Reminds me of IBM using Amigas running the SCALA presentation program at. That was rather funny to us Amiga users when certain people told us about the superior nature of the IBM-compatible and how sub-standard our Amigas were.
"Eating your own dog food" -- using your own products internally, is a commendable policy, but it should not become the "not-invented-here"-syndrome -- rejecting better solutions just because they're from a competitor. IBM was just using the best product for the job. I doubt they've kept the Amigas running to this day though.
Yes. Chosing SCO as a target seemed to me to have the following motivations for the crackers:
1: Advertising. They had a bot net that they wanted to demonstrate the power of. "Behold the might of our bots! It takes down SCO and Microsoft! Now pay protection money or your online casino is out of business."
2: Social engineering against administrators. Linux-users are more likely to be administrators and have other network-related jobs. The crackers might think that attacking SCO and Microsoft would gain them symphaty from some of the administrators.
3: The crackers don't like Microsoft. The security updates are a hindrance to them.
4: The crackers don't like Linux/BSD. Microsoft's saving graces, in the cracker's eyes, is that they at least used to make insecure software, and they made a monoculture fertile to malware. By casting the blame on "linux fans", they might hurt the image of the FOSS community.
"[Global Strike] -- which we first looked at back in November 2003 -- is legit, with a hefty $91 million invested into it over the last two years. But, by making so little distinction between this effort and more pie-in-the-sky plans, the Times does its readers a bit of a disservice."
I made the mistake of thinking it worked the same way in the US as in my native country of Norway, where each personal identification number can only refer to one person.
1500 dead people were registered to vote. But did they join those records on SSN or some other unique identifier? There might be some cases of people with the same name, right?
Sorry, I misread your comment. Answer: The law must establish it, and the DHS has to decide who gets a fake address. If anybody has a problem with it, it's up to the courts.
Because judges and polices officers are entitled to more rights and protection than regular people? I don't think so.....
Exactly. Whatever "extra rights" to privacy there are, are measures to protect them from organized crime, and {are|should be} extended to protected vitnesses.
I don't have a street address either. The point is that I actually live at my address, and the post office knows where.
Still, why should I have to provide the goventment with information that can be used in incriminate me if some bozo steals my car or impresinates me in some other way.
It could be argued that it would be even easier to impersonate you if all the bozo has to say to take your identity is saying "I'm Christopher N, from X." Of course, getting a credit card with that information is as hard for him as it is for you.
People should be able to live happy and productive lives with little or no publicly avaible record that they are alive at all. The existence of income taxes and social security kind of destroy that. Your existence must be know to collect your income taxes.
REAL ID requires that driver's licenses contain actual addresses, and no post office boxes. There are no exceptions made for judges or police -- even undercover police officers. This seems like a major unnecessary security risk.
Yeah, because everybody know that undercover police officers take their real ID papers with them under cover. [/sarcasm] If there's a need to keep the address of judges and police officers secret, then allow them to list FAKE addresses, or rather an address that is re-routed through a mail screening service. Don't allow any Tom, Dick, and Harry to list their address as Box 5, Jean Climax' Barber, Maildrop and Internet Café.
REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security.
How does that make no sense? Like, knowing who people are before giving them identification? If they drive so horribly without a license, what would make them try to get one?
Well, all right, I was a bit harsh on him. Somehow my brain had short circuited and blamed him for the "unintended accelleration" hoax that "60 Minutes" pulled on Audi.
Agreed. But when the information of spammers and IP lawyers is posted, it's from publicly available sources like court records, DNS lookups and the like. Sattellite photos from public map sites is also fine.
But outright stalking is wrong. Especially when it goes toward family living at a different address. Was it even the right PJ?
If she had looked up her maildrop address in DNS, I couldn't care less.
Plus, you have to remember that guy carrying a weapon, checking into hotels under assumed names,angry with PJ, with millions of license dollars to lose. All those spammers got, IIRC, was loads of free products delivered to them. Actually, they should find those Anonymous Cowards and pay them for their service.:-)
But yeah, I tend to trust more those newspapers who feature their corrections prominently. Actually, here in Norway there's a standard that says: If you make a mistake on the front page, then you retract on the front page. Mistake on page 10, retract on page 10. Though, getting the papers to actually issue that retraction is a funny process that often leads to as much handwringing, waving of arms and re-definition of language by the paper as it does in the US. We've got an independent review board too, that usually finds for the media.:-P
What is worrying, following on to your comment, is that the "Columbia Journalism Review", affiliated with the Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, is one of the places where I've witnessed rather shoddy reporting. (I haven't conducted a study. Just personal experience.)
