Heehee - I wasn't intending to hold you to editorial standards. It was merely the combination of the "hyphen-gate" discussion plus your extra apostrophe that got me.
Is this not why you all like to carry guns about anyway?
See, here's the thing. Please reread my post. I never said I wouldn't go. I just questioned Anonymous's bravado. This is easily my most-replied comment in 8 years of/., and I find it interesting how many people assumed I would capitulate to the terrorists. All I said was I would exercise caution and think hard about the risks before acting.
And as has been said before, the hackers likely have no physical attack vectors. But their puppetmasters might, and that's where the real risk comes from. That, and there are enough unbalanced people who might take up arms and inadvertently or deliberately aid the enemy.
As for the guns, I'm more scared of open-carry zealots* than terrorists. By a wide margin. I know a couple. More than once I've had to hear how open-carry or workplace CCW would have prevented x or y standoff. Sorry, you can't sell that to me. And I don't feel like getting deep in that debate right now. Maybe later.
* I don't oppose gun rights. I just wish there weren't so many people itching to carry everywhere they go. Honestly,/. loves to talk about the need for computer licensing cos users are too dumb on average. Do you think the average American really has what it takes to have a weapon at hand at all times? We get mad at each other over the stupidest things - guns, or merely the threat of a gun, would needlessly escalate things...
Everything they said they were going to release, they've released (iirc). Their access has been as deep as bragged about. No, I don't expect the "keyboard jockeys" of the GOP have physical force projection. But whoever put them up to this (and apparently it *IS* NoKo) just might. Kim Jong Un and his lineage strike me as the sort that bluster all day long, but that will eventually make good on the crazy. I have no idea what his trigger is. If Dennis Rodman *isn't* a trigger then maybe he isn't all that volatile.
Snark aside, I don't think anyone thinks the GOP acted alone. If a nation-state is involved, that nation-state likely has resources it may be willing to deploy in terror attacks. Remember, they don't need to strike 5,200 locations, or as said above, 10%. Half a percent of theatres experiencing a real terror attack on Christmas day wouldn't require a lot of manpower, and would be paralyzing, fear-wise. Which is the point of terror, y'know?
Sorry this is so late - I posted on my way out the door from work and I can't seem to get Slashdot Mobile right.
Anyway, I think some comments above this one addressed it, but just to clarify my personal position: Yes, driving across the street is likely more dangerous than these threats. The actuarial risk for driving x miles in y conditions are fairly well calculated, and pretty much everybody accepts the risk to go about our lives.
But why would I drive across the street to a location with an unmeasuable risk? And given the news this morning that they're now officially linking the Sony hack to NoKo, I'm feelimg more justified in caution.
I never actually said I wouldn't go to see the movie in theatre - I was reacting a bit histrionically to Anonymous's assertion that caution = cowardice or that prudence = terrorist victory.
Earlier replies from people used to living with full-on terrorism have been enlightening, if not a bit inspiring. Still stinks all the way round.
Tomorrow morning, you pick up the paper. A bold headline declares a threat against your local mall. The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats.
As it happens, you have an appointment at that very mall that afternoon. Do you go?
Of course you do, Internet Tough Guy! Because why would a red-blooded American listen to rational cautions and plausible evidence? Can't show fear or "they" win, right?
/sigh
I hate the thought of censorship and paying blackmail as much as the next Slashdotter. But in this case I can't blame anyone for erring on the side of caution. Do *I* think GOP has the ability to pull off such attacks? Probably not. Not at scale. But could they hit one theatre? I'm not willing to take that bet. They've shown they're deep in Sony's business and even if it *isn't* GOP, there's enough crazy in this country to get copycats and sympathizers going if given a push.
Tell me about it... Patch 2.4.5 is supposed to drop late tonight for Final Fantasy 14, and I'm going to be very disappointed if I can't connect and download it. *Zorg* disappointed...
Well, in my case, aren't I already entitled to the unencrypted OTA signals in my home broadcast market? Why should the broadcasters get to say how I process the *over the air* signals they've so graciously provided?
(reposting here cos I can't edit or delete a badly-aimed reply)
Not when it's a thousand antennas for a thousand customers. There wasn't any signal aggregation with Aereo (such that I understood). Each customer had a singular and direct link with an antenna. No different than if the customer put it up there themselves.
