Really? You give me shit for using a term you think is unfashionable and out of style but then you proffer something with no more than 10 hits in google? WTF man?
my favorite one is definitely "hackerz" (or "hack3rz" to go more extreme)
That's what some of them call themselves. It's not particularly derogatory if they've adopted the term as their own.
Non-profit status means that no-one who invests money gets a return on it. Your premise is essentially that people who invest labor shouldn't get compensation and that is absurd - there is no organization of any significant size in the world where the people who do the work are purely volunteers. Even priests get paid.
Being a non-proifit does NOT make an organization qualify for government hand-outs - hell, PLENTY of for-profit orgs qualify for government hand-outs. I'd even go so far as to wager that most government hand-outs in the USA go to for-profit corps. All that "non-profit' status means is that donations aren't taxed.
If they really didn't like what Frontline had to say, they could have at least made their fake story a fake-retraction of the points they had a problem with. As Frontline is probably the most accurate docunews show on american television, if they pissed off some script kiddies, chances are the script kiddies are in the wrong.
I didn't bother to watch the show because I assumed that following wikileaks closely over the years I probably already knew everything they had to say. As it is now, I am going to go watch that episode (it is Frontline Season 29, Episode 13 titled "Wikisecrets" and was posted to usenet in full 1080i about 3 days ago).
What's the motive for a controlled leak? What possible worse case scenarios. If you're going to invoke conspiracy, at least entertain us with one.
If RSA isn't at fault but everyone thinks they are then there then that does a lot of things. Like political cover for Lockheed management doing something stupid that actually enabled the breach - say poor protection against spear-phising attacks. Or security through misdirection - maybe the real vulnerability is present in other systems and they are hoping that other bad guys won't figure it out in time to take advantage of it if everybody thinks RSA is compromised instead.
WTF? Everything I wrote is pretty much self-evident.
Getting their unclass network breached is a freaking obvious problem.
It is no secret that the military uses RSA tokens all over the place either. It is also no secret that RSA guards the source code at the heart of their authentication system pretty jealousy - not even including it in their SDK. And the idea that RSA tokens may now be duplicable due to the prior theft of that source was in the goddamn HEADLINE of the story here.
On the nature of the unauthorized source actually being deliberate - the government does that all the time.
As for the term "Lockmart" - everybody else in the industry and even some of their own employees use it, the ones who like to tweak the others that have a stick up their ass about it.
Indeed. At the defense contractor where I worked, all computers with classified documents were kept isolated in a locked room with no internet connection.
However, that is not necessarily the case for information that individually is unclassified but in aggregate is classified. The government security folks have a name for that stuff, I just can't recall it at the moment. If an attacker were able to hoover up enough stuff from lockmart's unclassified networks it would be valuable intelligence to the government of some place like China or Israel.
Since they have real information on how the breach occured, I'd bet it really was someone who was unauthorized to speak spilling the beans.
That's the way it works for most businesses, but not the way it works for government agencies.
As Lockmart is the largest corporate member of the military industrial complex, things are little bit different in this case. There are national security implications to both lockheed being hacked and to RSA tokens being duplicable. That makes for all kinds of motives for a "controlled" leak like this, for all we know it is 100% spin designed to cover some other worse(?) scenario.
Maybe people will start to finally learn that the choices they are fed are bullshit and that both A and B are part of the greater subject -- C. If you vote for A, it benefits C. If you vote for B, it benefits C.
That is why we should always vote third party. It isn't about the third party actually winning - it is about putting the fear of blindly serving C into the parties that do win.
I guarantee you that server doesn't have logic like, "if machine #2222 wins, don't pay out to #2222 (or anybody) again for x spins". It would be super illegal.
FWIW, packs of lotto scratch-cards DO work exactly like that:
My real problem with it is the loaning to commercial enterprise,
Absolutely. I don't think it is a stretch to say that the group of people advocating for this sort of thing is in large part the same group who tout capitalism, free-markets and laissez-faire policies. So even if they don't have a problem with forced labor, they sure are hypocrites for supporting what is essentially corporate welfare.
I'm much happier thinking some rapist, pedophile, or insider trader (oh wait, they're too rich for jail...) was worked to death for my materialism than I was thinking some hard working average guy in China worked a year of 18 hour shifts.
