It depends on the scope of the engagement... Were mandiant hired to just perform a vulnerability scan? or a more detailed assessment? how limited was their scope? Without knowing exactly what mandiant were hired to do, its impossible to determine if they were incompetent or not.
Windows gets blamed because it's always been marketed as being suitable for those exact kinds of users who are stupid enough to fall for this sort of thing. The fact is, general purpose operating systems are simply not suitable for most users, they are tools for geeks and require specialised knowledge to operate correctly.
So yes, Microsoft get blamed because they have knowingly marketed an unsuitable tool to users who are unqualified to use it.
Stupid people will follow ridiculous and/or dangerous ideologies wether they are discussed openly or in private. But such people will be harder to identify if they are keeping those beliefs a secret.
No, the isis propaganda never hurt anyone. Members of isis have hurt people through various physical actions, but the propaganda itself doesn't hurt anyone.
I have watched and read isis propaganda, it did not make me want to join isis or commit any acts in support of their cause. There is plenty of anti-isis propaganda being promoted by the mainstream media so i felt it was fair to see both sides. Having seen both sides I now have no sympathy for them whatsoever. Had their propaganda been unavailable to me, i would have had to remain skeptical.
Only an idiot is going to blindly believe and follow propaganda without availing themselves of all the facts (ie both sides propaganda as well as any evidence) first.
For many people, the alternative to pirating content is to not have it at all. While we end up reading about it online and seeing adverts or discussions about it but cannot obtain it legally via any means short of flying to another country to buy it.
Making something illegal doesn't stop it happening, it just causes it to happen in secret... Those who are planning or advocating violence will still do so, but will now be harder to keep track of. Meanwhile others will be drawn to these illegal groups out of curiosity.
Educate people, allow everything out in the open and most people will reject dangerous ideologies anyway, and the few who don't will be easy to keep on top of.
There aren't really any changes so much as reconfiguration... A generic kernel needs a complete set of drivers for all the hardware it *might* be installed on, whereas a cloud hypervisor is a fixed target. You can safely remove support for physical devices, and for older processors than those used by the cloud host which results in a smaller better optimized kernel. I've done exactly the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale, as i have 100+ vm images running on the same hypervisor and underlying physical machines.
I don't pirate games (i very rarely play games)... But i do pirate movies and tv shows, and simplicity is the reason there too.
I travel a lot, i can obtain pirate movies and shows wherever i go whereas all the streaming services i've seen will discriminate against me for travelling to a different country. I can download them to my laptop instead of streaming, which means i can let it download over night on a slow connection and watch the following day. Because i can download, i can put the file on my laptop, tablet or phone and watch it when i don't have internet access (eg while flying). Because there's no DRM i can move the files freely between my various devices depending on how/where i want to watch. A single torrent site serves all my needs using a single torrent client, whereas there are multiple streaming services with different content, different rules and different system requirements etc.
If i could pay for an equivalent service i would, but no paid for service offers the features or convenience of torrents.
And where are you living? In many countries $10 is a lot of money, a significant portion of their monthly income. People don't have $4000 computers, they have a computer that might have been worth $4000 10 years ago. Because of the older hardware, they will be playing older games, usually cracked ones.
And how does this fit in with discrimination laws? Isn't refusing to sell in one country but not another a form of racial discrimination? If you sell something, you should sell it under the same terms and at the same cost to anyone who wants it.
If you discriminate against me (by refusing to sell, or by imposing ridiculous terms not imposed on others) then i refuse to pay for your content. If you think i'm unworthy to have your content then i will obtain it by other means simply to spite you.
A football game broadcast by the NFL is a product that they are selling... By rebroadcasting it you are reselling their product.
If you buy an NFL branded football, use it to play a game of football and then film it and distribute the resulting video the NFL won't care because you are only broadcasting someone who is *using* the product.
They also wouldn't care if you broadcast a video of yourself sitting on the couch watching one of their broadcast football matches.
Only if you duplicate their actual product would they care. A video of someone playing a game is different from distributing a copy of the game itself.
They marched on a public street, holding weapons they are legally permitted to possess. If those inside felt threatened then what they needed was the police, not another armed mob.
Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Islamic state are a religious group, and various national military forces are committing acts with intent to destroy them. This fits at least some definitions of "genocide".
There have been monetization efforts from video games for years... There used to be tv gameshows where people would compete playing C64 games against each other, with the gameplay itself being displayed to the viewer intermixed with commentary about their gameplay.
Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast? And the output from a video game involves more than just the game, what about claims by the hardware manufacturer(s) or the provider of the os on which the game runs? A video of someone playing a game shows him making use of not just the game, but also the hardware and other software on which it runs.
In fact, any video is the output from using video production equipment and software, should the producers of this have a claim?
Distributing the output produced while using a product is very different to distributing the product itself.
A bunch of neo nazis wanted to have a rally, they should just have been ignored and it would have ended peacefully with noone outside of the neo nazi community listening or caring about their message. They would have shouted a bit, waved a few swastikas around and then gone home. Instead a large group of anti neo nazis had to go and confront them, causing a conflict and attracting attention. When two wildly opposing groups clash violence often ensues and it's right of trump to condemn both groups.
In british english, "faggot" is a type of meatball... It's "fag" which is a term meaning cigarette. I've never heard any brit refer to a cigarette as a faggot.
Looking on wikipedia also turns up other meanings for the word:
As someone who spends most of my time in a foreign country, if i were to go outside and declare racism against the locals they would laugh at me. If i were to go out and declare racism against other groups or nationalities they would probably voice support for such statements - speech is not really oppressed here so people will frequently use racial terms against me or others, but it's not considered hateful and noone bats an eyelid if you respond in kind.
I don't care what people call me, i don't care if people hate me, to be honest i'd rather someone openly express their hatred for me (irrespective of why they hate me) rather than pretend to be friendly to my face and secretly loathe me.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on the scope of the engagement...
Were mandiant hired to just perform a vulnerability scan? or a more detailed assessment? how limited was their scope?
Without knowing exactly what mandiant were hired to do, its impossible to determine if they were incompetent or not.
Windows gets blamed because it's always been marketed as being suitable for those exact kinds of users who are stupid enough to fall for this sort of thing.
The fact is, general purpose operating systems are simply not suitable for most users, they are tools for geeks and require specialised knowledge to operate correctly.
So yes, Microsoft get blamed because they have knowingly marketed an unsuitable tool to users who are unqualified to use it.
Stupid people will follow ridiculous and/or dangerous ideologies wether they are discussed openly or in private. But such people will be harder to identify if they are keeping those beliefs a secret.
Punishing someone for hatred is only going to make them angry and more hateful.
What's needed is education, not punishment.
No, the isis propaganda never hurt anyone.
Members of isis have hurt people through various physical actions, but the propaganda itself doesn't hurt anyone.
I have watched and read isis propaganda, it did not make me want to join isis or commit any acts in support of their cause. There is plenty of anti-isis propaganda being promoted by the mainstream media so i felt it was fair to see both sides. Having seen both sides I now have no sympathy for them whatsoever.
Had their propaganda been unavailable to me, i would have had to remain skeptical.
Only an idiot is going to blindly believe and follow propaganda without availing themselves of all the facts (ie both sides propaganda as well as any evidence) first.
Well a punishment that just a fine is ineffective against those rich enough that the fine is a trivial amount...
For many people, the alternative to pirating content is to not have it at all.
While we end up reading about it online and seeing adverts or discussions about it but cannot obtain it legally via any means short of flying to another country to buy it.
Making something illegal doesn't stop it happening, it just causes it to happen in secret...
Those who are planning or advocating violence will still do so, but will now be harder to keep track of. Meanwhile others will be drawn to these illegal groups out of curiosity.
Educate people, allow everything out in the open and most people will reject dangerous ideologies anyway, and the few who don't will be easy to keep on top of.
Well, Joe will save money on his electric and spend that money on buying goods like electronics instead, which also happen to have come from china.
And how many other goods are manufactured in china?
There aren't really any changes so much as reconfiguration...
A generic kernel needs a complete set of drivers for all the hardware it *might* be installed on, whereas a cloud hypervisor is a fixed target. You can safely remove support for physical devices, and for older processors than those used by the cloud host which results in a smaller better optimized kernel. I've done exactly the same thing, albeit on a smaller scale, as i have 100+ vm images running on the same hypervisor and underlying physical machines.
