Typical Leftist response Please enlighten me. What is that supposed to mean?
In this context it refers to the typical response to inconvenient facts by those who are committed US Leftists of attempting to shout-down, censor, and/or silence those expressing them, a 'shoot-the-messenger' tactic commonly employed by those on the US political Left.
Why can I not have a political opinion without being labeled a "lefty" and why can I not be "left" without being supposed to have a particular opinion on a topic?
I ask the same question regarding being on the 'Right'. One need only scroll through responses to my past posts to see the mirror-image labeling and pigeon-holing being employed.
PS. When exactly did you realise you were a fascist?
When exactly did you realize you have no intelligent or cognizant refutation and so chose to fall back on juvenile name-calling? Way to keep it classy, AmiMoJo!
And we do keep tabs on domestic gang members in places like Chicago and L.A. where gang violence is a problem. Police keep extensive records including photographic records of gang member's tatoos. Can we not demand at least this much scrutiny of people from regions known for terrorism asking to enter the US and who have no background data to speak of with which to vet them against?
Seeing as how one of the Federal Government's main duties is to secure national borders and screen those entering and all that, it seems like asking them to do that in a competent and effective way would be the farthest thing from 'controversial'.
I think I speak for anyone who's read a history book when I say this is an absolutely awful idea. I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them. If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot. There's literally no middle ground. This is how it starts.
This story is based on an NPR interview with Muzaffar Chishti who directs the Migration Policy Institute's office at NYU School of Law. So, we're talking about a Muslim professor at an extremely Left-wing university being interviewed by a Left-wing government-funded "news" service. Naturally there will be a balanced, fair, and unbiased tone regarding PE Trump in any reporting.
They noted that Trump has made a number of statements, many contradictory, regarding the influx of immigrants, refugees, and temporary-visa visitors from nations known for harboring and exporting radical Islamic terrorists.
Currently there are only minimal and mostly ineffective systems for vetting/screening these people and enforcing deportation of those who violate the conditions of their visas and/or overstay the temporary-visa limits. This IS a problem that needs to be addressed.
They were not discussing, as many here attempt to imply, that Trump wants to 'register' every Muslim, including US citizens who have lived here their whole lives. They are talking about recent/current immigrants and visa applicants from regions that many radical Islamic terrorists call home. I'd call it common sense to keep better tabs on visitors/new immigrants from such regions, particularly as (like with Somalia) there are often no criminal or other databases from those regions with which to vet them against, or to even verify where they were born.
If you think it's a good idea to just throw open the doors and let anyone into the US from those regions, can we place them all into your neighborhood/city? You may want to visit Londonistan and look around a bit before you answer.
How is it that CAGW alarmists can basically wave their hands and repeat some sciencey-sounding BS and we're not supposed to question it because "science!" but on the other claw, opposing viewpoints are required to trot-out extraordinary levels and amounts of counter-evidence (that they then simply claim is funded by "big oil)?
You CAGW folks are the ones making extraordinary claims and demanding massive societal and economic changes. *You* are the ones that must produce the extraordinary levels and amounts of evidence if you expect to be taken seriously, and not just seen as using CAGW as a convenient propaganda tool to further your political and ideological agendas.
We're still waiting.
Typical Leftist response. Down-mod but don't refute. Because facts are stubborn things and are hard to refute.
That's fine, I've got enough karma to burn to raise global temps by 10C by New Years!
How is it that CAGW alarmists can basically wave their hands and repeat some sciencey-sounding BS and we're not supposed to question it because "science!" but on the other claw, opposing viewpoints are required to trot-out extraordinary levels and amounts of counter-evidence (that they then simply claim is funded by "big oil)?
You CAGW folks are the ones making extraordinary claims and demanding massive societal and economic changes. *You* are the ones that must produce the extraordinary levels and amounts of evidence if you expect to be taken seriously, and not just seen as using CAGW as a convenient propaganda tool to further your political and ideological agendas.
Nope. This is not a presumption of guilt. This is a presumption that investigation is warranted, which is something entirely different.
Funny you should use the term "warranted".
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What probable cause, a well-defined term legally, do they have that each these other individuals have or are about to commit a specific crime? Remember, general warrants are forbidden. They are not even alleging that all are or are about to commit a crime, only that some may be committing a crime.
