Nice +5 liberal pander, but the facts are different: unemployment is down (lower than Clinton years), gas prices are fine, we're not killing our soldiers (the enemy is, a little), some people are against gay marriage but a consitututional amendment is very unlikely (although warranted if the number are there), we pay more than ever to educate kids but teacher's unions fight tooth and nail to prevent us from being able to make sure teachers aren't uneducated idiots themselves, and there's not a hungry kid in this country with sane parents.
Why is this modded flamebait? It's a reasonable, non-vitriolic reply to a scathing, error-ridden post (which itself was closer to flamebait, but is instead at +5).
Whether or not you agree with it, it's still not flamebait.
It doesn't help us to ignore reasonable discussion just because it doesn't support our desire to not re-elect a certain president. In fact, it hurts.
In the US at least, slot machines and all gambling devices are regulated and subject to all sorts of rules and inspections. I trust a Vegas slot machine to be fair a heck of a lot more than I do someone's Java or Flash casino app from who-knows-where.
It is not clear precisely why the WTO ruled in favor of Antigua and Barbuda, because the specifics remain confidential. The ruling covers only online casinos based on the islands, but other nations could seek similar rulings.
Isn't that odd? Why would the "specifics" remain confidential while the decision isn't? Is this typical of WTO activity, or is there some relevant info to be inferred from this?
They state that the most important thing is to force users into a security mindset and this is near impossible.
Did we read the same article?
The patch model for Internet security has failed spectacularly . . . Notwithstanding the fundamental inequities involved in encouraging people sign on to the Internet with a single click, and then requiring them to fix flaws in software marketed to them as secure with technical skills they do not possess, many users do choose to protect themselves at their own expense by purchasing antivirus and firewall software. Making this choice is the gold-standard for end user behavior -- they recognize both that security is important and that they do not possess the skills necessary to effect it themselves. When users participating in the best security practice that can be reasonably expected get infected with a virulent and damaging worm, we need to reconsider the notion that end user behavior can solve or even effectively mitigate the malicious software problem and turn our attention toward both preventing software vulnerabilities in the first place and developing large-scale, robust and reliable infrastructure that can mitigate current security problems without relying on end user intervention.
Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use.
Another poster already pointed out how java already meets all the criteria you posit as possibly attainable by java [only] were it open source. But I just wanted to point out that your post is wild speculation; you have zero knowledge about what Perl would be were it not-open source or what Java would be were it. As such, your post is devoid of any meaningful insight whatsoever, yet it attained +5 Insightful status before my very eyes.
I can only hope that meta-moderation repairs that; meanwhile no one has indicated any single (likely) benefit to Sun or Java programmers that will (likely) come from open-sourcing Java, without just staing this claim tautologically. Yet many, such as yourself, have strutted about empty arguments encouraging Sun to open Java source. I don't get it. Why?
I would love to IBM put it's neck on the line by open sourcing one of there own "prized" products like DB2. Actually that would kick ass. That would show a great deal of committment and not just be playing lip service about open source.
OK, but you're ignoring his point. Presumably you (or whoever) is hassling Sun to open source Java but isn't hassling IBM to open source anything it invented. Yet, I guess this year/month/week, we like IBM (SCO seals that, in a way). But we're mad at Sun for not open-sourcing Java. But we can't say what, exactly, we will gain from open-source Java that we don't have now (other than the ability to fork or otherwise hassle Sun with dilution and increased risk of being MS-swamped).
So, someone please tell me what we are missing out on by not having Java source code?
Programming languages have been proven to be better when they are more open than Java currently is.
Really? I hadn't heard. By whom, and how?
Your fear is fragmentation; but when have you ever been frusterated by the fragementation of C, C++ LISP (ok, this might be a BIT disparate).
I dunno about him, but I wonder why there has to be a fear? Is your fear that Sun will show that you can get OSS-like benefits without actually opening the source (i.e., well-documented without the need for psychic bug-awareness as in MS "open API's")? I'm just wondering.
But the point is made anyways... i don't think Scott McNealy is really worried about it become forked.
I don't think think he's worried at all about Java. Why should he be?
Because many distros will not ship [Jave because it it] non-free software by default. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
They refers to the distros that are so caught up in the OSS religion that they won't ship a useful and decent free (as in beer) language because it's not fee (as in liberty), right?
I mean this in a helpful, non-troll, non-flamebait way. You have a good point in that Insightful post of yours, but you've also hit a peeve of mine that seems to be getting increasingly common lately. When you said:
Why, because for all intensive purposes . . .
