what has me is how this guy was allowed to land ALIVE. i for one will not take prisoners when somebody trys to blow me up in the sky.
That's what separates us from them.
No, we're not willing to endorse the wholesale killing of innocents. We've no problem with killing those who try to murder us, though. That's called self-defense.
He was on the terrorist watch list, and has been for some time, but was never put on the 'no-fly' list that the TSA uses.
I wonder who screwed the pooch there, because that is a sure sign of someone not doing their jobs.
Good to know that all those people with the wrong name, babies, toddlers, etc. are barred from flights but not a Nigerian national that is a known terror suspect..
I often think the TSA would be better off privatized. The contract awards could be based on performance (read: success at stopping real and simulated persons trying to enter the secured area with contraband.)
If 9/11 changed the rules as you say, then why have there been several successful (read: control of the plane was taken) hijackings since then?
People like to say the rules have changed, but the fact that successful hijackings have occurred since then demonstrates that is just plain wrong.
No American-bound ones, and of the international ones I'm not aware that any of the assailants accessed the flight decks nor did any of them result in any injuries to passengers or crew.
Terrorists do what they do for a reason. That reason can usually be addressed by politics. There will always be a hardcore that doesn't think the political solution proposed is sufficient (witness IRA splinter groups and Hamas in Israel), but political action can kill most of the support for them.
This sort of misunderstanding of our adversary is dangerous. Many mujahideen (jihadists) believe that it is their duty to kill non-believers who will not convert to Islam.
Ali Gom’a, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he says, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs, not only the Jews.
This, in my opinion, is a perversion of Islam. While I am not a muslim, I have spent a lot of time studying and understanding this matter and its' impact on geopolitics and security. Here are some good links here which quote relevant Quran scriptures:
.. just switch providers. I'm sure there are companies that treat you better.
This is the lamest ask/. in quite awhile; first post solves it.
I'm not even sure if this is lawful - I can't imagine signing a contract that gives my colocation provider permission to make unauthorized access to my servers.
I've hosted at Concentric (later XO), The Planet, Rackspace, and other popular providers at one time or another. I can't possibly imagine this happening at any of them, and they all have their own shortcomings to be sure.
If "that" is what I think it is, it's not exactly a place where common folk go. Now, there are http caches... But it can also be a great jumbled mess. How do we verify authenticity of posts? Cause lets face it, that frontier is a place where everyone can contribute... Everyone...
I'm surprised nobody yet thought up a BitTorrent analogue for HTTP - to offload/share traffic from busy sites.
It wouldn't be difficult to put a torrent backend on HTTP, wherein the URLs would actually just be trackers for the peers, but dynamic content obviously couldn't be served in any practical manner this way. And usually serving static content is just a solved problem - bandwidth is cheap (until someone DoS's S3, anyways).
They need to have very public court cases against these criminals to start putting faces to these crimes. There were probably being blackmailed pay up or suffer a DNS attack.
Most attackers involved in these type of operations are usually found to be located abroad in countries where this is not a priority, or the laws are simply not up to date on making this sort of stuff criminal.
I'm not allowed to use any GPL stuff anywhere unless it absolutely, positively will never leave the intranet.
If you run a publicly accessible web site on a LAMP server, the only GPL programs involved are Linux and MySQL, and no copy of Linux or MySQL leaves your server. If you run a web site, only two kinds of programs are ever "distributed" (GPLv2) or "conveyed" (GPLv3) to the public: 1. in-page scripts written in JavaScript, ActionScript, or Java, and 2. software packages explicitly offered for download.
As far as I understand, MySQL AB doesn't (or once did not) agree with your understanding.
I can understand the DVD encryption argument, but the FBI warning? Is there some sort of subliminal message that makes you want to hit Bittorrent and download copyrighted stuff? Do you have some sort of strange Pavlovian condition where seeing the warning triggers an insatiable desire to hit the Pirate Bay?
I think he's referring to people like me who self-justify "infringement" in the name of fair use, wherein a pirated copy of a work is more functional and more valuable to me than the original because I can use it how I want it. I can skip the FBI warnings, transfer it to devices, etc.
