So, she's suing the paper for an amount that's a little over 0.36% of the countries GDP, which, by the way, works out to about $100 per capita in 2009 dollars, according to the CIA World Fact Book. The Mugabes are a pair of the most despicable people on the planet and why they're allowed to stay in charge, probably out of some fear of removing them looking like "white colonial oppression," is shameful.
Health Care is perhaps the one area where I'm not particularly thrilled with "market forces" taking over. That, and I think world would have been generally far better off had AT&T not been broken up, but that's not really relevant.
Market forces are responsible for cheap chinese crap of low quality, where warranties are a joke because you know they're just long enough to last until they know the product is going to crap out from normal usage, forcing you to buy a new one. I don't want the crappy, Chinese knock-off doctor doing me surgery. For example, over the summer my mother and I both had similar surgeries performed -- simple cyst removals -- by different doctors. My surgeon had gone to Columbia, Dartmouth and Stanford for his education. My mothers, I believe, had been to a State school for undergrad and then to MCV, which is an alright medical school, but nothing really to write home about in the grand scheme of things.
My surgery was performed faster, with better accuracy, and healed much, much faster than my mother's, and was almost completely painless while it healed, despite having been on my right forearm, and me being right handed (weird place to get a hard cyst, too). My surgery was also less expensive than my mothers, despite my insurance not wanting to cover any of it because i was new on the plan and they decided it was a "pre-existing condition" (queue spooky sounds and wavy, ghost-story hands).
Being able to get higher-quality service from a superior provider for less money is a lot more like Bell vs bullshit MCI back in the 80s, after all. Fuck free trade medicine. Think I'd go to a doctor who went to some Caribbean medical school because they couldn't get into an American medical school? Hell no.
The AMA and state medical boards are just like any other professional organization -- they set the minimum standards necessary to be considered elegable to practice a profession. You may call it "barrier to entry," but I disagree. I don't want to go to a doctor that other doctors wouldn't consider fit any more than I'd want a guy who read the law in his spare time to be my defense attorney or to drive on a bridge by someone who failed to get the PE stamp. The rest of the world isn't IT and self-education isn't going to cut it when death is on the line.
Well, the article is from a 'White Nationalist' (aka Neo-Nazi) magazine, National Vanguard, sponsored by the 'White Nationalist', National Socialist organization National Alliance. Most of the rest of the article after what the AC posted is a little more blatantly obvious as to what their message really is. Just sayin'.
With Visa and Mastercard, it was pretty much the whole story, though. There was no violence in the street and shootings like in Iran. I can't remember if the Georgia incident coincided with the brief shooting war or was just around the same time, but as I said in my original post, news of internet infrastructure being impaired isn't going to carry as much weight as images of Russian tanks rolling down the streets.
So, a study of groups which are all pretty much the opposite of banking and financial institutions must clearly be secretly linked to an attempt to discredit people attacking the banks? I might need to get more tin foil, but when Russia 'attacked' Georgia or Wikileaks was under attack, the concept of DDoSing hadn't been in the news so much. Those were basically treated as curiosities on the sidelines of more major news coverage. After all, what's a little bandwidth choking when tanks and bombs are also involved?
The widespread, highly-publicised attacks against major corporations probably brought more attention on the subject, which previously had been something that was smaller scale and used either for tactical or strategic reasons, either by governments or crime rings, or maybe from time-to-time for personal revenge. Maybe its just the type of news sources I read, but there have been many, many stories about the Anonymous attacks and it seems to be getting coverage across the board.
Given the heightened awareness, is it any wonder that social scientists might start to take a broader look at it? Besides, this is still a pretty far cry from "attacking Visa is an attack on Human Rights!", although the bullshit title for this posting would make one think that. They're saying that many human rights and alternative media sites (one might include Wikileaks under that heading) are under an ever-increasing pressure from attacks like this, which is probably true, and has nothing to do with Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, etc.
The American Revolution was more like a second chapter in the English Civil War, not a revolution. To borrow from a speech in the film 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley,' the only thing that the war changed was "the colour of the flag and the accent of the powerful." But, we took the same colours anyway, and just changed the pattern. Many of the Revolutionary leaders would have continued to live perfectly fine, happy, comfortable lives with lots of money had they remained in the British Empire. The real revolution, in terms of major social upheaval, didn't happen until the 1860s and didn't really finish until the 1960s. Hell, the end of slavery would have come sooner had the colonies remained such.
I like America. Hell, my family has largely been here since the 1650s. However, it seems to me that a lot of our national mythology is mostly that: mythology, and since we have the misfortune of being an Enlightenment-based "idea nation," questioning it can get you labelled 'un-American' in a way that one can't really be "un-English" when one is English.
I think it's supposed to be "commemorates," like when we commemorate Pearl Harbour Day.. Ironically, both those anniversaries fall within a day of each other, and both shall equally live in infamy...
Yes, but a 'traditional' intercept on a definite person will carry more weight than 'we think this douche had the ip address that the logs on the server claims the post is from'
At least they don't charge the organizers to off-set the overtime for the police who have to go out and man barricades and try and keep people safe, if necessary. You're still thinking that the permitting and charges are for the protest itself, but the reasoning is that there are associated costs incurred by facilitating it in an orderly manner so that everything goes as smoothly as possible, both for the protesters and for other people who just happen to be around that day.
