War is hell. Given that we sustained almost 100 KIA and nearly 600 WIA, it seems like a safe assumption that we were fighting people who were actually shooting back. Hence I'm skeptical about claims of a "massacre".
I like how "defending your country from a foreign invading army" suddenly becomes "insurgents that needs some killing".
Given that most of the insurgents who were fighting us were Sunni's aligned with the former murderous regime, I'd say that it's quite fair to label them as people who need killing. You do realize that the people you are claiming were defending their country are the same people that killed more Iraqis than Americans, right?
I guess they could defend their rapidly eroding rights by writing a strongly worded letter to the government, and express their outrage over a cuppa, by gosh.
Nah the UN will save 'em. They'll write an even stronger worded letter and go on TV to express their outrage.
How many script kiddies could possibly be on a large provider in a large metro area, sharing your nameservers?:)
Well, for what it's worth, I've got my own nameservers (from my authoritative one at work to my personal one at home) configured to only allow access from local hosts. I further monitor them (and every other service on my servers for that matter) and would notice traffic out of ordinary like that. It's too bad that more people don't make that effort. It's not really that hard.
I prefer to have my own good ones at work. I lose a little from latency from home to work, but I make up a lot where those nameservers are rarely under much load
I had that once upon a time when I was stuck with a rural WISP. They would capture DNS packets bound out of their network and redirect them to the local name servers. Don't ask me why. Anyway, they messed up the NXDOMAIN error message for a webpage redirect and annoyed the hell out of me. So I set up a VPN to work, set up a local nameserver to use a work nameserver over the VPN as a forwarder. Gave me a local cache for everything and a good nameserver that wasn't contaminated by hijacking-ad bullshit.
I'm not rude enough to run my own nameserver at home.
Out of curiosity, why is that 'rude'? Are the root servers overloaded or something? I've always run my own nameserver and aside from a few times when I messed around with linking it to work, I've usually had it going directly to the source. Should I re-evaluate this practice?
Have you ever read some of the extortion letters they send? I got a series from Microsoft and the BSA once. Talking to a lawyer, they implied, was grounds for them rescinding their "generous offer" and taking legal action.
And I had a debt collector threaten to show up at my house with the sheriff and have me arrested once. So what? People need to learn their rights and stand up for them. You can't expect the person who is trying to extort you to be truthful and honest with you. The fact that they said not to get a lawyer would have been my first indication that I needed one.
So, many uniformed people get scared by the settlement letters and follow through as the RIAA wants.
People are sheep. I can't say that I have much sympathy for them if they aren't willing to stand up and fight back. I'd love to get one of those letters from the BSA or RIAA. The BSA would be a neat trick too, since my company runs Linux almost exclusively.
I think 30 minutes is a generous amount of time if one of the larger botnets turned its attention on the root servers for a DDOS attack
I think you are overlooking a two things:
1) There's a lot more than 13 root servers nowadays. Many of the servers are mirrored using anycast. Wikipedia had a total of 123 in 2006 so it's a safe assumption that there are even more today.
2) Even if you could render the root servers inaccessible, this doesn't "take down" the internet. Many sites would still be accessible until their DNS cache entires timed out in the nameserver that you use (likely your ISP). A lot of sites set short timeouts on the www 'A' record (for load balancing purposes) but long timeouts on the 'NS' records for the domain. In this scenario your nameserver would still know where to go to get the 'A' record and wouldn't need to consult with the root servers.
Those caches wouldn't last forever but it would seem to offer enough time to deal with the DDOS. The internet would have limited functionality for awhile but it wouldn't "go down". Many operations (site to site VPNs for example) might not even notice.
There are plenty of people out there who would be equally derisive about a real piece of investigative journalism. That's why I'm uncomfortable with dictating what subjects Journalists are 'allowed' to talk about, purely on the basis of whether I think their beat is important enough.
I agree with your sentiment but I still don't have any sympathy for him. Even a real investigative journalist would still have to obey company policy. He couldn't bribe sources or engage in illegal activity to make a story. This reporter engaged in questionable behavior to obtain his story in violation of company policy. What did you expect them to do about it?
Umm, any lawyer worth his salt would have just told the girl to file bankruptcy and the parents not to pay. Clearly you've had a bad experience with an attorney in the past but the few times in my life I've had to pay for one (including being wrongfully accused of a crime) it was worth every penny.
Naw, ya gotta go classy. Discount caskets aren't classy. Now a Folger's coffee can and scattering the ashes when the wind is in your face.... that's classy;)
No? The man had a vaguely interesting story and lost his job over it
And he acquired that "vaguely interesting story" by breaking company policy. A policy that he presumably knew about and had reason to obey. So again, cry me a river....
I recall a time when the impartiality of the press was something to be admired, at least idealistically. I guess not so much anymore.
