Typical. Play number one in the administration's disinformation playbook: Denounce anyone who dares to question the patently false 'official version' of events as a 'conspiracy theorist' and make fun of their tinfoil hat. Repeat as needed, until the lies become truth.
What's truly sad is the depth to which you've been suckered by this propaganda campaign. You mention several other sites that purportedly 'debunk' the 'conspiracy theories'. You now have a choice:
Link to them, so that we may discuss the issue rationally, or
Continue to hoot and holler over what a 'moonbat' I am.
It's your choice. Personally, I'm hoping you take me up on my offer, because at some point along the way, there's a good chance you'll be forced to think critically about the 'official version' of events, at which point you'll easily see what a pathetic house of cards it truly is.
Wow...where to begin? I guess the beginning is as good a place as any...
Wow, what an insightful, well-researched, and thought-provoking website. I went to the main page to see what other conspiracies had been covered up by the US government, and once I scrolled past the obviously legitimate banner ads for Ephedra, Viagra, and penny stocks, I found all sorts of op-ed diatribes based on shaky and unverifiable claims.
Nice ad homenim attack, but the fact that the website in question has banner ads has no bearing whatsoever on the arguments they present. Try to stick to the facts, please.
WTC 7 was not slated for demolition. It was not wired with explosives.
Are you calling Larry Silverstein a liar? Because in the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, he made the following statement:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
It caught on fire, burned from the inside out, and collapsed.
If that in fact is true, than it's the third steel-framed building to ever collapse from fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2. The simple fact is: steel-framed buildings don't collapse from fire. Period. There have been several instances of steel skyscrapers on fire, many burning far hotter for far longer than any fire on 9/11. Yet, none of these buildings have collapsed. NOT ONE. I defy you to find one other example of a steel-framed building collapsing from fire....just one.
If they're "on record," then link to it. Who are these "experts," and how exactly did they acquire their "expert" knowledge on the dynamics of airliner strikes on large skyscrapers, given that it's never happened before?
The towers were designed to constantly withstand wind pressures equal to 30 times the energy of the airliner impacts. They were also specifically designed to withstand impacts from passenger jets (link here).
As for it never happening before, that's simply not true. In July of 1945 a B-52 bomber, lost in heavy fog, crashed into the Empire State Building. Over a million dollars in damage (and those were 1945 dollars), and several casualties. But the building was repaired and still stands today.
Finally, here's a link to a page that discusses the gag order slapped on the FDNY. From the article:
FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
With respect to your crazytalk regarding the attack on the Pentagon, you demonstrate the classic flaws of a conspiracy theorist.
And now we go right back to the ad homenims. So far, you're following the administration's disinformation playbook page by page.
For example, evidence supporting the truth is overwhelming, undeniable, and readily available. If there really was no "Flight 77", then what do you make of this list of victims? The passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77? Are these fake names? Why not call up some of the family members and see if these people actually existed? Google them. Locate addresses and co-workers. Where did all these people go, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Are all their family members in on the conspiracy, and perpetuating a lie?
Here's just one example of our rights being stripped away:
A) Terrorism is now defined as "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law."
B) A person defined as a terrorist can now have their citizenship revoked, and in essence becone an 'enemy combatant'. 'Enemy combatants', as we have seen, can be held indefinitely without a trial, and have no rights.
Under the Patriot Act, it is now possible to be incarcerated indefinitely for something as minor as speeding.
There are many more rights that have been dismantled by the Patriot Act, but I'll leave it up to you to do your own research. Here's a place to start.
As for deception, check out this site, and then ask the question again.
How about an explanation of htf WTC 4 collapsed when it WAS NOT HIT AT ALL!?!
Actually, the building you are referring to was WTC 7, and Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS interview shortly after 9/11 that he ordered the building to be 'pulled' ('pulled' is industry jargon for executing a controlled demolition). More details can be found here.
'Pulling' a large building like WTC 7, so that the demolished remains fall neatly onto its own footprint without damaging neighboring structures is very complex and takes weeks of inspections and planning. For WTC 7 to have been 'pulled', the explosive charges must have been put in place far in advance of 9/11. Why was WTC 7 wired to blow that morning?