It's pretty obvious this is a fishing expedition, something most judges frown heavily upon.
If police discover a meth lab in a house on your block, it does not give police the right to search every house on your block. Even if every single other house is somehow discovered to have a meth lab, that still is not sufficient grounds to search *your* house, with no other evidence of a crime.
There is no definition of income in the constitution, and there are a bunch of convoluted court rulings on income taxation. (It's not all that comes in.) This move by the IRS is (as I believe) to be unprecedented. It is effectively assuming that any american who traded bitcoin was evading the income tax without any evidence thereof. This presupposition of guilt is what makes it newsworthy. Anyone who traded btc is assumed to have evaded the tax, even though self-reporting is the obligation of the taxpayer always applies.
"You are all guilty unless you can prove to our satisfaction that you've not broken any laws."
Yeah, nothing at all for anyone to be concerned about.
If you don't think net neutrality **matters** then you are badly misinformed and brainwashed by right-wing propaganda.
If you think the "Net Neutrality(TM)" regulations in question, cooked up by a bunch of K Street lobbyists, bankers, megacorps, and PACs, bear even a passing resemblance to what people here understand as actual network-level "net neutrality", then you, Sir, are both naive and a fool.
Thank gawd I use OpenBSD and host my own web, email, and cloud services. Let the FBI give it a go against one of (if not the) most secure operating systems out there.
A $5 wrench in an FBI interrogation room is the ultimate cross-platform, near-universal exploit.
Maybe there was a 'Big Bang' but what actually happened was that it exploded into tiny bits of space-time+matter+energy which, being essentially pieces of space-time, had no limits regarding 'velocity', and then some time later coalesced into a single fabric forming our universe. In fact, it may still be coalescing and is responsible for what we interpret as 'expansion'.
Apologies, don't normally respond to my own posts, but it also occurred to me that these pieces of space-time that have not yet joined may be where scientists find that 'missing mass'/'dark matter'. It's out there, it just hasn't joined the rest of us yet in this meta-bubble of space-time. There are likely other cosmological/astrophysical/physics phenomena, observations, and properties of the universe this might explain as well.
Is interesting to remember that may be possible that there has not even been a big bang to start (and therefore the answer may be that the universe has always been more or less uniform).
To quote 'Forrest Gump'; "Maybe...maybe it's a little bit of both?...both happening at the same time?"
Maybe there was a 'Big Bang' but what actually happened was that it exploded into tiny bits of space-time+matter+energy which, being essentially pieces of space-time, had no limits regarding 'velocity', and then some time later coalesced into a single fabric forming our universe. In fact, it may still be coalescing and is responsible for what we interpret as 'expansion'.
You don't have the slightest notion of climate science when you say you think that it's 'only a small subset of "climate scientists' that have done the works underlying the science of global warming, or that there isn't independent review and verification.
Really.
Please, think about maybe learning something from a real science source. I don't know where you're getting your lack of information from, but it's certainly not from real science sources.
And thus you prove my point in your reply.
Is that fact completely lost on you?
Maybe you should re-read my post and your reply and think about it. It says more about you than I.
Exactly. That is how you get scientific consensus, when other scientists can duplicate your reasoning and follow your results, and compare your results to results from others (often, from others in different fields).
This is what we call scientific consensus.
That's the problem here. There's no actual *independent* review and verification.
In the case of AGW that's only happened among a small subset of "climate scientists" who are only accepted as being respectable "climate scientists" if they already agree manbearpig is trashing the climate, and it's only a matter of in how many ways and how badly. If any others attempt to refute any of their hypothesis they are dismissed as being "unqualified to offer an opinion" or simply painted as nutcases.
There's no intellectual honesty or actual scientific method being rigorously applied overall. That's why regular people don't believe what's being peddled here. They may not have a string of letters after their names but they know a snow-job when it's being shoved down their throats. Particularly when the "solutions" being screamed for all enrich the already rich and powerful.
Observations must be able to be verified independently and/or be reproducible. Until then it is an unproven hypothesis. Analysis of unverifiable/un-reproducible observations is a thought experiment, nothing more.
Actually, it does. This is something non-scientists really really don't understand, because they're all familiar with all the hero scientist stories and not so much with the actual process of science. I love the hero scientist stories, too, but the final, and the most important part of science is that you have to explain your results to other scientists, and get them to understand it and understand and credit the evidence.