What you mean is:
Why, because for all intents and purposes . . .
Or, equally acceptable:
Why, because for all practical purposes . . .
Think about it -- the purposes need not be intensive; your comment applies to all purposes, intensive or otherwise. That is, in fact, the point of the sentence, yet you broke the intended meaning by needlessly qualifying the purposes.
Sorry for the mini-rant. I'm really, sincerely just tring to be helpful. People do judge you by the words you (mis)use, and I'd hate to have someone ignore your insight because of this (small but strangely abrasive) mistake.
and of course it should be impossible for a _person_ to own these domains.
Of course, er, wait. . . A person might also be a sole proprietor and therefore have a business which would seem to me to be a suitable use for a.com domain.
Maybe you meant "_person_ who isn't a sole proprieter of a business"; I'm just making sure you're not suggesting that.com domains only be available to companies and corporations and never individuals.
Well, no way to answer this other than being slightly smartassish: with a CCD.
My mobile phone (LG VX6000) takes VGA-sized (640x480) pics. I don't use it very much, but I have snapped a pic of handwritten notes and found the resulting image to be quite readable -- not on the phone screen mind you, but once the photo is uploaded to a computer.
For even better results (from longer distances and in lower light, etc.) maybe they are (or will) incorporate that new NEC technology that uses some clever software (in a cellphone, even) to merge the data from several photos of the same thing to create a higher-resolution photo. An article about this cool new tech was posted on slashdot a few weeks ago.
But, even without that, 640x480 is plenty good enough for copying a page of text, if taken close enough to the page.
automatically controls itself based on user
on
Powered Exoskeleton Legs
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This is great -- it senses your motions and accomodates you, helping you along:
The researchers point out that the human pilot does not need a joystick, button or special keyboard to "drive" the device. Rather, the machine is designed so that the pilot becomes an integral part of the exoskeleton, thus requiring no special training to use it. In the UC Berkeley experiments, the human pilot moved about a room wearing the 100-pound exoskeleton and a 70-pound backpack while feeling as if he were lugging a mere 5 pounds.
There was a/. article a few months ago about a Japanese team of researchers who were working on the same sort of device (I don't recall the name, but I'm sure the dupe-hounds will point it out). But if I recall correctly, that system required control imput, such as from a joystick-like device. That limits the robusteness and usability pretty severely, IMHO.
Interestingly, this thing runs on a gas engine (which powers hydraulics for the powered joints and provides electricity for the computer controls), and:
The current prototype allows a person to travel over flat terrain and slopes, but work on the exoskeleton is ongoing, with the focus turning to miniaturization of its components. The UC Berkeley engineers are also developing a quieter, more powerful engine, and a faster, more intelligent controller, that will enable the exoskeleton to carry loads up to 120 pounds within the next six months. In addition, the researchers are studying what it takes to enable pilots to run and jump with the exoskeleton legs.
I don't live in a constant state of fear by any stretch of the imagination, but I can still note that one of the things that qualify as "terrifying" is to have a tainted water supply, wouldn't you agree?
Coming out to my mailbox to see it blown up would mainly just annoy me.
Hm. I'd be very concerned. Not just annoyed. Why would someone do that? What else might they do? What's next? And if I saw my neighbor's mailbox exploded and not mine, I'd be more than a little wary of mine. I wouldn't just check it for mail as usual, that's for sure.
Anyway, this getting offtopic, and since several of my other posts in this thread have been modded Offtopic (and they were dead ON topic), I better stop now.:)
Approximately three out of every ten adults will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives. (NHTSA, 1999)
You do realize that some alcohol-related traffic crashes involve more than one person, but only one drunk driver, right? You should have your statistics priviledges revoked for extracting "30% of adults are drunk drivers" from "Approximately three out of every ten adults will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives."
Agreed. The point I was trying to make is that while definitely guilty of something, I am not sure that terrorism is the crime.
And you don't have to be. Neither am I. The courts will decide. What bothers me are the posts in this thread proclaiming with 100% certainty that this is not terrorism. They don't know all the facts, yet they're knee-jerk response is anti-anti-terrorism, for some reason.
What he did was not an act of terrorism, plain and simple.
Yeah, I know you think that. I was kinda looking for the logic or evidence behind your certainty. Your mailbox analogy was not quite what I was looking for. But I (and the federal government) would treat an exploding mailbox as a possible terrorist activity. See, it's terrifying to check one's mail when such things occur. Mail is part of our infrastructure. Blowing up a mailbox, regardless of your intent, constitutes a use of fear to impede infrastructure use or operation (or both, in the exploding mailbox case, since not only would I be hesistant to check my mail, I'd assume letter carriers would be hesitant to deliver them).
