The market is practically screaming for a battery that doesn't run down in a short period of time.
Isn't that the entire point of the article? We want batteries that will last longer! I certainly do!
You're probably sitting on a highly unstable, very dangerous bomb right now.
My butt does occasionally emit methane gas. (At least I believe it's mostly methane -- I may be wrong.) However, I do not generally consider it to be a highly unstable, dangerous bomb.
See that Lithium-Ion battery in your phone?
It just happens to be a powerful explosive
Oh, give me a break. Under the right (wrong) conditions, it can burst into flames. Yes, I know. So can my pants.
A butane lighter is a lot more likely to explode than a cell phone battery is. Cell phone batteries are generally protected against most forms of abuse that would cause it to catch fire.
(And no, you don't need to tell me about the dangers of LiPo cells. I am aware. I fly electric R/C planes, and we push our batteries far harder than cell phones ever have. And yes, LiPo cells have caught fire and burned R/C planes, houses, cars, etc. But 1) this generally only happens when they're abused or damaged, and 2) NiCd and NiMH cells can cause fires too. I've personally had more NiCd cells cause fires than LiPos...)
I still wouldnt call this a vulnerability in netcat.
Well, he did say `FOR TOTAL PROTECTION...'. When your system is compromised, it really doesn't matter where the blame can be assigned -- your system is still compromised.
netcat isn't a browser. Sure, it can grab a web page, and it does what it does well. But if you try to use it as a browser as the grandparent poster suggested, you open yourself to other vulnerabilities that you may not have considered. And this is hardly a unique situation...
Even netcat isn't perfectly safe. It just dumps network traffic directly to the terminal, and with the right characters in this code, it could very well remap the keyboard or cause your terminal emulator to execute certain commands.
This sort of thing may have already happened to you. Have you ever accidently just catted a binary file, and then discovered that your command history had all sorts of garbage commands in it? Same thing.
This sort of vulnerability has been around for decades. People used to trigger it via `talk' requests or by using the `write' command, and while talk eventually learned to filter things better, as for write eventually everybody just did a `mesg n', because all write does is write text to your tty, so changing write won't help. Of course, fixing xterm and other terminal emulators is another fix, but these features can be useful too. Still, I'm surprised that they haven't been disabled by default, but even today, xterm seems to have this `problem'.
Many vulnerabilities are caused by this sort of mixmash of different utilities -- in this case, netcat doesn't really have the vulnerability, but it would allow text to come in that could affect your terminal emulator.
Yes, with the right filtering of the output this could be safe, but not with netcat by itself. Still wouldn't make it a non-crappy browser though.
Sure, and why from yahoo? It's not like they posted the pics.
Well, her ex probably doesn't have $3 million dollars to give her -- `you can't get blood from a turnip'. (Perhaps that's why she left him!) And she may not be able to prove that he did it anyways.
And she may sue him later. Who knows?
Why sue yahoo for having the service that showed the pics?
It seems reasonable to me for Yahoo to remove naked pictures of somebody when asked, especially when the person isn't the one who posted them. Apparantly Yahoo did not. They certainly seem to have done so now, so apparantly the lawsuit has had some effect already.
She could have pulled the DMCA card on Yahoo -- claimed copyright on the images, and asked to have them removed on those grounds. (The law requires prompt action on that sort of thing.) Though the copyright would belong to the person who took the pictures, not the person in the images, though it's highly unlikely that the person who took the pictures (her ex?) would step up to dispute the claim. And to be fair, getting to sue for $3 million dollars (and probably winning, or getting a large chunk of that in a settlement) is probably worth having your naked picture online for a few extra days or weeks.
I'm not sure what the going rate is, but I'm pretty sure even most Playboy playmates don't get $3 million dollars for their posing. Even the celebrity ones...
When Napster was sued they actually had content in their possession.
I assume that by `content' you mean `infringing content'? And by `their possession' you mean on their servers?
If so, what content are you talking about? There were no mp3s hosted on Napster's servers.