I agree with both of you to a certain extent. I think "most" of the main stream media can be trusted, on the pedestrian news stories, but they have a problem with the controversial ones. But I also think that the public have a right to expect journalists, when not opining, to strive toward being unbiased and getting the facts straight.
Saying "Oh, but everybody is biased" and then turning into Maureen O'Gara, isn't going to fly in my airspace.
What struck me though, was the possibility that this is a deliberate tactic to avoid you telling them in advance that you disagree with the story and make corrections that run contrary to their story. It's both a way to avoid a nuicance, AND shield themselves from a lawsuit for libel, maybe.
If you have time and sanity to re-visit the CBS memos, I'd recommend this blog post on contrary information: Sneak Peek at What's Not in the Memogate Report, although it's more about avoiding contacting you in the first place, than checking quotes. What might be relevant though, is the tactic of giving you minimal input to a news story.
My point is that news source G isn't just claiming to act in that way, I've observed it doing so. Integrity is a funny thing: You spend a long time building it, and it falls apart in an instant. Groklaw hasn't fallen down on me yet, well except for the slashdot effect.
n'th rule of interviews: Record everything you say to a reporter! Some states allow you to record without informing the reporter. To be on the safe side, if you don't know the laws of your state, ask the reporter if it's OK. If (s)he says "no", why the smeg are you still giving an interview?
(I thought of this myself, but I have later found it verified in information pamphlets on dealing with the media.)
n+1'th rule: Everything is on the record. Even if the camera appears to be turned off, the tally (the red blinking light) isn't on or whatever.
My own rule: Bloggers are your best friend if a journalist c**** on you. "Crockumentary" filmmaking and reporting, while still financially viable, isn't as damaging to the "public record" as it used to be. The people who want to believe the a**-journalist will still do it, but other people will know better.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of IBM using Amigas running the SCALA presentation program at. That was rather funny to us Amiga users when certain people told us about the superior nature of the IBM-compatible and how sub-standard our Amigas were.
"Eating your own dog food" -- using your own products internally, is a commendable policy, but it should not become the "not-invented-here"-syndrome -- rejecting better solutions just because they're from a competitor. IBM was just using the best product for the job. I doubt they've kept the Amigas running to this day though.
Yes. Chosing SCO as a target seemed to me to have the following motivations for the crackers:
1: Advertising. They had a bot net that they wanted to demonstrate the power of. "Behold the might of our bots! It takes down SCO and Microsoft! Now pay protection money or your online casino is out of business."
2: Social engineering against administrators. Linux-users are more likely to be administrators and have other network-related jobs. The crackers might think that attacking SCO and Microsoft would gain them symphaty from some of the administrators.
3: The crackers don't like Microsoft. The security updates are a hindrance to them.
4: The crackers don't like Linux/BSD. Microsoft's saving graces, in the cracker's eyes, is that they at least used to make insecure software, and they made a monoculture fertile to malware. By casting the blame on "linux fans", they might hurt the image of the FOSS community.
Also: definitions can change, you know that?
That depends on what your definition of "definition" is. And what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Return of the "USSS" defacement :-)
Archived site. It was even funnier when the Mission Impossible music played as the background sound.
Tell it to DefenceTech, not to me. :-)
DefenceTech.org Times' shaky spacewar story:
"[Global Strike] -- which we first looked at back in November 2003 -- is legit, with a hefty $91 million invested into it over the last two years. But, by making so little distinction between this effort and more pie-in-the-sky plans, the Times does its readers a bit of a disservice."
You might be right.
I made the mistake of thinking it worked the same way in the US as in my native country of Norway, where each personal identification number can only refer to one person.
1500 dead people were registered to vote. But did they join those records on SSN or some other unique identifier? There might be some cases of people with the same name, right?
Did you catch the guy with the white cane? :-)
Torrent, please.
The original being spoofed is here: Is this the way to Amarillo?
If I find bigger versions, I might reply to this post.
Sorry, I misread your comment.
Answer: The law must establish it, and the DHS has to decide who gets a fake address. If anybody has a problem with it, it's up to the courts.
Because judges and polices officers are entitled to more rights and protection than regular people? I don't think so.....
Exactly. Whatever "extra rights" to privacy there are, are measures to protect them from organized crime, and {are|should be} extended to protected vitnesses.
I don't have a street address either. The point is that I actually live at my address, and the post office knows where.
Still, why should I have to provide the goventment with information that can be used in incriminate me if some bozo steals my car or impresinates me in some other way.
It could be argued that it would be even easier to impersonate you if all the bozo has to say to take your identity is saying "I'm Christopher N, from X." Of course, getting a credit card with that information is as hard for him as it is for you.
