I have reservations about that concept, however. My fear is that the typical "web of trust" is going to evolve exactly like a "web of friends" on facebook, and be subject to the same pitfalls in one sense or another.
It'd seem that neither you nor your friend have the slightest clue about running any non-trivial number of such devices within any actual proximity of each other.
No, you fucktard, GP is begging that the story is about someone sending an email voicing their displeasure. And that is flat out false. The story is about an organized group repeatedly sending as many as they can, in a manual DOS attack. That is not an act of voicing displeasure.
One single excavation means the other thousands of perfect stakeouts where he avoided any damages don't matter?
Regardless, your story is bullshit right on it's face. Sorry Archie, but your co-worker lied to you. Flat out lied. Don't be mad at me for pointing it out, but his story has an irrefutable flaw. If he's digging where they painted?
You might consider installing a carbon monoxide detector near whereyou're sitting. You're actually suggesting that individual people sending a single post card or single e-mail is EXACTLY the same as people in a coordinated group, EACH sending several thousand emails to impede function.
>> and we can't send emails en masse (if the hardware/software can't handle
Nevermind, I see what you did, there! Way to change reality to suit your position.
Yeah... uh, you clearly haven't thought that one through very far, have you.
"If you don't want your car ripped off, don't buy one." "If you don't want to get raped, don't wear anything that isn't burlap."
See the problem?
Or, perhaps you don't.
Another way to look at this......if you're mail bombing some guy and he sues you to stop and tries to have you arrested? It's your fault. If you don't want a problem, don't start one. Simple.
You certainly can, and certainly would sue - since my sending it would would likely take out your infrastructure for several days, and especially when I refuse to stop it. More especially when you discover that my sending it is a coordinated effort with others, and that WE will repeatedly continue to do this, and that WE will actively compete against any mitigation you attempt, and WE know for a fact that the attachment has no value to you, and WE are doing it explicitly for the purpose of pissing you off. And WE will NEVER stop.
You'd not sue for money, however; you'd sue for an order to stop it, likely under the CF&Abuse act, so that if I don't stop, I now have a problem with a pissed off Judge.
You likely missed the part about the union firing up a mass of autodialers to crapflood the phone lines over this same time period, and the email crapflood was simply another facet of this campaign, with the same goal, knowledge, and intent.
Your claims are valid for the context you're imagining. However, that context has nothing to do with this Union's actions.
So, you're saying that I have the right to send you 5TB/sec of crapflood and you are obligated to facilitate it. You're Brilliant.
Good for me though; you need to post your root passwords in a reply below, also you'll need to make sure we have fully unfettered SSH access to everything you've got. After all, you believe that you should have no say in how we use your stuff, and you have no right to say "No". Ever. It's the generic user who decides what is reasonable, NEVER you. And I say full unfettered access to everything you own is reasonable.
I mean if you don't like paying for hardware that anyone BUT you has a say over... well, start renting.
No... your premise demands that the generic public has any rights whatsoever with respect to YOUR hardware. You are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you 50TB of crapflood. In fact, you are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you one single LEGIT byte.
More appropriate would be that If the action of the sender is a reasonable act, you cannot blame the sender.
Deliberate mailbombing is not usually considered reasonable. That mailboxes hit quota is of little merit, other than icing on the "impact" cake. Insert Hitler anecdote as needed.
As one of many who run a mail server, let me be the first to tell you......that I am under no obligation to receive email from you.
Seriously, you think you have any implicit right to dictate how I my hardware is used? Does that mean that I have it for yours?
If you didn't figure it out, the story is not about Grandma Customer sending a "Please Help Me" email, nor is it the equiv of their mail server being slashdotted. The story is about union griefers who are, as a group, knowingly participating in a mail bombing campaign. Every argument you've got goes out the window at that point. None of us have any sympathy for the NewFags dumb enough to get busted for using the LOIC tool, and we shouldn't have any sympathy for these idiots, either. Or, you're saying that I have more rights to your hardware than you do. Pick one.
"...To generate a high volume of calls, . . . [the Union] both hired an auto-dialing service and requested its members..."
You'd think the world would have learned the lesson about investing in Microsoft-only technologies after IE6 and ActiveX. It seems a lot of people are in fact learning disabled.
Yes. Except this week, they're buying Apple products.
This is what consensus gets you: "100 Scientists Against Einstein".
Albert said it best in his rebuttal - "...it would only have taken one"... but we'll never get to hear that one guy, whatever side he's on - the power of consensus is more important to the fanbois than any actual fact. Consensus is an automatic "I WIN" card that they can drop, and it cannot be refuted. It's the penultimate troll tool.
And THAT is why consensus is treated with malice when used as an argument. It means you're likely a troll who cannot actually defend the claims you make.
I'm trying to figure out what retard did NOT see Silverlight as anything but a flash in the pan. These must be the same retards that invested in the future of Microsoft Bob.
Seriously... "base their future"? On what was clearly a pony trick when it was announced, and moreso when released?
That'd actually be good news for Lulzsec, since if any of them DO get convicted... they can simply offer a pair of $1 iTunes gift certificates as restitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it did. Why do you think a Native HTML5 browser had to be created? :)
> This would be nice if this was available to US citizens as well
No need. I can already kick the power cord out of the wall on my own stuff, any time I want.
Not sure. But I do know that "supports" != "has".
I have reservations about that concept, however. My fear is that the typical "web of trust" is going to evolve exactly like a "web of friends" on facebook, and be subject to the same pitfalls in one sense or another.