Yes, they were trying to beat the system on a technicality, but frankly, they (Aereo) were technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I live in a city of 1 million+, but far enough away from the digital OTA signals that I can't get many channels even with a powered antenna, and I tried two different models. I was looking forward to a service like Aereo to give me access to the signals I'm already entitled to. But for now, I'm stuck with ComCast to get my locals...
Not when it's a thousand antennas for a thousand customers. There wasn't any signal aggregation with Aereo (such that I understood). Each customer had a singular and direct link with an antenna. No different than if the customer put it up there themselves.
Yes, they were trying to beat the system on a technicality, but frankly, they (Aereo) were technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I live in a city of 1 million+, but far enough away from the digital OTA signals that I can't get many channels even with a powered antenna, and I tried two different models. I was looking forward to a service like Aereo to give me access to the signals I'm already entitled to. But for now, I'm stuck with ComCast to get my locals...
He was "essay-izing" the plot of his novella, Sucker Bait, written 5 years earlier. Its entire premise is based on a corps of "Mnemonics" who are trained from birth to seek correlations in data. They do this with the full knowledge that these unexpected connections are what drives progress.
I read the essay yesterday and the first thought I had was, "sounds like that one book of his." God I miss his storytelling...
The problem isn't SnapCHAT's servers, or the client-server model. It's that this app was allowing users to bypass SnapChat's supposed anti-copy protections WHILE ALSO making its own copies.
Please see my reply to Karmashock above, as I don't feel like duplicating the post. But essentially my kids leave the house, we know the outside will influence them, it's all about showing them there are alternative behaviours.
Also, if being able to express one's feelings and having compassion for others and a desire for fairness makes them feminine in your eyes, well, I guess that can't be helped.
I didn't mean to imply control - just that we set a more open example so they know they have a choice. And of course the outside world has its own ideas and will try to influence them. But as it turns out, the two schools my boys go to are pretty neutral. My older son's school is filled with kids (male and female) that are more like us than not. And I'm glad for it.
Something else we give our kids: My wife and I are loving and affectionate to each other in public and private, have been these 20 years. They may know people whose parents are less emotional, or are hostile towards each other. Again, it's all about showing them alternatives so they know there are options.
And I'm not really sure where you were going with the homosexual comment - are you suggesting if I had a gay kid that would be a problem?
The ass-holes are not attacking women because the ass-holes are misogynists
Putting aside 4chan and Gamergate for a moment, do you honestly believe this is true, at least for the gaming and IT communities? Do black men face the same level of harassment from other gamers when they play online or in tournaments? Same for a black IT staffer - does he get the same crap from peers and/or the users he's supporting?
Do you honestly not believe there is a higher than average level of misogyny in either of these groups? I consider myself thankful that I've not endured much harassment online at all, but I know my girl friends have been hit more often than my guy friends. Anecdotal? Yes, sure. But still... It matches so many others' anecdotes. Time for a controlled study?
You toughen up or you're a weakling. The boys will literally call you "a girl" if you complain.
I thank God that my two boys live in a house where we've NEVER told them to toughen up or compared weakness to being a girl.
You realize that's a token indicator of a lot of what's wrong here? That men are seemingly most insulted by being called feminine slurs, and women by calling them feminine slurs. So we have people that intentionally or not reinforce the idea that being female is a problem.
That little tidbit, plus another one that's been passing around social media are so telling to me: (summarized) "When you send a girl out of class / home from school for 'inappropriate' dress you're telling her a dress code or preventing male distraction is more important than her education, and that the boys' distraction-free education is more important than theirs."
My boys are in high school now, but I also have a young daughter. I'm trying to ensure she lives in a world where equality (gender, sexual, marriage, etc.) is a goal if not reality. I want all of my family to live in that world.
Slashdot Mirror
Heehee - I wasn't intending to hold you to editorial standards. It was merely the combination of the "hyphen-gate" discussion plus your extra apostrophe that got me.
And of course /today/ is the day I don't have points... +1, sadly true
All too easy...
Whoops - I missed this and here I am at work, alive again. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
(because I'm swimming in karma and I have a bad case of "don't give a toss" today)
Because Twilight wasn't that bad of a love story + vampire action, if you weren't married to the classic monster manual vampires.