If you watch a video of WTC 7 falling, you see that it collapses neatly onto its own footprint, at nearly free fall speed. This is exactly how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed as well...suddenly collapsing so fast that they were falling at the same rate as detached debris in free-fall next to them, and falling neatly onto their own footprints, so that buildings as close as 47 feet only received minor damage. Demolition experts immediately went on record as saying that such a collapse as a result of an airliner strike was flatly impossible, and that the only explanation could be explosives in the building. Immediately after, these people were muzzled by the current administration unter the pretense of National Security.
the almost immediate gravelling of the pentagon lawn...
The Pentagon lawn had to be gravelled immediately to hide what should have been there, but wasn't...namely: damage from the underbelly of a 757. Shots of the Pentagon taken immediately after the attack show a completely unblemished lawn, as well as wire spools untouched, in front of a 15-foot wide hole in the side of the building. Discount for just a moment that a) the hole is far too small to have been caused by a jet airliner, b) there is no damage from wing sections, engines, or tail sections striking the building, c) contrary to what was seen at the WTC attacks, there, was almost no fire damage whatsoever, and d) No wing sections, tail sections, engines, or bodies of the passengers of the supposed 757 were ever found, the hole was actually too low for the airliner to have made it at all. For the nose to have struck the building at the site of the hole, its belly would have had to have been 10 feet under the ground at the time. Naturally, you might think this would have caused significant damage to the Pentagon lawn, but again, early pictures show that the only damage to the lawn was caused by the wheels of the fire engines. This alone puts the lie to their story...and this is why that gravel had to be put down so fast. More details can be found here.
The more you watch the footage of 9/11, the more obvious the lies become. But don't take my word for it...do your own research.
One of the most troubling things about the current situation is that your average Joe Sixpack has no idea how far the current administration has gone in their efforts to decieve them and strip away their inalienable rights. Once they're properly appraised of the situation, they're usually pretty damned mad about it.
Getting the word out is one of the most important ways we can fight this assault on our liberty. The people in power thrive on ignorance. Anything that deprives them of that is positive.
I'm downloading this right now...looking forward to playing it with the in-laws next Sunday.
Here's one of the 'Homeland Security' cards:
According to FOX News, your criticisms of the President during wartime make you "guilty of granting aid and comfort to our enemies"; Roll the dice to see if you are GUILTY OF TREASON A roll of even = not guilty; a roll of odd = guilty - sentenced to GTMO
I've maintained before that Google retains far too much information to make the use of Gmail anything less than a full-blown privacy nightmare. (For more information, please look here and here.)
And now, the chickens have come home to roost. From TFA:
The subpoena asks for not only current e-mail but also deleted e-mail: "All documents concerning all Gmail accounts of Baker...for the period from Jan. 1, 2003, to present, including but not limited to all e-mails and messages stored in all mailboxes, folders, in-boxes, sent items and deleted items, and all links to related Web pages contained in such e-mail messages."
A stunning victory for the Establishment and a horror show for private citizens everywhere. Welcome to 1984.
And before you start, please don't object that the person affected is a defendant in a criminal proceeding, because that's quite beside the point. The point is that Google has this information on you, and will hand it over upon request. This vindicates the caterwauling of all the privacy advocates concerning Google and Gmail, and establishes a dangerous legal precedent. Remember, as our 'inalienable' rights are systematically stripped away by the architects of the New World Order, more and more of the things you do become 'illegal'...and subject to criminal persecution...er...prosecution. It might not be long before you are being referred to as 'defendant'...what will you think of your Gmail account then?
It's an easy enough misunderstanding: a phishing site looks like a genuine site, but isn't.
Parody sites look like genuine sites too. That's the general point of parody.
Yes, he's missed the point that phishing is about data capture not misinformation but I wouldn't rag him too hard, he's in the right ballpark.
"The right ballpark"????? For Chrissakes....he's the chief technology officer at Melbourne IT. If he doesn't fucking understand what a phishing site is, Melbourne IT Needs a new CTO.
What's more likely? That a CTO of a major ISP actually doesn't understand the concept of a 'phishing site', or said CTO is prevaricating because the Government is breathing down his neck? You do the math.
