These organizations have not contributed to the prevention of single terrorist act and exist mainly to monitor people on an arbitrary basis.
Uh-oh. Here is more... Not only is your "insightful" remark unsubstantiated (you failed to prove it), it is also wrong (I 'm proving it wrong). From the article (I highlighted the most important parts for you):
Katz almost single-handedly uncovered a number of funding sources of Islamists. Katz, a Jew born in Iraq who speaks Arabic, infiltrated Islamist organizations disguised as a Muslim woman -- and wearing recording equipment. She passed her findings on to the authorities. There were court cases, and some organizations were banned.And SITE has certainly been successful. There is a reason Katz has a letter of appreciation from FBI Director Robert S. Muller III hanging on the wall in her office. The company's work has also led to arrests abroad, including those of would-be suicide bombers who had left farewell letters in chat rooms that SITE managed to penetrate.
Who pays for this crap?
From the article, again:
Almost every statement by Osama bin Laden published on the Internet, to name only one example, is first made public by SITE and IntelCenter. They find the statements in the confusion of Web sites associated with al-Qaida, and within seconds they have sent the first screen shots to their subscribers. It takes the companies only minutes to summarize bin Laden's speeches and within hours, they will have provided full translations, analysis included.A US magazine was one of their first subscribers. Government agencies in Switzerland and the families of Sept. 11 victims soon followed. SITE was in business.
Today this former non-profit organization has been turned into a business enterprise.
Read the article for more... Why wouldn't you? May you die a thousand death by choking on your anti-Bush bile...
Internet traffic passing through the switching equipment of companies based in the United States has proved a distinct advantage for American intelligence agencies
He, who would rather be helping Russian or Chinese agencies, really ought to sleep in the bed they are making for themselves...
She was a beauty queen in her town (although not in Alaska) and an athlete — the captain of her basketball team. Not that Huffington Post would have anything nice to say about that, of course.
25 years and 5 children later, she is still quite good looking.
Honestly, if you dont know what DAY you're supposed to go vote, you probably should stay home.
That's exactly the why I was not getting worked up over the dumb-asses, who got "disenfranchised" by rain, "confusing" ballots, or could not be bothered to register to vote — despite the increasingly gloomy encouragements, which have gone from "Choose or Lose" of 1990ies to "Vote or Die" of the 2004.
People have died and otherwise suffered for the right to vote, and most of the world's population today is still deprived of it. If one can be dissuaded from voting by a prank, is "too busy", or find the ballot "too confusing" — then their vote really should not be counted.
depending on the number of users you have, how abusive they are [...]
Well depending on how abusive you are, Mordac, you may declare the letter "e" (the most frequently occuring in English) to be the separator — and punish attempts to use it as "abuse" by refusing service or worse.
entirely plausible to use a delimiter that *is* allowed in usernames
Sorry, I was talking about 99.99% of Unix installations out there. I did not account for yours... My post certainly was system-specific (no e-mail system today can afford to be incompatible with Unix), but trying to be "policy-specific" — accounting for all policies out there — is simply impractical for a generic method.
It is the delimiter, originally created as such by the authors of the very first MTA... There is no other character, that:
Can be part of an e-mail address.
Can not be part of a username.
Many web-forms don't accept email addresses with '+' in the username portion. Attempts to educate webmasters to the information in the relevant RFC's is usually met with silence or worse...
This is, unfortunately, the truth... Far too many programmer wannabees around... It is a good fight, however, and kudos to GMail for keeping support for it (unlike Yahoo! Mail).
I use this whenever I can, when giving my address to web-sites (including Slashdot)...
change your ports other than 22, this won't stop a full port scan but good against lamers scanning for port 22.
That's as good an argument as the one, that a heavier car protects their occupants better in case of an accident, and that we should thus all drive SUVs and other heavy vehicles...
Once everyone (or just noticeable number of people) put their sshd on a different port, nmap-style quick scanners will become part of the toolkits and quickly proliferate among "the lamers". Oh, and you'll be forced to remember one more aspect of each machine — not just the hostname, but also the ssh's port-number. It would have to be randomly-assigned, BTW, by the OS installer, would not it?