This argument would work on mp3.com's `my.mp3.com' thing where you could prove that you own a CD and then it would let you play `it' from anywhere, but I don't see how it applies to Napster.
This is the reason I threw all my Metallica shit in the garbage. Fuck Metallica!!
Of course, this did nothing to actually fuck Metallica. In fact, it probably made them money rather than lost them money.
How so?
Well, if you kept your Metallica stuff (music, T-shirts, videos, I assume), then in the future you might decide that you just don't care for Metallica anymore. So you sell it. And the people who bought your used stuff might not buy new stuff from Metallica because they just bought your stuff.
But now that you've thrown it away (it's destroyed, presumably), this cannot happen, and now somebody will have to buy new Metallica shit, lining Lars' pockets with even more gold.
So if you read a book at the library and wanted to have your own - you had to buy it.
One thing that people seem to forget is that publishers and such actually have gone after libraries in the past too, because they felt that if people could check out their book from the library, it would hurt their sales. However, I don't think it got them (the publishers) very far legally, and I don't think that this `damage' has ever really been proven or even quantified.
This *will* hinder book sales.
Were you going to provide some proof or documentation to back this claim up, or is this just one of those things that's so utterly obvious to everybody that it doesn't need any sort of proof?
If I go into a teleporter, do 'I' come out the other end?
Depends on your SciFi. In Star Trek, absolutely. It "energizes" your matter into an energy stream and sends that actual energy to another place where it coalesces. It's your very quarks being transported.
It's a very valid question, and until we actually can teleport people, or can actually download their brain to a computer, we really can't answer it. (And maybe not even after...)
But it does make for some good (well, good examples of Sci-Fi, maybe not good movies) Sci-Fi shows, like Freejack, The Sixth Day and many others.
Unix is... well Unix. ifconfig, route, ping et al existed in 1994, and they still exist.
Yes, but the ifconfig and route syntaxes have changed over the years, and if you want your ifconfig changes to persist, which file do you change them in? That certainly changes over time. ping syntax is really simple if you're just pinging a host and will ^C it when you're done, but anything more complicated tends to send you to the man page, and it tends to vary a lot from *nix to *nix, and even sometimes from version to version.
Ok, with Unix (not knowing if its brand x or y) I say, edit the file/etc/resolv.conf and/etc/nsswitch.conf. Don't reboot, try pinging.
I don't think/etc/nsswitch.conf existed 11 years ago, or if it did, it was only on a handful of *nixes.
As for `try pinging', ping will use whatever resolver the system has configured nowadays, and that's generally controlled via/etc/nsswitch.conf. But if all you're worried about is DNS, ping may not be a good test, because by default it'll check/etc/hosts as well. nslookup is a better test, but nslookup has generally been deprecated for dig lately...
Even *nix changes over time. Yes, the changes are generally incremental and small, but they're there.
Windows is similar. In this thread somebody claimed that NT4 -> W2K was a large change -- and to some degree that's true. But overall, the changes were very small. And even now, a program written for NT 3.5.1 will probably work on Windows 2003 with no changes.
There has been so many changes with Windows products over the past ten years, that each iteration, while built upon the last, is sufficiently different from the previous release so as to make it virtually impossible to use the exact same skill set from one revision of the OS to another.
What are you talking about? I may be a pretty serious *nix advocate, but even I know anti-Microsoft FUD when I see it... and this is it.
Sure, NT 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003 are all different, and so the skills needed to administer and use each is slightly different. Which means that your statement of `exact same skill set' is technically accurate, though extremely misleading.
In reality, people install NT 3.5, then upgraded to NT 4.0, and updated their skill sets somewhat to add any needed NT 4.0 knowledge. Then Windows 2000 comes out, they upgrade, and upgrade their skill sets. The incremental knowledge upgrades are relatively minor. And while somebody who knew everything there was to know about NT 3.5 would be somewhat lost with Windows 2003, he'd pick it up quickly enough. (And while I'm mostly a *nix guy, I know enough about Windows here to know what I'm talking about, even going back to NT 3.5 and even earlier.)