If they can show an appropriate amount of evidence he _was_ planning a terrorist attack, and convince a jury, then he would be a terrorist.
OK, here we agree. If there is some evidence that he was planning a large-scale 911 DDoS attack, then he's a terrorist. Check. We don't know what evidence exists. That was my point.
Regardless, this is still not an act of terrorism.
But wait a second, we just agreed that there he could be a terrorist if there's evidence to that effect. A small test-run of a terrorism attack perpetrated by a terrorist isn't terrorism? It's at least attempted terrorism. And it's relevant, and should be pursued -- I don't see how it's a problem to charge someone under terrorism statutes while investigating something like this. It could be, and should be up to the court to decide if it is or not. I wouldn't grudge a cop for charging as such.
What it's a precursor to is a completly seperate issue, and up to the courts to decide.
Again we agree. That's just what I said. We don't know, the courts will decide, charges != conviction. See, isn't that easy? All you have to do is not make outrageous unprovable claims with the confidence of the omniscient.
I don't see how even a million affected systems dialing 911 instead of the local number would affect the public terror level.
In a mugging-gone-terribly-bad, you've been shot and you have two broken legs. The perpetrators think you're dead, but you're really just lying immobile in the next room, near a phone. The perpetrators are in the process of raping and torturing your wife; your mother is next. You quietly lift the phone receiver and dial 911 as silently as possible. Busy signal.
I don't think any of us can say with any confidence what the intent was from the limited information available. It may seem to you that the intent was to hassle the 18 targets and not 911 service. But you're inferring from limited data.
How do you know this wasn't a test-run for a large-scale DDoS attack on 911 service?
How do you know doofus wouldn't have had so much fun (had he not been caught) that he'd do it again, maybe to all his enemies' friends' friend's via some automatic means (self-propagating virus + 911 DDoS)?
Any way you answer those questions other than "I don't" involves assumptions and inference. That's OK, as long as you maintain a reasonable level of confidence about your assumptions. It bothers me to see others in this thread proclaiming with 100% confidence what this guy's intent was.
Maybe we should create some sort of forum in which all of the relevant evidence, witnesses, and experts could come together to discuss the case and try to ascertain intent and then apply an appropriate punishment. Oh wait, that's a court, and that's where he's going.
Terrorism is not messing with the public infrastrucure, it's making people terrified.
Huh? I can think of few things more terrifying than someone "messing with the public infrastructure"! Tainted water supply. No 911 response. No dial-tone or even cell-signal to even try to dial 911. No electricity.
These of the sorts of things that can cause mass confusion, panic, and death. Sounds pretty terrifying to me.
This isn't terrorism. It is not terrorism. At all. Not even a little bit. There is no way in hell this is terrorism. That is obvious.
You are amazingly astute in your ability to extract a criminal's intentions from the limited information provided in that article, especially since you can conclude with such amazing confidence.
I'm anxious to learn how I can be that quick to understand the intent of someone I've never spoken with and about whom I have very little information, so please do fill me in on the work you did to achieve your remarkable understanding. I'm sure you have excellent proof for wholly disregarding the possibility that this was a test-run for a large-scale 911 DDoS attack. Please share. Oh, and I'm also interesting in learning how you predicted the outcome of all possible futures to ascertain that there's no way this wingnut might have had so much fin the first time that, had he not been caught, he absolutely positively wouldn't have done it again, on a larger scale, or decided that it's too much hassle rely on his manual-install technique and just decided to program a virus that changed the number to 911 and then mailed it out to every email address in the user's address book (where have we seen this before?) to automatically "infect" all of his enemies' friends' friend's . . .
It's like Christmas -- I'm so excited! It's not often you get to learn an entirely new sort of logic that lets one make 100%-confident conclusions without the traditional hassle of actually having adequate available information. Please don't keep me waiting too long for the explanation!
Slashdot Mirror
I want missile defense.
Because of that false sweeping claim I couldn't be bothered to read the rest of your post.
Nice +5 liberal pander, but the facts are different: unemployment is down (lower than Clinton years), gas prices are fine, we're not killing our soldiers (the enemy is, a little), some people are against gay marriage but a consitututional amendment is very unlikely (although warranted if the number are there), we pay more than ever to educate kids but teacher's unions fight tooth and nail to prevent us from being able to make sure teachers aren't uneducated idiots themselves, and there's not a hungry kid in this country with sane parents.
