> brats who think writing a crappy web page is the same thing as writing a desktop application.
Yeah unlike desktop developers, any decent web developer KNOWS that their code will be attacked all the time, and designs it appropriately. Unlike desktop developers who throw shit on the internet (like Skype) without considering the fact that it's accepting input from unknown sources, including malicious sources.
Oh wait, you were saying that desktop developers who have never had any reason to think about security are better somehow, weren't you?
On the other hand, Rand Paul just killed the worst parts of the Patriot Act. Hopefully it'll stay dead, or at least maimed. I don't know too much about Paul, but I think I'm going to find out more about him, from the most objective and reliable sources I can find.
A dual socket mobo with 16-core AMD CPUs in each socket will probably spank your current Intel system. That's one area AMD excels at, they sell 8 and 12 core CPUs cheap, 16-core if you're serious.
I can certainly see why he runs as a Republican- the current fight is between the libertarian side of the party and the remnants of the Moral Majority faction and the establishment power base. The unfortunate fact is that libertarian party candidates don't get elected to the presidency and the senate, republicans do. He therefore can accomplish a lot more by getting elected as a Republican than he could by losing a Libertarian. President Reagan largely redefined the republican party in his own image, so there's no reason Rand Paul couldn't do the same.
Of course Reagan also developed an alliance with the Moral Majority crowd in order to get elected, and that alliance affected the party platform. Moral Majority officially shut down many years ago and people are fed up with the establishment power base, so the party is ripe to be redefined again.
A single senator can filibuster a bill. Senator Rand Paul said he'd prevent it from passing before the Senate went on break, and he did so. Rand Paul is now saying he'll make sure it isn't passed on Sunday, and there's every reason to think he'll do so again, just like he did before.
I'll be considering him carefully when I choose my presidential vote.
20 Mbps isn't broadband, under the administrations new rules. The subsidies start at 25 Mbps in rural areas and the plan is to require at least 100 Mbps. Can you get 100 Mbps for $20? Probably not, but if you you slacked off in high school, you'll be able to get it and have someone else pay for it now.
> And if broadband allows one in a thousand to take online classes
Let's takea look at your "if". As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month. So about $1,000 per year, per person. You say "if one in a thousand" recipients, so 1,000 recipients at $1,000 per year each is $1 million per year. You think it's a good deal if you spend $1 million per year to encourage one guy to do online classes. Note that doesn't actually pay for the classes, you just hope that with faster internet he might take classes.
Did it occur to you that it would be cheaper to pay full tuition for TEN people who actually worked hard at school, proving that they want to be educated and they'll do the work in college? Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family, whre I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it. Then we hope to save up for our daughter to go to school. No, you wouldn't want us, who work to pay for school, to be able to finish college. Much better that you take my paycheck and use it to pay for someone who doesn't work to stream multiple Netflix shows rather than the one they're watching right now.
Damn you guys are bad at math and logic. Friggin think about the costs and consequences of your decisions omce in a while.
According to half the people here on Slashdot, the solution to any and all problems is to have another federal government department do _something_. Do what? Anything, really, as long as they do _something_. These guys are their great hope, people so dense they mail out live anthrax all over the place. Good luck getting them to solve all of your problems.
> You maximize profit. the amount of tax you pay on profit is irrelevant to the process of maximizing it.
No, I maximize my take-home, also called risk-adjusted net returns. Along with any other values you have such as environmental concerns. Gross profit (what is taxed) doesn't matter. What matters is how much ends up in your pocket. Here are some rough numbers from the choice I actually had to make three years ago. I could either:
A) Continue to run a business with the following numbers: Revenue $200,000 Payroll expense $100,000 Tax and compliance $40,000 Other expense $20,000 Net take-home $40,000
B) I could take a job working for the government with these numbers: Salary $52,0000 Benefits $13,0000 Tax $10,0000 Take-home $55,000
Note that "before-tax gross profit" doesn't appear in the calculations, because it doesn't matter. What matters is how much goes in my pocket after all expenses, including payroll with payroll taxes, direct taxes, compliance cost, everything. You'll note that the number that matters, net take-home, was higher if I laid off my two employees and took a government job. So that's what I did.
You may also note that if the taxes and compliance costs were half as much, the net take-home would have been better by keeping the business open and my employees would still have jobs.