And all the technological, legal, and philosophical barriers in the world amount to nothing because there's a small core of people like you and I, here on slashdot, that do understand the implications of what they're doing and we continually search for ways to screw them over and liberate their goods and services for "sale" on the grey market. It is, economically and politically, structurally identical to the Prohibition, except that instead of smuggling liquor we are smuggling digital files.
I'm not disagreeing with your thesis overall, but let's not be intellectually dishonest here.
During the Prohibition era, the manufacturers of the alcohol were paid for their goods.. it just wasn't legal to pay them.
Of course, in this case, one will argue that people are making copies and not taking original items. This is why it's an intellectually dishonest analogy.
They'd freak out since Americans are rarely smart enough to understand "unintended consequences" of international law.
International law is surrender of sovereignty and should be viewed as such.
The idea of regulation and micro-management of nations by laws their publics didn't vote for is quite popular with politicians, but treaties work both ways.
I'm not sure why all the anti-American angst in these threads are directed towards the US. No question that it's a ridiculous perversion of our system, from the viewpoint of an american. But why aren't you angry at the various countries who cave to the ridiculous whims of these American-based corporations and the courts/legal system they leverage? You speak about sovereignty but I see no pushback from Canada and the like. These types of [relatively, in the scheme of international politics] petty issues simply aren't the types of things that affect head of state-level relations between allies. There is no bullying or peer pressure here.
tl;dr = start complaining about your own politicians not having the balls to tell our courts to get bent.
Same reason there's no direct flights to Cuba. If Gary is found to be owing a bazillionty dollars to the MPAA and doesn't pay then TSA cavity searches will be the least of his concerns next time he crosses the border.
Is this based on anything other than hyperbole?
You're confusing civil judgments with criminal matters. If the MPAA sues (and subsequently wins a judgment against) the ISOHunt principals, they will simply owe them a debt. If there are assets belonging to them in the US, MPAA can petition the courts to have these assets seized/liquidated.
People are not arrested in the US for owing a debt. See: untold number of spammers whoowe Facebook, MySpace, et al. billions.
Or, you could leave it up to the private sector with a few caveats. For one, once a patent holding corporation recoups the investment costs (plus a profit margin), the patent is rendered null and void.
Aside from Hollywood accounting, mentioned by a sibling to my reply, there are other issues with that.
For one, only a tiny fraction of the research and subsequent patents done by a company pay off. This means they have to earn enough on the winners to cover all of their losers.
Compression and limiting are why listening to radio wears you out--it's called "listener fatigue". Your brain has to do extra work to process unnatural sound.
This is fascinating.. there isn't much info on wikipedia, etc.. do you have any recommended reading - especially as it applies to music?
The fact the SCOTUS took this up is a concern for businesses and sys admins. I would have thought it obvious there's no freedom of speech issues here.
I'm not sure where you read that. This is a fourth amendment issue. You can see some info in the decision from the appeals court. The appeals court considered some things such as the California constitution, but that won't be considered in SCOTUS.
A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position, though. Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages? Or does it treat it like a police request for transcripts?
Larger telecoms have well-established protocols for responding to official requests from LE for records. This would not fall within that unless the Department had submitted the proper paperwork for a subpoena. I don't see the need for them to do this, the telecom would likely be willing to comply since it is their account, after all.
Or bury it. Publish a huge volume of information to the internet using your real name so eventually anyone searching for you will only find the good stuff and hopefully will get bored before they find that one blemish.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what separates us from them.
No, we're not willing to endorse the wholesale killing of innocents. We've no problem with killing those who try to murder us, though. That's called self-defense.
Those were the days when passengers could depend on their captors not being suicidal.
(Score:1, Insightful)
Al Qaeda modded you down.
A friend is flying home on Southwest to Dallas tonight. I'll be asking her what she experienced on the flight.
If she's not flying from an international origin, there won't be any rule changes affecting her. Otherwise, I'd be interested to hear too.
