Not paranoid, wise. It sounds pretty unlikely that any harvesting was going on, but still better to be safe.
Comcast.net was acting weird all day yesterday. First the portal page was changed into a search-only page, which required a login to access all portal features. Then some features weren't working properly. Nah, that wasn't the hack, that was just comcast being comcast. The hack was a redirect through DNS to a page that read: "KRYOGENIKS Defiant and EBK RoXed COMCAST. sHouTz To VIRUS Warlock elul21 coll1er seven."
harvested logins of customers. FTFA:
Fellow hackers, relying on press reports claiming that customer data may have been compromised, are hitting up the duo for passwords to Comcast e-mail accounts, which they say they don't have. "Nobody was listening in on the ports to try and get usernames and password," says Defiant. "We could have, but we didn't." (On this point, Comcast and the hackers agree).
It was a terrorist attack intended to disrupt a major part of the infrastructure, period. Methinks you have an overly broad definition of "terrorist attack". One really ought not to put "couldn't check e-mail for 3 hours in the middle of the night" in the same category as the willful destruction of human life.
As I see it, in the long run the ONLY fiscally, personally, and societally responsible thing to do is fight 'to the last ditch' (or to the geeks out there, 'to the pain') if you are falsely accused rather than pay to 'make it go away'. Given the resources to be able to do this while still providing for ones family, sure. My understanding is that many of the families targeted in these lawsuits are not in that position. My point was that were the RIAA responsible for legal fees if their claims are found to be baseless, these families would be in more of a position to fight.
Although it's still not that simple, because there's always the risk of being wrongly convicted. And in reality, all this would need to be weighed against the chances of anyone else actually coming back to try to get more out of you. It's a complicated issue currently heavily in favor of the plaintiff, and I think we both completely agree that something needs to be done to even the playing field. The RIAA is running the risk of losing a bunch of money, lets be unreasonably generous and say 1% of their yearly income. The defendants are running the risk of losing their livelihoods for the rest of their lives.
Given the current situation these people are facing, I can hardly blame them for choosing to settle.
I must be frank, if you are right and you know it, you have a duty to fight. Rolling over because it's easy is both personally and socially irresponsible, and the fear of personal bankruptcy isn't one that would deter me. And hiring a lawyer to fight a lawsuit which would be cheaper to settle is fiscally irresponsible. Not to mention, if you've got a family to support, I'd argue personally and socially irresponsible as well. Which is exactly what this is about - if the RIAA is suing you for no good reason, there should not be the fear of personal bankruptcy - because they should be forced to pay for the defense costs they have unjustly forced on you.
This is, of course, even putting aside the potential of a false conviction. But that never happens, right?
Didn't we just read that chroot "jails" are not secure? You may want to take a look at http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.html#httpdchroot, especially the section titled "Should I use the chroot feature?".
I imagine something similar would be forthcoming regarding OpenSSH specifically.
What makes you think his economic policies are nuts? They worked pretty well for the U.S. (or at least better than the current economic policy is working) before the creation of the Federal Reserve I believe the year 1907 would disagree.
Economic policy is in a constant state of flux, everything that's here now has been put in place for a reason, and you'll find a great deal of debate on nearly all of it. I disagree with quite a few of Paul's stances, deregulation being probably the largest. You are of course free to your own opinion. I won't even accuse you of being manipulated, or scared of stability!
If their only reason to believe that you beat puppies was a completely fabricated lie, and they didn't bother to see if it were actually true, then they're just being easily manipulated. I like Paul's stance on the Constitution, and especially privacy, but I personally think his economic policy is nuts. So, unless the information posted on his own campaign website is a "completely fabricated lie", I don't see any manipulation.
As Brad Fitzpatrick (the father of OpenID) said, "Nobody should own this. Nobody's planning on making any money from this. The goal is to release every part of this under the most liberal licenses possible, so there's no money or licensing or registering required to play. It benefits the community as a whole if something like this exists, and we're all a part of the community." (from http://openid.net/what , emphasis mine)
I'm no expert on such things, but wouldn't you want an extremely restrictive license, to prevent providers from "improving" the concept and breaking interoperability? Or having the more "trusted" providers begin charging for the service? Although I suppose this depends on Fitzpatrick's definition of liberal.
these days we are encouraged to snigger, and call 'nuts' the one candidate out of the pack who says that the federal government should be made to obey the Constitution. If I beat puppies, and donate my time serving meals to the homeless, the people calling me "evil" might not be referring to the charity work...
I was a little disappointed with the answer to my question, the one about marijuana. Yours was the only question I really liked. It was still a leading question, but leading towards what would be a largely unpopular response, had he answered more in line with the libertarian philosophy.
I am a pilot. If you shine a laser at ME with MY FAMILY in the airplane I think you shoudl rot in jail for LIFE at the very least. I drive a car. If you run a red light near ME with MY FAMILY in the car I think you should rot in jail for LIFE at the very least.
These people were complete idiots who did a completely idiotic thing, no question. Could many people have been killed had the pilot crashed? Absolutely. Same thing could happen if you run a red light. Had that actually happened, the charge would have something like manslaughter, and punished as such. As it stands, they did an amazingly idiotic thing, and assuming this is a first offense, it seems to me they should be punished commensurate with a "wake the hell up and never do that again you morons", rather than destroying their lives for doing something idiotic.
As others have stated, the punishment listed is a maximum, and intent, priors, etc. will certainly be taken into account during sentencing. Fortunately, judges seem to have a much more even keel than people like you.