Talk about temporary security at the cost of essential convenience...
A company like MediaSentry can "investigate" all they want
I'm glad, you acknowledge this right of theirs, because most Slashdotters don't. That's the whole point — they hate MediaSentry and want it "nailed" for investigating without a license, no matter, what that would mean to all of us.
but they have no more credibility than you or I in a court of law
Right, and the jury ought to decide on their credibility, as well as on that of any other "expert" presented by either side. What's being discussed here on-and-off is not the quality of MediaSentry's work, but whether they can legally perform the work — and most, in a rush to spite the hateful **AA, are oblivious to the States' eroding our freedoms by requiring more and more activities to be "licensed".
It can't always be reproduced, even if you do offer to pay royalties.
It can usually be reproduced, as most rights-holders want to be paid, even if some "attach strings".
The copyright holder is allowed to say no.
Which is good. I don't like to be forced to sell anything I own either... Even the government's "eminent domain" right seriously unnerves me, but some bullshit "Rosetta Disk"?.. Please...
I fail to see why someone who isn't the original creator of a work should continue to have the sole use of that work
Oh, that's very simple. Because the original creator transferred their rights to whoever holds them now. The transfer — like with tangible property — can be in exchange for money, through inheritance, a donation, etc.
And if, as seems most likely, you object to the main one of them — for money — well, you've just removed most of the incentive to hire musicians and other artists for recordings. And you haven't solved your original problem anyway, because there are plenty of the beloved original creators, who fight for their property rights themselves, rather than leaving it to **AA.
To me the creators' right to do with the creation as they see fit is self-evidently fair. They ought to remain free to sell it, give it away, burn it — anything. And it ain't any of your business — even if you happened to really like it as a child, or experienced your first orgasm listening to it:
Tully: Think of doubloons, Gordon. Fester: They are not yours, Tully. Back off!
and it seems that various other/.ers agree with me
Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
These words have survived for over thousands of years already (New Testament is 2000, and this quote is from the Old Testament). Chances are very very good, they will be perfectly well known and not least surprising to whoever reads this disk in 4008.
They're going to think we were cuckoo!
To comfort you, dear fellow atheist, the beliefs of ancient Egyptians, for example, were far more bizarre — and attempts at reformation died with its perpetrator (Akhenaten, first known as Amenhotep IV).
And yet nobody today thinks of those guys as "cuckoo" — even though their descendants were regarded as the most superstitious people in the ancient times already (by Greeks and Romans) during and after what's called Ptolemaic period of Egyptian history.
Of course, it can be reproduced. The reproducer just has to pay royalties... What you are saying is like complaining, that we must all die from hunger, because there is no free food.
all because some assholes wanted to collect a check from an animated mouse.
Well, well... If the animated mouse is so insignificant, then why do you need it on this Rosetta Disk? And if it is significant, then why do you call its creator(s) and/or to whomever they transfered the ownership "assholes"?
But it did come down, which means, some resource got drained... Which one? The batteries, which may have been only partially recharging during the day, is one possible explanation....
What's the penalty for this kind of thing, in terms of the company and individuals?
What is it with/., that you all side with the government on the very need for licenses for something like investigation?
We aren't even talking about standing in a rain (with a gun under the coat) next to a suspect's house, chatting up their neighbors, and bribing their butler kind of investigation — every time you perform a whois-query to figure out, which country is hosting the IP-address, that tried to hack into your box, you are performing "an investigation" of the MediaSentry's kind... Do you want to be required to apply for (and periodically renew!) a license to do that? A license, that the Executive Branch will be issuing and be able to withdraw on their own, without bothering with the Judicial?
Regardless of whether you agree with *AA, how do you justify a license-requirement here? It is bad enough, that one can't change plumbing in their own house without obtaining a permit — now I need a license to do traceroute?!
