This sentiment is reflected among the security professionals that I know. They believe that most cyber threat intelligence is bunk, and often ridicule it their spare time.
That's because, by itself, community threat intel is nothing more than "stuff some other guy saw". On the other hand, when woven into a well-tuned correlation engine, along with all the local input, community threat intel can be a very powerful tool.
There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time.
Maybe it will make you feel better to know then, that if Thomas loses this case, there will be one fewer lawyers in DC. This is a trial for disbarment, not a criminal trial.
Only in deepest Dumbfuckistan would some drooling dittohead twist things this way. This guy is a hero. What is being done to him is criminal, not his brave actions to expose our government's crimes.
You can certainly get an AR for well under $1,000. However, decent optics can cost about as much as the rifle. Rifles are only useful if you can actually hit the target. So, that is at least $1,500. You can also customize the AR platform with all sorts of "tacticool" goodies (lights, lasers, handles, etc.). Such upgrades also cost a premium. Still, $3,000 seems like too much for most people, but I am sure that you could spend $3,000 if you really wanted to.
My dad once told me, "When your clubs are what's keeping you from a lower handicap, it's time to spend more money on them." He also insisted that I learn wing-shooting with a single-shot.410. My golf game still won't be helped much by new clubs, but I'm pretty damned sure that I can get more out of an off-the-rack piece than most of the wannabe's will with their $3000 AR's. It has always amazed me, tools like that, who look like they should be trusted with anything more lethal that a pointed stick, walking around gun shows, or at the range, with arms you just know will be, well... let's just say it, wasted.
If you want to have a standard for 25 MBs internet, call it "4K TV speed" or something, but don't pretend that suddenly the definition of broadband has changed and thus overnight there are 3 times as many people "without broadband" as there were the day before, even though their access speeds didn't change.
Fine, so stipulated, but TFA is about the telecom lobby buying influence from a handful of powerful elected representatives. Tell us how you'd fix that with your new definition.
I believe that we can agree that freedom is good. Right? You're free to riddle your site with shit that makes the user experience miserable, even dangerous. You own the web site, after all. By the same token, I am free to configure my software to behave as I see fit. If I want to configure it to make my visit to your web site suck less, it's my right. After all, I own that software, not you. One would think that an intelligent man like yourself would get that and, moreover, understand the motivation to pursue technologies like ad blockers and do a little soul-searching about how you're doing things. But that's not what's happening. Instead, you're lashing out at people and organizations that are solving the problems you created. Wake TFU, m'kay?
What right is being denied? The last time I looked the "Bill of Rights" didn't have anything in it about medical care, or marriage, or many other things.
Typical response from yet another drooling ditto-head who does not understand The Constitution. Sigh...
Here it is again.
We are all guaranteed, by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, equal protection under the law. If you choose to treat one class of your fellow citizens differently, you don't get to justify it by citing passages out of some book of mythology that you have chosen to consider "the word of god". We are a nation of laws, secular laws, the fundamental principle of which is that we are all equal. If you want to consider same sex marriage as a mortal sin, fine. Don't marry someone of the same sex as you. No one is stopping you. But when you pretend that "religious liberty" entitles you to deny to one group the same treatment you reserve for others, you have demonstrated a fundamental inability to grasp what The Constitution is about.
Based on your comments, like most people, you believe that in order for citizens to have a right,
[citation needed]
I won't dispute that there are a lot of folks who don't understand The Constitution. One need only listen to the religious right, as they spew about their "right" to force their beliefs on others, for a short time to be clear on that. But can we stop with the unsupported blanket "most people" bullshit?
Take what's happening in Europe right now. We see an influx of young men, many of them clearly with violence and rape on their minds (as we've seen in Cologne, Paris, and other cities), entering Europe illegally. Yet despite this being a form of an invasion by hostile foreign invaders.
Hyperbole much? Again, suggesting that the entire group is "hostile foreign invaders" is just so much bullshit. Nevertheless, shitheads like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are flogging that notion for all it's worth. The result is predictable. Gullible right-wing tools lap it up. Anyone capable of, and willing to, apply even a modicum of dispassionate analysis to such bait can see that. Why can't you?
Clearly, you haven't understood what the previous poster is saying, because you have doubled-down on the "name-calling and false accusations" with your follow up: "His understanding is superficial. He isn't smart enough to grasp concepts. He belongs to [political label] and is therefore not worthy of debate."