Wrong.
The only thing that matters is being able to reproduce the proof independently. If the results proving a theory are unable to be duplicated independently it's nothing more than an unproven hypothesis. It does not matter how many scientists agree or disagree. Consensus is a political construct. It has no bearing on scientific research whatsoever. If it did, we'd just vote for what we want to believe is true.
It is a useful gauge for the relative merit of ideas.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Not in science.
The **ONLY** thing that matters in scientific research is proving or disproving a theory. Facts that can be proven or dis-proven care not for opinions or consensus. It matters not one whit how many scientists agree or disagree. As long as the results can be duplicated independently it doesn't matter how many disagree. The reverse is also true; as long as the results can be dis-proven OR cannot be duplicated independently, it's nothing more than an unproven hypothesis.
Cripes, has nobody here had even the very basics of how science works explained to them? Try cracking a book sometime and get your face out of that tracking device that happens to have a screen.
...but there was never a scientific consensus on that like there is on this.
You keep talking about this 'consensus' like it means anything scientifically.
It. Does. Not.
Consensus is strictly political. It has no place in scientific research. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a theory is true or false. At one time it was the "scientific consensus" that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Just stop. It doesn't make you or your argument more believable. In fact, the opposite is true among those who can employ critical thinking.
What I don't remember is reading about consensus (from the scientific community)...
Because back then people were taught critical-thinking skills and the scientific method, and so "consensus" was a non-starter because consensus is irrelevant to whether a theory is valid or false. We were taught about Copernicus and Galileo and how they were persecuted because the "consensus" went against their theories.
...the intimate details of the science behind it...
What "intimate details"? We can't even get them to release un-"adjusted" data. They don't have computer models that accurately track previous climate changes and simultaneously show the future warming rates claimed.
...long term international bodies being set up to assess, inform, and counteract climate change...
The politics is better organized this time around, that I grant you. That has zero bearing on whether their theories are horseshit or not. Actually, the heavy politicization would indicate AGW is more a political movement than a scientific theory. If AGW theories had enough solid evidence, the heavy involvement of politics would not be so essential.
i.e. you've been led to believe there was a scientific consensus on global cooling due to falling temperatures in the 50s,60s and 70s, and you were likely shown fake Time magazine covers to illustrate this, and thus you are supposed to ignore the scientific consensus on global warming.
I wasn't "led to believe" anything, you arrogant putz.
I've been alive since the mid-'50s and YES, we were all warned about the coming ice age and snowball-Earth and all the rest of the crap through the '60s and '70s. Same alarmism as today, complete with scientists warning that "action must be taken *now*!".
And the solutions were the same...stop living a modern lifestyle and enjoying a minimum standard of living, and GIB US MOAR MONEH!!!
I guess they figure most of us folks who remember their failed scam must be dead by now so they can try to jiggle things about a bit and try the nearly-exact same scam again. Only this time it's going to get too warm instead of too cold.
The difference this time is by having nearly destroyed the public education system they've largely succeeded in dumbing-down enough people sufficiently to believe their horseshit.
I would not trust Microsoft to secure a Linux build.
This^^^
I can understand a business using Azure, but using MS-built RHEL images? Particularly when this is a relatively-new service/product MS offers? I'd think any competent admins at these companies would have been extremely wary given the MS track record on new builds of even their own code, never mind a linux system. I know I'd have kicked up a fuss and insisted on thorough testing and vetting of these builds before rolling them out to production servers. Maybe many did but were overruled by PHBs. In either case I'd fault these companies who didn't verify the builds more than MS. I mean, it's MS...you *expect* that crap! Or, at least one should.
It pisses someone off; costs them; and the little botnet kiddies giggle.
It's also an asymmetric-warfare weapon of domestic and foreign dissidents against oppressive, authoritarian governments, which is the real, actual concern of those governments. This is particularly true in the US, as the government continues to become ever more authoritarian, corrupt, deceitful, and controlling, both domestically and in foreign affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
Typical Leftist response
Please enlighten me.
What is that supposed to mean?
In this context it refers to the typical response to inconvenient facts by those who are committed US Leftists of attempting to shout-down, censor, and/or silence those expressing them, a 'shoot-the-messenger' tactic commonly employed by those on the US political Left.
