That's what I am saying: may be working with Wikileaks is not at all in PayPal's interest. And that would be the case if PayPal's higher management had unethical (or, god forbid, illegal) practices to hide. And I am willing to bet my easy-earned money that no major financial institution in the world today has any morals. They all cheat us, the poorer public, as much as they can get away with, and all can be made vastly more efficient and honest through transparency. Which is what Wikileaks is about to deliver.
True enough. It's not in the best interests for Mastercard to work with the KKK, but they don't seem that bothered!
If Wikileaks do have something on Paypal, if Paypal stop supporting them, isn't that more likely to mean they'd release the Paypal leak? Not the other way around?
Back to my original point, this just seems like a very ill-advised idea, regardless of the merits of the argument.
While I agree with what you're saying in principle, regardless of the arguments, ignoring a misjustice such as this would be insanity. We've all been saying for a long time we need to start telling the Gov what we want, maybe this is the start of it.
At least they're mostly attacking the corporate side of Mastercard - and not affecting the general public.
And why do you believe them? This is just hearsay. Of course they would want to unload the blame onto someone else. I am sure they were asked to cooperate, but who made them? If US government asked them to do pretty much ANYTHING ELSE, it would be "communists are trying to take over our financial institutions" shit all over again. If they didn't hate Wikileaks and weren't afraid of it, they could simply go to court and whoop some ass, since Wikileaks is not doing anything illegal.
Calm down. You've just said that Paypal would prefer to say that the US government leaned on them, rather than following their T&Cs? Why would Paypal want to stop working with any company if it meant more profit for them? You can't tell me Paypal have morals.
Wikileaks aren't the problem here, you're forgetting this is the public. I would say that attacking the payment processors would be a way to destroy the public support, but this bullshit about 'civil rights' is irrelevant when discussing freedom of speech.
In the absence of any other option, attacking companies like Mastercard (who are keeping Wikileaks' money, but still happy to work with the KKK) on the corporate side is a way to damage them, and have public interest; without destroying the opinions of the public by making things difficult for them.
For instance see the reactions to the Miners Strike in the UK; they were probably right to strike, but the loss of power gave them no public support and they failed.
They are boycotting Wikileaks because it already has buckets of dirt on financial institutions, and so they are afraid that they are next.
If there's one thing that's sure to keep wikileaks from attacking them, it would be pissing wikileaks off as much as possible. Wait, no, that can't be right.
OK, so who would voluntarily put a "rootkit" on thier PC? Oh sure they say, we won't do anything bad to anyone good, or steal your personal information and sell it, were nice people here. Ya. Right. I hope all the folks that dowloaded it get busted by thier ISP's and taken off-line. Dumb is Dumb no matter what the "cause" is your interested in.
Obligatory: *their, *downloaded, *dumb.
How is this dumb? Busted for what? If 1,000 people turned up at the local supermarket out of protest, would you "bust" every one of them too?
Essentially, do you think protests should be banned? What other suggestions to you have to make an impact on this? Or should we just ignore freedom of speech and of the press?
Regardless of the merits of Wikileaks and the service/information that the supply, I really don't see this as a productive response by their supporters. Rather, it just makes it appear as if a significantly-sized contingent of destructive, if not criminally-minded people support Wikileaks. It may or may not be Wikileaks' fault but the fact that groups are using, albeit incorporeal, violent action to pursue their political agenda is pretty much the definition of terrorism and they're really just making it easier for the government and media to paint Wikileaks with that brush. A campaign against companies which are at the heart of the modern economy is easy enough to paint as a threat to economic stability and therefore "national security" and is probably going to come back to bite them in the ass, one way or another.
Of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. As long as they don't knock out the credit card processing capabilities then it won't affect me since I never go to the websites of these companies. But still, as they say on The Boondocks: "that's not a good look" and will probably have no positive outcome for those participating in the action.
So you suggest we ignore the problem of free speech and free press being restricted? That if we disagree what a government or company is doing, we should ignore it?
Remember, this is not an organised group, it is a group of people who are pissed off. Voting hasn't worked. Writing letters hasn't worked. The only thing these companies will listen to is an attack on their profits and bad publicity. And even then they're being very quiet about admitting to it.
Unless, of course, you've got some other genius answer to how to stop us all being controlled in this way.
In any case, if you're relying on Mastercard or Visa for all your money, then you're a fool anyway for relying on one company. There are other methods of paying for stuff, and if there was a major disaster (rather than an attack), you'd have nothing.
According to the Washington Post, it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.
However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.
We're not getting any orders via Mastercard from our payment processor any more. I'm pretty sure some loss of profit and bad publicity might at least prove a point - or at least make an impact to those who are ignoring the Wikileaks story.