Team Ed by the way.
See, here's the thing. Please reread my post. I never said I wouldn't go. I just questioned Anonymous's bravado. This is easily my most-replied comment in 8 years of /., and I find it interesting how many people assumed I would capitulate to the terrorists. All I said was I would exercise caution and think hard about the risks before acting.
/. loves to talk about the need for computer licensing cos users are too dumb on average. Do you think the average American really has what it takes to have a weapon at hand at all times? We get mad at each other over the stupidest things - guns, or merely the threat of a gun, would needlessly escalate things...
And as has been said before, the hackers likely have no physical attack vectors. But their puppetmasters might, and that's where the real risk comes from. That, and there are enough unbalanced people who might take up arms and inadvertently or deliberately aid the enemy.
As for the guns, I'm more scared of open-carry zealots* than terrorists. By a wide margin. I know a couple. More than once I've had to hear how open-carry or workplace CCW would have prevented x or y standoff. Sorry, you can't sell that to me. And I don't feel like getting deep in that debate right now. Maybe later.
* I don't oppose gun rights. I just wish there weren't so many people itching to carry everywhere they go. Honestly,
Everything they said they were going to release, they've released (iirc). Their access has been as deep as bragged about. No, I don't expect the "keyboard jockeys" of the GOP have physical force projection. But whoever put them up to this (and apparently it *IS* NoKo) just might. Kim Jong Un and his lineage strike me as the sort that bluster all day long, but that will eventually make good on the crazy. I have no idea what his trigger is. If Dennis Rodman *isn't* a trigger then maybe he isn't all that volatile.
Snark aside, I don't think anyone thinks the GOP acted alone. If a nation-state is involved, that nation-state likely has resources it may be willing to deploy in terror attacks. Remember, they don't need to strike 5,200 locations, or as said above, 10%. Half a percent of theatres experiencing a real terror attack on Christmas day wouldn't require a lot of manpower, and would be paralyzing, fear-wise. Which is the point of terror, y'know?
Sorry this is so late - I posted on my way out the door from work and I can't seem to get Slashdot Mobile right.
Anyway, I think some comments above this one addressed it, but just to clarify my personal position: Yes, driving across the street is likely more dangerous than these threats. The actuarial risk for driving x miles in y conditions are fairly well calculated, and pretty much everybody accepts the risk to go about our lives.
But why would I drive across the street to a location with an unmeasuable risk? And given the news this morning that they're now officially linking the Sony hack to NoKo, I'm feelimg more justified in caution.
I never actually said I wouldn't go to see the movie in theatre - I was reacting a bit histrionically to Anonymous's assertion that caution = cowardice or that prudence = terrorist victory.
Earlier replies from people used to living with full-on terrorism have been enlightening, if not a bit inspiring. Still stinks all the way round.
Tomorrow morning, you pick up the paper. A bold headline declares a threat against your local mall. The group behind it isn't well-known but has delivered on recent smaller threats.
/sigh
As it happens, you have an appointment at that very mall that afternoon. Do you go?
Of course you do, Internet Tough Guy! Because why would a red-blooded American listen to rational cautions and plausible evidence? Can't show fear or "they" win, right?
I hate the thought of censorship and paying blackmail as much as the next Slashdotter. But in this case I can't blame anyone for erring on the side of caution. Do *I* think GOP has the ability to pull off such attacks? Probably not. Not at scale. But could they hit one theatre? I'm not willing to take that bet. They've shown they're deep in Sony's business and even if it *isn't* GOP, there's enough crazy in this country to get copycats and sympathizers going if given a push.
And only one of these is a ginger comedian.
Just because I have a miqo'te-like curiosity: What's so awful about it? We're talking about the relaunch right? Not 1.0?
Also, it keeps getting updates because people keep paying the sub fee.
Tell me about it... Patch 2.4.5 is supposed to drop late tonight for Final Fantasy 14, and I'm going to be very disappointed if I can't connect and download it. *Zorg* disappointed...
But, I thought the age of sabot tossing was behind us?
Well, in my case, aren't I already entitled to the unencrypted OTA signals in my home broadcast market? Why should the broadcasters get to say how I process the *over the air* signals they've so graciously provided?