Really? That average guy in China probably has two choices - work his ass off or let his family starve. Shitty working conditions are shitty, but they tend to be a whole hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Meanwhile think about this for a while: "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
By selecting against the voters who prove they are unable to easily use logic, you negate a whole host of bad influences like gerrymandering, propaganda, sound bites, demagoguery, media over-representation, media-underrepresentation, debate framing, popularity, etc.
At the root of your plan is a basic and false assumption - namely that someone able to employ logic is unbiased. That's patently false - plenty of people are able to apply logic within a particular domain but their over-all agenda is based on something other than logic.
For example, the wars on drugs and terrorism - both based on fundamentally broken premises, but within the context of the basic stupidities are all kinds of logically sound reasoning. Another example would be religious philosophy - many really smart men have dedicated their lives to making painstakingly well thought out logical arguments about religion while simultaneously ignoring the basic illogic of faith that their entire systems are built on.
So where are all the intermediate stages of evolution.
The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.
Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.
Also, you seem to be operating under the assumption that beneficial mutations haven't been observed in nature and in the petri dish. There have been cases where we can see *exactly* what mutation gave rise to resistance to our antibiotics or pesticides.
No, no, no. That's doesn't count. That's just micro-evolution and is completely different from Darwinism!!! I learned that from uncle, who lives in Texas, no joke. He's a lawyer and his daughter and son-in-law are both medical doctors...
It was apparently agreed to that the tattoo artist would own the copyright to the tattoo. Which seems odd to me, but that was apparently what they agreed to.
I have a friend with lots of tattoos, one of them actually includes a (c) symbol on her skin. So I'm thinking it may be pretty common after all.
Its just a matter of assholeness. These elderly peoples just don't want to admit that thay need to learn a bit and thats it. They think they are older and thus smarter that us, and that they know everything.
While that is an assholelish way to put it, I think you are correct in a general sense.
It isn't a case of people thinking they are smarter than anyone else, but more of being set in their ways with a reluctance to explore. The iphone alarm clock user-interface isn't any easier for "young" people to use, there is nothing about it that inherently caters to a particular age group. If it had justin bieber or maybe an ed hardy logo on it, then it might reasonable to call it age-specific.
Rather, its a case of just having the patience to poke at it and see what happens. And that reluctance to explore, be it fear of breaking something or lack of patience for the extra work required seems to become more common as people age - after all the phrase "set in their ways" isn't one typically applied to youths.
Um, just because there are less women than men, doesn't mean that men can't get laid. Wyoming has nearly a 2:1 ratio of men to women.
Dude, get a clue. How could you even post something that so badly fails the laugh test? Seems clear to me that you have zero critical thinking ability.
o Massive Gender Imbalance - 55% male to 45% female birth ratio - that means crime, revolution or possibly war is coming, because when young men can't get laid, they take their frustration out in violence
o Too Many Retirees - The one child policy is turning their social security system upside down - there just aren't going to be enough young workers to support all the old people in non-productive retirement
o Massive Waste - a command economy is great when the people running the show guess right, but when they guess wrong you get massive waste like Ghost Cities and boondoggle trains.
You have -- people spend -- corporations and governments spend massive sums of money, you know, trying to protect their information. And look, this enlisted Army person blew through it all and dumped all that information on the Wiki Wiki Bus. So that's troubling
The only way to keep data safe is to keep it under one jurisdiction. It is a sad state of affairs, but it is an accurate description of reality.
Bzzzt. The only way to keep data safe is to not hand it over to some other party in the first place. These laws are great and all, but the lobbyists can get them changed next year and now all of that data that people have given up under the impression of safety is fair game for full exploitation.
Slashdot Mirror
I kinda like "scriptdiots"
Really? You give me shit for using a term you think is unfashionable and out of style but then you proffer something with no more than 10 hits in google? WTF man?
my favorite one is definitely "hackerz" (or "hack3rz" to go more extreme)
That's what some of them call themselves. It's not particularly derogatory if they've adopted the term as their own.
Non-profit status means that no-one who invests money gets a return on it. Your premise is essentially that people who invest labor shouldn't get compensation and that is absurd - there is no organization of any significant size in the world where the people who do the work are purely volunteers. Even priests get paid.