He was on the terrorist watch list, and has been for some time, but was never put on the 'no-fly' list that the TSA uses.
I wonder who screwed the pooch there, because that is a sure sign of someone not doing their jobs.
Good to know that all those people with the wrong name, babies, toddlers, etc. are barred from flights but not a Nigerian national that is a known terror suspect..
I often think the TSA would be better off privatized. The contract awards could be based on performance (read: success at stopping real and simulated persons trying to enter the secured area with contraband.)
If 9/11 changed the rules as you say, then why have there been several successful (read: control of the plane was taken) hijackings since then?
People like to say the rules have changed, but the fact that successful hijackings have occurred since then demonstrates that is just plain wrong.
No American-bound ones, and of the international ones I'm not aware that any of the assailants accessed the flight decks nor did any of them result in any injuries to passengers or crew.
Terrorists do what they do for a reason. That reason can usually be addressed by politics. There will always be a hardcore that doesn't think the political solution proposed is sufficient (witness IRA splinter groups and Hamas in Israel), but political action can kill most of the support for them.
This sort of misunderstanding of our adversary is dangerous. Many mujahideen (jihadists) believe that it is their duty to kill non-believers who will not convert to Islam.
This, in my opinion, is a perversion of Islam. While I am not a muslim, I have spent a lot of time studying and understanding this matter and its' impact on geopolitics and security. Here are some good links here which quote relevant Quran scriptures:
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016516&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016474&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE
.. just switch providers. I'm sure there are companies that treat you better.
This is the lamest ask /. in quite awhile; first post solves it.
I'm not even sure if this is lawful - I can't imagine signing a contract that gives my colocation provider permission to make unauthorized access to my servers.
I've hosted at Concentric (later XO), The Planet, Rackspace, and other popular providers at one time or another. I can't possibly imagine this happening at any of them, and they all have their own shortcomings to be sure.
simply cannot be expected to do so without some form of legal immunity
Anyone volunteering to pitch this to AT&T?
If "that" is what I think it is, it's not exactly a place where common folk go. Now, there are http caches... But it can also be a great jumbled mess. How do we verify authenticity of posts? Cause lets face it, that frontier is a place where everyone can contribute... Everyone...
There are moderated ****groups.
TOR is already proven to be pretty unreliable since the exit node can sniff all the traffic, have enough exit nodes and you can track your target.
Even without compromising or joining up exit nodes, deanonymizing (see: 1 2) is a problem for the uninformed users of onion routing and proxies.
I'm surprised nobody yet thought up a BitTorrent analogue for HTTP - to offload/share traffic from busy sites.
It wouldn't be difficult to put a torrent backend on HTTP, wherein the URLs would actually just be trackers for the peers, but dynamic content obviously couldn't be served in any practical manner this way. And usually serving static content is just a solved problem - bandwidth is cheap (until someone DoS's S3, anyways).
They need to have very public court cases against these criminals to start putting faces to these crimes. There were probably being blackmailed pay up or suffer a DNS attack.
Most attackers involved in these type of operations are usually found to be located abroad in countries where this is not a priority, or the laws are simply not up to date on making this sort of stuff criminal.
I'm not allowed to use any GPL stuff anywhere unless it absolutely, positively will never leave the intranet.
If you run a publicly accessible web site on a LAMP server, the only GPL programs involved are Linux and MySQL, and no copy of Linux or MySQL leaves your server. If you run a web site, only two kinds of programs are ever "distributed" (GPLv2) or "conveyed" (GPLv3) to the public: 1. in-page scripts written in JavaScript, ActionScript, or Java, and 2. software packages explicitly offered for download.
As far as I understand, MySQL AB doesn't (or once did not) agree with your understanding.
http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/198707
I can understand the DVD encryption argument, but the FBI warning? Is there some sort of subliminal message that makes you want to hit Bittorrent and download copyrighted stuff? Do you have some sort of strange Pavlovian condition where seeing the warning triggers an insatiable desire to hit the Pirate Bay?