Why can I not have a political opinion without being labeled a "lefty" and why can I not be "left" without being supposed to have a particular opinion on a topic?
I ask the same question regarding being on the 'Right'. One need only scroll through responses to my past posts to see the mirror-image labeling and pigeon-holing being employed.
Strat
Yes, because a sane and effective immigration policy is *exactly* the same as an Orwellian dystopia.
Do you realize how much of a wingnut that makes you sound like?
Don't worry, everything will be fine. Just put on another safety-pin and find a safe space and a comfort dog.
Strat
PS. When exactly did you realise you were a fascist?
When exactly did you realize you have no intelligent or cognizant refutation and so chose to fall back on juvenile name-calling? Way to keep it classy, AmiMoJo!
And we do keep tabs on domestic gang members in places like Chicago and L.A. where gang violence is a problem. Police keep extensive records including photographic records of gang member's tatoos. Can we not demand at least this much scrutiny of people from regions known for terrorism asking to enter the US and who have no background data to speak of with which to vet them against?
Seeing as how one of the Federal Government's main duties is to secure national borders and screen those entering and all that, it seems like asking them to do that in a competent and effective way would be the farthest thing from 'controversial'.
Strat
I think I speak for anyone who's read a history book when I say this is an absolutely awful idea. I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them. If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot. There's literally no middle ground. This is how it starts.
This story is based on an NPR interview with Muzaffar Chishti who directs the Migration Policy Institute's office at NYU School of Law. So, we're talking about a Muslim professor at an extremely Left-wing university being interviewed by a Left-wing government-funded "news" service. Naturally there will be a balanced, fair, and unbiased tone regarding PE Trump in any reporting.
They noted that Trump has made a number of statements, many contradictory, regarding the influx of immigrants, refugees, and temporary-visa visitors from nations known for harboring and exporting radical Islamic terrorists.
Currently there are only minimal and mostly ineffective systems for vetting/screening these people and enforcing deportation of those who violate the conditions of their visas and/or overstay the temporary-visa limits. This IS a problem that needs to be addressed.
They were not discussing, as many here attempt to imply, that Trump wants to 'register' every Muslim, including US citizens who have lived here their whole lives. They are talking about recent/current immigrants and visa applicants from regions that many radical Islamic terrorists call home. I'd call it common sense to keep better tabs on visitors/new immigrants from such regions, particularly as (like with Somalia) there are often no criminal or other databases from those regions with which to vet them against, or to even verify where they were born.
If you think it's a good idea to just throw open the doors and let anyone into the US from those regions, can we place them all into your neighborhood/city? You may want to visit Londonistan and look around a bit before you answer.
Strat
Typical Leftist response. Down-mod but don't refute. Because facts are stubborn things and are hard to refute.
That's fine, I've got enough karma to burn to raise global temps by 10C by New Years!
Strat
And where is your evidence for that claim?
You're a funny guy!
Oh, wait...you were serious?
How is it that CAGW alarmists can basically wave their hands and repeat some sciencey-sounding BS and we're not supposed to question it because "science!" but on the other claw, opposing viewpoints are required to trot-out extraordinary levels and amounts of counter-evidence (that they then simply claim is funded by "big oil)?
You CAGW folks are the ones making extraordinary claims and demanding massive societal and economic changes. *You* are the ones that must produce the extraordinary levels and amounts of evidence if you expect to be taken seriously, and not just seen as using CAGW as a convenient propaganda tool to further your political and ideological agendas.
We're still waiting.
Strat
Nope. This is not a presumption of guilt. This is a presumption that investigation is warranted, which is something entirely different.
Funny you should use the term "warranted".
"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
What probable cause, a well-defined term legally, do they have that each these other individuals have or are about to commit a specific crime? Remember, general warrants are forbidden. They are not even alleging that all are or are about to commit a crime, only that some may be committing a crime.
It's pretty obvious this is a fishing expedition, something most judges frown heavily upon.
If police discover a meth lab in a house on your block, it does not give police the right to search every house on your block. Even if every single other house is somehow discovered to have a meth lab, that still is not sufficient grounds to search *your* house, with no other evidence of a crime.
