Awww I know * exactly * what you mean. My g/f's Fujitsu/Siemens Amilo is a Celeron M, and it doesn't matter how cold the ambient temperature is, the thing is always whining. It is louder than my desktop PC, which has 2x Case fans, 1x Proc. fan & 1x PSU fan, and that is when I am sat next to the desktop. I've tried everything under the sun to try and underclock it, she is all for anything that can cool/quieten it down.
I had to look twice there - I mean I know/. is often accused of groupthink, but you and the poster above both posted the same thing at the same time. I am freaked, and I haven't even had any weed today! Between you and this 'Bad Wold' sign I keep seeing, I think I will end up incarcerated for my own protection pretty soon..
Elsewhere, this could act as a differentiator for MS office. If the default image format in MS-Office is this new one, and applications that use ISO/IEC 26300-compliant (ODF-compliant) formats cannot use it due to patent restrictions, then this could act as a tool to prevent people from moving to applications that use ISO/IEC 26300-compliant methods of storing their files.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner. That is the reason. As others have pointed out, 'why why why?' - why reinvent the wheel? I think this makes perfect sense - create an obstacle to prevent the effective usage of ODF. Users will find themselves unable to save as ODF when 'MSJPEG's are included in the content - I mean, unless MS go to the trouble of converting to a real image format when someone saves as ODF. Which I am sceptical of. Patents and licensing restrictions will ensure documents containing such images will be unusable in OpenOffice. Evil, cynical genious as usual from the grand masters.
Facile and possibly OT as it sounds, I couldn't help but think that I haven't seen a poster so worthy of +5 Insightful in quite a while here. You reminded me of why I bother to stay here - to learn pearls of wisdom like that (no sarcasm here). It's the kind of thing IMO you couldn't know from a book, or know in advance. What you I could learn from a book is that User-only rights are better from a computer security point of view, but what you actually point out, no, only first and third-hand experience can tell you. Some smart ass would disagree, if my post were even worth the pixels it is written in, but I just think your post was a worthwhile read. Thanks for that.
In fact I writing this from an MS PAYG machine right now. You can even able to purchase denominations as low as 30 seconds which ought be more than enough time to
..better still would be to include_once() a function that did anything 'one notch' or more complicated from that, I think anyway. I agree 100% it is it's own templating language, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable putting naked loops in my HTML. On other hand Smarty is overkill to me. I usually use a structure whereby there is the HTML tier (which have as few include_once's as I can get away with), and then a tier where PHP and HTML collide in the form of UI functions, and then at the top is pure PHP tier, usually concerned with abstracted database access and the like. I hope I don't look stupid.
(hic) I apologise in advance..I have a nice cab sav on the go here..I also apologise for the line length, thanks to/.'s bastard line-length filter
On the first day of beta,
MS sent to me
A promise that was empty
On the second day of beta,
MS sent to me
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the third day of beta,
MS sent to me
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the fourth day of beta,
MS sent to me
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the fifth day of beta,
MS sent to me
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the sixth day of beta,
MS sent to me
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the seventh day of beta,
MS sent to me
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the eighth day of beta,
MS sent to me
Eight.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the ninth day of beta,
MS sent to me
Nine Lawyers dancing,
Eight.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the tenth day of beta,
MS sent to me
Ten Shills a-leaping,
Nine Lawyers dancing,
Eight.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the eleventh day of beta,
MS sent to me
Eleven programmers pissed-off,
Ten Shills a-leaping,
Nine Lawyers dancing,
Eight.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
On the twelfth day of beta,
MS sent to me
Twelve DRM devices,
Eleven programmers pissed-off,
Ten Shills a-leaping,
Nine Lawyers dancing,
Eight.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And hardware requirements too steep for me!
C'mon admit it you cheap little karma whore (don't take it personally) - dismissing *anything* which has been labelled as conspiracy theory on/., no matter how lazy or lacking the rebuttal - well it's easy points isn't it? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's like being at the top of a very tall hill, and then choosing to roll down it. (don't take it personally).
Double oh yeah - my five year-old could shit out a more interesting/. posting. Don't take it personally.
+5 Insightful. Well-argued, impeccably-presented argument against alternative viewpoints. Marvellous. A triumph of human critical-thinking, a sheer, towering tribute to the mercurial genii which frequent this establishment.