So... Is violating intellectual property laws a bad thing? Or is it only bad, if the property is that of an open-source programmer, but Ok, if it was created by a musician or an actor?
Slashdot Mirror
Uh-oh. Here is more... Not only is your "insightful" remark unsubstantiated (you failed to prove it), it is also wrong (I 'm proving it wrong). From the article (I highlighted the most important parts for you):
Katz almost single-handedly uncovered a number of funding sources of Islamists. Katz, a Jew born in Iraq who speaks Arabic, infiltrated Islamist organizations disguised as a Muslim woman -- and wearing recording equipment. She passed her findings on to the authorities. There were court cases, and some organizations were banned. And SITE has certainly been successful. There is a reason Katz has a letter of appreciation from FBI Director Robert S. Muller III hanging on the wall in her office. The company's work has also led to arrests abroad, including those of would-be suicide bombers who had left farewell letters in chat rooms that SITE managed to penetrate.
From the article, again:
Almost every statement by Osama bin Laden published on the Internet, to name only one example, is first made public by SITE and IntelCenter. They find the statements in the confusion of Web sites associated with al-Qaida, and within seconds they have sent the first screen shots to their subscribers. It takes the companies only minutes to summarize bin Laden's speeches and within hours, they will have provided full translations, analysis included. A US magazine was one of their first subscribers. Government agencies in Switzerland and the families of Sept. 11 victims soon followed. SITE was in business. Today this former non-profit organization has been turned into a business enterprise.
Read the article for more... Why wouldn't you? May you die a thousand death by choking on your anti-Bush bile...
Care to substantiate this (rather bombastic) claim?
Am I the only one, who finds the expression — especially, when used in reference to oneself — rather pretentious?
More so than their Chinese and Russian counterparts, that's for sure. If only because their bosses change every 4-8 years...
He, who would rather be helping Russian or Chinese agencies, really ought to sleep in the bed they are making for themselves...
8 years later, this fine woman will become President. A Republican one... 16 more years, thank you very much.
She was a beauty queen in her town (although not in Alaska) and an athlete — the captain of her basketball team. Not that Huffington Post would have anything nice to say about that, of course.
25 years and 5 children later, she is still quite good looking.
This means like a functionality loss to me — if I've made a mistake, I can't correct it until TTL expires — and I could before the "bug" was fixed...
But what if I really want to change a record, that hasn't expired yet? Will the fix force me to live with the old values until they expire?
Sounds just like something, a "community organizer" would do.
That's exactly the why I was not getting worked up over the dumb-asses, who got "disenfranchised" by rain, "confusing" ballots, or could not be bothered to register to vote — despite the increasingly gloomy encouragements, which have gone from "Choose or Lose" of 1990ies to "Vote or Die" of the 2004.
People have died and otherwise suffered for the right to vote, and most of the world's population today is still deprived of it. If one can be dissuaded from voting by a prank, is "too busy", or find the ballot "too confusing" — then their vote really should not be counted.
Well depending on how abusive you are, Mordac, you may declare the letter "e" (the most frequently occuring in English) to be the separator — and punish attempts to use it as "abuse" by refusing service or worse.
Sorry, I was talking about 99.99% of Unix installations out there. I did not account for yours... My post certainly was system-specific (no e-mail system today can afford to be incompatible with Unix), but trying to be "policy-specific" — accounting for all policies out there — is simply impractical for a generic method.
It is the delimiter, originally created as such by the authors of the very first MTA... There is no other character, that:
This is, unfortunately, the truth... Far too many programmer wannabees around... It is a good fight, however, and kudos to GMail for keeping support for it (unlike Yahoo! Mail).
I use this whenever I can, when giving my address to web-sites (including Slashdot)...
That's as good an argument as the one, that a heavier car protects their occupants better in case of an accident, and that we should thus all drive SUVs and other heavy vehicles...
Once everyone (or just noticeable number of people) put their sshd on a different port, nmap-style quick scanners will become part of the toolkits and quickly proliferate among "the lamers". Oh, and you'll be forced to remember one more aspect of each machine — not just the hostname, but also the ssh's port-number. It would have to be randomly-assigned, BTW, by the OS installer, would not it?