Oh please. This wasn't some investigative reporter who was fired for exposing political corruption or some such. This was an entertainment columnist who was fired for breaking a well known company policy. You'll forgive me if I'm not broken up with sympathy for him.
One would think before you'd write a check for $10,000 you'd get some legal knowledge. A consultation with a lawyer would have been well advised. I'd repeat my earlier bit about her needing to seek some professional help too. If a civil lawsuit is all it takes to make her suicidal then she has serious issues and needs to seek treatment.
Umm, no, she'd lose her non-exempt assets. I'm not familiar with the specifics in her state but in my state you can exempt up to $2,500 of cash, "tools of the trade", family heirlooms, an automobile worth less than $5,000, etc, etc, etc. The overwhelming majority of Chapter 7s are "no-asset" cases, meaning all of the assets of the debtor are exempt. How many students do you know that have large enough net worths to have to worry about having non-exempt assets?
and she'd have a bad credit rating for the next 10 years
There are worse things in life than a bad credit rating and you'd be surprised how quickly your credit rebounds after a bankruptcy. My bankruptcy was three years ago and my FICO score was 757 the last time I checked. I haven't run into any problems obtaining credit, even after the economy took a nosedive.
And 10k is the settlement, not the judgement.
So what? Let them get a judgment for more than that if they think they can. It will make the bankruptcy even easier to file.
The countries where it's reasonably safe to flee to, even with money, are extradition countries, so she'll be right back in the US in time for summer
I think you've mistaken a civil action with a criminal one. There's no extradition process that I'm aware of for debt collection. A judgment is just a piece of paper. It would be up to RIAA to find a way to collect on it. Given that she's a student and probably has no assets, good luck with that....
Slashdot Mirror
This is what he means by massacre
War is hell. Given that we sustained almost 100 KIA and nearly 600 WIA, it seems like a safe assumption that we were fighting people who were actually shooting back. Hence I'm skeptical about claims of a "massacre".
it makes you a moron
Also, fuck you ;)
I like how "defending your country from a foreign invading army" suddenly becomes "insurgents that needs some killing".
Given that most of the insurgents who were fighting us were Sunni's aligned with the former murderous regime, I'd say that it's quite fair to label them as people who need killing. You do realize that the people you are claiming were defending their country are the same people that killed more Iraqis than Americans, right?
I guess everyone sees it differently, but they saw it as a massacre. Over 1300 "insurgents" dead, less than 100 Americans.
So anything with a favorable ratio of casualties is a massacre?
If Fallujah is ok we should have a gas chamber game. You go around in a big truck and kill thousands of jews
Oh give me a fucking break.
I'm normally ok with this sort of thing but this is up there on the offensive scale
The only thing that's offensive is some jackass invoking the memory of genocide to describe a battle where less than 2,000 people died.
That's the job of parents to teach their kids. You know, prepare them for life in a democratic, rights-based Republic.
Fixed that for you.
I guess they could defend their rapidly eroding rights by writing a strongly worded letter to the government, and express their outrage over a cuppa, by gosh.
Nah the UN will save 'em. They'll write an even stronger worded letter and go on TV to express their outrage.
I wonder why those companies have such great difficulty in making their products work properly.
Read Dilbert sometime. That's why.
How many script kiddies could possibly be on a large provider in a large metro area, sharing your nameservers? :)
Well, for what it's worth, I've got my own nameservers (from my authoritative one at work to my personal one at home) configured to only allow access from local hosts. I further monitor them (and every other service on my servers for that matter) and would notice traffic out of ordinary like that. It's too bad that more people don't make that effort. It's not really that hard.
I prefer to have my own good ones at work. I lose a little from latency from home to work, but I make up a lot where those nameservers are rarely under much load
I had that once upon a time when I was stuck with a rural WISP. They would capture DNS packets bound out of their network and redirect them to the local name servers. Don't ask me why. Anyway, they messed up the NXDOMAIN error message for a webpage redirect and annoyed the hell out of me. So I set up a VPN to work, set up a local nameserver to use a work nameserver over the VPN as a forwarder. Gave me a local cache for everything and a good nameserver that wasn't contaminated by hijacking-ad bullshit.
That's a good idea. May I make the following suggestion for the first entry:
127.0.0.1 *.doubleclick.net
I'm not rude enough to run my own nameserver at home.
Out of curiosity, why is that 'rude'? Are the root servers overloaded or something? I've always run my own nameserver and aside from a few times when I messed around with linking it to work, I've usually had it going directly to the source. Should I re-evaluate this practice?
Have you ever read some of the extortion letters they send? I got a series from Microsoft and the BSA once. Talking to a lawyer, they implied, was grounds for them rescinding their "generous offer" and taking legal action.
And I had a debt collector threaten to show up at my house with the sheriff and have me arrested once. So what? People need to learn their rights and stand up for them. You can't expect the person who is trying to extort you to be truthful and honest with you. The fact that they said not to get a lawyer would have been my first indication that I needed one.