...the funniest thing I have seen all week. Totally sharp, well-observed satire, and the first letter in their Letters page made me think I was back on Slashdot for a while. Thank you very much, I've recommended it to all of my black friends.
I have no evidence that you are not a 4' tall green lion from the planet ipthar typing telepathically to/. However, until I've seen documentation of 4' tall green lions from the planet ipthar *with* telepathy, I am just going to assume that you are a human using some sort of input device like everyone else.
Really, the logical extension of my argument. Excelsior to you. That is completely within the boundaries of my argument. And just as you correctly assume my essential human/computer/input device nature, despite the possibility you outline, I reasonably assume that McKinnon's assertions could be incorrect: A. He knows he didn't see any of this, or B. What he thinks he saw isn't what he saw. This, though, is despite 'C. The possibility that he could be right.' These are up in the air to me, as I am not a physicist.
However, some dude telling me that the Pentagon has free energy, even though I see tanks still using diesel (or jp4 or whatever those things use now) is just not enough evidence to get excited about, let alone examine.
Ordinarily it's not enough to pique my interest, would be in the 'readily dismissible' category save for the fact that the authorities are seeking to put him away for up to 70 years. What can I say? I can't deny this kind of story is interesting to me.
/* At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen. */
You are absolutely correct there. I have a belief in a law that has been proven over and over, and has *never*... *ever* been proven to not work. Does anyone really think that maybe I should believe in some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics?
You quote me too selectively there to be ignored. In the preceding sentence I add the caveat 'though it works as a system for us to make sense of the world'. I believe it is a good working model, but I dare to say it might change or be completely replaced, even by 'some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics'. You apparently do not.
But the historical evidence shows that every single person who bets against the law of conservation of energy has lost. Does that mean that it's always going to be? Well... not necessarily... but for now, I wouldn't disconnect from the local electric company.
Nor would I disconnect from my local electric company. I would merely read with great interest the whole event - the whole 'not necessarily' part - and keep fishing for what I can find out, within my mortal comprehension. C'mon, stop this nonsense, stop trying to polarise it so readily, please, I'm tired.
I'd simply respond to that by pointing out to you the interesting read to be had at www.disclosureproject.org. If it's bullshit, it is at least thorough and mildly imaginative bullshit.
"Dr K, another UK hacker interviewed by the BBC News website, questioned why Mr McKinnon had to be extradited to be tried for the crimes for which he has already confessed.
"We have laws in this country to deal with this kind of trans-national data crime," he said, "Gary McKinnon should be tried here under UK law."
That's from the BBC page referenced by today's/. article, as for what he would be tried under in this country, I saw it today on the BBC but cannot find it now, but it said he would be tried under the 'Computer Misuse Act' in this country. That link has real legal language beyond my comprehension, but I do notice 'Territorial scope of inchoate offences related to offences under this Act.' and 'Extradition where Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 applies.' mentioned. If you actually did read it, I would want to know what you thought if it. Thank-you for only mildly insinuating I am crazy, I appreciate fair-minded discussion.
But, I put it to any sceptic - do you have any evidence he didn't see any of that? Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. You have merely your faith in the laws of thermodynamics - I'm sorry, I am a geek, I love science, I love technology and I believe in the empirical method, but ultimately physics and it's laws are all works in progress, subject to validation and dismissal at any point. Going further, though it works as a system for us to make sense of the world, science is just another belief system.
At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen.
I have no evidence he is right. You have no evidence he is wrong. But/. was once somewhere where the alternative possibilities could be discussed.
Surely a clue as to their credibility is within their name; White Dust security? Reading their slurs on McKinnon was like listening to some coke-heads bitching off somebody. Definitely.
* long sniffing noise *
* extended sniffing noises *
AND I SAY FULL POWER TO THEM. TOO MANY FUCKING HIPPIES AND FREAKS IN SECURITY, fucking Nineties, what have the fucking nineties ever done for us? every fucking body knows that computer security requires an alert mind people! and who fucking has the alert mind? why, it is the mind that is found attached to the fucking cokehead! ipso fucking facto!
bleurgh. I feel faint and pasty, could someone pass me the..
