I've not heard of this before, nor does Google give me any results: Where are your sources? Why are people modding you 'Informative' when no sources have been supplied?
Maybe it did sound a bit melodramatic, not usually my style but now you mention it I quite like it. I'll be out tonight, lurking in dark alleys wearing a dark hood and cape saying - " This round is won, now stay vigilant." to passers by, in my best batman voice.
First thought: GREAT!
Second thought: It's better for them to not have a court ruling saying that some of the ACTA content violate some EU principles when they will try to re-introduce the same content in CETA.
Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
Not quite sure, probably because they're batshit crazy right wing hypocrites who love to make up sensational headlines. They also like to pretend they're 'for the people', they are in fact are made up of the same set of Tory toffs that would take away every-ones rights and freedoms as long as it didn't affect them too much, as long as they get to make a little profit along the way.
No I don't know any of her alternate accounts, but then again I haven't been looking for any, unlike the software suggested in TFA. Now that I *do* know I'll maybe keep an eye out for them, though even suggesting that sounds a bit creepy.
While I agree that we have to honour this groups freedom of speech, do you think that anonymous are curtailing others freedom of speech, or simply exercising their own? They don't seem to be stopping anyone from expressing themselves, just exposing the members of that particular church. I sincerely hope no-one gets hurt over this, but maybe it'll make a few members of this sect wonder what the fuck they're doing being a part of it.
I for one would rather be known as a trouble maker, than not known at all for what it is that I feel moved to say.
Have to agree with you there, however I imagine there are people out there for whom this style of tool would be a terrifying prospect, depends where you stand I guess.
We can all (I hope) recognise authors quotes whom we have some familiarity even if we haven't read the passage in question before. Terry Pratchet quotes for instance stand out a mile, Frank Herbert can be identified by the fact that he'll use the word 'subtle' at least twice a paragraph. Even here on/. certain posters styles identify them without having to read their UID, Girlintraining is an example (for me at least), hell I can spot her posts purely based on the responses to her posts for gods sake.
With the privacy arms race going on right now on the internet, identifying people based on what they write *and* their style, is not only the magic bullet for Big Brother, but quite acheivable given a big enough sample,
Actually, Tor comes prepackaged with a browser with privacy settings enabled by default. The server shouldn't be able to differentiate you from any other user of the stock Tor bundle.
That's for the TOR bundle if used as they recommend, but the article is about identifying authors by what they write, them not about idintifying by technical means. On Slashdot not RTFA could be used as an identifying metric but on the other hand it's a rather wide net.
That's hilarious it really is, I love the idea of the CPS trying to prosecute the Pentegon for running an insecure network:) I know that's not what you meant, but the fact is the Pentagon still think he is 'one of the most dangerous hackers of all time' and would still love to hold him responsible for their own deficiencies. An epic case of deferring responsibility if ever there was one.
Actually reading back, a few have mentioned it, but the point still stands. They should not be able to have it both ways. They've had it their own way for that long they don't seem to be able to see the hypocrisy (btw I'm not an Apple fan either).
100 posts in, and no-one seems to have pointed out that Microsoft are complaining about the same type of system they are trying to foist on developers with Windows 8. Fuck off and pay Apple what they ask for, *or* make Windows a free platform to develop on again.
Maybe, or maybe we hold our councillers a bit more accountable in general. Enforcing fines for fly tipping, littering, dog fouling and fly posting were all suggested as legitimate uses of the databases. Having lived in several council districts in the UK I can say that I've not seen much evidence that any of these things are enforced particularly well.
Mr Pickles said: "Concerns about the DVLA database have been voiced for several years, but it is remarkable that in just three years nearly half the country's councils have been suspended from looking at motorists' information.
"One key issue that still has not been resolved is whether someone could be sent to prison for deliberately abusing the databases they have access to and that deterrent is badly needed."
Not inspiring any confidence from me. The article also suggests that councils are using information on the DVLA data in some cases to save money in comparison with accessing the same information from the correct/appropriate sources, and in the worst cases may be selling data to journalists. This makes me trust them less.
I take your point except, having read TFA there is nowhere that says 'Suicide mission'. Just the Slashdot headline. A suicide mission is one where premature and unnatural death is part of the objective. Here the objective is 'live as long as possible and establish a viable colony', quite the opposite of suicide really.
I'm guessing you're trolling, and it looks like you've been modded as such, but just in case you're not, Heinlen wrote that book in '66, 8 years later.
Slashdot Mirror
I've not heard of this before, nor does Google give me any results: Where are your sources? Why are people modding you 'Informative' when no sources have been supplied?
Here you go. http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202561924057&EU_Court_OKs_Resale_of_Downloaded_Licensed_Software&slreturn=20130004105755
Maybe it did sound a bit melodramatic, not usually my style but now you mention it I quite like it. I'll be out tonight, lurking in dark alleys wearing a dark hood and cape saying - " This round is won, now stay vigilant." to passers by, in my best batman voice.
First thought: GREAT! Second thought: It's better for them to not have a court ruling saying that some of the ACTA content violate some EU principles when they will try to re-introduce the same content in CETA.