We already know this is designed to be used in dishwashers and other appliances. Google doesn't know what else it'll be used for. It IS kind of silly to pick such a well-known trademark when the POTENTIAL for a possible conflict is so obvious. Brillon, Billo, or Belo wouldn't have the same problem. One of those could be a trademark, but being far less well-known, it would be a much smaller problem.
I recall in the early days when Apple (computer) chose their name, they thought there would be no problem with Apple (records) because they weren't in the music business. Then, iPod suddenly accounted for 90% of their revenue. Oops.
> If you use those on an Arduino (I am) I guess it lacks the juice to do proper encryption?
Arduino can do RSA and others. Good algorithms are generally quite feasible on very small devices, at least for small amounts of data. Which goes to show 32MB is rather high for current IoT devices.
However, there is a $9 board about to be released which has 512MB and runs Linux. So while it's not NECESSARY to have megabytes of RAM in a "thing", it's not all that expensive either. The price per byte keeps going down, so in five years an MCU with 64 MB may cost the same as an MCU with 1MB does today.
Texas republican senator Ted Cruz is leading the fight to do the right thing, to protect our Constitutional rights. Our other senator, John Cornyn, wants to renew the Patriot Act in full. Here is my letter to Cornyn.
As a career security professional, I implore you to reconsider your position regarding the Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act, and the Fourth Amendment.
For twenty years I have worked to keep protect American citizens, interests, and our way of life. Currently, I am employed at TEEX, where I work with our National Emergency Response And Rescue Training Center, assist in homeland security training, and support our role as a founding member of the National Cybersecurity Preparedness Consortium. I do this work in order to protect the American way of life, that we might be the beacon of freedom that founders envisioned. The antithesis of this would be that the United States would be taken over by those who would subjugate the citizens. Our role, sir, is to, protect Americans from not one specific foreign threat, but from any and all who would threaten our Constitutional liberties. Your current position, senator, places you on the wrong side of this fight. Please reconsider whether you wish to be the force fighting against the Constitution, against the fourth amendment, and against the American way of life. We work today, and will work at election time, to realize the vision of American as the brightest beacon of freedom and liberty in the world.
It's too bad that when you have 10+ years of experience and your cover letter mentions that they are already using patches you've sent them over the years, they completely ignore you.
One issue I fixed for them was particularly "entertaining". I sent them a note mentioning a problem. They replied saying basically "yes, we are aware of that problem, but we're not sure how to fix it, so it may take quite a while". A few minutes I replied back with a fixed version of their file, which I was using for our customers. Soon after they released an update with my fix.
So it took me a few minutes to solve a CPanel bug that they couldn't figure out. Then I send them a resume and crickets.
The only code guaranteed to be secure is code you didn't include. If typical code, Windows for example, has one serious bug per 5,000 lines of code, this should have approximately 0 serious bugs.
A large, cylindrical object is falling. You want it to land upright, with the correct end down. Which of these strategies do you choose: a) Attach a parachute to the nose and let basic physics work. b) Try to balance it atop rocket engines firing from the bottom.
The buggy software is not open source. It is proprietary. I'll FTFY, updating your post to reflect that it's proprietary software:
Another day another MASSIVE security problem caused by proprietary software. I cannot wait for this shitty industry of crappy software written by crappy programmers hired by managers focused purely on profit to die the death it so richly deserves. This is going into my yearly talk I give at the local compsci department about why proprietary software should be SHUNNED, not embraced, by up and coming programmers. Not only does it cost us JOBS and INCOME potential, it demonstrably results in WORSE software.
The vulnerable module appears to be proprietary, not open source, so dd-wrt and other open source firmware wouldn't include it.
If you have a router or similar device with a USB port which can be used to share USB printers and webcams, it's vulnerable. Sharing of USB STORAGE is done differently.
I've been doing infosec for 18 years and fully agree. Forcing people to change passwords simply forces them to increment a number at the end or write them down. It also forces you to allow more failures in your brute force detection.
With pass phrases, it's mostly about using LONG ones. Yeah, pass phrases, not passwords. Then make damn sure your not using des hashes or something else that truncates passwords anywhere.
You might find a dictionary helpful for understanding the difference between subjective and objective and the difference between melting and pressure sintering.