Well, I've looked at the PDF of the satire website, comparing it with the real deal, and I have to say that the two are extremely similar....virtually identical with the exception of content. In this light, the reason offered by Bruce Tonkin, the chief technology officer of Melbourne IT, holds a bit of water:
"If we receive a complaint from an intellectual property basis claiming that a website directly infringes the rights of another site we would check it, and if it is a direct copy we would suspend the site," he said.
Upon closer observation, however, this reason leaks like a sieve. The parody websise is not a direct copy...far from it, since the content is radically different. This reason also conveniently glosses over the rather important fact that the Melbourne IT was ordered to yank the website by the Australian Government.
Mr.Tonkin goes on to say:
"To us it looks like a phishing site."
Phishing??? Phishing for what??? This claim is patently ridiculous.
The reason Melbourne IT yanked the website is pure and simple: they were told to by the Government.
Our fundamental human rights are being slowly whittled away...not only in America, but around the world. There is no save harbor. There is nowhere to hide from the oppression. Concerned citizens have to make a stand now...not because it is the right thing to do, but because they have no other option, finding themselves with their backs against the wall.
Or are you saying customers need to be able to buy Windows software with loggers and viruses pre-installed,
Marvelous misrepresentation, but no, I'm not saying that. All I was doing was taking Microsoft and Yankee Group to task regarding the alleged motive for this initiative. They claim it's to 'protect the consumer'...I maintain that it's to protect Microsoft's bottom line. The argument may be offered that the two aren't mutually exclusive...that protecting customers from pirated software serves to increase the customers' trust in Microsoft products, thus enhancing their bottom line, but ultimately, that's an argument that supports, rather than opposes, my central statement.
Now, I don't have any problem with M$ trying to make a semi-honest buck...after all, they are a corporation, and that's what corporations do...just as wolves kill and eat rabbits...it's their nature, and there's nothing immoral about it. But please, don't feed me a cock-and-bull story about how you're trying to 'protect the consumer', as if that is your primary motive...this is like the wolves trying to tell me they're killing the rabbits to keep them from eating the vegetables in my garden.
or that they're demanding software that can't be upgraded and patched?
Again, nice misrepresentation, but since it's Microsoft themselves who instituted the policy denying non-critical updates to users who can't or won't validate their software, this is a non-argument.
If some guy is trying to sell me "new" "never-out-of-the-box" software that's not, he deserves to be caught and punished. Infected and pirated software, doubly so.
This article is so slanted, it's positively perpendicular.
From TFA:
Piracy is in fact becoming more dangerous for end users, with hacked or illegal versions often containing malicious code that can be used to infect PCs with viruses or to install Trojan horses that can be used to steal private data, Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio said.
Yes, of course....this incentive is to protect the consumer...not the multi-billion dollar software giant the Yankee Group is actually beholden to. 'Won't somebody think of the children', indeed. It's clear that if you have reservations about this in any way, you are un-american and hate our children. Why do you hate our children? Why do you hate America?
Here's another gem from TFA:
Many of the suits were sparked by the company's Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program, a program launched last year to let buyers of software determine whether it is properly licensed. Buyers who learned their programs were not genuine then helped Microsoft by providing information on the sellers.
Replace 'let' with 'force', and we might have a statement approaching truth. Checking if your Windows install was legal used to be entirely voluntary. WGA is voluntary only in the sense of 'you don't need to participate...and we don't need to give you non-critical updates'. This is analogous to a bank requiring your SS number to open an account, despite the fact that that number was meant soley for government use, and never designed for that sort of application. When asked why a SS number is required, when in fact, this requirement is illegal, bank managers invariably reply, "oh...you have every right to refuse to divulge your SS number...as we have every right to decline your account application". Same situation.
And finally:
By its own admission, Microsoft is unlikely to significantly dent the software piracy industry with lawsuits against individuals.
That depends on your definition of significant. Any headway they make is likely to save them much more than it costs, and that's all Microsoft really cares about in the final analysis....not stamping out piracy...not 'protecting the children', but enhancing the bottom line.
Nicholas sounds rather like the legendary Charles H. Duell, former Commissioner of the U.S. House of Patents in 1899, who was reported to have urged then-President McKinley to close down the Office, saying, "everything that can be invented has been invented".