People should be able to live happy and productive lives with little or no publicly avaible record that they are alive at all.
The existence of income taxes and social security kind of destroy that. Your existence must be know to collect your income taxes.
Perhaps the "migrant rights" organizations can hand out the fake REAL-IDs.
REAL ID requires that driver's licenses contain actual addresses, and no post office boxes. There are no exceptions made for judges or police -- even undercover police officers. This seems like a major unnecessary security risk.
Yeah, because everybody know that undercover police officers take their real ID papers with them under cover. [/sarcasm]
If there's a need to keep the address of judges and police officers secret, then allow them to list FAKE addresses, or rather an address that is re-routed through a mail screening service. Don't allow any Tom, Dick, and Harry to list their address as
Box 5, Jean Climax' Barber, Maildrop and Internet Café.
REAL ID also prohibits states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This makes no sense, and will only result in these illegal aliens driving without licenses -- which isn't going to help anyone's security.
How does that make no sense? Like, knowing who people are before giving them identification? If they drive so horribly without a license, what would make them try to get one?
Well, all right, I was a bit harsh on him. Somehow my brain had short circuited and blamed him for the "unintended accelleration" hoax that "60 Minutes" pulled on Audi.
Off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush. That was a good one.
I also got a good chuckle out of the Inspector Dan Rather Mystery
Agreed. But when the information of spammers and IP lawyers is posted, it's from publicly available sources like court records, DNS lookups and the like. Sattellite photos from public map sites is also fine.
:-)
But outright stalking is wrong. Especially when it goes toward family living at a different address. Was it even the right PJ?
If she had looked up her maildrop address in DNS, I couldn't care less.
Plus, you have to remember that guy carrying a weapon, checking into hotels under assumed names,angry with PJ, with millions of license dollars to lose. All those spammers got, IIRC, was loads of free products delivered to them. Actually, they should find those Anonymous Cowards and pay them for their service.
He, he. It does parse that way too doesn't it?
Wired Amends (Stories With Fabricated Quotes)
Wired Amends Stories (With Fabricated Quotes)
Only after much hand-wringing...
:-P
But yeah, I tend to trust more those newspapers who feature their corrections prominently. Actually, here in Norway there's a standard that says: If you make a mistake on the front page, then you retract on the front page. Mistake on page 10, retract on page 10. Though, getting the papers to actually issue that retraction is a funny process that often leads to as much handwringing, waving of arms and re-definition of language by the paper as it does in the US. We've got an independent review board too, that usually finds for the media.
What is worrying, following on to your comment, is that the "Columbia Journalism Review", affiliated with the Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, is one of the places where I've witnessed rather shoddy reporting. (I haven't conducted a study. Just personal experience.)
I agree with both of you to a certain extent. I think "most" of the main stream media can be trusted, on the pedestrian news stories, but they have a problem with the controversial ones. But I also think that the public have a right to expect journalists, when not opining, to strive toward being unbiased and getting the facts straight.
Saying "Oh, but everybody is biased" and then turning into Maureen O'Gara, isn't going to fly in my airspace.
Maybe sloppiness, carelessness, cluelessness...
What struck me though, was the possibility that this is a deliberate tactic to avoid you telling them in advance that you disagree with the story and make corrections that run contrary to their story. It's both a way to avoid a nuicance, AND shield themselves from a lawsuit for libel, maybe.
If you have time and sanity to re-visit the CBS memos, I'd recommend this blog post on contrary information: Sneak Peek at What's Not in the Memogate Report, although it's more about avoiding contacting you in the first place, than checking quotes. What might be relevant though, is the tactic of giving you minimal input to a news story.
My point is that news source G isn't just claiming to act in that way, I've observed it doing so. Integrity is a funny thing: You spend a long time building it, and it falls apart in an instant. Groklaw hasn't fallen down on me yet, well except for the slashdot effect.
n'th rule of interviews: Record everything you say to a reporter! Some states allow you to record without informing the reporter. To be on the safe side, if you don't know the laws of your state, ask the reporter if it's OK. If (s)he says "no", why the smeg are you still giving an interview?
(I thought of this myself, but I have later found it verified in information pamphlets on dealing with the media.)
n+1'th rule: Everything is on the record. Even if the camera appears to be turned off, the tally (the red blinking light) isn't on or whatever.
My own rule: Bloggers are your best friend if a journalist c**** on you. "Crockumentary" filmmaking and reporting, while still financially viable, isn't as damaging to the "public record" as it used to be. The people who want to believe the a**-journalist will still do it, but other people will know better.