The percentage of gold in an alloy is an OBJECTIVE measurement. The beauty of a diamond's color is SUBJECTIVE. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
You might also look up MELTING vs PRESSING. Tungsten powder is NOT melted to make jewelry or other objects. Rather, it's mixed 50/50 with carbon powder, then subjected to extreme pressure in the mold. It holds together the same way a snowball holds together. You don't melt snow to make a snowball, you press it. Tungsten carbide is formed the same way. As you correctly noted, tungsten carbide (which is only half tungsten) can't be scratched, or bent, or cut. (Except diamonds can scratch it.) It's pretty difficult to make things out of a metal that you can't cut, drill, bend, or file. It's used occasionally when extreme hardness is required, but 99.99% of metal objects aren't made from tungsten because most things CAN'T be. Most metal manufacturing requires drilling, or milling, or threading, or bending or... . You can't do any of that stuff with tungsten.
> So enlighten us why not hold diamonds? They are shiney and last forever too.
May people do hold diamonds as investments / stores of value, but diamonds have several subjective properties which effect their value. See color, cut, and clarity. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, it's completely fungible. Not so with diamonds.
Also, if you have an ounce of gold and you sell half, you still have half the value left. If you have a one carat diamond and you cut it in half, you just destroyed much of the value. They aren't as readily divisible. Primarily, though, it's the subjective value factors - one 1 carat diamond might be worth ten times as much as another.
Re tungsten oxide filaments, look up William D. Coolidge. He developed a complicated multi-step process to pound tungsten oxide (tungsten rust) powder into bits of wire. It's not useful for much else, though - notice how easily it breaks. The difference between tungsten metal and tungsten oxide is the same as the difference between iron metal and iron oxide (iron rust). You can make engines, cars, and wrenches from iron. Try making these things from rust.
Also, as anyone who makes things (any things) knows, sharp corners have thin edges, which break, get dinged up and worn down. Chamfering edges and corners makes them last longer. It's also easier to mold, and to make molds - you can use a rotating mill bit rather than hand-chiseling.
> But gold only has value because it's rare and shiny,
Gold has value because it's virtually the only useful metal that doesn't corrode. There are objects made 10,000 years ago that still look pretty much new because they are gold. Steel lasts maybe 1-30 years, depending on the environment. Copper even less. Aluminum corrodes almost instantly, but it's a very thin layer of corrosion at first, so it's okay for many uses.
Tungsten carbide can't be bent, molded, or cut, so it's not particularly useful, though it doesn't corrode.
You're not wrong. Not too much, anyway.:) I may not have made my point clear, though. This is what I'm talking about:
> People create governments and governments create corporations, therefore corporations have what rights we say they have and nothing more.
Because politicians can grant certain privileges to people and corporations, and can take thos privileges away, they are not rights. That's the difference between rights and privileges. By definition, rights are inherent, they can be violated but cannot be revoked. Privileges can be granted or revoked, rights can recognized, violated, or protected, but not granted. They pre-exist.
Corporations, therefore have no rights themselves. PEOPLE may have a right of association, which may mean that the people have a right to come together as Electronic Freedom Foundation Inc. to take cooperative (corporate) action. That's the right of people to work together toward a common cause. The EFF is merely a mechanism the people use to exercise their rights, it can have no rights of it's own.
The decision the court had to make was more difficult than many realize. If you and several like-minded individuals come together, do you lose your first amendment rights? Does a crowd of protesters no longer have rights because they joined a crowd? Do the members of the Occupy organization have a right to print pamphlets? Clearly you disagree with decision. You think that people don't have a right to form Occupy Inc for the purpose of making videos and posting them online. Some people disagree, and reasonable people can disagree on this question.
It seems to me that one side focuses on the logic and the other on the effect, alomg with their feelings about that effect. Some pay attention to exactly what question is being asked "does exercising the right of free association strip you of your right of free speech?" When you look only at the question, one answer is clear - people SHOULD be able to get together and make a video expressing their point of view. Others focus on "a group of people who disagree with me wanted to get together as a recognized group (corporation) and make a video that I don't agree with. This could effect an election in a way I don't like." If you focus on the fact that this organised group of people (corporation) disagrees with you, it's much easier to say they shouldn't be allowed to exercise freedom of speech together, as a group.
Slashdot Mirror
> brats who think writing a crappy web page is the same thing as writing a desktop application.