The same is true with Linux, or any other OS. If somebody who was familiar with Redhat 1.0 suddenly was confronted with Fedora Core 3, they'd be lost... for a little while. Then they'd be OK as things started falling into place. (And remember, NT 3.5 came out slightly before Redhat 1.0 (both in 1994.))
I agree, why not have your crypto loops piss away a few extra cycles, randomly.
That's not a true fix. It makes it a bit harder, yes, but by repeating the test over and over one can average out the random error that you're introducing.
This page may be of some assistance in helping to understand the differences between systematic and random error, and should give you an idea how how people can minimize random errors (like the one you're talking about introducing.) (Of course, the way to work around random error is to simply take lots of readings, something that's often very easy to do when computers are involved.
I certainly agree that this HT vulnerability looks pretty minor, but the people who try to break cryptography are often VERY clever, and can use little things like this, even if obfuscated by some deliberately introduced randomness, to make an attack on something much simpler.
bit it ia not likly to put someone in prison for 3 years either.
Actually, the RIAA lawsuits won't put anybody in prison or even jail either. It's a civil matter, not a criminal one. Alas, this also means that the usual criminal defendant protections (innocent until proven guilty, taking the fifth amendment, `beyond a reasonable doubt', if you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed, etc.) don't apply. It's not really fair, but it's the way things are.
in fact, there would hardly be a penely at all for the first time.
If you're referring to shoplifting, it depends. In Texas, it's a class C misdemeanor. (So are traffic violations, I might add.) But it's a crime of `moral terpitude', and while the penalty is usually a fine less than a few hundred dollars, the damage to your record is much worse than the fine itself.
1) If it comes with a cd-key, like a game often does nowadays or Windows does, just write it on the disk itself with a sharpie when you first get it.
That way, when the box or case is missing, and all you can find is the CD, you're still good. Not that this helps you now...
2) If it's expensive `enterprise' software, the company really should keep track of who bought what serial number. They should be able to give you the same key again.
3) and if all else fails, just use a key you find on the net. You have proof that you've bought it, so you're safe from a `piracy' charge. And in the future, buy from another company, becuase this company is a pain in the ass.
After all, when the kids could have paid for the music via Yahoo! for $5 a month it makes it hard to say the music loss is worth more than that.
In several types of suits, one can generally sue for triple damages. So it would be $15/month!
... even though the logic IS pretty dodgy. The analogy made by another about stealing a T-shirt from Wal-Mart is pretty apt. If you get caught, the penalty is likely to be a lot more than $6.99.
Then the geek should have fucking documented what he was doing all day and given it to his boss to prove his worth.
Merely having poor or no documentation about what one does each day is not an excuse to blame somebody for any problems that happens after they no longer work there, in spite of your punctuating your remark with the word `fucking'.
I suspect it's very common to blame most problems on the guy who just left -- that's pretty much human nature. But hopefully they aren't often blamed for deliberately causing problems, at least not unless they're actually guilty of that.
I'm not always the best about documenting what I do, but every job I've ever left where it actually mattered (where I had some responsibility), I've gone above and beyond making sure they were able to do the job without me. I'm sure problems were still blamed on me, but hopefully nobody had the nerve to suggest that I deliberately caused the problems.
Would these sites have been hit with lawsuits if they had stuck to purely over-the-air broadcasts?
Yes.
No matter where the shows came from, the MPAA still wants to shut the site down. After all, anything that allows people to watch episodes that they may have missed could possibly impact future DVD sales when the series goes onto DVD.
It doesn't really matter what the law says, as you can pretty much sue anybody for anything, but I suspect that it makes no distinction between shows recorded from TV and shows recorded from HBO.
Still, it could get interesting if it ever goes to court. I believe it's been shown to be `fair use' if you record something from TV and share it with a friend. I believe it's even considered fair use to record movies off of HBO and keep them forever, to pick an extreme example. But previously these were analog activities, and now that they're being done digitally, the courts might see them differently. After all, they (they = the law, the courts) have recently treated digital things differently (like with the DMCA), thanks to heavy lobbying from the RIAA and MPAA and others...
