The summary (and article) say that the attack was motivated by the AntiSec movement, but the group's release has more specific claims. Namely that:
This corrupted organization gathered all the evidence from the seized property of suspected computer professional entertainers and utilized it over many years to conduct illegal operations with foreign intelligence agencies and oligarchy to facilitate their lust for power and money, they never used obtained evidence to really support ongoing investigations.
Also, it's nice to see that CNAIPIC subscribes to the "big useless video wall" school of command center design. (there are also diagrams of their network architecture in that album)
Guitar Hero - 2005
Guitar Hero 2 - 2006
Guitar Hero 3: Legends of Rock - 2007
Guitar Hero World Tour - 2008
Guitar Hero 5 - 2009
Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock - 2010
Not to mention the expansions:
Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - 2007
Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - 2008
Guitar Hero: Metallica - 2009
Guitar Hero Smash Hits - 2009
Guitar Hero: Van Halen - 2009
Band Hero - 2009
Apparently unlike with CoD you can't sustainably sell people a new guitar game annually. Van Halen and Warriors of Rock both sold less than 100k units in their opening weeks.
Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Because I find it hard to believe that a for-profit criminal enterprise would seek publicity the way Anonymous consistently has.
- Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of 1,000,000.- ? per day of delay;
Emphasis mine. If Google isn't allowed to have any content from the newspapers on any of Google's sites and search engine indexing is based on content, then how is it supposed to index the pages?
Well let's see. On the one hand you've got daily, if not more frequent, stories pushing the new hotness strewn across all sections of Slashdot. On the other, you've got one story about something actually kind of serious (special consideration given to religion) in idle.
If a bunch of submitters start trying to get me to buy into pasta strainers, then maybe I'll get annoyed. Otherwise? Not terribly bothered.
Multiple legitimate businesses and Web sites have been banned including two bus companies, online poker sites, multiple Wikipedia entries, Google and Yahoo group pages, a dental surgery and a tour operator.
That was the/. article I was looking for before (with specific examples of baseless additions to the list). Turns out it was one page farther back in the results. The fact that Wikileaks had to provide the list speaks volumes for the sort of attitude the Australian government (though they're not alone) has towards the public in this matter.
I think the position taken by most of the "horde" is that governments have consistently shown that they will either list sites incorrectly or just outright abuse filtering systems like this. To quote an earlier story:
Additionally, despite the claim that the main aim of the filter is to block child pornography, only 313 of the 977 total sites blocked is on the basis of child porn. At $40M AU so far in taxpayers funds, the cost so far is around $40,900 per blocked URL. Government efficiency at work...
40 thousand dollars per URL. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Even if every one of those URLs was related to child pornography, I'm sure that spending the $40 million on actually catching people who abuse children would be an infinitely better allocation of resources.
Many services will prompt you to accept the new terms of service when they change. It's perfectly fine for you to refuse them, you just aren't able to use that service any longer. As for the statement that all contracts are immutable, that's simply not true. From Lawyers.com:
Some written contracts may spell out how and when modifications can be made. For example, if you have a credit card, you signed a contract when applying for that card. The contract may have said that the credit card issuer could change the interest rate at its discretion. By signing the initial contract, you've already given the credit card issuer the right to make future changes.
No, but DDOS attacks are one of the big things that can be prevented by using a separate network (which is what the poster I was replying to thought this plan was suggesting).
Other attacks might be mitigated by using having a separate network, but not necessarily eliminated. Bradley Manning was using SIPRNet, you might remember.
The Alt-Text for this XKCD strip offered a technical solution for achieving a similar effect using your exiting internet connection:
After years of trying various methods, I broke this habit by pitting my impatience against my laziness. I decoupled the action and the neurological reward by setting up a simple 30-second delay I had to wait through, in which I couldn't do anything else, before any new page or chat client would load (and only allowed one to run at once). The urge to check all those sites magically vanished--and my 'productive' computer use was unaffected.
No, what he is proposing is "levels" within the existing internet that would require varying amounts of identification. From TFA:
Mulvenon, an executive at Defense Group Inc., a government contractor that provides agencies with intelligence analysis, has in mind a three-level network. "If you want to do banking, there's no anonymity," and users would need to enter true names and digital credentials to operate in the space, he said. The middle level, perhaps applicable to the.edu domain, would require fewer personal details from visitors.
"At the bottom, you can run around like a hobbit," he said. "How can you have a multilevel system that allows you to play up here and down there and doesn't compromise your ability to play?" is the challenge.
The article doesn't have any quotes from Alexander or Hayden, but it has some from others talking about the same plan. Despite the FUD that the proponents of this plan are spreading, this isn't about securing crucial industrial infrastructure. It's about creating a special ".secure" TLD that would somehow be outside the protections the Fourth Amendment grants on search and seizure with the stated goal of eliminating anonymity. So it's clearly not about "cyberattacks" either, as requiring credentials has nothing to do with DDOS.