Yeah unlike desktop developers, any decent web developer KNOWS that their code will be attacked all the time, and designs it appropriately. Unlike desktop developers who throw shit on the internet (like Skype) without considering the fact that it's accepting input from unknown sources, including malicious sources.
Oh wait, you were saying that desktop developers who have never had any reason to think about security are better somehow, weren't you?
On the other hand, Rand Paul just killed the worst parts of the Patriot Act. Hopefully it'll stay dead, or at least maimed. I don't know too much about Paul, but I think I'm going to find out more about him, from the most objective and reliable sources I can find.
A dual socket mobo with 16-core AMD CPUs in each socket will probably spank your current Intel system. That's one area AMD excels at, they sell 8 and 12 core CPUs cheap, 16-core if you're serious.
I can certainly see why he runs as a Republican- the current fight is between the libertarian side of the party and the remnants of the Moral Majority faction and the establishment power base. The unfortunate fact is that libertarian party candidates don't get elected to the presidency and the senate, republicans do. He therefore can accomplish a lot more by getting elected as a Republican than he could by losing a Libertarian. President Reagan largely redefined the republican party in his own image, so there's no reason Rand Paul couldn't do the same.
Of course Reagan also developed an alliance with the Moral Majority crowd in order to get elected, and that alliance affected the party platform. Moral Majority officially shut down many years ago and people are fed up with the establishment power base, so the party is ripe to be redefined again.
A single senator can filibuster a bill. Senator Rand Paul said he'd prevent it from passing before the Senate went on break, and he did so. Rand Paul is now saying he'll make sure it isn't passed on Sunday, and there's every reason to think he'll do so again, just like he did before.
I'll be considering him carefully when I choose my presidential vote.
20 Mbps isn't broadband, under the administrations new rules. The subsidies start at 25 Mbps in rural areas and the plan is to require at least 100 Mbps. Can you get 100 Mbps for $20? Probably not, but if you you slacked off in high school, you'll be able to get it and have someone else pay for it now.
> And if broadband allows one in a thousand to take online classes
Let's takea look at your "if". As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month. So about $1,000 per year, per person. You say "if one in a thousand" recipients, so 1,000 recipients at $1,000 per year each is $1 million per year. You think it's a good deal if you spend $1 million per year to encourage one guy to do online classes. Note that doesn't actually pay for the classes, you just hope that with faster internet he might take classes.
Did it occur to you that it would be cheaper to pay full tuition for TEN people who actually worked hard at school, proving that they want to be educated and they'll do the work in college? Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family, whre I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it. Then we hope to save up for our daughter to go to school. No, you wouldn't want us, who work to pay for school, to be able to finish college. Much better that you take my paycheck and use it to pay for someone who doesn't work to stream multiple Netflix shows rather than the one they're watching right now.
Damn you guys are bad at math and logic. Friggin think about the costs and consequences of your decisions omce in a while.
According to half the people here on Slashdot, the solution to any and all problems is to have another federal government department do _something_. Do what? Anything, really, as long as they do _something_. These guys are their great hope, people so dense they mail out live anthrax all over the place. Good luck getting them to solve all of your problems.
> You maximize profit. the amount of tax you pay on profit is irrelevant to the process of maximizing it.
No, I maximize my take-home, also called risk-adjusted net returns. Along with any other values you have such as environmental concerns. Gross profit (what is taxed) doesn't matter. What matters is how much ends up in your pocket. Here are some rough numbers from the choice I actually had to make three years ago. I could either:
A) Continue to run a business with the following numbers:
Revenue $200,000
Payroll expense $100,000
Tax and compliance $40,000
Other expense $20,000
Net take-home $40,000
B) I could take a job working for the government with these numbers:
Salary $52,0000
Benefits $13,0000
Tax $10,0000
Take-home $55,000
Note that "before-tax gross profit" doesn't appear in the calculations, because it doesn't matter. What matters is how much goes in my pocket after all expenses, including payroll with payroll taxes, direct taxes, compliance cost, everything. You'll note that the number that matters, net take-home, was higher if I laid off my two employees and took a government job. So that's what I did.
You may also note that if the taxes and compliance costs were half as much, the net take-home would have been better by keeping the business open and my employees would still have jobs.