If for a second you take what he says to be true, you're left in a world where the US govenment is keeping the world poverty stricken, regularly airbrushing photo evidence of UFOs out of satelite images, has a cure for almost all known diseases (and doesn't use it) and develop weapons that make the AK47 look like a broken watergun. What is more the number of people who'd need to be involved in a conspiracy this big would be WELL into the thousands.
I absolutely, sincerely and honestly have no problem envisaging those possibilities. I really don't. I don't think in the Information age, in 2006, that the things he describes sound that far-fetched. I totally think (if for one second we suppose there is truth) that it fits in with the current administrations M.O. that they could have free power and evidence of aliens and keep it all under wraps. Never under-estimate the power of greed and corruption in the US.
Exactly the question I seek answers to. His harsh sentence could be for embarrassing the US administration the 'post-911' world - at least that is a good place to start. The whole things bugs me though, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;
1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash). Therefore a counterbalance to this possibility is just for some people, who ordinarily wouldn't, to actually suppose, in the realms of hypothesis, 'what if McKinnon was right?'.
The whole tide on/. is against him, but dammit I want some of the open-minded/.'ers to speak up and talk about what he is saying he saw.
Yeah I would not disagree with what you suggest there - that it could be served serially or concurrently and that the minimum is not being reported. I thank you for that much, but the main thrust of my post is that (should they choose to make him serve it) seventy years is still a suspiciously disproportional sentence and only adds fuel to the fire. It bugs me, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;
1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash).
Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.
Why do you stop there? This what is fishy to me - that he is looking at a horrendously disproportionate sentence in relation to his crimes. It only remains to be effectively discussed as to why he is looking at such a stupid sentence.
It's so easy to rattle off some dismissive diatribe on/., saying he is a nutjob etc., but why the hell are they looking at giving him such a fisting? And as for his credibility amongst the UK hacker community, who the hell are Whitedust to be able to speak for them? There has been so much momentum in the direction of explaining away his allegations, and so little critical analysis of what he says. Most of the analyses I have read basically start from the point of view that he is mad and deluded, no-one is supposing 'what if he is right..?'. There were easily about 20 naysayers who jumped on his explanation for not being able to grab a screenshot - a narrowly technical aspect to his allegations - but I believe him as I believe he would not have had time to grab one. I also believe he has got out of his depth, and has seen too much. I say it again: 70 years? Something is not right.
I apologise for my lackadaisical, mindless insertion of an IMDB link. I did not stop to consider that someone else might have seen it elsewhere on the Internet. The link you give has been most provident, for I seek re-orientation on this matter and will be watching this seminal treatise once more. I think only of the children, a matter upon which I am sure we are agreed upon, and will be showing it to them in order to prepare them for when other children offer them cannabis reefers in the playground at Infant's School. I have already briefed them extensively on the pertinent issues surrounding Crack Whores, and I feel this will round off their social development, enabling them to actuate effective pre-teen habits.
You clearly haven't seen the authoritative 1936 anti-drug movie 'Reefer Madness', also released under the following aliases;
Dope Addict (USA) (reissue title)
Doped Youth (USA) (reissue title)
Love Madness (USA) (reissue title)
Tell Your Children (USA) (reissue title)
The Burning Question (USA) (reissue title)
If you saw this movie you would know the evils of driving whilst high, and that it will make you kill people. And if you're killing us, you're with them.
;BF>^@^@d^A^@@d^A^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@^@^@^@^@^@^ D^@^A^A^O^@^D^A^@ ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@No, I don't see your point at all. Could you clarify please? ^M^@^@^
^@^@^@
Slashdot Mirror
Awww I know * exactly * what you mean. My g/f's Fujitsu/Siemens Amilo is a Celeron M, and it doesn't matter how cold the ambient temperature is, the thing is always whining. It is louder than my desktop PC, which has 2x Case fans, 1x Proc. fan & 1x PSU fan, and that is when I am sat next to the desktop. I've tried everything under the sun to try and underclock it, she is all for anything that can cool/quieten it down.
I had to look twice there - I mean I know /. is often accused of groupthink, but you and the poster above both posted the same thing at the same time. I am freaked, and I haven't even had any weed today! Between you and this 'Bad Wold' sign I keep seeing, I think I will end up incarcerated for my own protection pretty soon..