What kind of scanner? I'm not sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand, but if you're looking for a radio scanner, there's always http://www.dxtuners.com/. Running a node for these people on your home network would be pretty geeky...
Can't think of any networked document scanners, though some of the big copy machines can also work as a network printer and scanner -- the scanner function just saves files to a SMB (I guess) share somewhere. So that would be a nice networked scanner, at least if you had enough room for a couch sized device at home.
Typical Geek Home Network? Well, there is no such thing.
The geekier you get, the more varied you'll find the network to be. On the non-geek side, things are probably pretty standard -- at least one computer (probably not more than two or three, however), maybe a cable modem router, printer, etc.
On the extreme geek side, you'll probably find many computers, of various types, running various operating systems. There is no real `typical' -- for the real geeks, every network will be different. If needed, there may be wireless stuff -- either WiFi or something similar, or maybe something done with ham radio or Cybiko terminals, for example. His fridge may be part of the network, allowing him to see how cold his caffinated beverage of choice is. (Though that's not really as cool as one might think, so many geeks skip that sort of show-off thing.)
If there's WiFi, you may find antennas outside, where the neighbor (or fellow geek a mile away with a high gain antenna) has been invited to share in the bounty.
have spare machines around that I'm torn on what to do with.
Well, it depends. If you want to be a true geek, you'd already know the answer to that question -- and the answer would depend on you.
If you're just a wannabe geek, you'd install a different OS on every one (probably all Windows based (95, 98, XP, 2000, etc.) if that's all you know), hook them all up, leave them powered on all the time (sucking up lots of power for the machines and for cooling if it's hot where you live) and then tell all your friends how cool you are, while you probably never touch them again.
As for whining about first ammendment rights, it is his right to elect to remove a story from his servers. Just as it would be my first ammendment right as a BBS owner to delete messages I find offensive that are being posted on my BBS, or web server, or groupware server, or any other server.
Absolutely. His servers, his domain. He can do whatever he wants with them.
As for the DoS attacks, they're nothing new. People have been getting hit with them for various reasons for quite some time now. Now they're distributed, launched from thousands of compromised systems across the world, and therefore very difficult to track, but if the FBI were to get sufficiently interested, and if the attacks were to persist, they could find the source much of the time.
As for your guess about the logic, I dunno. SCO has been hit by similar attacks, and in that case the financial impact wasn't so obvious. I think it's more of a knee-jerk reaction -- `I don't like them! Well, I've got all of these bots... let's DoS them!' without actually thinking of what they're doing.
Perhaps MOG should look behind her couch as well.
Indeed. Maybe that's where Jimmy Hoffa's hiding...
So? Does that give you license to act like a jackass?
[alas, to many, the answer is yes, but I digress...]
Where are my First Amendment rights?
Dunno. You seem to have just used them, and they worked fine.
Did you look behind the couch? When I lose something, that's where I usually first look.
Though I wonder if you've really lost them -- after all, the First Amendment says that `Congress shall pass no law'... and while this has generally been interpeted as meaning that the Government shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech, in this case, I see no law having been passed. So what are you complaining about when you ask about your First Amendment Rights?
Where are Ms. O'Gara's?
Hers seem to be perfectly functional as well. Did she lose hers too?
Where is the freedom of press?
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press. You own your press, and so you have freedom of press, and you used it. What's the problem?
As for the story you posted, what did you think the response would be? I'm not talking about the DoS attacks, but just the general reaction from the more `moderate' people? Did you think that people would appreciate knowing who PJ was? Was that news?
As far as the DoS attacks go, call the FBI. You should be able to assign a large dollar figure to the damage being caused, and so the FBI will probably take your complaint seriously. Nail the bastards! Seriously. I don't approve of what you've done, but you've already given yourself enough problems -- we don't need criminals adding to them with DoS attacks.