I think he's referring to people like me who self-justify "infringement" in the name of fair use, wherein a pirated copy of a work is more functional and more valuable to me than the original because I can use it how I want it. I can skip the FBI warnings, transfer it to devices, etc.
And all the technological, legal, and philosophical barriers in the world amount to nothing because there's a small core of people like you and I, here on slashdot, that do understand the implications of what they're doing and we continually search for ways to screw them over and liberate their goods and services for "sale" on the grey market. It is, economically and politically, structurally identical to the Prohibition, except that instead of smuggling liquor we are smuggling digital files.
I'm not disagreeing with your thesis overall, but let's not be intellectually dishonest here.
During the Prohibition era, the manufacturers of the alcohol were paid for their goods.. it just wasn't legal to pay them.
Of course, in this case, one will argue that people are making copies and not taking original items. This is why it's an intellectually dishonest analogy.
So are all web sites required to censor themselves according to Chinese law if they don't explicitly firewall off Chinese IP addresses?
If you're concerned about losing your assets in mainland China due to a civil judgment, yep! :)
They'd freak out since Americans are rarely smart enough to understand "unintended consequences" of international law.
International law is surrender of sovereignty and should be viewed as such.
The idea of regulation and micro-management of nations by laws their publics didn't vote for is quite popular with politicians, but treaties work both ways.
I'm not sure why all the anti-American angst in these threads are directed towards the US. No question that it's a ridiculous perversion of our system, from the viewpoint of an american. But why aren't you angry at the various countries who cave to the ridiculous whims of these American-based corporations and the courts/legal system they leverage? You speak about sovereignty but I see no pushback from Canada and the like. These types of [relatively, in the scheme of international politics] petty issues simply aren't the types of things that affect head of state-level relations between allies. There is no bullying or peer pressure here.
tl;dr = start complaining about your own politicians not having the balls to tell our courts to get bent.
Same reason there's no direct flights to Cuba. If Gary is found to be owing a bazillionty dollars to the MPAA and doesn't pay then TSA cavity searches will be the least of his concerns next time he crosses the border.
Is this based on anything other than hyperbole?
You're confusing civil judgments with criminal matters. If the MPAA sues (and subsequently wins a judgment against) the ISOHunt principals, they will simply owe them a debt. If there are assets belonging to them in the US, MPAA can petition the courts to have these assets seized/liquidated.
People are not arrested in the US for owing a debt. See: untold number of spammers who owe Facebook, MySpace, et al. billions.
Or, you could leave it up to the private sector with a few caveats. For one, once a patent holding corporation recoups the investment costs (plus a profit margin), the patent is rendered null and void.
Aside from Hollywood accounting, mentioned by a sibling to my reply, there are other issues with that.
For one, only a tiny fraction of the research and subsequent patents done by a company pay off. This means they have to earn enough on the winners to cover all of their losers.
Compression and limiting are why listening to radio wears you out--it's called "listener fatigue". Your brain has to do extra work to process unnatural sound.
This is fascinating.. there isn't much info on wikipedia, etc.. do you have any recommended reading - especially as it applies to music?
The fact the SCOTUS took this up is a concern for businesses and sys admins. I would have thought it obvious there's no freedom of speech issues here.
I'm not sure where you read that. This is a fourth amendment issue. You can see some info in the decision from the appeals court. The appeals court considered some things such as the California constitution, but that won't be considered in SCOTUS.
A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position, though. Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages? Or does it treat it like a police request for transcripts?
Larger telecoms have well-established protocols for responding to official requests from LE for records. This would not fall within that unless the Department had submitted the proper paperwork for a subpoena. I don't see the need for them to do this, the telecom would likely be willing to comply since it is their account, after all.
I credit the moderation system.
I do, too. Lame as it may seem, I enjoy posting and getting feedback on my thoughts or kudos for my lame jokes..
Or bury it. Publish a huge volume of information to the internet using your real name so eventually anyone searching for you will only find the good stuff and hopefully will get bored before they find that one blemish.
This seems to be working.
Malaysia, is the story you're thinking of - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4396831.stm - though it's happened more than once I've heard, but don't have any other links.