Wouldn't a little honesty be kewl?
Why is this modded flamebait? It's a reasonable, non-vitriolic reply to a scathing, error-ridden post (which itself was closer to flamebait, but is instead at +5).
Whether or not you agree with it, it's still not flamebait.
It doesn't help us to ignore reasonable discussion just because it doesn't support our desire to not re-elect a certain president. In fact, it hurts.
In the US at least, slot machines and all gambling devices are regulated and subject to all sorts of rules and inspections. I trust a Vegas slot machine to be fair a heck of a lot more than I do someone's Java or Flash casino app from who-knows-where.
It is not clear precisely why the WTO ruled in favor of Antigua and Barbuda, because the specifics remain confidential. The ruling covers only online casinos based on the islands, but other nations could seek similar rulings.
Isn't that odd? Why would the "specifics" remain confidential while the decision isn't? Is this typical of WTO activity, or is there some relevant info to be inferred from this?
They state that the most important thing is to force users into a security mindset and this is near impossible.
Did we read the same article?
The patch model for Internet security has failed spectacularly . . . Notwithstanding the fundamental inequities involved in encouraging people sign on to the Internet with a single click, and then requiring them to fix flaws in software marketed to them as secure with technical skills they do not possess, many users do choose to protect themselves at their own expense by purchasing antivirus and firewall software. Making this choice is the gold-standard for end user behavior -- they recognize both that security is important and that they do not possess the skills necessary to effect it themselves. When users participating in the best security practice that can be reasonably expected get infected with a virulent and damaging worm, we need to reconsider the notion that end user behavior can solve or even effectively mitigate the malicious software problem and turn our attention toward both preventing software vulnerabilities in the first place and developing large-scale, robust and reliable infrastructure that can mitigate current security problems without relying on end user intervention.
Look at perl for example. Do you think it would be where it is today if it were closed source? It would probably be some hack that about 2 guys use.
Another poster already pointed out how java already meets all the criteria you posit as possibly attainable by java [only] were it open source. But I just wanted to point out that your post is wild speculation; you have zero knowledge about what Perl would be were it not-open source or what Java would be were it. As such, your post is devoid of any meaningful insight whatsoever, yet it attained +5 Insightful status before my very eyes.
I can only hope that meta-moderation repairs that; meanwhile no one has indicated any single (likely) benefit to Sun or Java programmers that will (likely) come from open-sourcing Java, without just staing this claim tautologically. Yet many, such as yourself, have strutted about empty arguments encouraging Sun to open Java source. I don't get it. Why?
I would love to IBM put it's neck on the line by open sourcing one of there own "prized" products like DB2. Actually that would kick ass. That would show a great deal of committment and not just be playing lip service about open source.
OK, but you're ignoring his point. Presumably you (or whoever) is hassling Sun to open source Java but isn't hassling IBM to open source anything it invented. Yet, I guess this year/month/week, we like IBM (SCO seals that, in a way). But we're mad at Sun for not open-sourcing Java. But we can't say what, exactly, we will gain from open-source Java that we don't have now (other than the ability to fork or otherwise hassle Sun with dilution and increased risk of being MS-swamped).
So, someone please tell me what we are missing out on by not having Java source code?
Programming languages have been proven to be better when they are more open than Java currently is.
Really? I hadn't heard. By whom, and how?
Your fear is fragmentation; but when have you ever been frusterated by the fragementation of C, C++ LISP (ok, this might be a BIT disparate).
I dunno about him, but I wonder why there has to be a fear? Is your fear that Sun will show that you can get OSS-like benefits without actually opening the source (i.e., well-documented without the need for psychic bug-awareness as in MS "open API's")? I'm just wondering.
But the point is made anyways... i don't think Scott McNealy is really worried about it become forked.
I don't think think he's worried at all about Java. Why should he be?
Because many distros will not ship [Jave because it it] non-free software by default. They are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.
They refers to the distros that are so caught up in the OSS religion that they won't ship a useful and decent free (as in beer) language because it's not fee (as in liberty), right?
I'm with ya 100% until this:
It has been proven that gaining social skills often comes at the expense of your problem solving and other intellectual abilities.
When? By Whom? And, most importantly, how?
Oh, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you that correlation does not imply causality.
I'm really anxious to learn about this research (and proof!)
