If they paid him for the info they are guilty. It's like how viewers of child porn are guilty because their demand causes children to be abused for the pix.
Hacking websites of the rich and powerful for the sake of lulz or political protest is one thing - this is anon attacking big money. Being emplyed by the rich and powerful to hack the voicemail of innocent dead teenage girls is a different thing - this is big money attacking anon. The difference is obvious.
This doesn't get around the real business case though. The question for consumers/voters is whether they want their data to be subject to secret transfer to a (vulnerable?) foreign jurisdiction or not. For some classes of data (the important ones) any organisation which can offer you data security without backdoors to foreign powers would have a competitive, or in the public sector, a political advantage.
Sorry I still don't understand what any of this has to do with pravda. It seems like you just repeated that the vulnerabilities in open source software are better known and more publicly documented than the MS stack.
Sorry for my ignorance but where is the pravda quote from? It seems funny associating *NIX with the ruskies.
I wonder if think the main thing the stats prove is that the vulns in Linux server platforms are better understood and publicly documented than those in other platforms because most people use Linux.
Yes, definitely. I can unambiguously state that my organisation is not legally bound to disclose any and all of my data to the US government if asked to do so.
Who wants to bet on whether it will actually be secure, or whether it will go to an American-owned corporation, hence subject to eavesdropping by the US government, and subsequent leaking of details to relevant US industrial interests, such as insurance companies?
I imagine any government or agency that can't afford their own spy satellite might find uses for it. Also, selling the feeds to news agencies when stuff is occurring on a scale that can be captured by the camera. Imagine how much news agencies would have paid to have live zooming grainy video of Osama's compound during the raids, or 9/11 as it happened, kidnap of ships by Somali pirates, airplane crashes. The applications to news gathering are endless, and each clip would be worth a decent amount to the news agencies I would imagine, and would fuel a thirst for massive replication of the facility, and probably increases in resolution (military-permitting). Then there's watching weather events live, live feeds of long distance car races. Add in some post-processing with tracking and such and you can imagine some nice fancy live animations of sporting and news events, timelapse of forests being cut down, crops ripening, buildings being built, floods engulfing land. I think the first poster is right and there will be long queues for access.
I think the problem with the sulphur is that although it deflects the rays, the resulting smog causes respiratory difficulties in humans and the acid rain kills forests and accelerates the release of carbon into the atmosphere. I suspect the problem with kites and dust etc would probably be that to make enough of them to make a difference you would make the warming problem worse through the CO2 produced by generating the energy needed to produce the materials and get them up there. We've all got used to the idea that energy is easy, because we have been burning our way through 100 million years worth of captured sunlight in just a few decades, but there really aren't free lunches to be had. We are turning our climate back into one which favours tropical plants, insects and giant lizards, and away from one which favours mammals, and we need to get used to that idea.
Do these two things really go together? I thought the game was to have an exit strategy so you could get your money out with a decent return as quickly as possible and find something else to invest in. I am not an equity investment form tho.
> Is it spoiled if someone made a checkmark big enough that part of it went through 2 circles? If someone used a smiley face instead of an X or check?
Yes and Yes. If someone is too stupid to pun a X in a box, or too crazy or otherwise motivated to do something other than put an X in a box, their vote should not be counted. It's a pretty foolproof system really.
> Can you tell me, please, what evidence we have - what laws exist, and what records we have - that prove that short of some kind of miraculous intervention, we are doomed based on our current course of action?
The law of evolution, and the fossil record suggest we are headed for doom. In previous mass extinctions the pattern has generally been that creatures with large bodies go extinct, probably due to their fragile life-histories, depending as they do on environmental stability and webs of other creatures for their sustenance. The creatures that survived tended to be the smaller creatures that could subsist on raw materials and other small creatures, or which could hide it out in the sea or under rocks for a millennium or so.
The current mass extinction is already wiping out whole swathes of animals, especially the large ones, and there is no evidence to suggest we will be immune.
"However, I guess consensus is that free speech is a genie you can't put back in the bottle"
Unless you are a country which doesn't trust its citizens so starts banning free speech on the grounds of national security and patriotism.
What's dumb about this? Host your data in China, risk the government spying on you and giving secrets to their friends in industry, risk the government censoring and filtering your access to data arbitrarily, risk your employees being arrested for storing the 'wrong' kinds of data. Or - host your data in the US, ditto. Hosting data in thhe US would be dumb. The third option is just starting to emerge where smart people can see the huge gaping gap in the market - host your data in a country with decent laws. Iceland are making moves in the right direction by setting up the right legal framework for data storage free of government interference.
Slashdot Mirror
Grassroots action on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_246481098711235
Tambien: que?
If they paid him for the info they are guilty. It's like how viewers of child porn are guilty because their demand causes children to be abused for the pix.
Hacking websites of the rich and powerful for the sake of lulz or political protest is one thing - this is anon attacking big money. Being emplyed by the rich and powerful to hack the voicemail of innocent dead teenage girls is a different thing - this is big money attacking anon. The difference is obvious.