As for the rest of the world (the people who are saying that you made a poor decision, in varying degrees of articulateness), well, you made your bed -- now lie in it. I don't feel sorry for you. You may have had every right to post the story (or maybe not -- it sort of looked like a threat. But I'll leave that to the lawyers) -- but the bad will you've just gained with a signifigant portion of the community can't be a good thing.
Are you sure? I watched
that episode last night on Adult Swim, and specifically remember hearing something about jerked, and then `it's used to it... woooo!'
(The `woooo!' joke gets very old by the end of the show, I might add.)
Apparantly Cartoon Network has been known to censor other parts of the show as well, so maybe I'm just thinking of something else.
Take a picture of a turning fan, and let's see if you can see that it is turning.
Heh. Obviously I didn't make myself very clear:)
Let me restate myself...
I would not expect a fan designed to pull 3000 RPM in air to spin at all in oil. And if it did spin, it would spin so slowly that it couldn't move the oil to any signifigant degree.
Slashdot Mirror
A butane lighter is a lot more likely to explode than a cell phone battery is. Cell phone batteries are generally protected against most forms of abuse that would cause it to catch fire.
(And no, you don't need to tell me about the dangers of LiPo cells. I am aware. I fly electric R/C planes, and we push our batteries far harder than cell phones ever have. And yes, LiPo cells have caught fire and burned R/C planes, houses, cars, etc. But 1) this generally only happens when they're abused or damaged, and 2) NiCd and NiMH cells can cause fires too. I've personally had more NiCd cells cause fires than LiPos ...)
netcat isn't a browser. Sure, it can grab a web page, and it does what it does well. But if you try to use it as a browser as the grandparent poster suggested, you open yourself to other vulnerabilities that you may not have considered. And this is hardly a unique situation ...
This sort of thing may have already happened to you. Have you ever accidently just catted a binary file, and then discovered that your command history had all sorts of garbage commands in it? Same thing.
This sort of vulnerability has been around for decades. People used to trigger it via `talk' requests or by using the `write' command, and while talk eventually learned to filter things better, as for write eventually everybody just did a `mesg n', because all write does is write text to your tty, so changing write won't help. Of course, fixing xterm and other terminal emulators is another fix, but these features can be useful too. Still, I'm surprised that they haven't been disabled by default, but even today, xterm seems to have this `problem'.
Many vulnerabilities are caused by this sort of mixmash of different utilities -- in this case, netcat doesn't really have the vulnerability, but it would allow text to come in that could affect your terminal emulator.
Yes, with the right filtering of the output this could be safe, but not with netcat by itself. Still wouldn't make it a non-crappy browser though.
And she may sue him later. Who knows?
It seems reasonable to me for Yahoo to remove naked pictures of somebody when asked, especially when the person isn't the one who posted them. Apparantly Yahoo did not. They certainly seem to have done so now, so apparantly the lawsuit has had some effect already.She could have pulled the DMCA card on Yahoo -- claimed copyright on the images, and asked to have them removed on those grounds. (The law requires prompt action on that sort of thing.) Though the copyright would belong to the person who took the pictures, not the person in the images, though it's highly unlikely that the person who took the pictures (her ex?) would step up to dispute the claim. And to be fair, getting to sue for $3 million dollars (and probably winning, or getting a large chunk of that in a settlement) is probably worth having your naked picture online for a few extra days or weeks.
I'm not sure what the going rate is, but I'm pretty sure even most Playboy playmates don't get $3 million dollars for their posing. Even the celebrity ones ...
If so, what content are you talking about? There were no mp3s hosted on Napster's servers.
This argument would work on mp3.com's `my.mp3.com' thing where you could prove that you own a CD and then it would let you play `it' from anywhere, but I don't see how it applies to Napster.
How so?
Well, if you kept your Metallica stuff (music, T-shirts, videos, I assume), then in the future you might decide that you just don't care for Metallica anymore. So you sell it. And the people who bought your used stuff might not buy new stuff from Metallica because they just bought your stuff.