(reposting here cos I can't edit or delete a badly-aimed reply)
Not when it's a thousand antennas for a thousand customers. There wasn't any signal aggregation with Aereo (such that I understood). Each customer had a singular and direct link with an antenna. No different than if the customer put it up there themselves.
Yes, they were trying to beat the system on a technicality, but frankly, they (Aereo) were technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I live in a city of 1 million+, but far enough away from the digital OTA signals that I can't get many channels even with a powered antenna, and I tried two different models. I was looking forward to a service like Aereo to give me access to the signals I'm already entitled to. But for now, I'm stuck with ComCast to get my locals...
Not when it's a thousand antennas for a thousand customers. There wasn't any signal aggregation with Aereo (such that I understood). Each customer had a singular and direct link with an antenna. No different than if the customer put it up there themselves.
Yes, they were trying to beat the system on a technicality, but frankly, they (Aereo) were technically correct. The best kind of correct.
I live in a city of 1 million+, but far enough away from the digital OTA signals that I can't get many channels even with a powered antenna, and I tried two different models. I was looking forward to a service like Aereo to give me access to the signals I'm already entitled to. But for now, I'm stuck with ComCast to get my locals...
Convenient that, as orbit's the best place to nuke from. Or so I've heard...
He was "essay-izing" the plot of his novella, Sucker Bait, written 5 years earlier. Its entire premise is based on a corps of "Mnemonics" who are trained from birth to seek correlations in data. They do this with the full knowledge that these unexpected connections are what drives progress.
I read the essay yesterday and the first thought I had was, "sounds like that one book of his." God I miss his storytelling...
SnapSaved's server != SnapChat's server.
The problem isn't SnapCHAT's servers, or the client-server model. It's that this app was allowing users to bypass SnapChat's supposed anti-copy protections WHILE ALSO making its own copies.
...And the carriers get all fussy when we root our phones so we can do exactly that. CM11 (KK 4.4.4) running very nicely on my S4.
Please see my reply to Karmashock above, as I don't feel like duplicating the post. But essentially my kids leave the house, we know the outside will influence them, it's all about showing them there are alternative behaviours.
Also, if being able to express one's feelings and having compassion for others and a desire for fairness makes them feminine in your eyes, well, I guess that can't be helped.
I didn't mean to imply control - just that we set a more open example so they know they have a choice. And of course the outside world has its own ideas and will try to influence them. But as it turns out, the two schools my boys go to are pretty neutral. My older son's school is filled with kids (male and female) that are more like us than not. And I'm glad for it.
Something else we give our kids: My wife and I are loving and affectionate to each other in public and private, have been these 20 years. They may know people whose parents are less emotional, or are hostile towards each other. Again, it's all about showing them alternatives so they know there are options.
And I'm not really sure where you were going with the homosexual comment - are you suggesting if I had a gay kid that would be a problem?
Mind the fjords!
Putting aside 4chan and Gamergate for a moment, do you honestly believe this is true, at least for the gaming and IT communities? Do black men face the same level of harassment from other gamers when they play online or in tournaments? Same for a black IT staffer - does he get the same crap from peers and/or the users he's supporting?
Do you honestly not believe there is a higher than average level of misogyny in either of these groups? I consider myself thankful that I've not endured much harassment online at all, but I know my girl friends have been hit more often than my guy friends. Anecdotal? Yes, sure. But still... It matches so many others' anecdotes. Time for a controlled study?
I thank God that my two boys live in a house where we've NEVER told them to toughen up or compared weakness to being a girl.
You realize that's a token indicator of a lot of what's wrong here? That men are seemingly most insulted by being called feminine slurs, and women by calling them feminine slurs. So we have people that intentionally or not reinforce the idea that being female is a problem.
That little tidbit, plus another one that's been passing around social media are so telling to me: (summarized) "When you send a girl out of class / home from school for 'inappropriate' dress you're telling her a dress code or preventing male distraction is more important than her education, and that the boys' distraction-free education is more important than theirs."
My boys are in high school now, but I also have a young daughter. I'm trying to ensure she lives in a world where equality (gender, sexual, marriage, etc.) is a goal if not reality. I want all of my family to live in that world.