Now, I know this particular story is apocryphal, but it's interesting that we're hearing basically the same line a little over a century later. Odds are real good it will be wrong this time, too.
Nick ought to know better...but he seems to be suffering from a serious lack of imagination. Not a good thing for the 'executive vice president of innovation and technology' at IBM...
Heh...back in the day I was charged with setting up a trouble ticket system for the IT department. One caveat: I was not allowed to spend any money. None.
So, I sat down with an Access textbook and laboriously designed an Access dB we could use as a trouble ticket system. It was ugly, kludgy, and needed to be compacted nearly every week, but it did the job.
When I presented my solution, I stressed repeatedly that it was strictly temporary, until we managed to get some money to spend on a professional solution. They repeatedly assured me that a permanent solution would be purchased as soon as the budget allowed.
When I finally quit that job a year and a half later, they were still using my natty database. Last I heard from some friends who still worked there (over three years after that), the database was still in use. ^_^
THE US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
Sorry to break it to the folks over at the Inquirer, but Asimov's Laws do not actually exist....any more than his 'positronic brain' does. It's fiction. Next week on the Inquirer: Computers Built That Break The Orange Catholic Bible's Commandment of 'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likenes of a human mind'. Sheesh.
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
OK....so the're not even robots, then. They're telepresence devices.
Then the robot has the job of making sure lots of bullets are sent towards the target.
Statement from the Iraqi forces regarding the use of these 'robots':
OMFG! u r fukn gay! u hack, i know it! fucking aimbot! tak ur aimbot bs to nothr country, asshats!
Nice to know we can take what we've learned in FPSs and apply them to the real world.
Later the US plans to replace the control system of the bots with a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.
Yes! Finally, all my training has paid off! I can be a soldier from the comfort of my basement! Where do I sign?
I think what he's asking is: does the badge record the leaving time as well as the arrival time? This is a problem where I work as well...the badge records when you come in, but doesn't record when you leave, so it doesn't matter if you stay late to finish a project...all the management cares about is when you got there in the morning.
If the SQL injection or buffer overrun instructs the middleware system to overwrite all RFID tags subsequently scanned with the exploit code, that's pretty self-replicating, isn't it?
Fascinating stuff, but it seems that the game plan for protecting against RFID malware is basically the same as protecting against more traditional malware...namely, enforcing proper bounds checking, enforcing proper database permissions heirarchies, disabling back-end scripting languages, isolating the vulnerable RFID middleware server in a proper DMZ environment, etc.
In other words, RFID malware has just as bright a future as the more traditional flavor, since most developers and administrators can't be bothered to take these elementary precautions.
Sounds great...where can I get one? And how much will it set me back?
From TFA:
Availability
Eurotech describes the WWPC as a "user-centric, ubiquitous computing" concept, suggesting that the device is not yet available in product form. The company did not respond to availability enquires by publication time.
Oh yeah...that's right. Slashdot.
Wake me when the seven-ounce wrist PC that runs Linux actually exists. Kthx.
He [Robert A. Freitas, Jr.] advocates "an immediate international moratorium, if not outright ban, on all artificial life experiments implemented as nonbiological hardware.
Sorry to disagree with a Lifeboat Foundation Guardian Award winner, but this approach is doomed to failure. Every prohibition creates another underground. If a moratorium or ban is imposed, then only the people with contempt for the ban will be the ones doing the research...and these are precisely the people who are more apt to unleash something destructive, either accidentally or maliciously.
A moratorium or ban is the worst possible thing we could do at this juncture. The technology is available now, and if we want to be able to defend ourselves against the problems it can cause, we have to be familiar enough with it to be able to devise a solution. Burying our heads in the sand will not make this problem go away. Like it or not, Pandora's Box is open, and it can't be closed again...we have to deal with what has escaped.
Despair gave way to cautious optimism today across the community as K'Breel, Speaker for the most Illustrious Council of Elders, delivered a statement. The statement was in response to scattered reports that the disgusting inhabitants of the evil blue planet were at last feeling the awful toll of war.