I don't pirate games (i very rarely play games)... But i do pirate movies and tv shows, and simplicity is the reason there too.
I travel a lot, i can obtain pirate movies and shows wherever i go whereas all the streaming services i've seen will discriminate against me for travelling to a different country.
I can download them to my laptop instead of streaming, which means i can let it download over night on a slow connection and watch the following day.
Because i can download, i can put the file on my laptop, tablet or phone and watch it when i don't have internet access (eg while flying).
Because there's no DRM i can move the files freely between my various devices depending on how/where i want to watch.
A single torrent site serves all my needs using a single torrent client, whereas there are multiple streaming services with different content, different rules and different system requirements etc.
If i could pay for an equivalent service i would, but no paid for service offers the features or convenience of torrents.
And where are you living?
In many countries $10 is a lot of money, a significant portion of their monthly income.
People don't have $4000 computers, they have a computer that might have been worth $4000 10 years ago.
Because of the older hardware, they will be playing older games, usually cracked ones.
And how does this fit in with discrimination laws? Isn't refusing to sell in one country but not another a form of racial discrimination?
If you sell something, you should sell it under the same terms and at the same cost to anyone who wants it.
If you discriminate against me (by refusing to sell, or by imposing ridiculous terms not imposed on others) then i refuse to pay for your content. If you think i'm unworthy to have your content then i will obtain it by other means simply to spite you.
Cars of 100 years ago were much less comfortable than cars available today.
Some governments and industries require that sites be pentested prior to going live, even the most incompetent of pentesters would catch admin/admin.
Perhaps they were trying to do their customers a favor for once, redirecting them to a site that's likely to be fare more secure than their own.
A football game broadcast by the NFL is a product that they are selling... By rebroadcasting it you are reselling their product.
If you buy an NFL branded football, use it to play a game of football and then film it and distribute the resulting video the NFL won't care because you are only broadcasting someone who is *using* the product.
They also wouldn't care if you broadcast a video of yourself sitting on the couch watching one of their broadcast football matches.
Only if you duplicate their actual product would they care. A video of someone playing a game is different from distributing a copy of the game itself.
They marched on a public street, holding weapons they are legally permitted to possess. If those inside felt threatened then what they needed was the police, not another armed mob.
Article 6 of the Rome Statute provides that "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Islamic state are a religious group, and various national military forces are committing acts with intent to destroy them. This fits at least some definitions of "genocide".
There have been monetization efforts from video games for years...
There used to be tv gameshows where people would compete playing C64 games against each other, with the gameplay itself being displayed to the viewer intermixed with commentary about their gameplay.
Should whoever manufactured the ball claim copyright over a game of football being broadcast?
And the output from a video game involves more than just the game, what about claims by the hardware manufacturer(s) or the provider of the os on which the game runs? A video of someone playing a game shows him making use of not just the game, but also the hardware and other software on which it runs.
In fact, any video is the output from using video production equipment and software, should the producers of this have a claim?
Distributing the output produced while using a product is very different to distributing the product itself.
A bunch of neo nazis wanted to have a rally, they should just have been ignored and it would have ended peacefully with noone outside of the neo nazi community listening or caring about their message. They would have shouted a bit, waved a few swastikas around and then gone home.
Instead a large group of anti neo nazis had to go and confront them, causing a conflict and attracting attention. When two wildly opposing groups clash violence often ensues and it's right of trump to condemn both groups.
In british english, "faggot" is a type of meatball... It's "fag" which is a term meaning cigarette. I've never heard any brit refer to a cigarette as a faggot.
Looking on wikipedia also turns up other meanings for the word:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well said.
As someone who spends most of my time in a foreign country, if i were to go outside and declare racism against the locals they would laugh at me.
If i were to go out and declare racism against other groups or nationalities they would probably voice support for such statements - speech is not really oppressed here so people will frequently use racial terms against me or others, but it's not considered hateful and noone bats an eyelid if you respond in kind.
I don't care what people call me, i don't care if people hate me, to be honest i'd rather someone openly express their hatred for me (irrespective of why they hate me) rather than pretend to be friendly to my face and secretly loathe me.