Elsewhere, this could act as a differentiator for MS office. If the default image format in MS-Office is this new one, and applications that use ISO/IEC 26300-compliant (ODF-compliant) formats cannot use it due to patent restrictions, then this could act as a tool to prevent people from moving to applications that use ISO/IEC 26300-compliant methods of storing their files.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner. That is the reason. As others have pointed out, 'why why why?' - why reinvent the wheel? I think this makes perfect sense - create an obstacle to prevent the effective usage of ODF. Users will find themselves unable to save as ODF when 'MSJPEG's are included in the content - I mean, unless MS go to the trouble of converting to a real image format when someone saves as ODF. Which I am sceptical of. Patents and licensing restrictions will ensure documents containing such images will be unusable in OpenOffice. Evil, cynical genious as usual from the grand masters.
Facile and possibly OT as it sounds, I couldn't help but think that I haven't seen a poster so worthy of +5 Insightful in quite a while here. You reminded me of why I bother to stay here - to learn pearls of wisdom like that (no sarcasm here). It's the kind of thing IMO you couldn't know from a book, or know in advance. What you I could learn from a book is that User-only rights are better from a computer security point of view, but what you actually point out, no, only first and third-hand experience can tell you. Some smart ass would disagree, if my post were even worth the pixels it is written in, but I just think your post was a worthwhile read. Thanks for that.
Someone mentioned 'Beowulf Cluster', and not as a tired /. joke! Someone has actually made a Beowulf Cluster of these. Fantastic!!!!!
In fact I writing this from an MS PAYG machine right now. You can even able to purchase denominations as low as 30 seconds which ought be more than enough time to
..better still would be to include_once() a function that did anything 'one notch' or more complicated from that, I think anyway. I agree 100% it is it's own templating language, but I still wouldn't feel comfortable putting naked loops in my HTML. On other hand Smarty is overkill to me. I usually use a structure whereby there is the HTML tier (which have as few include_once's as I can get away with), and then a tier where PHP and HTML collide in the form of UI functions, and then at the top is pure PHP tier, usually concerned with abstracted database access and the like. I hope I don't look stupid.
Much better! A synopsis which does what it says on the tin! Facetious or not, that is the sum total of the article, the headline says it all.
(hic) I apologise in advance..I have a nice cab sav on the go here..I also apologise for the line length, thanks to /.'s bastard line-length filter
.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And A promise that was empty
.exe's a bot-netting,
Seven Service Packs a-swimming,
Six Execs a-lying,
Five Unnecessary Things,
Four Calling-home Apps,
Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms
And hardware requirements too steep for me!
On the first day of beta, MS sent to me A promise that was empty
On the second day of beta, MS sent to me Two Trusted Computing Platforms And A promise that was empty
On the third day of beta, MS sent to me Three Zero-Day Exploits,
Two Trusted Computing Platforms And A promise that was empty
On the fourth day of beta, MS sent to me Four Calling-home Apps, Three Zero-Day Exploits, Two Trusted Computing Platforms And A promise that was empty
On the fifth day of beta, MS sent to me Five Unnecessary Things, Four Calling-home Apps, Three Zero-Day Exploits, Two Trusted Computing Platforms And A promise that was empty
On the sixth day of beta, MS sent to me Six Execs a-lying, Five Unnecessary Things, Four Calling-home Apps, Three Zero-Day Exploits, Two Trusted Computing Platforms And A promise that was empty
On the seventh day of beta, MS sent to me Seven Service Packs a-swimming, Six Execs a-lying, Five Unnecessary Things, Four Calling-home Apps, Three Zero-Day Exploits, Two Trusted Computing Platforms And A promise that was empty
On the eighth day of beta, MS sent to me Eight
On the ninth day of beta, MS sent to me Nine Lawyers dancing, Eight
On the tenth day of beta, MS sent to me Ten Shills a-leaping, Nine Lawyers dancing, Eight
On the eleventh day of beta, MS sent to me Eleven programmers pissed-off, Ten Shills a-leaping, Nine Lawyers dancing, Eight
On the twelfth day of beta, MS sent to me Twelve DRM devices, Eleven programmers pissed-off, Ten Shills a-leaping, Nine Lawyers dancing, Eight
I am going to burn in karma hell for that prob..