I mean this in a helpful, non-troll, non-flamebait way. You have a good point in that Insightful post of yours, but you've also hit a peeve of mine that seems to be getting increasingly common lately. When you said:
Why, because for all intensive purposes . . .
What you mean is:
Why, because for all intents and purposes . . .
Or, equally acceptable:
Why, because for all practical purposes . . .
Think about it -- the purposes need not be intensive; your comment applies to all purposes, intensive or otherwise. That is, in fact, the point of the sentence, yet you broke the intended meaning by needlessly qualifying the purposes.
Sorry for the mini-rant. I'm really, sincerely just tring to be helpful. People do judge you by the words you (mis)use, and I'd hate to have someone ignore your insight because of this (small but strangely abrasive) mistake.
These sites should use the proper TLD
.com domain.
.com domains only be available to companies and corporations and never individuals.
Agreed.
and of course it should be impossible for a _person_ to own these domains.
Of course, er, wait. . . A person might also be a sole proprietor and therefore have a business which would seem to me to be a suitable use for a
Maybe you meant "_person_ who isn't a sole proprieter of a business"; I'm just making sure you're not suggesting that
Well, no way to answer this other than being slightly smartassish: with a CCD.
My mobile phone (LG VX6000) takes VGA-sized (640x480) pics. I don't use it very much, but I have snapped a pic of handwritten notes and found the resulting image to be quite readable -- not on the phone screen mind you, but once the photo is uploaded to a computer.
For even better results (from longer distances and in lower light, etc.) maybe they are (or will) incorporate that new NEC technology that uses some clever software (in a cellphone, even) to merge the data from several photos of the same thing to create a higher-resolution photo. An article about this cool new tech was posted on slashdot a few weeks ago.
But, even without that, 640x480 is plenty good enough for copying a page of text, if taken close enough to the page.
This is great -- it senses your motions and accomodates you, helping you along:
/. article a few months ago about a Japanese team of researchers who were working on the same sort of device (I don't recall the name, but I'm sure the dupe-hounds will point it out). But if I recall correctly, that system required control imput, such as from a joystick-like device. That limits the robusteness and usability pretty severely, IMHO.
The researchers point out that the human pilot does not need a joystick, button or special keyboard to "drive" the device. Rather, the machine is designed so that the pilot becomes an integral part of the exoskeleton, thus requiring no special training to use it. In the UC Berkeley experiments, the human pilot moved about a room wearing the 100-pound exoskeleton and a 70-pound backpack while feeling as if he were lugging a mere 5 pounds.
There was a
Interestingly, this thing runs on a gas engine (which powers hydraulics for the powered joints and provides electricity for the computer controls), and:
The current prototype allows a person to travel over flat terrain and slopes, but work on the exoskeleton is ongoing, with the focus turning to miniaturization of its components. The UC Berkeley engineers are also developing a quieter, more powerful engine, and a faster, more intelligent controller, that will enable the exoskeleton to carry loads up to 120 pounds within the next six months. In addition, the researchers are studying what it takes to enable pilots to run and jump with the exoskeleton legs.
I want my robot body now please. Price?
I noticed that too, but they do discuss GTA -- on the 4th page.
Nice unwarranted inference.
I don't live in a constant state of fear by any stretch of the imagination, but I can still note that one of the things that qualify as "terrifying" is to have a tainted water supply, wouldn't you agree?
Or are you too manly to be afraid of anything?
Oh, and I don't have cable TV.
Coming out to my mailbox to see it blown up would mainly just annoy me.
:)
Hm. I'd be very concerned. Not just annoyed. Why would someone do that? What else might they do? What's next? And if I saw my neighbor's mailbox exploded and not mine, I'd be more than a little wary of mine. I wouldn't just check it for mail as usual, that's for sure.
Anyway, this getting offtopic, and since several of my other posts in this thread have been modded Offtopic (and they were dead ON topic), I better stop now.
Approximately three out of every ten adults will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives. (NHTSA, 1999)
You do realize that some alcohol-related traffic crashes involve more than one person, but only one drunk driver, right? You should have your statistics priviledges revoked for extracting "30% of adults are drunk drivers" from "Approximately three out of every ten adults will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic crash at some time in their lives."
Agreed. The point I was trying to make is that while definitely guilty of something, I am not sure that terrorism is the crime.
And you don't have to be. Neither am I. The courts will decide. What bothers me are the posts in this thread proclaiming with 100% certainty that this is not terrorism. They don't know all the facts, yet they're knee-jerk response is anti-anti-terrorism, for some reason.