Being a non-proifit does NOT make an organization qualify for government hand-outs - hell, PLENTY of for-profit orgs qualify for government hand-outs. I'd even go so far as to wager that most government hand-outs in the USA go to for-profit corps. All that "non-profit' status means is that donations aren't taxed.
2001 just called and they want their lame expression back.
Goes back years before 2001. Meanwhile I don't see you coming up with anything more hip.
If they really didn't like what Frontline had to say, they could have at least made their fake story a fake-retraction of the points they had a problem with. As Frontline is probably the most accurate docunews show on american television, if they pissed off some script kiddies, chances are the script kiddies are in the wrong.
I didn't bother to watch the show because I assumed that following wikileaks closely over the years I probably already knew everything they had to say. As it is now, I am going to go watch that episode (it is Frontline Season 29, Episode 13 titled "Wikisecrets" and was posted to usenet in full 1080i about 3 days ago).
What's the motive for a controlled leak? What possible worse case scenarios. If you're going to invoke conspiracy, at least entertain us with one.
If RSA isn't at fault but everyone thinks they are then there then that does a lot of things. Like political cover for Lockheed management doing something stupid that actually enabled the breach - say poor protection against spear-phising attacks. Or security through misdirection - maybe the real vulnerability is present in other systems and they are hoping that other bad guys won't figure it out in time to take advantage of it if everybody thinks RSA is compromised instead.
WTF? Everything I wrote is pretty much self-evident.
Getting their unclass network breached is a freaking obvious problem.
It is no secret that the military uses RSA tokens all over the place either. It is also no secret that RSA guards the source code at the heart of their authentication system pretty jealousy - not even including it in their SDK. And the idea that RSA tokens may now be duplicable due to the prior theft of that source was in the goddamn HEADLINE of the story here.
On the nature of the unauthorized source actually being deliberate - the government does that all the time.
As for the term "Lockmart" - everybody else in the industry and even some of their own employees use it, the ones who like to tweak the others that have a stick up their ass about it.
Indeed. At the defense contractor where I worked, all computers with classified documents were kept isolated in a locked room with no internet connection.
However, that is not necessarily the case for information that individually is unclassified but in aggregate is classified. The government security folks have a name for that stuff, I just can't recall it at the moment. If an attacker were able to hoover up enough stuff from lockmart's unclassified networks it would be valuable intelligence to the government of some place like China or Israel.
Since they have real information on how the breach occured, I'd bet it really was someone who was unauthorized to speak spilling the beans.
That's the way it works for most businesses, but not the way it works for government agencies.
As Lockmart is the largest corporate member of the military industrial complex, things are little bit different in this case. There are national security implications to both lockheed being hacked and to RSA tokens being duplicable. That makes for all kinds of motives for a "controlled" leak like this, for all we know it is 100% spin designed to cover some other worse(?) scenario.
You mean that store that sells Cell Phone plans and accessories, and doesn't sell any electronic components?
RadioShack - You've got questions, we've got cell phones!
Maybe people will start to finally learn that the choices they are fed are bullshit and that both A and B are part of the greater subject -- C. If you vote for A, it benefits C. If you vote for B, it benefits C.
That is why we should always vote third party. It isn't about the third party actually winning - it is about putting the fear of blindly serving C into the parties that do win.
dude.. have you been to OUR prisons?
I think you misunderstand Dostoevsky's point.
I guarantee you that server doesn't have logic like, "if machine #2222 wins, don't pay out to #2222 (or anybody) again for x spins". It would be super illegal.
FWIW, packs of lotto scratch-cards DO work exactly like that:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/02/why-liquor-store-clerks-often-win-lotto/70786
My real problem with it is the loaning to commercial enterprise,
Absolutely. I don't think it is a stretch to say that the group of people advocating for this sort of thing is in large part the same group who tout capitalism, free-markets and laissez-faire policies. So even if they don't have a problem with forced labor, they sure are hypocrites for supporting what is essentially corporate welfare.
I'm much happier thinking some rapist, pedophile, or insider trader (oh wait, they're too rich for jail...) was worked to death for my materialism than I was thinking some hard working average guy in China worked a year of 18 hour shifts.