Iceland (probably)
This doesn't get around the real business case though. The question for consumers/voters is whether they want their data to be subject to secret transfer to a (vulnerable?) foreign jurisdiction or not. For some classes of data (the important ones) any organisation which can offer you data security without backdoors to foreign powers would have a competitive, or in the public sector, a political advantage.
Sorry I still don't understand what any of this has to do with pravda. It seems like you just repeated that the vulnerabilities in open source software are better known and more publicly documented than the MS stack.
The NHS isn't the government any more if they put the data on the servers of an American contractor, they are just another pipe.
The internet short circuited two jurisdictions causing paradoxical rift in cyberlegalspace.
Trollish pedantry is the woman in the red dress. It reminds us we're human.
I wonder if think the main thing the stats prove is that the vulns in Linux server platforms are better understood and publicly documented than those in other platforms because most people use Linux.
Original article says Google Earth-like resolution though.
Yes, definitely. I can unambiguously state that my organisation is not legally bound to disclose any and all of my data to the US government if asked to do so.
Who wants to bet on whether it will actually be secure, or whether it will go to an American-owned corporation, hence subject to eavesdropping by the US government, and subsequent leaking of details to relevant US industrial interests, such as insurance companies?
I imagine any government or agency that can't afford their own spy satellite might find uses for it. Also, selling the feeds to news agencies when stuff is occurring on a scale that can be captured by the camera. Imagine how much news agencies would have paid to have live zooming grainy video of Osama's compound during the raids, or 9/11 as it happened, kidnap of ships by Somali pirates, airplane crashes. The applications to news gathering are endless, and each clip would be worth a decent amount to the news agencies I would imagine, and would fuel a thirst for massive replication of the facility, and probably increases in resolution (military-permitting). Then there's watching weather events live, live feeds of long distance car races. Add in some post-processing with tracking and such and you can imagine some nice fancy live animations of sporting and news events, timelapse of forests being cut down, crops ripening, buildings being built, floods engulfing land. I think the first poster is right and there will be long queues for access.
I think the problem with the sulphur is that although it deflects the rays, the resulting smog causes respiratory difficulties in humans and the acid rain kills forests and accelerates the release of carbon into the atmosphere. I suspect the problem with kites and dust etc would probably be that to make enough of them to make a difference you would make the warming problem worse through the CO2 produced by generating the energy needed to produce the materials and get them up there. We've all got used to the idea that energy is easy, because we have been burning our way through 100 million years worth of captured sunlight in just a few decades, but there really aren't free lunches to be had. We are turning our climate back into one which favours tropical plants, insects and giant lizards, and away from one which favours mammals, and we need to get used to that idea.
Did I say that you are wrong about this?
All this can ever lead to is 'the list'. You can't see this because it's on 'the bad list'. You can see this because it's on 'the good list'.
The world doesn't divide into good and bad. Period. Making a list derives from wrong-headed thinking and will always end up with the wrong solution.
Do these two things really go together? I thought the game was to have an exit strategy so you could get your money out with a decent return as quickly as possible and find something else to invest in. I am not an equity investment form tho.
> Is it spoiled if someone made a checkmark big enough that part of it went through 2 circles? If someone used a smiley face instead of an X or check? Yes and Yes. If someone is too stupid to pun a X in a box, or too crazy or otherwise motivated to do something other than put an X in a box, their vote should not be counted. It's a pretty foolproof system really.
> Can you tell me, please, what evidence we have - what laws exist, and what records we have - that prove that short of some kind of miraculous intervention, we are doomed based on our current course of action? The law of evolution, and the fossil record suggest we are headed for doom. In previous mass extinctions the pattern has generally been that creatures with large bodies go extinct, probably due to their fragile life-histories, depending as they do on environmental stability and webs of other creatures for their sustenance. The creatures that survived tended to be the smaller creatures that could subsist on raw materials and other small creatures, or which could hide it out in the sea or under rocks for a millennium or so. The current mass extinction is already wiping out whole swathes of animals, especially the large ones, and there is no evidence to suggest we will be immune.
Does anyone really think they won't also secretly develop Bellerophon? Let's hope they do or this could turn out to be a REALLY stupid idea.
https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6502765/antisec01 seems to be nonresponsive as of now.
Sounds just like the Patriot Act.
"However, I guess consensus is that free speech is a genie you can't put back in the bottle" Unless you are a country which doesn't trust its citizens so starts banning free speech on the grounds of national security and patriotism.
What's dumb about this? Host your data in China, risk the government spying on you and giving secrets to their friends in industry, risk the government censoring and filtering your access to data arbitrarily, risk your employees being arrested for storing the 'wrong' kinds of data. Or - host your data in the US, ditto. Hosting data in thhe US would be dumb. The third option is just starting to emerge where smart people can see the huge gaping gap in the market - host your data in a country with decent laws. Iceland are making moves in the right direction by setting up the right legal framework for data storage free of government interference.