Talk about temporary security at the cost of essential convenience...
I'm glad, you acknowledge this right of theirs, because most Slashdotters don't. That's the whole point — they hate MediaSentry and want it "nailed" for investigating without a license, no matter, what that would mean to all of us.
Right, and the jury ought to decide on their credibility, as well as on that of any other "expert" presented by either side. What's being discussed here on-and-off is not the quality of MediaSentry's work, but whether they can legally perform the work — and most, in a rush to spite the hateful **AA, are oblivious to the States' eroding our freedoms by requiring more and more activities to be "licensed".
Actually, most such people would not even notice...
But yeah, Internet should be free, sure...
It can usually be reproduced, as most rights-holders want to be paid, even if some "attach strings".
Which is good. I don't like to be forced to sell anything I own either... Even the government's "eminent domain" right seriously unnerves me, but some bullshit "Rosetta Disk"?.. Please...
Oh, that's very simple. Because the original creator transferred their rights to whoever holds them now. The transfer — like with tangible property — can be in exchange for money, through inheritance, a donation, etc.
And if, as seems most likely, you object to the main one of them — for money — well, you've just removed most of the incentive to hire musicians and other artists for recordings. And you haven't solved your original problem anyway, because there are plenty of the beloved original creators, who fight for their property rights themselves, rather than leaving it to **AA.
To me the creators' right to do with the creation as they see fit is self-evidently fair. They ought to remain free to sell it, give it away, burn it — anything. And it ain't any of your business — even if you happened to really like it as a child, or experienced your first orgasm listening to it:
That's a rather weak argument, regardless even of whether it is true or not... Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
These words have survived for over thousands of years already (New Testament is 2000, and this quote is from the Old Testament). Chances are very very good, they will be perfectly well known and not least surprising to whoever reads this disk in 4008.
To comfort you, dear fellow atheist, the beliefs of ancient Egyptians, for example, were far more bizarre — and attempts at reformation died with its perpetrator (Akhenaten, first known as Amenhotep IV).
And yet nobody today thinks of those guys as "cuckoo" — even though their descendants were regarded as the most superstitious people in the ancient times already (by Greeks and Romans) during and after what's called Ptolemaic period of Egyptian history.
And don't even get me started on Hinduism!..
Of course, it can be reproduced. The reproducer just has to pay royalties... What you are saying is like complaining, that we must all die from hunger, because there is no free food.
Well, well... If the animated mouse is so insignificant, then why do you need it on this Rosetta Disk? And if it is significant, then why do you call its creator(s) and/or to whomever they transfered the ownership "assholes"?
Yeah, we allowed idiots acess to the internet.
But-but-but... He was just giving people, what they wanted! Should he be praised for that? Napster was... Pirate Bay still is...
So, (usually) does a web-master or a network security person — some of them are "full time employees", some are hired just for the purpose. Oops...
Don't change the subject. Why do they need a license? For reasons of "perhaps"?
But it did come down, which means, some resource got drained... Which one? The batteries, which may have been only partially recharging during the day, is one possible explanation....
What is it with /., that you all side with the government on the very need for licenses for something like investigation?
We aren't even talking about standing in a rain (with a gun under the coat) next to a suspect's house, chatting up their neighbors, and bribing their butler kind of investigation — every time you perform a whois-query to figure out, which country is hosting the IP-address, that tried to hack into your box, you are performing "an investigation" of the MediaSentry's kind... Do you want to be required to apply for (and periodically renew!) a license to do that? A license, that the Executive Branch will be issuing and be able to withdraw on their own, without bothering with the Judicial?
Regardless of whether you agree with *AA, how do you justify a license-requirement here? It is bad enough, that one can't change plumbing in their own house without obtaining a permit — now I need a license to do traceroute?!
So... Is violating intellectual property laws a bad thing? Or is it only bad, if the property is that of an open-source programmer, but Ok, if it was created by a musician or an actor?