C'mon admit it you cheap little karma whore (don't take it personally) - dismissing *anything* which has been labelled as conspiracy theory on /., no matter how lazy or lacking the rebuttal - well it's easy points isn't it? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's like being at the top of a very tall hill, and then choosing to roll down it. (don't take it personally).
/. posting. Don't take it personally.
Double oh yeah - my five year-old could shit out a more interesting
+5 Insightful. Well-argued, impeccably-presented argument against alternative viewpoints. Marvellous. A triumph of human critical-thinking, a sheer, towering tribute to the mercurial genii which frequent this establishment.
...the funniest thing I have seen all week. Totally sharp, well-observed satire, and the first letter in their Letters page made me think I was back on Slashdot for a while. Thank you very much, I've recommended it to all of my black friends.
Why do I need to grow up? I was sincere in my beliefs, still am. They just happen to disagree with your flacid, neutral, USA-apologist viewpoint.
I have no evidence that you are not a 4' tall green lion from the planet ipthar typing telepathically to /. However, until I've seen documentation of 4' tall green lions from the planet ipthar *with* telepathy, I am just going to assume that you are a human using some sort of input device like everyone else.
/* At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen. */
Really, the logical extension of my argument. Excelsior to you. That is completely within the boundaries of my argument. And just as you correctly assume my essential human/computer/input device nature, despite the possibility you outline, I reasonably assume that McKinnon's assertions could be incorrect: A. He knows he didn't see any of this, or B. What he thinks he saw isn't what he saw. This, though, is despite 'C. The possibility that he could be right.' These are up in the air to me, as I am not a physicist.
However, some dude telling me that the Pentagon has free energy, even though I see tanks still using diesel (or jp4 or whatever those things use now) is just not enough evidence to get excited about, let alone examine.
Ordinarily it's not enough to pique my interest, would be in the 'readily dismissible' category save for the fact that the authorities are seeking to put him away for up to 70 years. What can I say? I can't deny this kind of story is interesting to me.
You are absolutely correct there. I have a belief in a law that has been proven over and over, and has *never*... *ever* been proven to not work. Does anyone really think that maybe I should believe in some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics?
You quote me too selectively there to be ignored. In the preceding sentence I add the caveat 'though it works as a system for us to make sense of the world'. I believe it is a good working model, but I dare to say it might change or be completely replaced, even by 'some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics'. You apparently do not.
But the historical evidence shows that every single person who bets against the law of conservation of energy has lost. Does that mean that it's always going to be? Well... not necessarily... but for now, I wouldn't disconnect from the local electric company.
Nor would I disconnect from my local electric company. I would merely read with great interest the whole event - the whole 'not necessarily' part - and keep fishing for what I can find out, within my mortal comprehension. C'mon, stop this nonsense, stop trying to polarise it so readily, please, I'm tired.
I'd simply respond to that by pointing out to you the interesting read to be had at www.disclosureproject.org. If it's bullshit, it is at least thorough and mildly imaginative bullshit.
"Dr K, another UK hacker interviewed by the BBC News website, questioned why Mr McKinnon had to be extradited to be tried for the crimes for which he has already confessed.
/. article, as for what he would be tried under in this country, I saw it today on the BBC but cannot find it now, but it said he would be tried under the 'Computer Misuse Act' in this country. That link has real legal language beyond my comprehension, but I do notice 'Territorial scope of inchoate offences related to offences under this Act.' and 'Extradition where Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 applies.' mentioned. If you actually did read it, I would want to know what you thought if it. Thank-you for only mildly insinuating I am crazy, I appreciate fair-minded discussion.
"We have laws in this country to deal with this kind of trans-national data crime," he said, "Gary McKinnon should be tried here under UK law."
That's from the BBC page referenced by today's
But, I put it to any sceptic - do you have any evidence he didn't see any of that? Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. You have merely your faith in the laws of thermodynamics - I'm sorry, I am a geek, I love science, I love technology and I believe in the empirical method, but ultimately physics and it's laws are all works in progress, subject to validation and dismissal at any point. Going further, though it works as a system for us to make sense of the world, science is just another belief system.
/. was once somewhere where the alternative possibilities could be discussed.
At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen.
I have no evidence he is right. You have no evidence he is wrong. But
Surely a clue as to their credibility is within their name; White Dust security? Reading their slurs on McKinnon was like listening to some coke-heads bitching off somebody. Definitely.