Referring to the intercepted communications from the sinister blue planet, which characterized our fair world as 'unpredictable', made references to our past triumphs as our world 'swallowing' their devices of terror, and admonishing their leaders not to become 'overconfident' in their dealings with us, K'Breel waxed poetic on the Speaking Dais, amid much gelsac-swelling:
"Gentle Citizens, today I stand before you as qurilly as a youngling in the knowledge that the hideous inhabitants of the evil blue planet are at last feeling the awful reality of what it is to make war against the Community. Even now their debased leaders are faced with the inevitablity of defeat! Rejoice with me, pod-mates! This is the turning point!"
When several of the attending citizens failed to immediately make merry, K'breel denounced them as traitors and ordered their gelsacs punctured on the spot.
7. Embrace the Constitution. We have a right in this industry to make and market our product in an unregulated manner. We should be talking about what our rights are. Videogames are part art and part commerce; both parts are protected.
This is just one more facet of our not-so-slowly eroding civil rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Typical. Play number one in the administration's disinformation playbook: Denounce anyone who dares to question the patently false 'official version' of events as a 'conspiracy theorist' and make fun of their tinfoil hat. Repeat as needed, until the lies become truth.
What's truly sad is the depth to which you've been suckered by this propaganda campaign. You mention several other sites that purportedly 'debunk' the 'conspiracy theories'. You now have a choice:
It's your choice. Personally, I'm hoping you take me up on my offer, because at some point along the way, there's a good chance you'll be forced to think critically about the 'official version' of events, at which point you'll easily see what a pathetic house of cards it truly is.
Wow...where to begin? I guess the beginning is as good a place as any...
Wow, what an insightful, well-researched, and thought-provoking website. I went to the main page to see what other conspiracies had been covered up by the US government, and once I scrolled past the obviously legitimate banner ads for Ephedra, Viagra, and penny stocks, I found all sorts of op-ed diatribes based on shaky and unverifiable claims.
Nice ad homenim attack, but the fact that the website in question has banner ads has no bearing whatsoever on the arguments they present. Try to stick to the facts, please.
WTC 7 was not slated for demolition. It was not wired with explosives.
Are you calling Larry Silverstein a liar? Because in the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, he made the following statement:
But hey...you don't have to take my word for it...watch it for yourself.
It caught on fire, burned from the inside out, and collapsed.
If that in fact is true, than it's the third steel-framed building to ever collapse from fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2. The simple fact is: steel-framed buildings don't collapse from fire. Period. There have been several instances of steel skyscrapers on fire, many burning far hotter for far longer than any fire on 9/11. Yet, none of these buildings have collapsed. NOT ONE. I defy you to find one other example of a steel-framed building collapsing from fire....just one.
If they're "on record," then link to it. Who are these "experts," and how exactly did they acquire their "expert" knowledge on the dynamics of airliner strikes on large skyscrapers, given that it's never happened before?
The towers were designed to constantly withstand wind pressures equal to 30 times the energy of the airliner impacts. They were also specifically designed to withstand impacts from passenger jets (link here).
As for it never happening before, that's simply not true. In July of 1945 a B-52 bomber, lost in heavy fog, crashed into the Empire State Building. Over a million dollars in damage (and those were 1945 dollars), and several casualties. But the building was repaired and still stands today.
Finally, here's a link to a page that discusses the gag order slapped on the FDNY. From the article:
With respect to your crazytalk regarding the attack on the Pentagon, you demonstrate the classic flaws of a conspiracy theorist.
And now we go right back to the ad homenims. So far, you're following the administration's disinformation playbook page by page.
For example, evidence supporting the truth is overwhelming, undeniable, and readily available. If there really was no "Flight 77", then what do you make of this list of victims? The passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77? Are these fake names? Why not call up some of the family members and see if these people actually existed? Google them. Locate addresses and co-workers. Where did all these people go, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Are all their family members in on the conspiracy, and perpetuating a lie?
I just love it when people th
Here's just one example of our rights being stripped away:
Under the Patriot Act, it is now possible to be incarcerated indefinitely for something as minor as speeding.
There are many more rights that have been dismantled by the Patriot Act, but I'll leave it up to you to do your own research. Here's a place to start.