Yes indeed, this round is won. Now stay vigilant.
Pretty much like Fox yes, the only blessing is that they don't have a T.V. channel, thank god.
Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
Not quite sure, probably because they're batshit crazy right wing hypocrites who love to make up sensational headlines. They also like to pretend they're 'for the people', they are in fact are made up of the same set of Tory toffs that would take away every-ones rights and freedoms as long as it didn't affect them too much, as long as they get to make a little profit along the way.
Hacking a government server to expose corruption?
Hacking credit card information for criminals to abuse?
Hacking loony fringe group to expose individuals who think it's 'Gods will' to murder childeren?
'Hacking'/'Cracking' is not the issue, it's where you choose to stand, as always.
No I don't know any of her alternate accounts, but then again I haven't been looking for any, unlike the software suggested in TFA. Now that I *do* know I'll maybe keep an eye out for them, though even suggesting that sounds a bit creepy.
While I agree that we have to honour this groups freedom of speech, do you think that anonymous are curtailing others freedom of speech, or simply exercising their own? They don't seem to be stopping anyone from expressing themselves, just exposing the members of that particular church. I sincerely hope no-one gets hurt over this, but maybe it'll make a few members of this sect wonder what the fuck they're doing being a part of it.
>
I for one would rather be known as a trouble maker, than not known at all for what it is that I feel moved to say.
Have to agree with you there, however I imagine there are people out there for whom this style of tool would be a terrifying prospect, depends where you stand I guess.
We can all (I hope) recognise authors quotes whom we have some familiarity even if we haven't read the passage in question before. Terry Pratchet quotes for instance stand out a mile, Frank Herbert can be identified by the fact that he'll use the word 'subtle' at least twice a paragraph. Even here on /. certain posters styles identify them without having to read their UID, Girlintraining is an example (for me at least), hell I can spot her posts purely based on the responses to her posts for gods sake.
With the privacy arms race going on right now on the internet, identifying people based on what they write *and* their style, is not only the magic bullet for Big Brother, but quite acheivable given a big enough sample,
Actually, Tor comes prepackaged with a browser with privacy settings enabled by default. The server shouldn't be able to differentiate you from any other user of the stock Tor bundle.
That's for the TOR bundle if used as they recommend, but the article is about identifying authors by what they write, them not about idintifying by technical means. On Slashdot not RTFA could be used as an identifying metric but on the other hand it's a rather wide net.
That's hilarious it really is, I love the idea of the CPS trying to prosecute the Pentegon for running an insecure network :) I know that's not what you meant, but the fact is the Pentagon still think he is 'one of the most dangerous hackers of all time' and would still love to hold him responsible for their own deficiencies. An epic case of deferring responsibility if ever there was one.
I believe you.
Ok, maybe not lunar lander but Lunar Flight is worth a look, or Garys Mod.
You're right in that Microsoft don't charge for in app payments in the same way, but the way I see it, it's the thin end of the same wedge.
What about Facebook? How many millions willingly give up personal information for free?
There are many companies taking advantage of the naivete of internet users for their own advantage.
If they give it up for free then that's one thing, if they have no choice in the matter that's another thing entirely.
Actually reading back, a few have mentioned it, but the point still stands. They should not be able to have it both ways. They've had it their own way for that long they don't seem to be able to see the hypocrisy (btw I'm not an Apple fan either).
100 posts in, and no-one seems to have pointed out that Microsoft are complaining about the same type of system they are trying to foist on developers with Windows 8. Fuck off and pay Apple what they ask for, *or* make Windows a free platform to develop on again.
Maybe, or maybe we hold our councillers a bit more accountable in general. Enforcing fines for fly tipping, littering, dog fouling and fly posting were all suggested as legitimate uses of the databases. Having lived in several council districts in the UK I can say that I've not seen much evidence that any of these things are enforced particularly well.
FTA
Mr Pickles said: "Concerns about the DVLA database have been voiced for several years, but it is remarkable that in just three years nearly half the country's councils have been suspended from looking at motorists' information.
"One key issue that still has not been resolved is whether someone could be sent to prison for deliberately abusing the databases they have access to and that deterrent is badly needed."
Not inspiring any confidence from me. The article also suggests that councils are using information on the DVLA data in some cases to save money in comparison with accessing the same information from the correct/appropriate sources, and in the worst cases may be selling data to journalists. This makes me trust them less.
I take your point except, having read TFA there is nowhere that says 'Suicide mission'. Just the Slashdot headline. A suicide mission is one where premature and unnatural death is part of the objective. Here the objective is 'live as long as possible and establish a viable colony', quite the opposite of suicide really.
That's why they've 'asked' them to take it down, their request has no legal basis.
Yes, clearly fake, but quite well done nonetheless. Made me smile.
I'm guessing you're trolling, and it looks like you've been modded as such, but just in case you're not, Heinlen wrote that book in '66, 8 years later.
I know people who've spent decades living by a marine biologist and not known that they aren't a limnologist.
Absolutely spot on, should be modded up, not sure whether funny or insightful would be most appropriate.