If, as you suggest, his ideas are intellectually unsound, then it ought to be trivial for you to offer a rebuttal of some substance.
I guess you missed the part where I pointed out exactly what his intellectual shortcomings were.
It's highly amusing to see SocJus'ers prove what the GP is saying through their responses here. The GP made an in-depth, intelligent, rational comment.
The fuck he did. What he made was a superficial, over-simplified, doesn't really understand what the fuck is going on in the world comment that is typical of right-wingers. Is it any wonder that they howl and wag their tails every time Trump blows the whistle?
And by the way (if you bother to look) you'll find my response to GP, pointing out his complete inability to grasp even the most subtle nuance in these important social issues. That pretty much makes him standard issue "right wing idiot".
Take what's happening in Europe right now. We see an influx of young men, many of them clearly with violence and rape on their minds (as we've seen in Cologne, Paris, and other cities), entering Europe illegally. Yet despite this being a form of an invasion by hostile foreign invaders, we never see it described as such in the media. Instead, they try to sugarcoat the reality by using terms like "migrants" or "refugees", because not doing so would result in these media outlets getting attacked by the "social justice" crowd.
Oversimplify much? I mean, I get it, nuance is pretty much beyond you, but jeezuz... Do you really have only a brush that paints entire groups of people with the color you chose? You don't consider it even remotely possible that the vast majority of Syrian refugees a fleeing for their fucking lives?
Let's be clear, Middle Eastern culture, in general, has a long way to go when it comes to gender issues. In that culture, unescorted women are fair game for just about anything. In Germany, such an attitude is unacceptable and is, IMO, grounds for tossing their ignorant, mysoginistic asses back on a boat. But to suggest that every single immigrant is possessed of such attitudes and incapable of change is absurd.
We see it happening in America, too. Lately there have been a small number of cases of black youth violently attacking police officers, typically after being confronted for some crime these youth had committed, and then the police officers do the only reasonable thing and defend themselves using their guns. Not wanting to be falsely accused of being "racist" by the "social justice" supporters
Generalize much? After a career in emergency services that spanned three decades, I probably have more respect and sympathy for law enforcement than most, and I will be the first to say that pointing a gun, even a convincing replica, at a cop is a good way to get yourself shot. Race has nothing to do with that. On the other hand, the video footage in some of these cases makes it pretty fucking clear that there are some bad cops out there.
Yea, but only government can take EVERYTHING you have away and give it to someone else, evil corporations cannot do that alone.
Incorrect. Any suitably empowered thug can take everything away. In the U.S. we have been empowering corporate thugs by allowing them to buy influence withing the the government.
The term "data center" has a fairly specific meaning. If the TFA used that term in referring to all the gee-whiz things that one might want in their cars technology suite, the author should have his tech reporter credentials revoked.
...that the set "conservatives" has a relatively small intersection with the set "smart people". How else does one explain the fact that anyone who knows anything at all about encryption and information security (almost exclusively "smart people") knows that back doors such as those being proposed are a colossally bad idea?
Not a hack, per se -- but to do tubes and wrench on 'em yourself pretty much means you're a hacker.
Beat me to it. I built a GainClone amp a few years back, and while it was impressive, something was missing. On the pure hunch that the single ended triode (SET) zealots were actually onto something, I decided to build a Tubelab SSE. Best thing I have ever built, bar none. The side-by-side comparison with my chip amp was astounding, even with the cheap Chinese 6L6VG tubes I used while shaking down the new build. The typical SET tube amp is not the best fit for ballz-to-the-wall rock or full symphony material, but Steely Dan, Diana Krall, Nora Jones, or Cowboy Junkies? Yeah, way worth the time.
Why? It's cool to insult him, but better to give reasons. Insults without reasons are a waste of a post.
Point taken.
Hey, Rubio! I am not, even the least little bit, so scared of "teh terrorists" that I am willing to let you and the rest of our government take away my right to privacy. No. Shut up and listen. I am not scared. If I am, the terrorists win. If you assume I am, the terrorists win. If you're just using the terrorists as an excuse to grab power for your corporate masters, the corporations win. In no case is this good for me, so start acting like the elected official you claim that you want to be and represent the interests of the people or get the fuck off the stage.
Who here is shocked that a government agency whose job it is to FUCKING BREAK CRYPTOGRAPHY would target products that people actually use for cryptography?
This isn't news. This is stating that water is wet with a clickbait conspiracy spin to sucker in the usual crowd.