Five seconds of ad is five seconds too many. And ads in flash video are a huge waste of bandwidth. The addons do not yet exist to block them. If they really want to give us an opt-out, it should available immediately, and it should also be available as a blanket opt-out of all advertisement as a user-configurable setting. Hopefully, if this problem becomes prevalent, work on such video-ad blocking addons will begin in earnest.
You'd be happy to pay a subscription fee to use Youtube instead then?
uses a tremendous amount of bandwidth. I know we should be arguing that they need new infrastructure, but just try to convince comcast to spend 2 billion dollars so you can watch fresh prince of bel-air.
Not gonna happen.
They also have google analytics turned on - UA-19806388-1
Oddly, they're detecting HTTPs and using "https://74.81.170.107/piwik/" - which doesn't have a valid security certificate. Course that doesn't mean much, but it's an idiotic mistake.
there are hundreds of applications from just a few of the same developers. Developers should be restricted in the amount of applications that they slapped together which they are allowed to release. A foundation like Mozilla understands good software.
I couldn't disagree more. More software isn't a bad thing, and stopping duplication or number of releases would be against the whole point of a free software foundation.
What's needed is a better way to distinguish good apps from bad apps; in the same way that we have on other OS's - especially Windows. Mozilla are pretty good with this on their Addons (there's a lot of crap, but you don't often see it) - I could see this going well.
As for language and where it's run, I don't see as it's that important; developers should choose the best tool for the job.
If it’s made by initial letters and is pronounceable, it’s an acronym.
Whether pronounceable or not, it is an abbreviation.
If it’s made from initial letters and isn't pronounceable as a whole world, it is an initialism, but it also may be an acronym depending on your point of view.
By the way, you probably don't know that the Collins English is published by HarperCollins, and therefore owned by News Corp. I guess you watch Fox News?
If so, wouldn't that introduce a HUGE performance penalty on the everything happening on the machine, since these system calls are so crucial?
Uh, it's anti-virus software: of course it introduces a huge performance penalty when accessing files. Otherwise, how would you know that it was doing anything?
What I've never understood, is why? Why not just check on writing; and reading on removable drives?
I don't understand why people need to deface sites just to show... what ? their skillz ? the poor security of the website ?! This is beyond childish, and the "authors" are probably no more than script kiddiez.
As tinKode points out on his site, he wants to drive attention to security problems. In fact, if he wanted to do only that, he could privately inform the site owners about the problems he sees. He could make his own security company, and make some nice bucks out of doing this specific job he seems to enjoy.
But what he does now is no better than hooliganism, and I hope he will be tracked and serve some sentence for defacing of private property or anything similar.
So it's worse that a Romanian hacker makes this information public, than 'terrorists' using it privately?
The British Navy are using Wordpress and Livechat. This is their own damn fault, and I for one am glad that we know how bad our security services are.
I'm guessing your not a British citizen, since if this was announced privately, it'd just be covered up. At least like this, something will happen - and quickly.
Android already runs on the N900, a few rough edges, but it's almost good enough to use as a replacement OS.
If you're only looking to use basic functionality, (ignoring the stuff unsupported in Android). Meego and Maemo are both vastly superior in the functionality for expert users.
It's like comparing Windows to Linux; Windows is easier for the general populace, Linux is for those who know what they want. They're really not comparable.
I suggest the following change to the headline:
"In the Face of Windows, Why Should Linus Stick With Linux?"
What the hell ever happened to choice being a good thing, anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
AAAAAAAARGGHHH! OK, I am perfectly calm now.
That's what I am saying: may be working with Wikileaks is not at all in PayPal's interest. And that would be the case if PayPal's higher management had unethical (or, god forbid, illegal) practices to hide. And I am willing to bet my easy-earned money that no major financial institution in the world today has any morals. They all cheat us, the poorer public, as much as they can get away with, and all can be made vastly more efficient and honest through transparency. Which is what Wikileaks is about to deliver.
True enough. It's not in the best interests for Mastercard to work with the KKK, but they don't seem that bothered!
If Wikileaks do have something on Paypal, if Paypal stop supporting them, isn't that more likely to mean they'd release the Paypal leak? Not the other way around?
Back to my original point, this just seems like a very ill-advised idea, regardless of the merits of the argument.
While I agree with what you're saying in principle, regardless of the arguments, ignoring a misjustice such as this would be insanity. We've all been saying for a long time we need to start telling the Gov what we want, maybe this is the start of it.
At least they're mostly attacking the corporate side of Mastercard - and not affecting the general public.
