If you're surprised that the news isn't fact checking well, then you've not been watching the news for the past decade or so.
I'm not surprised, but does that mean we should just be complacent? News should be based on verifiable facts. When it's not, we -- the viewers -- should call them out on it.
For everyone saying "it's just a show": that's not the problem. Walter O'Brien is using his credibility from his show to promote himself as a real super-genius consultant. He has news programs touting him as the person who solved the Boston marathon bombings. He spent two hours on the radio last night promoting his "concierge" service. It's not just a bad TV show; the guy is perpetrating a real-life fraud.
I just switched jobs, and my new employer asked for my current salary on the application and later verified this information during the background check.
Because the staff and management are contractors, not Fed employees, LLNL is not shut down. The Lab will begin shutting down next week (assuming the budget boondoggle continues), but until now has been fully staffed with the exception of a very small number of people directly employed by DOE.
There are a lot of us who support both the ACLU and pro-2A organizations. I'm not a fan of the NRA specifically, but I support several gun-rights groups (including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation) as well as the ACLU and EFF.
Google searches can be made over SSL. You could also tunnel to your home proxy server.
Unfortunately, a lot of employers perform MITM attacks to defeat SSL. I know my employer does. This creates a significant security risk, not the least because it trains employees to ignore certificate errors, but it's increasingly common.
You really have no idea how bullets work, do you? The metal casings are for the bullets, not the guns. If you attempt to make a bullet with a plastic casing (you can't buy them), it will fail on the first shot. Not the second shot, not the third, the first. If you use plastic casings on a bullet, it will explode and you will fail. No debate.
Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too
on
DoD Descends On DEFCAD
·
· Score: 3, Informative
It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.
He didn't "break in". He sent requests to a publicly-accessible web server, and AT&T sent back private information.
Like sending "requests" to a publicly-accessible ATM using cards with other people's information on them, and then taking the money the bank "willingly" gives you.
Yeah, I totally see the difference between that and "breaking in" to an ATM.
No, that would be like to trying to impersonate people by guessing their passwords. In Weev's case, there was no authentication to circumvent.
Isn't a key element of the legal case that he also retransmitted the private information? He did not merely receive it.
From the court filing, it appears both charges are predicated on the notion that sending GET requests to an unprotected, publicly-accessible web server constitute unauthorized access under Title 18, Section 1030(a)(2)(C).
If a bank didn't have a door on it's vault, or any forms of security whatsoever, would you walk in and take out all the money? Even if you proceeded directly to the local police department to report the security flaw and deliver the unguarded money, you'd find yourself in quite a bit of trouble.
Here's a better analogy: you send the bank self-addressed stamped envelopes, and they willingly send private information about their clients back to you in those envelopes.
Nearly everything Weev does is malicious, but the question is: is it (or should it be) illegal? He was convicted of identity fraud and "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization". Think about that: requesting unprotected publicly-accessible webpages is "access[ing]" a computer without authorization". By that standard, anyone who uses the internet could be convicted of a crime.
He didn't "break in". He sent requests to a publicly-accessible web server, and AT&T sent back private information. This wasn't hacking, or even a DOS attack. AT&T is at fault here.
From the article, the device is $2. BUT...they don't include the "coin battery" that it runs on...I'm guessing a 2032 or 2025, which will cost close to as much as the rest of the device. I do wonder how they get the cost of the unit that low, though...
Sure, if you're buying them one-at-a-time at Target, but you can get 50 CR2032 batteries for $10 on Amazon. Buying in bulk, they'd be even cheaper. (I go through a lot of button batteries, mostly LR44s, keeping my kids' toys running.)
I don't currently make it to the range weekly (family, job, etc.), but I would if I could. At a typical range visit, I'll typically go through 2-300 rounds of.22 and about 100 rounds of 9mm (and that's if I'm shooting alone!). For economy (shipping in particular), I buy reloaded 9mm cartridges by the case (1000 rounds), and I usually buy 10 bricks (5250 rounds) at a time of.22. So I routinely have >6000 rounds stored, and that's purely for target shooting.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're surprised that the news isn't fact checking well, then you've not been watching the news for the past decade or so.
I'm not surprised, but does that mean we should just be complacent? News should be based on verifiable facts. When it's not, we -- the viewers -- should call them out on it.
For everyone saying "it's just a show": that's not the problem. Walter O'Brien is using his credibility from his show to promote himself as a real super-genius consultant. He has news programs touting him as the person who solved the Boston marathon bombings. He spent two hours on the radio last night promoting his "concierge" service. It's not just a bad TV show; the guy is perpetrating a real-life fraud.
The linked article should clarify a bit: O'Brien is using the news stories about his "genius" to promote his consulting business.
I don't understand why it'd matter. Just look at him as the writer of the series.
He's been all over the media promoting his super-genius consulting company, and CBS has been running news stories proclaiming his "achievements":
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com...