Imbecile much? Fer crisake, dude, assuming that it was the NSA, breaking the products that the good guys use (by inserting a backdoor that renders the product's "security" features questionable at best) makes no fucking sense at all. In other words, such an action is well outside the NSA's mission and is, arguably, counterproductive WRT that mission.
That's completely unreasonable. I, on the other hand, simply want what I paid for and which the vendor agreed to deliver. Yes, if the actual agreement included dodge's like "...binge away..." with "...at a max of 1.5 Mbps..." in fine print buried 200 lines into the ToS, it's on me. The problem is that telecom is anything but a free market and I can't force any carrier to do anything with my actions. Therefore, regulation is in order.
But it's the firewall that comes w/ NAT that does the defending -
Ideally, yes, but the sad fact is that configuring a basic stateful firewall is not the same as configuring NAT. Again, lots of hardware that has the capability to do firewall chores, but doesn't.
What? If you want the same 'security' as NAT, can't you just set the firewall to reject all incoming connections?
Yes, but we all know that there is a metric shitload of routers out there that have nothing but NAT defending their "internal" networks. Turn on IPV6 and those internal networks are simply open to the world.
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't go there, but the scope of "doing it right" is almost immeasurable. IMO, it is that which is the single largest barrier to widespread adoption of IPV6.
What money does Oracle stand to make out of doing anything here? none.
Will it impress business clients or get them new deals by helping these people? nope
Oracle has no social conscience.
But then again, Oracle is a business, not a person, and a business can't have a social conscience any more than a rock can.
Nor should it. Seriously. If the corporation doesn't do everything it can to increase value for it's shareholders it is arguably in breach of it's duty to said shareholders. That goal is the single definition of "do the right thing" to a corporation. If we have a different definition of "the right thing", and most of us do, then it is our responsibility to petition the government that makes the laws regulating corporations to regulate said corporations such that their behavior might be better aligned with our definition. Oh, and good luck with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Something is flammable if it can burn easily.
Something is inflammable if it can ignite easily.
Obviously lots of materials are both but they are different meanings.
[citation needed] Just sayin'...
This sentiment is reflected among the security professionals that I know. They believe that most cyber threat intelligence is bunk, and often ridicule it their spare time.
That's because, by itself, community threat intel is nothing more than "stuff some other guy saw". On the other hand, when woven into a well-tuned correlation engine, along with all the local input, community threat intel can be a very powerful tool.
There are too many laws, lawyers and it all takes way too much time.
Maybe it will make you feel better to know then, that if Thomas loses this case, there will be one fewer lawyers in DC. This is a trial for disbarment, not a criminal trial.
Only in deepest Dumbfuckistan would some drooling dittohead twist things this way. This guy is a hero. What is being done to him is criminal, not his brave actions to expose our government's crimes.
...the live video of pieces hitting the water, and then all live feeds being abruptly cut off? And then never seeing that impact footage again?
Whereas a mediocre shot with a government issue American rifle can consistently split your hair at 200 yards.
We must have different definitions of "mediocre". Most of those I'd paste with that label can't keep it on the paper at 200.
You can certainly get an AR for well under $1,000. However, decent optics can cost about as much as the rifle. Rifles are only useful if you can actually hit the target. So, that is at least $1,500. You can also customize the AR platform with all sorts of "tacticool" goodies (lights, lasers, handles, etc.). Such upgrades also cost a premium. Still, $3,000 seems like too much for most people, but I am sure that you could spend $3,000 if you really wanted to.
My dad once told me, "When your clubs are what's keeping you from a lower handicap, it's time to spend more money on them." He also insisted that I learn wing-shooting with a single-shot .410. My golf game still won't be helped much by new clubs, but I'm pretty damned sure that I can get more out of an off-the-rack piece than most of the wannabe's will with their $3000 AR's. It has always amazed me, tools like that, who look like they should be trusted with anything more lethal that a pointed stick, walking around gun shows, or at the range, with arms you just know will be, well... let's just say it, wasted.
"Great Scot!"
If you want to have a standard for 25 MBs internet, call it "4K TV speed" or something, but don't pretend that suddenly the definition of broadband has changed and thus overnight there are 3 times as many people "without broadband" as there were the day before, even though their access speeds didn't change.
Fine, so stipulated, but TFA is about the telecom lobby buying influence from a handful of powerful elected representatives. Tell us how you'd fix that with your new definition.