On top of that... Do you understand how the money traffic servers work
Just take down the 3D Secure servers (which is already happening) - that'll stop most online purchases in the UK.
Not a good way to get the public on your side, mind.
And why do you believe them? This is just hearsay. Of course they would want to unload the blame onto someone else. I am sure they were asked to cooperate, but who made them? If US government asked them to do pretty much ANYTHING ELSE, it would be "communists are trying to take over our financial institutions" shit all over again. If they didn't hate Wikileaks and weren't afraid of it, they could simply go to court and whoop some ass, since Wikileaks is not doing anything illegal.
Calm down. You've just said that Paypal would prefer to say that the US government leaned on them, rather than following their T&Cs?
Why would Paypal want to stop working with any company if it meant more profit for them? You can't tell me Paypal have morals.
Wikileaks aren't the problem here, you're forgetting this is the public. I would say that attacking the payment processors would be a way to destroy the public support, but this bullshit about 'civil rights' is irrelevant when discussing freedom of speech.
In the absence of any other option, attacking companies like Mastercard (who are keeping Wikileaks' money, but still happy to work with the KKK) on the corporate side is a way to damage them, and have public interest; without destroying the opinions of the public by making things difficult for them.
For instance see the reactions to the Miners Strike in the UK; they were probably right to strike, but the loss of power gave them no public support and they failed.
They are boycotting Wikileaks because it already has buckets of dirt on financial institutions, and so they are afraid that they are next.
If there's one thing that's sure to keep wikileaks from attacking them, it would be pissing wikileaks off as much as possible. Wait, no, that can't be right.
Try again. Wikileaks aren't attacking anyone.
IMHO, companies like PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard are not caving in to the government pressure.
Yes, they did. And they've admitted it.
OK, so who would voluntarily put a "rootkit" on thier PC? Oh sure they say, we won't do anything bad to anyone good, or steal your personal information and sell it, were nice people here. Ya. Right. I hope all the folks that dowloaded it get busted by thier ISP's and taken off-line. Dumb is Dumb no matter what the "cause" is your interested in.
Obligatory: *their, *downloaded, *dumb.
How is this dumb? Busted for what? If 1,000 people turned up at the local supermarket out of protest, would you "bust" every one of them too?
Essentially, do you think protests should be banned? What other suggestions to you have to make an impact on this? Or should we just ignore freedom of speech and of the press?
Regardless of the merits of Wikileaks and the service/information that the supply, I really don't see this as a productive response by their supporters. Rather, it just makes it appear as if a significantly-sized contingent of destructive, if not criminally-minded people support Wikileaks. It may or may not be Wikileaks' fault but the fact that groups are using, albeit incorporeal, violent action to pursue their political agenda is pretty much the definition of terrorism and they're really just making it easier for the government and media to paint Wikileaks with that brush. A campaign against companies which are at the heart of the modern economy is easy enough to paint as a threat to economic stability and therefore "national security" and is probably going to come back to bite them in the ass, one way or another.
Of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. As long as they don't knock out the credit card processing capabilities then it won't affect me since I never go to the websites of these companies. But still, as they say on The Boondocks: "that's not a good look" and will probably have no positive outcome for those participating in the action.
So you suggest we ignore the problem of free speech and free press being restricted? That if we disagree what a government or company is doing, we should ignore it?
Remember, this is not an organised group, it is a group of people who are pissed off. Voting hasn't worked. Writing letters hasn't worked. The only thing these companies will listen to is an attack on their profits and bad publicity. And even then they're being very quiet about admitting to it.
Unless, of course, you've got some other genius answer to how to stop us all being controlled in this way.
In any case, if you're relying on Mastercard or Visa for all your money, then you're a fool anyway for relying on one company. There are other methods of paying for stuff, and if there was a major disaster (rather than an attack), you'd have nothing.
According to the Washington Post, it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.
However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.
We're not getting any orders via Mastercard from our payment processor any more. I'm pretty sure some loss of profit and bad publicity might at least prove a point - or at least make an impact to those who are ignoring the Wikileaks story.
Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!
That'll stop the public being behind them, just like the Miners' strike in the UK. Damaging the corporate side is the right idea.
Visa *is* doing the same thing.
Mastercard did it first, I'm sure Visa will be next... after Paypal.
The standard open content methods of income.
Ah, selling personal information?
Five seconds of ad is five seconds too many. And ads in flash video are a huge waste of bandwidth. The addons do not yet exist to block them. If they really want to give us an opt-out, it should available immediately, and it should also be available as a blanket opt-out of all advertisement as a user-configurable setting. Hopefully, if this problem becomes prevalent, work on such video-ad blocking addons will begin in earnest.
You'd be happy to pay a subscription fee to use Youtube instead then?