Really? That average guy in China probably has two choices - work his ass off or let his family starve.
Shitty working conditions are shitty, but they tend to be a whole hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Meanwhile think about this for a while:
"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
By selecting against the voters who prove they are unable to easily use logic, you negate a whole host of bad influences like gerrymandering, propaganda, sound bites, demagoguery, media over-representation, media-underrepresentation, debate framing, popularity, etc.
At the root of your plan is a basic and false assumption - namely that someone able to employ logic is unbiased. That's patently false - plenty of people are able to apply logic within a particular domain but their over-all agenda is based on something other than logic.
For example, the wars on drugs and terrorism - both based on fundamentally broken premises, but within the context of the basic stupidities are all kinds of logically sound reasoning. Another example would be religious philosophy - many really smart men have dedicated their lives to making painstakingly well thought out logical arguments about religion while simultaneously ignoring the basic illogic of faith that their entire systems are built on.
So where are all the intermediate stages of evolution.
The fact that some transitional fossils are not preserved does not disprove evolution. Evolutionary biologists do not expect that all transitional forms will be found and realize that many species leave no fossils at all. Lots of organisms don't fossilize well and the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are not that common. So, science actually predicts that for many evolutionary changes there will be gaps in the record.
Also, scientists have found many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors, and between whales and their terrestrial mammal ancestors.
Also, you seem to be operating under the assumption that beneficial mutations haven't been observed in nature and in the petri dish. There have been cases where we can see *exactly* what mutation gave rise to resistance to our antibiotics or pesticides.
No, no, no. That's doesn't count. That's just micro-evolution and is completely different from Darwinism!!! I learned that from uncle, who lives in Texas, no joke. He's a lawyer and his daughter and son-in-law are both medical doctors...
It was apparently agreed to that the tattoo artist would own the copyright to the tattoo. Which seems odd to me, but that was apparently what they agreed to.
I have a friend with lots of tattoos, one of them actually includes a (c) symbol on her skin. So I'm thinking it may be pretty common after all.
If somebody borrowed your phone, do your really want them just poking buttons and icons to see what happens?
That's a specious and thus information-free comparison. This isn't about how people treat borrowed equipment, its about learning to use stuff you own.
Its just a matter of assholeness.
These elderly peoples just don't want to admit that thay need to learn a bit and thats it.
They think they are older and thus smarter that us, and that they know everything.
While that is an assholelish way to put it, I think you are correct in a general sense.
It isn't a case of people thinking they are smarter than anyone else, but more of being set in their ways with a reluctance to explore. The iphone alarm clock user-interface isn't any easier for "young" people to use, there is nothing about it that inherently caters to a particular age group. If it had justin bieber or maybe an ed hardy logo on it, then it might reasonable to call it age-specific.
Rather, its a case of just having the patience to poke at it and see what happens. And that reluctance to explore, be it fear of breaking something or lack of patience for the extra work required seems to become more common as people age - after all the phrase "set in their ways" isn't one typically applied to youths.
Um, just because there are less women than men, doesn't mean that men can't get laid. Wyoming has nearly a 2:1 ratio of men to women.
Dude, get a clue. How could you even post something that so badly fails the laugh test?
Seems clear to me that you have zero critical thinking ability.
Wyoming's sex ratio is 50.2% male to 49.8% female.
Stop thinking like a raging heterosexual.
Blow me.
I also wish people were so critical of their own government as well and its human rights abuses, like Guantanamo Bay.
Do you read the same slashdot that I do?
One day you'll wake up and it'll be too late to do anything about their world markets domination.
China's got a buttload of problems coming up fast, like:
That's a misquote, what he really said was:
You have -- people spend -- corporations and governments spend massive sums of money, you know, trying to protect their information. And look, this enlisted Army person blew through it all and dumped all that information on the Wiki Wiki Bus. So that's troubling
The only way to keep data safe is to keep it under one jurisdiction. It is a sad state of affairs, but it is an accurate description of reality.
Bzzzt. The only way to keep data safe is to not hand it over to some other party in the first place. These laws are great and all, but the lobbyists can get them changed next year and now all of that data that people have given up under the impression of safety is fair game for full exploitation.