Introducing... the 2012 Ford LandShark XL! *
* Blue laser package optional
It'd seem that neither you nor your friend have the slightest clue about running any non-trivial number of such devices within any actual proximity of each other.
No, you fucktard, GP is begging that the story is about someone sending an email voicing their displeasure. And that is flat out false. The story is about an organized group repeatedly sending as many as they can, in a manual DOS attack. That is not an act of voicing displeasure.
Talk about moron. L2r.
So to make sure I understand this...
One single excavation means the other thousands of perfect stakeouts where he avoided any damages don't matter?
Regardless, your story is bullshit right on it's face. Sorry Archie, but your co-worker lied to you. Flat out lied. Don't be mad at me for pointing it out, but his story has an irrefutable flaw. If he's digging where they painted?
You might consider installing a carbon monoxide detector near whereyou're sitting. You're actually suggesting that individual people sending a single post card or single e-mail is EXACTLY the same as people in a coordinated group, EACH sending several thousand emails to impede function.
>> and we can't send emails en masse (if the hardware/software can't handle
Nevermind, I see what you did, there! Way to change reality to suit your position.
Yeah... uh, you clearly haven't thought that one through very far, have you.
"If you don't want your car ripped off, don't buy one."
"If you don't want to get raped, don't wear anything that isn't burlap."
See the problem?
Or, perhaps you don't.
Another way to look at this... ...if you're mail bombing some guy and he sues you to stop and tries to have you arrested? It's your fault. If you don't want a problem, don't start one. Simple.
You certainly can, and certainly would sue - since my sending it would would likely take out your infrastructure for several days, and especially when I refuse to stop it. More especially when you discover that my sending it is a coordinated effort with others, and that WE will repeatedly continue to do this, and that WE will actively compete against any mitigation you attempt, and WE know for a fact that the attachment has no value to you, and WE are doing it explicitly for the purpose of pissing you off. And WE will NEVER stop.
You'd not sue for money, however; you'd sue for an order to stop it, likely under the CF&Abuse act, so that if I don't stop, I now have a problem with a pissed off Judge.
You likely missed the part about the union firing up a mass of autodialers to crapflood the phone lines over this same time period, and the email crapflood was simply another facet of this campaign, with the same goal, knowledge, and intent.
Your claims are valid for the context you're imagining. However, that context has nothing to do with this Union's actions.
So, you're saying that I have the right to send you 5TB/sec of crapflood and you are obligated to facilitate it. You're Brilliant.
Good for me though; you need to post your root passwords in a reply below, also you'll need to make sure we have fully unfettered SSH access to everything you've got. After all, you believe that you should have no say in how we use your stuff, and you have no right to say "No". Ever. It's the generic user who decides what is reasonable, NEVER you. And I say full unfettered access to everything you own is reasonable.
I mean if you don't like paying for hardware that anyone BUT you has a say over... well, start renting.
No... your premise demands that the generic public has any rights whatsoever with respect to YOUR hardware. You are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you 50TB of crapflood. In fact, you are under ZERO obligation to facilitate me sending you one single LEGIT byte.
More appropriate would be that If the action of the sender is a reasonable act, you cannot blame the sender.
Deliberate mailbombing is not usually considered reasonable. That mailboxes hit quota is of little merit, other than icing on the "impact" cake. Insert Hitler anecdote as needed.
As one of many who run a mail server, let me be the first to tell you... ...that I am under no obligation to receive email from you.
Seriously, you think you have any implicit right to dictate how I my hardware is used?
Does that mean that I have it for yours?
If you didn't figure it out, the story is not about Grandma Customer sending a "Please Help Me" email, nor is it the equiv of their mail server being slashdotted. The story is about union griefers who are, as a group, knowingly participating in a mail bombing campaign. Every argument you've got goes out the window at that point. None of us have any sympathy for the NewFags dumb enough to get busted for using the LOIC tool, and we shouldn't have any sympathy for these idiots, either. Or, you're saying that I have more rights to your hardware than you do. Pick one.
"...To generate a high volume of calls, . . . [the Union] both hired an auto-dialing service and requested its members..."
The biggest solar flare, and now this? We MUST stop global warming! Teh flares and teh mutant goo will only get worse!
And if we don't stop global warming NOW, those flares will only get worse!
Your theory presumes that they have something we'd want to steal.
You'd think the world would have learned the lesson about investing in Microsoft-only technologies after IE6 and ActiveX. It seems a lot of people are in fact learning disabled.
Yes. Except this week, they're buying Apple products.
So basically, you're saying that anyone from that school is an inept moron who is unqualified to judge anything?
This is what consensus gets you: "100 Scientists Against Einstein".
Albert said it best in his rebuttal - "...it would only have taken one"... but we'll never get to hear that one guy, whatever side he's on - the power of consensus is more important to the fanbois than any actual fact. Consensus is an automatic "I WIN" card that they can drop, and it cannot be refuted. It's the penultimate troll tool.
And THAT is why consensus is treated with malice when used as an argument. It means you're likely a troll who cannot actually defend the claims you make.
...starbridge wants their concept back.
I'm trying to figure out what retard did NOT see Silverlight as anything but a flash in the pan. These must be the same retards that invested in the future of Microsoft Bob.
Seriously... "base their future"? On what was clearly a pony trick when it was announced, and moreso when released?
Also a claim that it's a poser's hoax -
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Jun/88
That'd actually be good news for Lulzsec, since if any of them DO get convicted... they can simply offer a pair of $1 iTunes gift certificates as restitution.
Well, if the perps are ever caught, at least we know they can make up for the compromise by giving Sony a pair of iTunes gift certificates.