Strat
There is no definition of income in the constitution, and there are a bunch of convoluted court rulings on income taxation. (It's not all that comes in.) This move by the IRS is (as I believe) to be unprecedented. It is effectively assuming that any american who traded bitcoin was evading the income tax without any evidence thereof. This presupposition of guilt is what makes it newsworthy. Anyone who traded btc is assumed to have evaded the tax, even though self-reporting is the obligation of the taxpayer always applies.
"You are all guilty unless you can prove to our satisfaction that you've not broken any laws."
Yeah, nothing at all for anyone to be concerned about.
What could possibly go wrong?
Strat
If you don't think net neutrality **matters** then you are badly misinformed and brainwashed by right-wing propaganda.
If you think the "Net Neutrality(TM)" regulations in question, cooked up by a bunch of K Street lobbyists, bankers, megacorps, and PACs, bear even a passing resemblance to what people here understand as actual network-level "net neutrality", then you, Sir, are both naive and a fool.
Strat
Thank gawd I use OpenBSD and host my own web, email, and cloud services. Let the FBI give it a go against one of (if not the) most secure operating systems out there.
A $5 wrench in an FBI interrogation room is the ultimate cross-platform, near-universal exploit.
Just sayin'.
Strat
Maybe there was a 'Big Bang' but what actually happened was that it exploded into tiny bits of space-time+matter+energy which, being essentially pieces of space-time, had no limits regarding 'velocity', and then some time later coalesced into a single fabric forming our universe. In fact, it may still be coalescing and is responsible for what we interpret as 'expansion'.
Apologies, don't normally respond to my own posts, but it also occurred to me that these pieces of space-time that have not yet joined may be where scientists find that 'missing mass'/'dark matter'. It's out there, it just hasn't joined the rest of us yet in this meta-bubble of space-time. There are likely other cosmological/astrophysical/physics phenomena, observations, and properties of the universe this might explain as well.
Strat
Is interesting to remember that may be possible that there has not even been a big bang to start (and therefore the answer may be that the universe has always been more or less uniform).
To quote 'Forrest Gump'; "Maybe...maybe it's a little bit of both?...both happening at the same time?"
Maybe there was a 'Big Bang' but what actually happened was that it exploded into tiny bits of space-time+matter+energy which, being essentially pieces of space-time, had no limits regarding 'velocity', and then some time later coalesced into a single fabric forming our universe. In fact, it may still be coalescing and is responsible for what we interpret as 'expansion'.
Strat
I'll leave this here.
https://youtu.be/QwviDPo4Rh4
Strat
I'll just leave this here.
https://youtu.be/QwviDPo4Rh4
You don't have the slightest notion of climate science when you say you think that it's 'only a small subset of "climate scientists' that have done the works underlying the science of global warming, or that there isn't independent review and verification.
Really.
Please, think about maybe learning something from a real science source. I don't know where you're getting your lack of information from, but it's certainly not from real science sources.
And thus you prove my point in your reply.
Is that fact completely lost on you?
Maybe you should re-read my post and your reply and think about it. It says more about you than I.
Strat
Exactly. That is how you get scientific consensus, when other scientists can duplicate your reasoning and follow your results, and compare your results to results from others (often, from others in different fields).
This is what we call scientific consensus.
That's the problem here. There's no actual *independent* review and verification.
In the case of AGW that's only happened among a small subset of "climate scientists" who are only accepted as being respectable "climate scientists" if they already agree manbearpig is trashing the climate, and it's only a matter of in how many ways and how badly. If any others attempt to refute any of their hypothesis they are dismissed as being "unqualified to offer an opinion" or simply painted as nutcases.
There's no intellectual honesty or actual scientific method being rigorously applied overall. That's why regular people don't believe what's being peddled here. They may not have a string of letters after their names but they know a snow-job when it's being shoved down their throats. Particularly when the "solutions" being screamed for all enrich the already rich and powerful.
Strat
Observations are not reproduced...
Observations must be able to be verified independently and/or be reproducible. Until then it is an unproven hypothesis. Analysis of unverifiable/un-reproducible observations is a thought experiment, nothing more.
Strat
Actually, it does. This is something non-scientists really really don't understand, because they're all familiar with all the hero scientist stories and not so much with the actual process of science. I love the hero scientist stories, too, but the final, and the most important part of science is that you have to explain your results to other scientists, and get them to understand it and understand and credit the evidence.
