Funny in appearance, but quite insightful. Because the real identity of anonymous commenters is "we, the people".
Take away anonymity, and you take away the right of "we, the people" to express our opinions without fearing retaliation. This is what unmasking commenters is really about: Protecting corporations from public opinion.
12. Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.).
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one. Linux is viruses free BECAUSE of its security model! A program you run from the web will NOT change your root settings! If you get "infected" because you got the "I want to see the dancing bunnies" syndrome, you can still log in as root and fix your infected user account. Yes, an infected user will NOT infect other users!
Try that with Windows.
"sudo still requires CLI". Yes, but we have gksu and kdesu. I've been using it for years.
It's not the model that's wrong, you dumbass (I'm talking to the article writer), but the implementation (_IF_ it is indeed wrong). Linux has this philosophy: It's better to be safe than friendly. Windows has tried to put user friendliness over security. Thanks to this we have botnets running all over the world.
Everything was fine with the article until I found this "bad security model" crap. I tagged the article "troll" just because of it.
Yes, it is called copyright for a reason. Who has the right to copy? The author or the publisher. Not hordes of grasping internet users.
By your argument that books should be "spread around" I should be able to take your private journals release them onto the net, yes? Or would it be fairer to ask first?
Straw man fallacy. You're mixing private journals (which were meant to be read only by a closed circle of people) with books that were written so ANYONE could read it.
It's an old trick, and personally I've seen it work in my country. There are people who want to protest peacefully. But then some people paid by the government or corporations form a radical faction, recruit more people and discredit the protest as a whole. As an example, remember the buddhist monks who made a riot about Tibet? I recall seeing a picture of chinese soldiers getting dressed as buddhist monks.
Now, I'm not saying *this* is an example of that. But people are naive. Maybe the protesters were people with a genuine belief, who screwed up by believing the honeyed words of one radical person. Just saying "they're stupid, they shouldn't have done that" is oversimplifying things. Besides, how can the army put the blame on aggressive protesters, if one of the principles of the army (in practice, maybe not in theory) is to solve problems with violence?
I used to have a webpage in geocities. It was a pain to update. But after geocities changed their suscription model, it all went downhill. You can't just simply update a website without FTP.
And at the time, I couldn't afford FTP. Add intrusive ads, nasty non-standards javascript, and you have a recipe for failure.
Mexico has been a country where the Internet has reached the majority of the population. Internet Cafes are practically on every corner of Mexico City, people know about youtube, etc.
And yet, I'm constantly asked by younger relatives or friends to help them with some task (usually their homework). I ask them to search the wikipedia, and they say that they can't find what they're looking for. I ask: Did you search the ENGLISH wikipedia?
Turns out they don't know English and are too lazy to learn.
For some reason this summons up images of Darth Vader trying to cram a cookie through his face-plate thing.
That's an easy one to imagine. Give Rick Moranis a Dark Helmet and give him a cup coffee to pass his cookies. Of course, he will be drinking the coffee dispensed by Mr. Coffee (TM), while watching the images displayed by Mr. Radar (TM).
TPB's service does not violate copyrights, people violate copyrights, right?
Is distributing a hyperlink (that might not work, anyway) a copyright violation? Let's not forget that TPB was charged NOT for distribution of copyrighted content, but for "assisting making available".
So, if you want to be strict, NO, TPB does NOT violate copyrights. You're stretching the law too far.
Althin said that just because Peter knows the other defendants, it does not follow that he committed any crime and just because he gave some advice as to the running of the site, the same stands. "If I call Saab [motor company] and tell them to paint their cars green so they sell more, I have no responsibility for Saab," he said.
Worse - why are the idiots storing their sensitive information in a WINDOWS MACHINE!? They might not have kazaa installed, but what about spyware? After all, the "spy" in spyware is there for a reason!
Blocking scripts isn't guaranteed to protect you from this kind of attack, since the article specifically mentioned that the attack used iframes.
Let me remind you that NoScript (TM) not only protects you from scripts. It also protects you from clickjacking (iframes or not), in-iframe browsing, embedded objects and other nuisances.
With noscript installed, the only way I could be hit with malicious code would be through an html or css buffer overflow vulnerability - and that's why I keep my distro up to date.
we experienced something similar after an opposition party won the elections for the first time in 70 years. One would expect all corruption would be wiped out, but it didn't happen (mainly because the then candidate president promised not to fire people just because there was a change in the admin). It's OBVIOUS that when the bureaucrats notice they're gonna be watched, they start covering each other's asses.
Why would the people in the Obama administration be any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the work of Microsoft.
What? You mean they DO work?
Well, one thing is clean-room IMPLEMENTATION. A very different thing is clean room SPECIFICATION (whatever that's supposed to mean).
The article clearly states that this one's a spec.
Oh. Shit. I have seen the enemy...and he is us.
-AC
Funny in appearance, but quite insightful. Because the real identity of anonymous commenters is "we, the people".
Take away anonymity, and you take away the right of "we, the people" to express our opinions without fearing retaliation. This is what unmasking commenters is really about: Protecting corporations from public opinion.
That makes me wonder. Can't she sue him for identity theft?
It's not that they can't handle a high volume of complaints. It's that they can't handle ANYTHING.
Have you ever tried to reach a human being through yahoo? Good luck.