I believe that we can agree that freedom is good. Right? You're free to riddle your site with shit that makes the user experience miserable, even dangerous. You own the web site, after all. By the same token, I am free to configure my software to behave as I see fit. If I want to configure it to make my visit to your web site suck less, it's my right. After all, I own that software, not you. One would think that an intelligent man like yourself would get that and, moreover, understand the motivation to pursue technologies like ad blockers and do a little soul-searching about how you're doing things. But that's not what's happening. Instead, you're lashing out at people and organizations that are solving the problems you created. Wake TFU, m'kay?
What right is being denied? The last time I looked the "Bill of Rights" didn't have anything in it about medical care, or marriage, or many other things.
Typical response from yet another drooling ditto-head who does not understand The Constitution. Sigh...
Here it is again.
We are all guaranteed, by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, equal protection under the law. If you choose to treat one class of your fellow citizens differently, you don't get to justify it by citing passages out of some book of mythology that you have chosen to consider "the word of god". We are a nation of laws, secular laws, the fundamental principle of which is that we are all equal. If you want to consider same sex marriage as a mortal sin, fine. Don't marry someone of the same sex as you. No one is stopping you. But when you pretend that "religious liberty" entitles you to deny to one group the same treatment you reserve for others, you have demonstrated a fundamental inability to grasp what The Constitution is about.
Based on your comments, like most people, you believe that in order for citizens to have a right,
[citation needed]
I won't dispute that there are a lot of folks who don't understand The Constitution. One need only listen to the religious right, as they spew about their "right" to force their beliefs on others, for a short time to be clear on that. But can we stop with the unsupported blanket "most people" bullshit?
Take what's happening in Europe right now. We see an influx of young men, many of them clearly with violence and rape on their minds (as we've seen in Cologne, Paris, and other cities), entering Europe illegally. Yet despite this being a form of an invasion by hostile foreign invaders.
Hyperbole much? Again, suggesting that the entire group is "hostile foreign invaders" is just so much bullshit. Nevertheless, shitheads like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are flogging that notion for all it's worth. The result is predictable. Gullible right-wing tools lap it up. Anyone capable of, and willing to, apply even a modicum of dispassionate analysis to such bait can see that. Why can't you?
Clearly, you haven't understood what the previous poster is saying, because you have doubled-down on the "name-calling and false accusations" with your follow up: "His understanding is superficial. He isn't smart enough to grasp concepts. He belongs to [political label] and is therefore not worthy of debate."
If, as you suggest, his ideas are intellectually unsound, then it ought to be trivial for you to offer a rebuttal of some substance.
I guess you missed the part where I pointed out exactly what his intellectual shortcomings were.
It's highly amusing to see SocJus'ers prove what the GP is saying through their responses here. The GP made an in-depth, intelligent, rational comment.
The fuck he did. What he made was a superficial, over-simplified, doesn't really understand what the fuck is going on in the world comment that is typical of right-wingers. Is it any wonder that they howl and wag their tails every time Trump blows the whistle?
And by the way (if you bother to look) you'll find my response to GP, pointing out his complete inability to grasp even the most subtle nuance in these important social issues. That pretty much makes him standard issue "right wing idiot".
Take what's happening in Europe right now. We see an influx of young men, many of them clearly with violence and rape on their minds (as we've seen in Cologne, Paris, and other cities), entering Europe illegally. Yet despite this being a form of an invasion by hostile foreign invaders, we never see it described as such in the media. Instead, they try to sugarcoat the reality by using terms like "migrants" or "refugees", because not doing so would result in these media outlets getting attacked by the "social justice" crowd.
Oversimplify much? I mean, I get it, nuance is pretty much beyond you, but jeezuz... Do you really have only a brush that paints entire groups of people with the color you chose? You don't consider it even remotely possible that the vast majority of Syrian refugees a fleeing for their fucking lives?
Let's be clear, Middle Eastern culture, in general, has a long way to go when it comes to gender issues. In that culture, unescorted women are fair game for just about anything. In Germany, such an attitude is unacceptable and is, IMO, grounds for tossing their ignorant, mysoginistic asses back on a boat. But to suggest that every single immigrant is possessed of such attitudes and incapable of change is absurd.
We see it happening in America, too. Lately there have been a small number of cases of black youth violently attacking police officers, typically after being confronted for some crime these youth had committed, and then the police officers do the only reasonable thing and defend themselves using their guns. Not wanting to be falsely accused of being "racist" by the "social justice" supporters
Generalize much? After a career in emergency services that spanned three decades, I probably have more respect and sympathy for law enforcement than most, and I will be the first to say that pointing a gun, even a convincing replica, at a cop is a good way to get yourself shot. Race has nothing to do with that. On the other hand, the video footage in some of these cases makes it pretty fucking clear that there are some bad cops out there.