But now that you've thrown it away (it's destroyed, presumably), this cannot happen, and now somebody will have to buy new Metallica shit, lining Lars' pockets with even more gold.
Good job!
I look at the A-list, and only recognize very few of the names. Should I?
(Well, it's not really new anymore, but ...)
It's a very valid question, and until we actually can teleport people, or can actually download their brain to a computer, we really can't answer it. (And maybe not even after ...)
But it does make for some good (well, good examples of Sci-Fi, maybe not good movies) Sci-Fi shows, like Freejack, The Sixth Day and many others.
As for `try pinging', ping will use whatever resolver the system has configured nowadays, and that's generally controlled via /etc/nsswitch.conf. But if all you're worried about is DNS, ping may not be a good test, because by default it'll check /etc/hosts as well. nslookup is a better test, but nslookup has generally been deprecated for dig lately ...
Even *nix changes over time. Yes, the changes are generally incremental and small, but they're there.
Windows is similar. In this thread somebody claimed that NT4 -> W2K was a large change -- and to some degree that's true. But overall, the changes were very small. And even now, a program written for NT 3.5.1 will probably work on Windows 2003 with no changes.
Sure, NT 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, 2003 are all different, and so the skills needed to administer and use each is slightly different. Which means that your statement of `exact same skill set' is technically accurate, though extremely misleading.
In reality, people install NT 3.5, then upgraded to NT 4.0, and updated their skill sets somewhat to add any needed NT 4.0 knowledge. Then Windows 2000 comes out, they upgrade, and upgrade their skill sets. The incremental knowledge upgrades are relatively minor. And while somebody who knew everything there was to know about NT 3.5 would be somewhat lost with Windows 2003, he'd pick it up quickly enough. (And while I'm mostly a *nix guy, I know enough about Windows here to know what I'm talking about, even going back to NT 3.5 and even earlier.)
The same is true with Linux, or any other OS. If somebody who was familiar with Redhat 1.0 suddenly was confronted with Fedora Core 3, they'd be lost ... for a little while. Then they'd be OK as things started falling into place. (And remember, NT 3.5 came out slightly before Redhat 1.0 (both in 1994.))
This page may be of some assistance in helping to understand the differences between systematic and random error, and should give you an idea how how people can minimize random errors (like the one you're talking about introducing.) (Of course, the way to work around random error is to simply take lots of readings, something that's often very easy to do when computers are involved.
I certainly agree that this HT vulnerability looks pretty minor, but the people who try to break cryptography are often VERY clever, and can use little things like this, even if obfuscated by some deliberately introduced randomness, to make an attack on something much simpler.
That way, when the box or case is missing, and all you can find is the CD, you're still good. Not that this helps you now ...
2) If it's expensive `enterprise' software, the company really should keep track of who bought what serial number. They should be able to give you the same key again.
3) and if all else fails, just use a key you find on the net. You have proof that you've bought it, so you're safe from a `piracy' charge. And in the future, buy from another company, becuase this company is a pain in the ass.
I suspect it's very common to blame most problems on the guy who just left -- that's pretty much human nature. But hopefully they aren't often blamed for deliberately causing problems, at least not unless they're actually guilty of that.
I'm not always the best about documenting what I do, but every job I've ever left where it actually mattered (where I had some responsibility), I've gone above and beyond making sure they were able to do the job without me. I'm sure problems were still blamed on me, but hopefully nobody had the nerve to suggest that I deliberately caused the problems.
No matter where the shows came from, the MPAA still wants to shut the site down. After all, anything that allows people to watch episodes that they may have missed could possibly impact future DVD sales when the series goes onto DVD.
It doesn't really matter what the law says, as you can pretty much sue anybody for anything, but I suspect that it makes no distinction between shows recorded from TV and shows recorded from HBO.
Still, it could get interesting if it ever goes to court. I believe it's been shown to be `fair use' if you record something from TV and share it with a friend. I believe it's even considered fair use to record movies off of HBO and keep them forever, to pick an extreme example. But previously these were analog activities, and now that they're being done digitally, the courts might see them differently. After all, they (they = the law, the courts) have recently treated digital things differently (like with the DMCA), thanks to heavy lobbying from the RIAA and MPAA and others ...