Wrong.
The only thing that matters is being able to reproduce the proof independently. If the results proving a theory are unable to be duplicated independently it's nothing more than an unproven hypothesis. It does not matter how many scientists agree or disagree. Consensus is a political construct. It has no bearing on scientific research whatsoever. If it did, we'd just vote for what we want to believe is true.
Strat
It is a useful gauge for the relative merit of ideas.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Not in science.
The **ONLY** thing that matters in scientific research is proving or disproving a theory. Facts that can be proven or dis-proven care not for opinions or consensus. It matters not one whit how many scientists agree or disagree. As long as the results can be duplicated independently it doesn't matter how many disagree. The reverse is also true; as long as the results can be dis-proven OR cannot be duplicated independently, it's nothing more than an unproven hypothesis.
Cripes, has nobody here had even the very basics of how science works explained to them? Try cracking a book sometime and get your face out of that tracking device that happens to have a screen.
Strat
...but there was never a scientific consensus on that like there is on this.
You keep talking about this 'consensus' like it means anything scientifically.
It. Does. Not.
Consensus is strictly political. It has no place in scientific research. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a theory is true or false. At one time it was the "scientific consensus" that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Just stop. It doesn't make you or your argument more believable. In fact, the opposite is true among those who can employ critical thinking.
Strat
What I don't remember is reading about consensus (from the scientific community)...
Because back then people were taught critical-thinking skills and the scientific method, and so "consensus" was a non-starter because consensus is irrelevant to whether a theory is valid or false. We were taught about Copernicus and Galileo and how they were persecuted because the "consensus" went against their theories.
...the intimate details of the science behind it...
What "intimate details"? We can't even get them to release un-"adjusted" data. They don't have computer models that accurately track previous climate changes and simultaneously show the future warming rates claimed.
...long term international bodies being set up to assess, inform, and counteract climate change...
The politics is better organized this time around, that I grant you. That has zero bearing on whether their theories are horseshit or not. Actually, the heavy politicization would indicate AGW is more a political movement than a scientific theory. If AGW theories had enough solid evidence, the heavy involvement of politics would not be so essential.
Strat
i.e. you've been led to believe there was a scientific consensus on global cooling due to falling temperatures in the 50s,60s and 70s, and you were likely shown fake Time magazine covers to illustrate this, and thus you are supposed to ignore the scientific consensus on global warming.
I wasn't "led to believe" anything, you arrogant putz.
I've been alive since the mid-'50s and YES, we were all warned about the coming ice age and snowball-Earth and all the rest of the crap through the '60s and '70s. Same alarmism as today, complete with scientists warning that "action must be taken *now*!".
And the solutions were the same...stop living a modern lifestyle and enjoying a minimum standard of living, and GIB US MOAR MONEH!!!
I guess they figure most of us folks who remember their failed scam must be dead by now so they can try to jiggle things about a bit and try the nearly-exact same scam again. Only this time it's going to get too warm instead of too cold.
The difference this time is by having nearly destroyed the public education system they've largely succeeded in dumbing-down enough people sufficiently to believe their horseshit.
Strat
You must understand the context of this statement.
The "best experience" from a Chinese users' point of view is not being shot and his family not being billed for the bullet by the Chinese government.
In that context the statement from MS is quite true and literal.
Strat
I would not trust Microsoft to secure a Linux build.
This^^^
I can understand a business using Azure, but using MS-built RHEL images? Particularly when this is a relatively-new service/product MS offers? I'd think any competent admins at these companies would have been extremely wary given the MS track record on new builds of even their own code, never mind a linux system. I know I'd have kicked up a fuss and insisted on thorough testing and vetting of these builds before rolling them out to production servers. Maybe many did but were overruled by PHBs. In either case I'd fault these companies who didn't verify the builds more than MS. I mean, it's MS...you *expect* that crap! Or, at least one should.
Strat
This.
DDoS is vandalism.
It pisses someone off; costs them; and the little botnet kiddies giggle.
It's also an asymmetric-warfare weapon of domestic and foreign dissidents against oppressive, authoritarian governments, which is the real, actual concern of those governments. This is particularly true in the US, as the government continues to become ever more authoritarian, corrupt, deceitful, and controlling, both domestically and in foreign affairs.
Strat