Yea, but only government can take EVERYTHING you have away and give it to someone else, evil corporations cannot do that alone.
Incorrect. Any suitably empowered thug can take everything away. In the U.S. we have been empowering corporate thugs by allowing them to buy influence withing the the government.
The term "data center" has a fairly specific meaning. If the TFA used that term in referring to all the gee-whiz things that one might want in their cars technology suite, the author should have his tech reporter credentials revoked.
...that the set "conservatives" has a relatively small intersection with the set "smart people". How else does one explain the fact that anyone who knows anything at all about encryption and information security (almost exclusively "smart people") knows that back doors such as those being proposed are a colossally bad idea?
Not a hack, per se -- but to do tubes and wrench on 'em yourself pretty much means you're a hacker.
Beat me to it. I built a GainClone amp a few years back, and while it was impressive, something was missing. On the pure hunch that the single ended triode (SET) zealots were actually onto something, I decided to build a Tubelab SSE. Best thing I have ever built, bar none. The side-by-side comparison with my chip amp was astounding, even with the cheap Chinese 6L6VG tubes I used while shaking down the new build. The typical SET tube amp is not the best fit for ballz-to-the-wall rock or full symphony material, but Steely Dan, Diana Krall, Nora Jones, or Cowboy Junkies? Yeah, way worth the time.
Why? It's cool to insult him, but better to give reasons. Insults without reasons are a waste of a post.
Point taken.
Hey, Rubio! I am not, even the least little bit, so scared of "teh terrorists" that I am willing to let you and the rest of our government take away my right to privacy. No. Shut up and listen. I am not scared. If I am, the terrorists win. If you assume I am, the terrorists win. If you're just using the terrorists as an excuse to grab power for your corporate masters, the corporations win. In no case is this good for me, so start acting like the elected official you claim that you want to be and represent the interests of the people or get the fuck off the stage.
So assume Snowden never existed.
Who here is shocked that a government agency whose job it is to FUCKING BREAK CRYPTOGRAPHY would target products that people actually use for cryptography?
This isn't news. This is stating that water is wet with a clickbait conspiracy spin to sucker in the usual crowd.
Imbecile much? Fer crisake, dude, assuming that it was the NSA, breaking the products that the good guys use (by inserting a backdoor that renders the product's "security" features questionable at best) makes no fucking sense at all. In other words, such an action is well outside the NSA's mission and is, arguably, counterproductive WRT that mission.
Waah. I want unlimited data for FREE!!!
Want! WANT!!! WANT!!!!!
That's completely unreasonable. I, on the other hand, simply want what I paid for and which the vendor agreed to deliver. Yes, if the actual agreement included dodge's like "...binge away..." with "...at a max of 1.5 Mbps..." in fine print buried 200 lines into the ToS, it's on me. The problem is that telecom is anything but a free market and I can't force any carrier to do anything with my actions. Therefore, regulation is in order.
But it's the firewall that comes w/ NAT that does the defending -
Ideally, yes, but the sad fact is that configuring a basic stateful firewall is not the same as configuring NAT. Again, lots of hardware that has the capability to do firewall chores, but doesn't.
What? If you want the same 'security' as NAT, can't you just set the firewall to reject all incoming connections?
Yes, but we all know that there is a metric shitload of routers out there that have nothing but NAT defending their "internal" networks. Turn on IPV6 and those internal networks are simply open to the world.
Now, I am not saying we shouldn't go there, but the scope of "doing it right" is almost immeasurable. IMO, it is that which is the single largest barrier to widespread adoption of IPV6.
What money does Oracle stand to make out of doing anything here? none. Will it impress business clients or get them new deals by helping these people? nope
Oracle has no social conscience.
But then again, Oracle is a business, not a person, and a business can't have a social conscience any more than a rock can.
Nor should it. Seriously. If the corporation doesn't do everything it can to increase value for it's shareholders it is arguably in breach of it's duty to said shareholders. That goal is the single definition of "do the right thing" to a corporation. If we have a different definition of "the right thing", and most of us do, then it is our responsibility to petition the government that makes the laws regulating corporations to regulate said corporations such that their behavior might be better aligned with our definition. Oh, and good luck with that.