Of course, I'm no lawyer ...
Can't think of any networked document scanners, though some of the big copy machines can also work as a network printer and scanner -- the scanner function just saves files to a SMB (I guess) share somewhere. So that would be a nice networked scanner, at least if you had enough room for a couch sized device at home.
The geekier you get, the more varied you'll find the network to be. On the non-geek side, things are probably pretty standard -- at least one computer (probably not more than two or three, however), maybe a cable modem router, printer, etc.
On the extreme geek side, you'll probably find many computers, of various types, running various operating systems. There is no real `typical' -- for the real geeks, every network will be different. If needed, there may be wireless stuff -- either WiFi or something similar, or maybe something done with ham radio or Cybiko terminals, for example. His fridge may be part of the network, allowing him to see how cold his caffinated beverage of choice is. (Though that's not really as cool as one might think, so many geeks skip that sort of show-off thing.)
If there's WiFi, you may find antennas outside, where the neighbor (or fellow geek a mile away with a high gain antenna) has been invited to share in the bounty.
Well, it depends. If you want to be a true geek, you'd already know the answer to that question -- and the answer would depend on you.If you're just a wannabe geek, you'd install a different OS on every one (probably all Windows based (95, 98, XP, 2000, etc.) if that's all you know), hook them all up, leave them powered on all the time (sucking up lots of power for the machines and for cooling if it's hot where you live) and then tell all your friends how cool you are, while you probably never touch them again.
As for the DoS attacks, they're nothing new. People have been getting hit with them for various reasons for quite some time now. Now they're distributed, launched from thousands of compromised systems across the world, and therefore very difficult to track, but if the FBI were to get sufficiently interested, and if the attacks were to persist, they could find the source much of the time.
As for your guess about the logic, I dunno. SCO has been hit by similar attacks, and in that case the financial impact wasn't so obvious. I think it's more of a knee-jerk reaction -- `I don't like them! Well, I've got all of these bots ... let's DoS them!' without actually thinking of what they're doing.
Indeed. Maybe that's where Jimmy Hoffa's hiding[alas, to many, the answer is yes, but I digress
Did you look behind the couch? When I lose something, that's where I usually first look.
Though I wonder if you've really lost them -- after all, the First Amendment says that `Congress shall pass no law' ... and while this has generally been interpeted as meaning that the Government shall pass no law abridging your freedom of speech, in this case, I see no law having been passed. So what are you complaining about when you ask about your First Amendment Rights?
Hers seem to be perfectly functional as well. Did she lose hers too? Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the press. You own your press, and so you have freedom of press, and you used it. What's the problem?As for the story you posted, what did you think the response would be? I'm not talking about the DoS attacks, but just the general reaction from the more `moderate' people? Did you think that people would appreciate knowing who PJ was? Was that news?
As far as the DoS attacks go, call the FBI. You should be able to assign a large dollar figure to the damage being caused, and so the FBI will probably take your complaint seriously. Nail the bastards! Seriously. I don't approve of what you've done, but you've already given yourself enough problems -- we don't need criminals adding to them with DoS attacks.
As for the rest of the world (the people who are saying that you made a poor decision, in varying degrees of articulateness), well, you made your bed -- now lie in it. I don't feel sorry for you. You may have had every right to post the story (or maybe not -- it sort of looked like a threat. But I'll leave that to the lawyers) -- but the bad will you've just gained with a signifigant portion of the community can't be a good thing.
(The `woooo!' joke gets very old by the end of the show, I might add.)
Apparantly Cartoon Network has been known to censor other parts of the show as well, so maybe I'm just thinking of something else.
Let me restate myself ...
I would not expect a fan designed to pull 3000 RPM in air to spin at all in oil. And if it did spin, it would spin so slowly that it couldn't move the oil to any signifigant degree.
That's what I meant by `can't see' ...