So, many uniformed people get scared by the settlement letters and follow through as the RIAA wants.
People are sheep. I can't say that I have much sympathy for them if they aren't willing to stand up and fight back. I'd love to get one of those letters from the BSA or RIAA. The BSA would be a neat trick too, since my company runs Linux almost exclusively.
I think 30 minutes is a generous amount of time if one of the larger botnets turned its attention on the root servers for a DDOS attack
I think you are overlooking a two things:
1) There's a lot more than 13 root servers nowadays. Many of the servers are mirrored using anycast. Wikipedia had a total of 123 in 2006 so it's a safe assumption that there are even more today.
2) Even if you could render the root servers inaccessible, this doesn't "take down" the internet. Many sites would still be accessible until their DNS cache entires timed out in the nameserver that you use (likely your ISP). A lot of sites set short timeouts on the www 'A' record (for load balancing purposes) but long timeouts on the 'NS' records for the domain. In this scenario your nameserver would still know where to go to get the 'A' record and wouldn't need to consult with the root servers.
Those caches wouldn't last forever but it would seem to offer enough time to deal with the DDOS. The internet would have limited functionality for awhile but it wouldn't "go down". Many operations (site to site VPNs for example) might not even notice.
IANAL
I can see why, if you don't know the difference between a civil judgment and fines imposed upon a criminal conviction.
There are plenty of people out there who would be equally derisive about a real piece of investigative journalism. That's why I'm uncomfortable with dictating what subjects Journalists are 'allowed' to talk about, purely on the basis of whether I think their beat is important enough.
I agree with your sentiment but I still don't have any sympathy for him. Even a real investigative journalist would still have to obey company policy. He couldn't bribe sources or engage in illegal activity to make a story. This reporter engaged in questionable behavior to obtain his story in violation of company policy. What did you expect them to do about it?
Umm, any lawyer worth his salt would have just told the girl to file bankruptcy and the parents not to pay. Clearly you've had a bad experience with an attorney in the past but the few times in my life I've had to pay for one (including being wrongfully accused of a crime) it was worth every penny.
Naw, ya gotta go classy. Discount caskets aren't classy. Now a Folger's coffee can and scattering the ashes when the wind is in your face.... that's classy ;)
No? The man had a vaguely interesting story and lost his job over it
And he acquired that "vaguely interesting story" by breaking company policy. A policy that he presumably knew about and had reason to obey. So again, cry me a river....
I recall a time when the impartiality of the press was something to be admired, at least idealistically. I guess not so much anymore.
Oh please. This wasn't some investigative reporter who was fired for exposing political corruption or some such. This was an entertainment columnist who was fired for breaking a well known company policy. You'll forgive me if I'm not broken up with sympathy for him.
For that matter, she could flee to Canada or Mexico.
Or Florida. It worked for OJ and he actually had assets.....
One would think before you'd write a check for $10,000 you'd get some legal knowledge. A consultation with a lawyer would have been well advised. I'd repeat my earlier bit about her needing to seek some professional help too. If a civil lawsuit is all it takes to make her suicidal then she has serious issues and needs to seek treatment.
That was their own damn stupidity. Why would you agree to pay a debt that can't be collected upon and which you have no legal obligation to pay?
She'd also lose all her liquid assets(if any)
Umm, no, she'd lose her non-exempt assets. I'm not familiar with the specifics in her state but in my state you can exempt up to $2,500 of cash, "tools of the trade", family heirlooms, an automobile worth less than $5,000, etc, etc, etc. The overwhelming majority of Chapter 7s are "no-asset" cases, meaning all of the assets of the debtor are exempt. How many students do you know that have large enough net worths to have to worry about having non-exempt assets?
and she'd have a bad credit rating for the next 10 years
There are worse things in life than a bad credit rating and you'd be surprised how quickly your credit rebounds after a bankruptcy. My bankruptcy was three years ago and my FICO score was 757 the last time I checked. I haven't run into any problems obtaining credit, even after the economy took a nosedive.
And 10k is the settlement, not the judgement.
So what? Let them get a judgment for more than that if they think they can. It will make the bankruptcy even easier to file.
Surveillance, once implemented, has never in history been cut without social upheaval.
Time for social upheaval then.... oh wait, American Idol is on, can we do it after?
Wouldn't she have to file for bankruptcy AFTER the judgement?
Yeah, so?
The countries where it's reasonably safe to flee to, even with money, are extradition countries, so she'll be right back in the US in time for summer
I think you've mistaken a civil action with a criminal one. There's no extradition process that I'm aware of for debt collection. A judgment is just a piece of paper. It would be up to RIAA to find a way to collect on it. Given that she's a student and probably has no assets, good luck with that....