I am crawling deep into this cave - we don't know what is in there but it could be very dangerous... Followed by a head shot of the lead guy crawling toward the camera into the great danger just beyond in the cave. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue. >
I know it's a ways off, but it's certainly still good news. Although Lilly is still going forward with their inhalable, I do wonder if it will meet the same fate. I don't mind going back to injections for a few years, it's just nice to not have all the eggs in one basket as far as alternative delivery goes.
but for a diabetic, it could be awesome: instead of injecting himself a large dose of insulin now and then, he could use a patch and have his insulin slowly and regulary injected. Too much insulin, remove the patch for a couple of hours, too little, add a second one for a couple of hours. Simple, painless and safe. Now that they've stopped producing Exubera (well, will stop in 2 more months) it's great to hear about this kind of thing. I never really understood this (supposed? real?) consumer disinterest in inhaled insulin. Especially now starting back on injections, it was SO much easier with the inhaled stuff.
Not even just for lack of pain - one of the biggest benefits, at least to me, was no longer having to take shots in the car with people walking by thinking i'm a heroin addict, or in a restaurant bathroom which always felt dirty no matter how clean it actually was. Not having my car searched by cops because I accidentally left a needle in the glove box, which they saw when I pulled out my registration... those kind of things I think are huge benefits which people don't really think of. Or maybe it's just me.
Either way, the less things puncturing my skin, the better.
The goal shouldn't be to stop all security measures because mishaps happen. It should be to lower the number of mishaps as to preserve the quality of life of as many innocent civilians as possible. No security is just as bad as absolute security. I'm certainly not suggesting that all security measures be stopped. But how about stopping extraordinary rendition, reinstating habeas corpus, and disallowing the state secrets privelege?
Until that happens, I believe we're much closer to "absolute security" than reasonable security.
Except that only a very small minority of passengers are actually "kidnapped," I truly, truly hope that you are trolling. You're okay with torturing innocent people, as long as it's a "very small minority"? Please, tell me, at what point do you think this practice becomes wrong? When they start doing it to Caucasians? Christians? Or only when the majority of innocent airline travelers are being tortured?
And this is happening to people you know? You're getting both sides of the story? They're being killed or kept indefinitely? No, nobody I know. But the instances that we do know about have been fairly thoroughly documented. I would disagree that death or permanent imprisonment are the only situations in which things have gone too far. I would certainly include torture.
Here's a tip, if you're Muslim, don't hang out with people who are shady. As an exercise in how impossible this is, please prove to me that you are not shady so I can continue to converse with you.
Yet, you pull one aside for questioning and all of a sudden it's the inquisition... This still makes me think you do not understand extraordinary rendition.
Sure there are outliers, people put on watch lists they shouldn't. It'll get smoothed out eventually... As long as these watch lists may lead to things like mistaken extraordinary rendition, I would consider that a huge problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it's still not that simple, because there's always the risk of being wrongly convicted. And in reality, all this would need to be weighed against the chances of anyone else actually coming back to try to get more out of you. It's a complicated issue currently heavily in favor of the plaintiff, and I think we both completely agree that something needs to be done to even the playing field. The RIAA is running the risk of losing a bunch of money, lets be unreasonably generous and say 1% of their yearly income. The defendants are running the risk of losing their livelihoods for the rest of their lives.
Given the current situation these people are facing, I can hardly blame them for choosing to settle.
This is, of course, even putting aside the potential of a false conviction. But that never happens, right?
I imagine something similar would be forthcoming regarding OpenSSH specifically.
Economic policy is in a constant state of flux, everything that's here now has been put in place for a reason, and you'll find a great deal of debate on nearly all of it. I disagree with quite a few of Paul's stances, deregulation being probably the largest. You are of course free to your own opinion. I won't even accuse you of being manipulated, or scared of stability!
I'm no expert on such things, but wouldn't you want an extremely restrictive license, to prevent providers from "improving" the concept and breaking interoperability? Or having the more "trusted" providers begin charging for the service? Although I suppose this depends on Fitzpatrick's definition of liberal.
Which is a less than huge surprise, considering how leading most of those questions were!
Seems like the libertarian version of a typical politician - light on details, light on commitment, and exactly what the audience was looking for.
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
These people were complete idiots who did a completely idiotic thing, no question. Could many people have been killed had the pilot crashed? Absolutely. Same thing could happen if you run a red light. Had that actually happened, the charge would have something like manslaughter, and punished as such. As it stands, they did an amazingly idiotic thing, and assuming this is a first offense, it seems to me they should be punished commensurate with a "wake the hell up and never do that again you morons", rather than destroying their lives for doing something idiotic.
As others have stated, the punishment listed is a maximum, and intent, priors, etc. will certainly be taken into account during sentencing. Fortunately, judges seem to have a much more even keel than people like you.
>
I know it's a ways off, but it's certainly still good news. Although Lilly is still going forward with their inhalable, I do wonder if it will meet the same fate. I don't mind going back to injections for a few years, it's just nice to not have all the eggs in one basket as far as alternative delivery goes.
Not even just for lack of pain - one of the biggest benefits, at least to me, was no longer having to take shots in the car with people walking by thinking i'm a heroin addict, or in a restaurant bathroom which always felt dirty no matter how clean it actually was. Not having my car searched by cops because I accidentally left a needle in the glove box, which they saw when I pulled out my registration... those kind of things I think are huge benefits which people don't really think of. Or maybe it's just me.
Either way, the less things puncturing my skin, the better.
Until that happens, I believe we're much closer to "absolute security" than reasonable security.