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/...
http://boston.cbslocal.com/201...
I just switched jobs, and my new employer asked for my current salary on the application and later verified this information during the background check.
Because the staff and management are contractors, not Fed employees, LLNL is not shut down. The Lab will begin shutting down next week (assuming the budget boondoggle continues), but until now has been fully staffed with the exception of a very small number of people directly employed by DOE.
There are a lot of us who support both the ACLU and pro-2A organizations. I'm not a fan of the NRA specifically, but I support several gun-rights groups (including the Second Amendment Foundation and the Calguns Foundation) as well as the ACLU and EFF.
Here you go:
https://twitter.com/NeedADebitCard
Take your pick.
Google searches can be made over SSL. You could also tunnel to your home proxy server.
Unfortunately, a lot of employers perform MITM attacks to defeat SSL. I know my employer does. This creates a significant security risk, not the least because it trains employees to ignore certificate errors, but it's increasingly common.
You really have no idea how bullets work, do you? The metal casings are for the bullets, not the guns. If you attempt to make a bullet with a plastic casing (you can't buy them), it will fail on the first shot. Not the second shot, not the third, the first. If you use plastic casings on a bullet, it will explode and you will fail. No debate.
Caseless ammunition already exists.
It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.
Of course there are limits to how far you can push your first-amendment rights; there have to be. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution and scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.
Thing is, Holmes was wrong in that case.
And now the headline has been updated to "LLNL/RPI Supercomputer...", which is STILL INCORRECT. Sequoia is a DOE computer at LLNL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Sequoia
Headline is incorrect: Sequoia is at LLNL, not RPI.
He didn't "break in". He sent requests to a publicly-accessible web server, and AT&T sent back private information.
Like sending "requests" to a publicly-accessible ATM using cards with other people's information on them, and then taking the money the bank "willingly" gives you.
Yeah, I totally see the difference between that and "breaking in" to an ATM.
No, that would be like to trying to impersonate people by guessing their passwords. In Weev's case, there was no authentication to circumvent.
Isn't a key element of the legal case that he also retransmitted the private information? He did not merely receive it.
From the court filing, it appears both charges are predicated on the notion that sending GET requests to an unprotected, publicly-accessible web server constitute unauthorized access under Title 18, Section 1030(a)(2)(C).
Meatspace analogy :
If a bank didn't have a door on it's vault, or any forms of security whatsoever, would you walk in and take out all the money? Even if you proceeded directly to the local police department to report the security flaw and deliver the unguarded money, you'd find yourself in quite a bit of trouble.
Here's a better analogy: you send the bank self-addressed stamped envelopes, and they willingly send private information about their clients back to you in those envelopes.
Nearly everything Weev does is malicious, but the question is: is it (or should it be) illegal? He was convicted of identity fraud and "conspiracy to access a computer without authorization". Think about that: requesting unprotected publicly-accessible webpages is "access[ing]" a computer without authorization". By that standard, anyone who uses the internet could be convicted of a crime.
He didn't "break in". He sent requests to a publicly-accessible web server, and AT&T sent back private information. This wasn't hacking, or even a DOS attack. AT&T is at fault here.
When you work from home, you miss a lot of scuttlebutt, impromptu meetings, and hallway chats that electronic communications just don't make up for.
Yeah, but there are also downsides to working from home.
Well, I'm glad Dice isn't deleting comments. Still, with the unlabelled ads slipped in as editorial content, this site is done.
We're getting this every day? And Dice is apparently deleting comments? Fuck that. Slashdot is done. Nice work, Dice.
PS: I'm on my way over to delete my Dice profile too, since the company is clearly incompetent and unethical.
From the article, the device is $2. BUT...they don't include the "coin battery" that it runs on...I'm guessing a 2032 or 2025, which will cost close to as much as the rest of the device. I do wonder how they get the cost of the unit that low, though...
Sure, if you're buying them one-at-a-time at Target, but you can get 50 CR2032 batteries for $10 on Amazon. Buying in bulk, they'd be even cheaper. (I go through a lot of button batteries, mostly LR44s, keeping my kids' toys running.)
Mikko Hypponen recently posted an example of such a search query:
https://twitter.com/mikko/status/287615660115243009
(Don't worry; the "instaban" only affects that query; subsequent searches will still work.)
Not that we're anywhere close to terabyte flash drives.
You sure about that?
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/7/3847628/kingston-announces-1tb-flash-drive
They're not cheap yet, but they're here.
I don't currently make it to the range weekly (family, job, etc.), but I would if I could. At a typical range visit, I'll typically go through 2-300 rounds of .22 and about 100 rounds of 9mm (and that's if I'm shooting alone!). For economy (shipping in particular), I buy reloaded 9mm cartridges by the case (1000 rounds), and I usually buy 10 bricks (5250 rounds) at a time of .22. So I routinely have >6000 rounds stored, and that's purely for target shooting.