We already know this is designed to be used in dishwashers and other appliances. Google doesn't know what else it'll be used for. It IS kind of silly to pick such a well-known trademark when the POTENTIAL for a possible conflict is so obvious. Brillon, Billo, or Belo wouldn't have the same problem. One of those could be a trademark, but being far less well-known, it would be a much smaller problem.
I recall in the early days when Apple (computer) chose their name, they thought there would be no problem with Apple (records) because they weren't in the music business. Then, iPod suddenly accounted for 90% of their revenue. Oops.
> If you use those on an Arduino (I am) I guess it lacks the juice to do proper encryption?
Arduino can do RSA and others. Good algorithms are generally quite feasible on very small devices, at least for small amounts of data. Which goes to show 32MB is rather high for current IoT devices.
However, there is a $9 board about to be released which has 512MB and runs Linux. So while it's not NECESSARY to have megabytes of RAM in a "thing", it's not all that expensive either. The price per byte keeps going down, so in five years an MCU with 64 MB may cost the same as an MCU with 1MB does today.
Texas republican senator Ted Cruz is leading the fight to do the right thing, to protect our Constitutional rights. Our other senator, John Cornyn, wants to renew the Patriot Act in full. Here is my letter to Cornyn.
As a career security professional, I implore you to reconsider your position regarding the Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act, and the Fourth Amendment.
For twenty years I have worked to keep protect American citizens, interests, and our way of life. Currently, I am employed at TEEX, where I work with our National Emergency Response And Rescue Training Center, assist in homeland security training, and support our role as a founding member of the National Cybersecurity Preparedness Consortium. I do this work in order to protect the American way of life, that we might be the beacon of freedom that founders envisioned. The antithesis of this would be that the United States would be taken over by those who would subjugate the citizens. Our role, sir, is to, protect Americans from not one specific foreign threat, but from any and all who would threaten our Constitutional liberties. Your current position, senator, places you on the wrong side of this fight. Please reconsider whether you wish to be the force fighting against the Constitution, against the fourth amendment, and against the American way of life. We work today, and will work at election time, to realize the vision of American as the brightest beacon of freedom and liberty in the world.
It's too bad that when you have 10+ years of experience and your cover letter mentions that they are already using patches you've sent them over the years, they completely ignore you.
One issue I fixed for them was particularly "entertaining". I sent them a note mentioning a problem. They replied saying basically "yes, we are aware of that problem, but we're not sure how to fix it, so it may take quite a while". A few minutes I replied back with a fixed version of their file, which I was using for our customers. Soon after they released an update with my fix.
So it took me a few minutes to solve a CPanel bug that they couldn't figure out. Then I send them a resume and crickets.
The only code guaranteed to be secure is code you didn't include. If typical code, Windows for example, has one serious bug per 5,000 lines of code, this should have approximately 0 serious bugs.
Had I not already posted in th
Well, we know that a parachute is so simple that George Bush can use it. If their design is even simpler, yet they keep screwing it up ...
There IS a reason they're trying to balance that big rocket from the bottom, but simple isn't it.
The harder brainteaser they SHOULD ask:
A large, cylindrical object is falling. You want it to land upright, with the correct end down. Which of these strategies do you choose:
a) Attach a parachute to the nose and let basic physics work.
b) Try to balance it atop rocket engines firing from the bottom.
The buggy software is not open source. It is proprietary. I'll FTFY, updating your post to reflect that it's proprietary software:
Another day another MASSIVE security problem caused by proprietary software. I cannot wait for this shitty industry of crappy software written by crappy programmers hired by managers focused purely on profit to die the death it so richly deserves. This is going into my yearly talk I give at the local compsci department about why proprietary software should be SHUNNED, not embraced, by up and coming programmers. Not only does it cost us JOBS and INCOME potential, it demonstrably results in WORSE software.
The vulnerable module appears to be proprietary, not open source, so dd-wrt and other open source firmware wouldn't include it.
If you have a router or similar device with a USB port which can be used to share USB printers and webcams, it's vulnerable. Sharing of USB STORAGE is done differently.
I've been doing infosec for 18 years and fully agree. Forcing people to change passwords simply forces them to increment a number at the end or write them down. It also forces you to allow more failures in your brute force detection.
With pass phrases, it's mostly about using LONG ones. Yeah, pass phrases, not passwords. Then make damn sure your not using des hashes or something else that truncates passwords anywhere.
You might find a dictionary helpful for understanding the difference between subjective and objective and the difference between melting and pressure sintering.
