So admitting wrongdoing, giving credit, and donating the money to a nonprofit is an "Extreme breach of trust"? How do you figure that?
That's all good. The breach of trust was deliberately slipping people a Trojan in order to make private profits without the knowledge of, and at the expense of, their customers. It's theft and owning up to it later doesn't make it OK.
You know that under UK law everyone in London is a terrorist with reduced human rights don't you? This is how they legally justify random searches without even the suspicion of wrongdoing.
So it's option 1 but not 'suspected terrorist', it's 'actual terrorist' because there is no burden of proof.
Police are trained to "shoot to stop", not "shoot to kill."
Well that makes sense. The police just want to stop people and a good proportion of them don't understand that if they shoot people though the chest those people will properly die. I mean you have to spend years in medical school to know that bullets kill people instead of somehow making them stop whatever they are doing but still be basically unharmed.
My point is wait two weeks because the current version of who did what and why could well turn out to be wrong.
Yeah, sure, the reports are probably wrong.
That must be why the two suspects threw bombs at the police and shot at least one cop, because those who are wrongly accused always carry bombs around, just in case, right ?
Your'e a fucking retard, and you need to shut the fuck up. God damn it, I'd bitch-slap you myself if I heard you talking your inane pussy bullshit in person.
My point is that we don't yet know for sure they did throw bombs or shoot at the police, that's just what the first reports claimed. These reports may be right or they may be wrong. They have a history of being true about half the time.
You are clearly one of the masses who reacts first and thinks never, the type who are easily convinced by the real right wing nut-jobs.
The first reports of any incident are always wildly inaccurate yet people are very fast to jump to judgement because of them.
I remember when the brave UK police only just caught a dangerous terrorist who was running though the London metro system with the clear intention of detonating a backpack bomb in there. Two weeks later the story was the about an innocent man on his way to work who was held down and shot 7 times in the head by the police without even being given a warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
My point is wait two weeks because the current version of who did what and why could well turn out to be wrong.
Actually it is possible to defend against most zero day exploits. Good design prevents most of them happening in the first place and security in layers reduces the risk if they do exist. Firewalling windows machines as much as possible is essential if you need to use these things. And use a real firewall not the windows software nonsense.
I use Kaspersky on some systems and it works well. Give that one a try. I think they do free trials.
What I don't get is why companies in this day and age have 80% of their servers running windows when there are cheaper, better performing, safer, and stabler alternatives available. Either these companies have money to burn and are addicted to risk or they are ignorant of the alternatives.
I get that some companies need active directory and exchange but all the 'real' business apps run on some kind of Unix.
Are fast cars an environmental problem? People don't need them, ban them. Is gaming an environmental problem? People don't need to do that, ban it. Is eating meat an environmental problem? People don't need that either, ban it. Is central heating an environmental problem? People can be cold, ban it. Is any food stuff that isn't produced locally an environmental problem? Ban all of that too. And flying is bad for the environment. Ban that as well. Actually ban everything and make the whole world one big North Korea.
Stuff your stupid story and go moan to VISA, Mastercard, or even beloved Google about their power usage.
Slashdot Mirror
So admitting wrongdoing, giving credit, and donating the money to a nonprofit is an "Extreme breach of trust"?
How do you figure that?
That's all good. The breach of trust was deliberately slipping people a Trojan in order to make private profits without the knowledge of, and at the expense of, their customers. It's theft and owning up to it later doesn't make it OK.
And this guy still has his job? The police brass et all?
Police are not recruited for their scientific knowledge and the average education level in Kenya is likely lower than in the western world.
That bunker and the name 'cyberbunker' are just marketing. He doesn't actually have any presence in that bunker and hasn't for years.
The guy is a lying con-man as well as a DDOS scumbag.
Or are they gonna go Dutch?
The sentence will be stoning to death.
Actually the Dutch criminal justice system is known to hand out very light sentences. Hopefully they will make an exception here.
Yeah I know you were trying to pun on 'stoned'.
Improve your setup. The only machines on my network that can send anything out to port 25 on the internet are dedicated mailers.
Fuck you.
The Internet needs organizations like CyberBunker.
...Like it needs another hole in the head.
Aren't corporations moral entities upholding personal responsibility?