So then what is this (not) new network? Given that it's being pushed by Michael "warrantless wiretaps" Hayden, the whole Fourth Amendment link starts to make sense. It's not about eliminating anonymity from secure transactions (it's not like credentials aren't already required for all this stuff. Hell, even World of Warcraft had 2 factor identification available), it's about bypassing your right to privacy. The government (and defense contractors like, oh I don't know, Defense Group Inc.) would be able to datamine all that juicy stuff they currently aren't allowed to touch because of those pesky "constitutional protections". China is the model here:
Nations with fewer civil liberty protections, including China, use "deep packet inspection" to search all Internet traffic for viruses -- as well as anti-government content, noted James Mulvenon, a China and cybersecurity specialist. Due to privacy laws, the United States cannot monitor private network traffic using this approach. Mulvenon questioned whether such restrictions give other nation states the upper hand in cyber defense.
I think he took it as a sign that Apple is trying to migrate OS X to the iOS model of distribution and control. Personally, I can't see that happening at this stage of the operating system's life. It'll be interesting to see what route Apple takes with OS X's successor, though.
Except the first amendment doesn't apply, because as many other posters have pointed out Wikileaks isn't in the US. If Visa and MasterCard are violating anything, it's EU law.
If StatCounter was shilling for Chrome, you'd think they'd report IE's share lower. As it is, they give it more marketshare than Wikimedia does.
They could be getting bribed to do it though. Or, maybe they just use different metrics and are drawing from different samples. Don't be so quick to assume the worst of everyone (or so quick to assume that just because someone is "non-commercial" that they're unbiased).
If you read the summary, you'd note that it says "While other browser trackers show Chrome with a lower percentage, there's a reason: StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users".
That tracks with this table, where StatCounter shows Chrome as having a higher marketshare than it does in other sources. So if those sources base their numbers on unique users rather than pageviews as the summary implies, then yes it seems reasonable to state that Chrome users browse more than other users.
Graffiti reading "Antisec" began appearing in San Diego, California in June 2011 and was incorrectly associated with the original Antisec movement. According to CBS8, a local TV affiliate "People living in Mission Beach say the unusual graffiti first appeared last week on the boardwalk." They also reported "...it was quickly painted over, but the stenciled words were back Monday morning." It was later realized to be related to the new Anti-Sec movement started by LulzSec and Anonymous, some local news have seen and corrected this error.
Slashdot Mirror
This corrupted organization gathered all the evidence from the seized property of suspected computer professional entertainers and utilized it over many years to conduct illegal operations with foreign intelligence agencies and oligarchy to facilitate their lust for power and money, they never used obtained evidence to really support ongoing investigations.
Also, it's nice to see that CNAIPIC subscribes to the "big useless video wall" school of command center design. (there are also diagrams of their network architecture in that album)
You're interpreting his comment as a slight against Lady Gaga. I saw it as a dig at our recent presidents.
Guitar Hero - 2005
Guitar Hero 2 - 2006
Guitar Hero 3: Legends of Rock - 2007
Guitar Hero World Tour - 2008
Guitar Hero 5 - 2009
Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock - 2010
Not to mention the expansions:
Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - 2007
Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - 2008
Guitar Hero: Metallica - 2009
Guitar Hero Smash Hits - 2009
Guitar Hero: Van Halen - 2009
Band Hero - 2009
Apparently unlike with CoD you can't sustainably sell people a new guitar game annually. Van Halen and Warriors of Rock both sold less than 100k units in their opening weeks.
Not making wild assumptions without evidence doesn't mean I think Anonymous are paragons of morality. But thank you for putting words in my mouth.
No, I have no evidence that they are. However, I have no evidence they aren't
Wow, that's amazing logic right there. You should apply for a job a Fox News, you'd make a great replacement for Glenn Beck.
Do you have any evidence that this is the case? Because I find it hard to believe that a for-profit criminal enterprise would seek publicity the way Anonymous consistently has.
Ok, I'll bite. What is Anonymous selling?
Yeah, because Murdoch is totally going to trial.
See also: depressive realism
- Order the defendant to withdraw the articles, photographs and graphic representations of Belgian publishers of the French - and German-speaking daily press, represented by the plaintiff, from all their sites (Google News and "cache" Google or any other name within 10 days of the notification of the intervening order, under penalty of a daily fine of 1,000,000.- ? per day of delay;
Emphasis mine. If Google isn't allowed to have any content from the newspapers on any of Google's sites and search engine indexing is based on content, then how is it supposed to index the pages?
and you should use something else for music.
Why? Why is it preferable to carry around yet another device than to expect the same level of functionality provided by the Kindle's competitors?
Well let's see. On the one hand you've got daily, if not more frequent, stories pushing the new hotness strewn across all sections of Slashdot. On the other, you've got one story about something actually kind of serious (special consideration given to religion) in idle.
If a bunch of submitters start trying to get me to buy into pasta strainers, then maybe I'll get annoyed. Otherwise? Not terribly bothered.
Multiple legitimate businesses and Web sites have been banned including two bus companies, online poker sites, multiple Wikipedia entries, Google and Yahoo group pages, a dental surgery and a tour operator.