What he did was not an act of terrorism, plain and simple.
Yeah, I know you think that. I was kinda looking for the logic or evidence behind your certainty. Your mailbox analogy was not quite what I was looking for. But I (and the federal government) would treat an exploding mailbox as a possible terrorist activity. See, it's terrifying to check one's mail when such things occur. Mail is part of our infrastructure. Blowing up a mailbox, regardless of your intent, constitutes a use of fear to impede infrastructure use or operation (or both, in the exploding mailbox case, since not only would I be hesistant to check my mail, I'd assume letter carriers would be hesitant to deliver them).
If they can show an appropriate amount of evidence he _was_ planning a terrorist attack, and convince a jury, then he would be a terrorist.
OK, here we agree. If there is some evidence that he was planning a large-scale 911 DDoS attack, then he's a terrorist. Check. We don't know what evidence exists. That was my point.
Regardless, this is still not an act of terrorism.
But wait a second, we just agreed that there he could be a terrorist if there's evidence to that effect. A small test-run of a terrorism attack perpetrated by a terrorist isn't terrorism? It's at least attempted terrorism. And it's relevant, and should be pursued -- I don't see how it's a problem to charge someone under terrorism statutes while investigating something like this. It could be, and should be up to the court to decide if it is or not. I wouldn't grudge a cop for charging as such.
What it's a precursor to is a completly seperate issue, and up to the courts to decide.
Again we agree. That's just what I said. We don't know, the courts will decide, charges != conviction. See, isn't that easy? All you have to do is not make outrageous unprovable claims with the confidence of the omniscient.
Reply once again without being a dick, and you'll get a response.
You first.
I don't see how even a million affected systems dialing 911 instead of the local number would affect the public terror level.
In a mugging-gone-terribly-bad, you've been shot and you have two broken legs. The perpetrators think you're dead, but you're really just lying immobile in the next room, near a phone. The perpetrators are in the process of raping and torturing your wife; your mother is next. You quietly lift the phone receiver and dial 911 as silently as possible. Busy signal.
Terrified yet?
I don't think any of us can say with any confidence what the intent was from the limited information available. It may seem to you that the intent was to hassle the 18 targets and not 911 service. But you're inferring from limited data.
How do you know this wasn't a test-run for a large-scale DDoS attack on 911 service?
How do you know doofus wouldn't have had so much fun (had he not been caught) that he'd do it again, maybe to all his enemies' friends' friend's via some automatic means (self-propagating virus + 911 DDoS)?
Any way you answer those questions other than "I don't" involves assumptions and inference. That's OK, as long as you maintain a reasonable level of confidence about your assumptions. It bothers me to see others in this thread proclaiming with 100% confidence what this guy's intent was.
Maybe we should create some sort of forum in which all of the relevant evidence, witnesses, and experts could come together to discuss the case and try to ascertain intent and then apply an appropriate punishment. Oh wait, that's a court, and that's where he's going.
Terrorism is not messing with the public infrastrucure, it's making people terrified.
Huh? I can think of few things more terrifying than someone "messing with the public infrastructure"! Tainted water supply. No 911 response. No dial-tone or even cell-signal to even try to dial 911. No electricity.
These of the sorts of things that can cause mass confusion, panic, and death. Sounds pretty terrifying to me.
This isn't terrorism. It is not terrorism. At all. Not even a little bit. There is no way in hell this is terrorism. That is obvious.
You are amazingly astute in your ability to extract a criminal's intentions from the limited information provided in that article, especially since you can conclude with such amazing confidence.
I'm anxious to learn how I can be that quick to understand the intent of someone I've never spoken with and about whom I have very little information, so please do fill me in on the work you did to achieve your remarkable understanding. I'm sure you have excellent proof for wholly disregarding the possibility that this was a test-run for a large-scale 911 DDoS attack. Please share. Oh, and I'm also interesting in learning how you predicted the outcome of all possible futures to ascertain that there's no way this wingnut might have had so much fin the first time that, had he not been caught, he absolutely positively wouldn't have done it again, on a larger scale, or decided that it's too much hassle rely on his manual-install technique and just decided to program a virus that changed the number to 911 and then mailed it out to every email address in the user's address book (where have we seen this before?) to automatically "infect" all of his enemies' friends' friend's . . .
It's like Christmas -- I'm so excited! It's not often you get to learn an entirely new sort of logic that lets one make 100%-confident conclusions without the traditional hassle of actually having adequate available information. Please don't keep me waiting too long for the explanation!