Please don't show them to me, you're just wasting my time and your bandwidth.
You have got to be kidding me.
You expect to be able to watch it for free
You don't want to watch adverts to fund it
And you don't want to pay for it
What other methods of income for Youtube and free TV do you suggest for them to survive?
uses a tremendous amount of bandwidth. I know we should be arguing that they need new infrastructure, but just try to convince comcast to spend 2 billion dollars so you can watch fresh prince of bel-air. Not gonna happen.
Not commenting, just saying:
In October, Internet monitoring service Sandvine said:
Netflix streaming represents 20 percent of all U.S. Internet non-mobile bandwidth use during prime-time hours.
I read it here.
Also note that they are also collecting IP address information of people who visit the site...
try { var piwikTracker = Piwik.getTracker(pkBaseURL + "piwik.php", 1); piwikTracker.trackPageView(); piwikTracker.enableLinkTracking(); } catch( err ) {}
They also have google analytics turned on - UA-19806388-1
Oddly, they're detecting HTTPs and using "https://74.81.170.107/piwik/" - which doesn't have a valid security certificate. Course that doesn't mean much, but it's an idiotic mistake.
Not that they need JS to store IPs anyway.
there are hundreds of applications from just a few of the same developers. Developers should be restricted in the amount of applications that they slapped together which they are allowed to release. A foundation like Mozilla understands good software.
I couldn't disagree more. More software isn't a bad thing, and stopping duplication or number of releases would be against the whole point of a free software foundation.
What's needed is a better way to distinguish good apps from bad apps; in the same way that we have on other OS's - especially Windows. Mozilla are pretty good with this on their Addons (there's a lot of crap, but you don't often see it) - I could see this going well.
As for language and where it's run, I don't see as it's that important; developers should choose the best tool for the job.
May I respectfully suggest that you acquire a dictionary and use it to find out what everyone else in the world means when they say "acronym"?
Common mistake. This depends if you're American or not.
The Oxford English Dictionary permits both Acronym or Initalism for this term.
I suggest reading this article for your full compliment of knowledge on this.
We can clearly agree that:
Essentially we must follow Common Usage. Using Google as a basic margin with the term BBC (which is unpronounceable): BBC Acronym - 1,020,000 results and BBC Abbreviation - 212,000 results.
By the way, you probably don't know that the Collins English is published by HarperCollins, and therefore owned by News Corp. I guess you watch Fox News?
If so, wouldn't that introduce a HUGE performance penalty on the everything happening on the machine, since these system calls are so crucial?
Uh, it's anti-virus software: of course it introduces a huge performance penalty when accessing files. Otherwise, how would you know that it was doing anything?
What I've never understood, is why? Why not just check on writing; and reading on removable drives?
Watch out! I tried typed in "Free" instead of of "free" like the Sophos Dude recommends and it wiped out all my time machine backups.
Well, at least that's what happened after I hard crashed my computer in the middle of a back up. But I'm sure it was sophos to blame.
"Free" doesn't seem a very secure password. They should put some numbers and symbols in it.
Here's a link: http://facilitiesnet.com/bom/bomproducts/0107/
And the manufacture themselves: http://www.us.schindler.com/
"Schindlers' Lifts"?
I don't understand why people need to deface sites just to show ... what ? their skillz ? the poor security of the website ?! This is beyond childish, and the "authors" are probably no more than script kiddiez.
As tinKode points out on his site, he wants to drive attention to security problems. In fact, if he wanted to do only that, he could privately inform the site owners about the problems he sees. He could make his own security company, and make some nice bucks out of doing this specific job he seems to enjoy.
But what he does now is no better than hooliganism, and I hope he will be tracked and serve some sentence for defacing of private property or anything similar.
So it's worse that a Romanian hacker makes this information public, than 'terrorists' using it privately?
The British Navy are using Wordpress and Livechat. This is their own damn fault, and I for one am glad that we know how bad our security services are.
I'm guessing your not a British citizen, since if this was announced privately, it'd just be covered up. At least like this, something will happen - and quickly.
Android already runs on the N900, a few rough edges, but it's almost good enough to use as a replacement OS.
If you're only looking to use basic functionality, (ignoring the stuff unsupported in Android). Meego and Maemo are both vastly superior in the functionality for expert users.
It's like comparing Windows to Linux; Windows is easier for the general populace, Linux is for those who know what they want. They're really not comparable.
I suggest the following change to the headline: "In the Face of Windows, Why Should Linus Stick With Linux?"
What the hell ever happened to choice being a good thing, anyway?
No numbers and no special caracter... and you just told half of /.
I dunno, Goofy is pretty 'special'.