That was the /. article I was looking for before (with specific examples of baseless additions to the list). Turns out it was one page farther back in the results. The fact that Wikileaks had to provide the list speaks volumes for the sort of attitude the Australian government (though they're not alone) has towards the public in this matter.
Additionally, despite the claim that the main aim of the filter is to block child pornography, only 313 of the 977 total sites blocked is on the basis of child porn. At $40M AU so far in taxpayers funds, the cost so far is around $40,900 per blocked URL. Government efficiency at work...
40 thousand dollars per URL. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Even if every one of those URLs was related to child pornography, I'm sure that spending the $40 million on actually catching people who abuse children would be an infinitely better allocation of resources.
Some written contracts may spell out how and when modifications can be made. For example, if you have a credit card, you signed a contract when applying for that card. The contract may have said that the credit card issuer could change the interest rate at its discretion. By signing the initial contract, you've already given the credit card issuer the right to make future changes.
No, but DDOS attacks are one of the big things that can be prevented by using a separate network (which is what the poster I was replying to thought this plan was suggesting).
Other attacks might be mitigated by using having a separate network, but not necessarily eliminated. Bradley Manning was using SIPRNet, you might remember.
After years of trying various methods, I broke this habit by pitting my impatience against my laziness. I decoupled the action and the neurological reward by setting up a simple 30-second delay I had to wait through, in which I couldn't do anything else, before any new page or chat client would load (and only allowed one to run at once). The urge to check all those sites magically vanished--and my 'productive' computer use was unaffected.
Mulvenon, an executive at Defense Group Inc., a government contractor that provides agencies with intelligence analysis, has in mind a three-level network. "If you want to do banking, there's no anonymity," and users would need to enter true names and digital credentials to operate in the space, he said. The middle level, perhaps applicable to the .edu domain, would require fewer personal details from visitors.
"At the bottom, you can run around like a hobbit," he said. "How can you have a multilevel system that allows you to play up here and down there and doesn't compromise your ability to play?" is the challenge.
The article doesn't have any quotes from Alexander or Hayden, but it has some from others talking about the same plan. Despite the FUD that the proponents of this plan are spreading, this isn't about securing crucial industrial infrastructure. It's about creating a special ".secure" TLD that would somehow be outside the protections the Fourth Amendment grants on search and seizure with the stated goal of eliminating anonymity. So it's clearly not about "cyberattacks" either, as requiring credentials has nothing to do with DDOS.
So then what is this (not) new network? Given that it's being pushed by Michael "warrantless wiretaps" Hayden, the whole Fourth Amendment link starts to make sense. It's not about eliminating anonymity from secure transactions (it's not like credentials aren't already required for all this stuff. Hell, even World of Warcraft had 2 factor identification available), it's about bypassing your right to privacy. The government (and defense contractors like, oh I don't know, Defense Group Inc.) would be able to datamine all that juicy stuff they currently aren't allowed to touch because of those pesky "constitutional protections". China is the model here:
Nations with fewer civil liberty protections, including China, use "deep packet inspection" to search all Internet traffic for viruses -- as well as anti-government content, noted James Mulvenon, a China and cybersecurity specialist. Due to privacy laws, the United States cannot monitor private network traffic using this approach. Mulvenon questioned whether such restrictions give other nation states the upper hand in cyber defense.
Democrats not agreeing to spending cuts has as much to do with the deadlock as Republican refusals to increase taxes, yes.
Are you a corporation? That would help.
I think he took it as a sign that Apple is trying to migrate OS X to the iOS model of distribution and control. Personally, I can't see that happening at this stage of the operating system's life. It'll be interesting to see what route Apple takes with OS X's successor, though.
Except the first amendment doesn't apply, because as many other posters have pointed out Wikileaks isn't in the US. If Visa and MasterCard are violating anything, it's EU law.
If StatCounter was shilling for Chrome, you'd think they'd report IE's share lower. As it is, they give it more marketshare than Wikimedia does.
They could be getting bribed to do it though. Or, maybe they just use different metrics and are drawing from different samples. Don't be so quick to assume the worst of everyone (or so quick to assume that just because someone is "non-commercial" that they're unbiased).
If you read the summary, you'd note that it says "While other browser trackers show Chrome with a lower percentage, there's a reason: StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users".
That tracks with this table, where StatCounter shows Chrome as having a higher marketshare than it does in other sources. So if those sources base their numbers on unique users rather than pageviews as the summary implies, then yes it seems reasonable to state that Chrome users browse more than other users.
Graffiti reading "Antisec" began appearing in San Diego, California in June 2011 and was incorrectly associated with the original Antisec movement. According to CBS8, a local TV affiliate "People living in Mission Beach say the unusual graffiti first appeared last week on the boardwalk." They also reported "...it was quickly painted over, but the stenciled words were back Monday morning." It was later realized to be related to the new Anti-Sec movement started by LulzSec and Anonymous, some local news have seen and corrected this error.
Same name, different movement, apparently.