* long sniffing noise *
* extended sniffing noises *
AND I SAY FULL POWER TO THEM. TOO MANY FUCKING HIPPIES AND FREAKS IN SECURITY, fucking Nineties, what have the fucking nineties ever done for us? every fucking body knows that computer security requires an alert mind people! and who fucking has the alert mind? why, it is the mind that is found attached to the fucking cokehead! ipso fucking facto!
bleurgh. I feel faint and pasty, could someone pass me the..
If for a second you take what he says to be true, you're left in a world where the US govenment is keeping the world poverty stricken, regularly airbrushing photo evidence of UFOs out of satelite images, has a cure for almost all known diseases (and doesn't use it) and develop weapons that make the AK47 look like a broken watergun. What is more the number of people who'd need to be involved in a conspiracy this big would be WELL into the thousands.
I absolutely, sincerely and honestly have no problem envisaging those possibilities. I really don't. I don't think in the Information age, in 2006, that the things he describes sound that far-fetched. I totally think (if for one second we suppose there is truth) that it fits in with the current administrations M.O. that they could have free power and evidence of aliens and keep it all under wraps. Never under-estimate the power of greed and corruption in the US.
Exactly the question I seek answers to. His harsh sentence could be for embarrassing the US administration the 'post-911' world - at least that is a good place to start. The whole things bugs me though, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;
/. is against him, but dammit I want some of the open-minded /.'ers to speak up and talk about what he is saying he saw.
1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash). Therefore a counterbalance to this possibility is just for some people, who ordinarily wouldn't, to actually suppose, in the realms of hypothesis, 'what if McKinnon was right?'.
The whole tide on
Yeah I would not disagree with what you suggest there - that it could be served serially or concurrently and that the minimum is not being reported. I thank you for that much, but the main thrust of my post is that (should they choose to make him serve it) seventy years is still a suspiciously disproportional sentence and only adds fuel to the fire. It bugs me, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;
1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash).
Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.
/., saying he is a nutjob etc., but why the hell are they looking at giving him such a fisting? And as for his credibility amongst the UK hacker community, who the hell are Whitedust to be able to speak for them? There has been so much momentum in the direction of explaining away his allegations, and so little critical analysis of what he says. Most of the analyses I have read basically start from the point of view that he is mad and deluded, no-one is supposing 'what if he is right..?'. There were easily about 20 naysayers who jumped on his explanation for not being able to grab a screenshot - a narrowly technical aspect to his allegations - but I believe him as I believe he would not have had time to grab one. I also believe he has got out of his depth, and has seen too much. I say it again: 70 years? Something is not right.
Why do you stop there? This what is fishy to me - that he is looking at a horrendously disproportionate sentence in relation to his crimes. It only remains to be effectively discussed as to why he is looking at such a stupid sentence.
It's so easy to rattle off some dismissive diatribe on
Dear Whiney Mac Fanboy,
I apologise for my lackadaisical, mindless insertion of an IMDB link. I did not stop to consider that someone else might have seen it elsewhere on the Internet. The link you give has been most provident, for I seek re-orientation on this matter and will be watching this seminal treatise once more. I think only of the children, a matter upon which I am sure we are agreed upon, and will be showing it to them in order to prepare them for when other children offer them cannabis reefers in the playground at Infant's School. I have already briefed them extensively on the pertinent issues surrounding Crack Whores, and I feel this will round off their social development, enabling them to actuate effective pre-teen habits.
Best wishes,
Concerned of America *
* I'm not from the USA.
You clearly haven't seen the authoritative 1936 anti-drug movie 'Reefer Madness', also released under the following aliases;
Dope Addict (USA) (reissue title)
Doped Youth (USA) (reissue title)
Love Madness (USA) (reissue title)
Tell Your Children (USA) (reissue title)
The Burning Question (USA) (reissue title)
If you saw this movie you would know the evils of driving whilst high, and that it will make you kill people. And if you're killing us, you're with them.
;BF>^@^@d^A^@@d^A^@^@^@^@^@^@^A^@^@^@^@^@^@^ D^@^A^A^O^@^D^A^@ ^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@No, I don't see your point at all. Could you clarify please? ^M^@^@^ ^@^@^@