From TFA:
12. Bad security model: there's zero protection against keyboard keyloggers and against running malicious software (Linux is viruses free only due to its extremely low popularity). sudo is very easy to circumvent (social engineering). sudo still requires CLI (see clause 4.).
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that one. Linux is viruses free BECAUSE of its security model! A program you run from the web will NOT change your root settings! If you get "infected" because you got the "I want to see the dancing bunnies" syndrome, you can still log in as root and fix your infected user account. Yes, an infected user will NOT infect other users!
Try that with Windows.
"sudo still requires CLI". Yes, but we have gksu and kdesu. I've been using it for years.
It's not the model that's wrong, you dumbass (I'm talking to the article writer), but the implementation (_IF_ it is indeed wrong). Linux has this philosophy: It's better to be safe than friendly. Windows has tried to put user friendliness over security. Thanks to this we have botnets running all over the world.
Everything was fine with the article until I found this "bad security model" crap. I tagged the article "troll" just because of it.
Yes, it is called copyright for a reason. Who has the right to copy? The author or the publisher. Not hordes of grasping internet users.
By your argument that books should be "spread around" I should be able to take your private journals release them onto the net, yes? Or would it be fairer to ask first?
Straw man fallacy. You're mixing private journals (which were meant to be read only by a closed circle of people) with books that were written so ANYONE could read it.
Yahoo! buys Geocities and turns it into a piece of shit.
Any questions?
It's an old trick, and personally I've seen it work in my country. There are people who want to protest peacefully. But then some people paid by the government or corporations form a radical faction, recruit more people and discredit the protest as a whole. As an example, remember the buddhist monks who made a riot about Tibet? I recall seeing a picture of chinese soldiers getting dressed as buddhist monks.
Now, I'm not saying *this* is an example of that. But people are naive. Maybe the protesters were people with a genuine belief, who screwed up by believing the honeyed words of one radical person. Just saying "they're stupid, they shouldn't have done that" is oversimplifying things. Besides, how can the army put the blame on aggressive protesters, if one of the principles of the army (in practice, maybe not in theory) is to solve problems with violence?
Dating sims. ^_^
I used to have a webpage in geocities. It was a pain to update. But after geocities changed their suscription model, it all went downhill. You can't just simply update a website without FTP.
And at the time, I couldn't afford FTP. Add intrusive ads, nasty non-standards javascript, and you have a recipe for failure.
Or value your sanity/health.
Never break a CFL.
You don't have children, do you?
Mexico has been a country where the Internet has reached the majority of the population. Internet Cafes are practically on every corner of Mexico City, people know about youtube, etc.
And yet, I'm constantly asked by younger relatives or friends to help them with some task (usually their homework). I ask them to search the wikipedia, and they say that they can't find what they're looking for. I ask: Did you search the ENGLISH wikipedia?
Turns out they don't know English and are too lazy to learn.
You need to use stickers of something EXTREMELY AWESOME, like Brawndo, the Thirst mutilator!
They got electrolytes! And they can make you WIN AT YELLING!
French students surrender their learning skills to a website.
Voila! :)
For some reason this summons up images of Darth Vader trying to cram a cookie through his face-plate thing.
That's an easy one to imagine. Give Rick Moranis a Dark Helmet and give him a cup coffee to pass his cookies. Of course, he will be drinking the coffee dispensed by Mr. Coffee (TM), while watching the images displayed by Mr. Radar (TM).
TPB's service does not violate copyrights, people violate copyrights, right?
Is distributing a hyperlink (that might not work, anyway) a copyright violation? Let's not forget that TPB was charged NOT for distribution of copyrighted content, but for "assisting making available".
So, if you want to be strict, NO, TPB does NOT violate copyrights. You're stretching the law too far.
From the TorrentFreak article:
Two car analogies in the same day, yay! :)
I think I got my billionth Double Kill the other day too.
Amateur. Call me when you get your trillionth Double Kill.
- Chuck Norris
Worse - why are the idiots storing their sensitive information in a WINDOWS MACHINE!? They might not have kazaa installed, but what about spyware? After all, the "spy" in spyware is there for a reason!
A huge catastrophe caused the huge creatures to die, and this helped the small ones flourish.
Just a thought.
Blocking scripts isn't guaranteed to protect you from this kind of attack, since the article specifically mentioned that the attack used iframes.
Let me remind you that NoScript (TM) not only protects you from scripts. It also protects you from clickjacking (iframes or not), in-iframe browsing, embedded objects and other nuisances.
With noscript installed, the only way I could be hit with malicious code would be through an html or css buffer overflow vulnerability - and that's why I keep my distro up to date.
we experienced something similar after an opposition party won the elections for the first time in 70 years. One would expect all corruption would be wiped out, but it didn't happen (mainly because the then candidate president promised not to fire people just because there was a change in the admin). It's OBVIOUS that when the bureaucrats notice they're gonna be watched, they start covering each other's asses.
Why would the people in the Obama administration be any different?
Someday they will be cheap, but the sun may go out first.
Hmmm I can see the ads.
"Purchase Duke Nukem Forever now, and get a free pack of solar cells!"
Don't worry. IE has so many holes they're no longer news-worthy.
Wait. You mean IE has non-hole parts?