The percentage of gold in an alloy is an OBJECTIVE measurement. The beauty of a diamond's color is SUBJECTIVE. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
You might also look up MELTING vs PRESSING. Tungsten powder is NOT melted to make jewelry or other objects. Rather, it's mixed 50/50 with carbon powder, then subjected to extreme pressure in the mold. It holds together the same way a snowball holds together. You don't melt snow to make a snowball, you press it. Tungsten carbide is formed the same way. As you correctly noted, tungsten carbide (which is only half tungsten) can't be scratched, or bent, or cut. (Except diamonds can scratch it.) It's pretty difficult to make things out of a metal that you can't cut, drill, bend, or file. It's used occasionally when extreme hardness is required, but 99.99% of metal objects aren't made from tungsten because most things CAN'T be. Most metal manufacturing requires drilling, or milling, or threading, or bending or ... . You can't do any of that stuff with tungsten.
> So enlighten us why not hold diamonds? They are shiney and last forever too.
May people do hold diamonds as investments / stores of value, but diamonds have several subjective properties which effect their value. See color, cut, and clarity. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, it's completely fungible. Not so with diamonds.
Also, if you have an ounce of gold and you sell half, you still have half the value left. If you have a one carat diamond and you cut it in half, you just destroyed much of the value. They aren't as readily divisible. Primarily, though, it's the subjective value factors - one 1 carat diamond might be worth ten times as much as another.
Re tungsten oxide filaments, look up William D. Coolidge. He developed a complicated multi-step process to pound tungsten oxide (tungsten rust) powder into bits of wire. It's not useful for much else, though - notice how easily it breaks. The difference between tungsten metal and tungsten oxide is the same as the difference between iron metal and iron oxide (iron rust). You can make engines, cars, and wrenches from iron. Try making these things from rust.
Also, as anyone who makes things (any things) knows, sharp corners have thin edges, which break, get dinged up and worn down. Chamfering edges and corners makes them last longer. It's also easier to mold, and to make molds - you can use a rotating mill bit rather than hand-chiseling.
> But gold only has value because it's rare and shiny,
Gold has value because it's virtually the only useful metal that doesn't corrode. There are objects made 10,000 years ago that still look pretty much new because they are gold. Steel lasts maybe 1-30 years, depending on the environment. Copper even less. Aluminum corrodes almost instantly, but it's a very thin layer of corrosion at first, so it's okay for many uses.
Tungsten carbide can't be bent, molded, or cut, so it's not particularly useful, though it doesn't corrode.
You're not wrong. Not too much, anyway. :) I may not have made my point clear, though. This is what I'm talking about:
> People create governments and governments create corporations, therefore corporations have what rights we say they have and nothing more.
Because politicians can grant certain privileges to people and corporations, and can take thos privileges away, they are not rights. That's the difference between rights and privileges. By definition, rights are inherent, they can be violated but cannot be revoked. Privileges can be granted or revoked, rights can recognized, violated, or protected, but not granted. They pre-exist.
Corporations, therefore have no rights themselves. PEOPLE may have a right of association, which may mean that the people have a right to come together as Electronic Freedom Foundation Inc. to take cooperative (corporate) action. That's the right of people to work together toward a common cause. The EFF is merely a mechanism the people use to exercise their rights, it can have no rights of it's own.
The decision the court had to make was more difficult than many realize. If you and several like-minded individuals come together, do you lose your first amendment rights? Does a crowd of protesters no longer have rights because they joined a crowd? Do the members of the Occupy organization have a right to print pamphlets? Clearly you disagree with decision. You think that people don't have a right to form Occupy Inc for the purpose of making videos and posting them online. Some people disagree, and reasonable people can disagree on this question.
It seems to me that one side focuses on the logic and the other on the effect, alomg with their feelings about that effect. Some pay attention to exactly what question is being asked "does exercising the right of free association strip you of your right of free speech?" When you look only at the question, one answer is clear - people SHOULD be able to get together and make a video expressing their point of view. Others focus on "a group of people who disagree with me wanted to get together as a recognized group (corporation) and make a video that I don't agree with. This could effect an election in a way I don't like." If you focus on the fact that this organised group of people (corporation) disagrees with you, it's much easier to say they shouldn't be allowed to exercise freedom of speech together, as a group.