As for deception, check out this site, and then ask the question again.
How about an explanation of htf WTC 4 collapsed when it WAS NOT HIT AT ALL!?!
Actually, the building you are referring to was WTC 7, and Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS interview shortly after 9/11 that he ordered the building to be 'pulled' ('pulled' is industry jargon for executing a controlled demolition). More details can be found here.
'Pulling' a large building like WTC 7, so that the demolished remains fall neatly onto its own footprint without damaging neighboring structures is very complex and takes weeks of inspections and planning. For WTC 7 to have been 'pulled', the explosive charges must have been put in place far in advance of 9/11. Why was WTC 7 wired to blow that morning?
If you watch a video of WTC 7 falling, you see that it collapses neatly onto its own footprint, at nearly free fall speed. This is exactly how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed as well...suddenly collapsing so fast that they were falling at the same rate as detached debris in free-fall next to them, and falling neatly onto their own footprints, so that buildings as close as 47 feet only received minor damage. Demolition experts immediately went on record as saying that such a collapse as a result of an airliner strike was flatly impossible, and that the only explanation could be explosives in the building. Immediately after, these people were muzzled by the current administration unter the pretense of National Security.
the almost immediate gravelling of the pentagon lawn...
The Pentagon lawn had to be gravelled immediately to hide what should have been there, but wasn't...namely: damage from the underbelly of a 757. Shots of the Pentagon taken immediately after the attack show a completely unblemished lawn, as well as wire spools untouched, in front of a 15-foot wide hole in the side of the building. Discount for just a moment that a) the hole is far too small to have been caused by a jet airliner, b) there is no damage from wing sections, engines, or tail sections striking the building, c) contrary to what was seen at the WTC attacks, there, was almost no fire damage whatsoever, and d) No wing sections, tail sections, engines, or bodies of the passengers of the supposed 757 were ever found, the hole was actually too low for the airliner to have made it at all. For the nose to have struck the building at the site of the hole, its belly would have had to have been 10 feet under the ground at the time. Naturally, you might think this would have caused significant damage to the Pentagon lawn, but again, early pictures show that the only damage to the lawn was caused by the wheels of the fire engines. This alone puts the lie to their story...and this is why that gravel had to be put down so fast. More details can be found here.
The more you watch the footage of 9/11, the more obvious the lies become. But don't take my word for it...do your own research.
One of the most troubling things about the current situation is that your average Joe Sixpack has no idea how far the current administration has gone in their efforts to decieve them and strip away their inalienable rights. Once they're properly appraised of the situation, they're usually pretty damned mad about it.
Getting the word out is one of the most important ways we can fight this assault on our liberty. The people in power thrive on ignorance. Anything that deprives them of that is positive.
I'm downloading this right now...looking forward to playing it with the in-laws next Sunday.
Here's one of the 'Homeland Security' cards:
Absolutely priceless.
The subpoena is for one account belonging to a defendent [sic], not a subpoena for a bunch of random accounts.
No...the subpoena for a bunch of random accounts is an entirely different case, and it's not going so well either.
You've proven my point for me more adroitly than I ever could have. Thanks for the help.
I think you're being a bit paranoid.
Clearly, you're not being paranoid enough.
I TOLD YOU SO.
I've maintained before that Google retains far too much information to make the use of Gmail anything less than a full-blown privacy nightmare. (For more information, please look here and here.)
And now, the chickens have come home to roost. From TFA: A stunning victory for the Establishment and a horror show for private citizens everywhere. Welcome to 1984.
And before you start, please don't object that the person affected is a defendant in a criminal proceeding, because that's quite beside the point. The point is that Google has this information on you, and will hand it over upon request. This vindicates the caterwauling of all the privacy advocates concerning Google and Gmail, and establishes a dangerous legal precedent. Remember, as our 'inalienable' rights are systematically stripped away by the architects of the New World Order, more and more of the things you do become 'illegal'...and subject to criminal persecution...er...prosecution. It might not be long before you are being referred to as 'defendant'...what will you think of your Gmail account then?
It's an easy enough misunderstanding: a phishing site looks like a genuine site, but isn't.
Parody sites look like genuine sites too. That's the general point of parody.