They are only interested in Profit and nothing else. The famous example being IBM during WW2.
Blair was a christian nut-job war-criminal who branded himself as socialist in order to get voted in.
The real problem is that no-one is undoing the damage he did.
You know that under UK law everyone in London is a terrorist with reduced human rights don't you? This is how they legally justify random searches without even the suspicion of wrongdoing.
So it's option 1 but not 'suspected terrorist', it's 'actual terrorist' because there is no burden of proof.
You are correct but incomplete. It's in the interest of no government to reduce government power.
Politicians are sociopathic lairs, if you must choose one judge them on their past actions not their words.
When I look at the definition of terrorists and then at my government I really dont see much difference these days.
Terrorists, and I mean real ones who kill people, commit one act then hide.
Governments work day and night eroding the freedoms of people, stealing from them, and making them afraid of each other so they are easier to control.
Police are trained to "shoot to stop", not "shoot to kill."
Well that makes sense. The police just want to stop people and a good proportion of them don't understand that if they shoot people though the chest those people will properly die. I mean you have to spend years in medical school to know that bullets kill people instead of somehow making them stop whatever they are doing but still be basically unharmed.
My point is wait two weeks because the current version of who did what and why could well turn out to be wrong.
Yeah, sure, the reports are probably wrong.
That must be why the two suspects threw bombs at the police and shot
at least one cop, because those who are wrongly accused always carry
bombs around, just in case, right ?
Your'e a fucking retard, and you need to shut the fuck up. God damn it,
I'd bitch-slap you myself if I heard you talking your inane pussy bullshit
in person.
My point is that we don't yet know for sure they did throw bombs or shoot at the police, that's just what the first reports claimed. These reports may be right or they may be wrong. They have a history of being true about half the time.
You are clearly one of the masses who reacts first and thinks never, the type who are easily convinced by the real right wing nut-jobs.
tunein
They use analog radio? I thought this was 2013.
when a bombing suspect (who has been throwing grenade-like devices at you as you chase him) starts charging at you, you shoot to kill.
The police normally start shooting to kill a long time before it gets to that stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2013
The first reports of any incident are always wildly inaccurate yet people are very fast to jump to judgement because of them.
I remember when the brave UK police only just caught a dangerous terrorist who was running though the London metro system with the clear intention of detonating a backpack bomb in there. Two weeks later the story was the about an innocent man on his way to work who was held down and shot 7 times in the head by the police without even being given a warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
My point is wait two weeks because the current version of who did what and why could well turn out to be wrong.
Why was their bank account closed? Did they break some law or did the bank just take offense to them?
What's is the story here?
It's wrong because it assumes everything is good unless it's on the AV naughty list, hence the panic to distribute new naughty lists so quickly.
The whole anti-virus and anti-malware thing is a product of an OS that is incorrectly designed.
Actually it is possible to defend against most zero day exploits. Good design prevents most of them happening in the first place and security in layers reduces the risk if they do exist. Firewalling windows machines as much as possible is essential if you need to use these things. And use a real firewall not the windows software nonsense.
I use Kaspersky on some systems and it works well. Give that one a try. I think they do free trials.
What I don't get is why companies in this day and age have 80% of their servers running windows when there are cheaper, better performing, safer, and stabler alternatives available. Either these companies have money to burn and are addicted to risk or they are ignorant of the alternatives.
I get that some companies need active directory and exchange but all the 'real' business apps run on some kind of Unix.
The clue is in the name.
I work for Euro and convert to GBP, I have done for years. The values of both of these 'float'.
I'm guessing they didn't stop 911 calls in Boston, just all other calls.
That really sucks for someone trying to call their loved one to check they are OK.
Avalon ASICs are out.
Are fast cars an environmental problem? People don't need them, ban them.
Is gaming an environmental problem? People don't need to do that, ban it.
Is eating meat an environmental problem? People don't need that either, ban it.
Is central heating an environmental problem? People can be cold, ban it.
Is any food stuff that isn't produced locally an environmental problem? Ban all of that too.
And flying is bad for the environment. Ban that as well.
Actually ban everything and make the whole world one big North Korea.
Stuff your stupid story and go moan to VISA, Mastercard, or even beloved Google about their power usage.