Yes, he's missed the point that phishing is about data capture not misinformation but I wouldn't rag him too hard, he's in the right ballpark.
"The right ballpark"????? For Chrissakes....he's the chief technology officer at Melbourne IT. If he doesn't fucking understand what a phishing site is, Melbourne IT Needs a new CTO.
What's more likely? That a CTO of a major ISP actually doesn't understand the concept of a 'phishing site', or said CTO is prevaricating because the Government is breathing down his neck? You do the math.
Well, I've looked at the PDF of the satire website, comparing it with the real deal, and I have to say that the two are extremely similar....virtually identical with the exception of content. In this light, the reason offered by Bruce Tonkin, the chief technology officer of Melbourne IT, holds a bit of water: Upon closer observation, however, this reason leaks like a sieve. The parody websise is not a direct copy...far from it, since the content is radically different. This reason also conveniently glosses over the rather important fact that the Melbourne IT was ordered to yank the website by the Australian Government.
Mr.Tonkin goes on to say: Phishing??? Phishing for what??? This claim is patently ridiculous.
The reason Melbourne IT yanked the website is pure and simple: they were told to by the Government.
Our fundamental human rights are being slowly whittled away...not only in America, but around the world. There is no save harbor. There is nowhere to hide from the oppression. Concerned citizens have to make a stand now...not because it is the right thing to do, but because they have no other option, finding themselves with their backs against the wall.
Or are you saying customers need to be able to buy Windows software with loggers and viruses pre-installed,
Marvelous misrepresentation, but no, I'm not saying that. All I was doing was taking Microsoft and Yankee Group to task regarding the alleged motive for this initiative. They claim it's to 'protect the consumer'...I maintain that it's to protect Microsoft's bottom line. The argument may be offered that the two aren't mutually exclusive...that protecting customers from pirated software serves to increase the customers' trust in Microsoft products, thus enhancing their bottom line, but ultimately, that's an argument that supports, rather than opposes, my central statement.
Now, I don't have any problem with M$ trying to make a semi-honest buck...after all, they are a corporation, and that's what corporations do...just as wolves kill and eat rabbits...it's their nature, and there's nothing immoral about it. But please, don't feed me a cock-and-bull story about how you're trying to 'protect the consumer', as if that is your primary motive...this is like the wolves trying to tell me they're killing the rabbits to keep them from eating the vegetables in my garden.
or that they're demanding software that can't be upgraded and patched?
Again, nice misrepresentation, but since it's Microsoft themselves who instituted the policy denying non-critical updates to users who can't or won't validate their software, this is a non-argument.
If some guy is trying to sell me "new" "never-out-of-the-box" software that's not, he deserves to be caught and punished. Infected and pirated software, doubly so.
Two words: Caveat Emptor.
This article is so slanted, it's positively perpendicular.
From TFA: Yes, of course....this incentive is to protect the consumer...not the multi-billion dollar software giant the Yankee Group is actually beholden to. 'Won't somebody think of the children', indeed. It's clear that if you have reservations about this in any way, you are un-american and hate our children. Why do you hate our children? Why do you hate America?
Here's another gem from TFA: Replace 'let' with 'force', and we might have a statement approaching truth. Checking if your Windows install was legal used to be entirely voluntary. WGA is voluntary only in the sense of 'you don't need to participate...and we don't need to give you non-critical updates'. This is analogous to a bank requiring your SS number to open an account, despite the fact that that number was meant soley for government use, and never designed for that sort of application. When asked why a SS number is required, when in fact, this requirement is illegal, bank managers invariably reply, "oh...you have every right to refuse to divulge your SS number...as we have every right to decline your account application". Same situation.
And finally: That depends on your definition of significant. Any headway they make is likely to save them much more than it costs, and that's all Microsoft really cares about in the final analysis....not stamping out piracy...not 'protecting the children', but enhancing the bottom line.
Nicholas sounds rather like the legendary Charles H. Duell, former Commissioner of the U.S. House of Patents in 1899, who was reported to have urged then-President McKinley to close down the Office, saying, "everything that can be invented has been invented".
Now, I know this particular story is apocryphal, but it's interesting that we're hearing basically the same line a little over a century later. Odds are real good it will be wrong this time, too.
Nick ought to know better...but he seems to be suffering from a serious lack of imagination. Not a good thing for the 'executive vice president of innovation and technology' at IBM...
Heh...back in the day I was charged with setting up a trouble ticket system for the IT department. One caveat: I was not allowed to spend any money. None.
So, I sat down with an Access textbook and laboriously designed an Access dB we could use as a trouble ticket system. It was ugly, kludgy, and needed to be compacted nearly every week, but it did the job.
When I presented my solution, I stressed repeatedly that it was strictly temporary, until we managed to get some money to spend on a professional solution. They repeatedly assured me that a permanent solution would be purchased as soon as the budget allowed.
When I finally quit that job a year and a half later, they were still using my natty database. Last I heard from some friends who still worked there (over three years after that), the database was still in use. ^_^
Check out the HelpBox and AuditWizard offerings from Layton Technology.
Not free, but very affordable, and very knowledgable and helpful helpdesk staff. My company's using it, and I'm quite happy with it.
THE US Army is deploying armed robots in Iraq that are capable of breaking Asmov's first law that they should not harm a human.
Sorry to break it to the folks over at the Inquirer, but Asimov's Laws do not actually exist....any more than his 'positronic brain' does. It's fiction.
Next week on the Inquirer: Computers Built That Break The Orange Catholic Bible's Commandment of 'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likenes of a human mind'.
Sheesh.
They are still connected by radio to a human operator who verifies that a suitable target is within sight and orders it to fire.
OK....so the're not even robots, then. They're telepresence devices.
Then the robot has the job of making sure lots of bullets are sent towards the target.
Statement from the Iraqi forces regarding the use of these 'robots':
Nice to know we can take what we've learned in FPSs and apply them to the real world.
Later the US plans to replace the control system of the bots with a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.
Yes! Finally, all my training has paid off! I can be a soldier from the comfort of my basement! Where do I sign?
I think what he's asking is: does the badge record the leaving time as well as the arrival time? This is a problem where I work as well...the badge records when you come in, but doesn't record when you leave, so it doesn't matter if you stay late to finish a project...all the management cares about is when you got there in the morning.
I don't work late anymore.
If the SQL injection or buffer overrun instructs the middleware system to overwrite all RFID tags subsequently scanned with the exploit code, that's pretty self-replicating, isn't it?
Fascinating stuff, but it seems that the game plan for protecting against RFID malware is basically the same as protecting against more traditional malware...namely, enforcing proper bounds checking, enforcing proper database permissions heirarchies, disabling back-end scripting languages, isolating the vulnerable RFID middleware server in a proper DMZ environment, etc.
In other words, RFID malware has just as bright a future as the more traditional flavor, since most developers and administrators can't be bothered to take these elementary precautions.
Sounds great...where can I get one? And how much will it set me back?
From TFA: Oh yeah...that's right. Slashdot.
Wake me when the seven-ounce wrist PC that runs Linux actually exists. Kthx.
This design was made in 1965.
A moratorium or ban is the worst possible thing we could do at this juncture. The technology is available now, and if we want to be able to defend ourselves against the problems it can cause, we have to be familiar enough with it to be able to devise a solution. Burying our heads in the sand will not make this problem go away. Like it or not, Pandora's Box is open, and it can't be closed again...we have to deal with what has escaped.
If they weren't 'decoys' before, they sure as hell are now...
Despair gave way to cautious optimism today across the community as K'Breel, Speaker for the most Illustrious Council of Elders, delivered a statement. The statement was in response to scattered reports that the disgusting inhabitants of the evil blue planet were at last feeling the awful toll of war.
Referring to the intercepted communications from the sinister blue planet, which characterized our fair world as 'unpredictable', made references to our past triumphs as our world 'swallowing' their devices of terror, and admonishing their leaders not to become 'overconfident' in their dealings with us, K'Breel waxed poetic on the Speaking Dais, amid much gelsac-swelling:When several of the attending citizens failed to immediately make merry, K'breel denounced them as traitors and ordered their gelsacs punctured on the spot.
It's a real shame this one came in seventh:This is just one more facet of our not-so-slowly eroding civil rights.