Just because he was arrested doesn't mean he was actually charged with anything, or still being held. He could have been released and thus perfectly able to answer his phone. Of course, just because they didn't have enough to hold/charge him doesn't mean they didn't have enough to get an order to wire tap him in hopes that he'd say some dumb, incriminating shit to people.
If you're trying to make an organized event/march in good faith, then it pays to go ahead do things by the books. Its not that the police get to determine when/where your protest is, but if you're not trying to screw over everyone else in the city by sucking up roads, or if you don't want your people to get hurt because traffic is coming and the cops aren't there to block them, then cooperation is key. Of course, if your intent is mischief or mayhem, then of course, don't bother. But that might hurt, so make sure its worth it and everyone on your side is down with it.
the flood of traffic that comes in because of Slashdot or Digg is an event, due to people actually wanting to read the article (most of those people apparently don't post though, it would seem). The difference between this and a slashdotting is the intent behind the request storm, and by every definition in use this counts as an attack, and that doesn't change just because you have sympathy for the expressed cause de guerre.
Their targets have fat pipes the bandwidth of which these attackers probably can't really fathom, and thus their ability to limit service is somewhat limited. However, having worked in system/network administration positions where i've had to help colocated customers defend against attacks, I will tell you that smaller merchants or other online presences can easily be flooded by these attacks and that it does cost them money and time, and cost us lots of time trying to do our level best to keep them online despite the bullshit (could we have just set null routes to prevent the attack? yes... but then the customer would basically be offline anyway, so what's the point?).
I've seen disks fail due to increased IO just off of legitimate traffic, so I have no problem believing that it could be caused by people with malicious intent. I get the feeling that people think that because its online that its somehow OK, but if people decided to just get together a mob of cars to circle the block to the point where no one could get in or out of parking lots/driveways, would that be OK? It's not breaking windows, but it's definitely going to fuck things up for people who have legitimate business to transact, or who live in the area and now can't get home or out from their house.
Its not cute or funny, its not magically OK because its "for a good cause," etc. In fact, its likely less OK because while picketers (the gp's metaphore) stick to public sidewalks or roads, where as in this case they're traversing private networks and sucking up metered resources, thus costing real money in addition to just attempting to prevent people from getting into the store/office/facility/whatever.
Just because its not the most direct or violent action they could take (some digital equivalent of breaking windows or throwing petrol bombs) doesn't make it OK. Its different from union members picketing a shop that's treating them poorly or occupied people fighting against an occupying force. I'd suspect that nearly all of the participants, if they were to attempt to sue in court, would have their case dismissed due to lack of standing: inability to show that they themselves have suffered harm due to the actions of these target companies.
The attackers don't have to take any substantial risk to themselves, so its easy for people who really don't care and are just looking for an excuse to get involved, and their participation can be automated so they can still throw in their batch of gets and syns while they're asleep in study hall, and the targets basically have unlimited financial resources and the sympathy of the government. This could go on forever and no one has to back down, which is why ultimately its going to be highly ineffective while just helping those who have the most to gain from discrediting wikileaks make their case.
we were loitering in the anonops irc channel at work the past few days, and one of the questions asked of a bona fide participant was "what's the port for http on www.hillaryclinton.com?"... i mean, seriously? clearly, we're dealing with brilliant hacker minds here./sarcasm IP spoofing is likely not a concept that most of them can actually get their minds around as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
No, newer Apple's use LED-backlit displays.
Just to clarify, the GDP of Zimbabwe works out to $100/per capita, not the $15,000,000 target of the suit.
So, she's suing the paper for an amount that's a little over 0.36% of the countries GDP, which, by the way, works out to about $100 per capita in 2009 dollars, according to the CIA World Fact Book. The Mugabes are a pair of the most despicable people on the planet and why they're allowed to stay in charge, probably out of some fear of removing them looking like "white colonial oppression," is shameful.
Health Care is perhaps the one area where I'm not particularly thrilled with "market forces" taking over. That, and I think world would have been generally far better off had AT&T not been broken up, but that's not really relevant.
Market forces are responsible for cheap chinese crap of low quality, where warranties are a joke because you know they're just long enough to last until they know the product is going to crap out from normal usage, forcing you to buy a new one. I don't want the crappy, Chinese knock-off doctor doing me surgery. For example, over the summer my mother and I both had similar surgeries performed -- simple cyst removals -- by different doctors. My surgeon had gone to Columbia, Dartmouth and Stanford for his education. My mothers, I believe, had been to a State school for undergrad and then to MCV, which is an alright medical school, but nothing really to write home about in the grand scheme of things.
My surgery was performed faster, with better accuracy, and healed much, much faster than my mother's, and was almost completely painless while it healed, despite having been on my right forearm, and me being right handed (weird place to get a hard cyst, too). My surgery was also less expensive than my mothers, despite my insurance not wanting to cover any of it because i was new on the plan and they decided it was a "pre-existing condition" (queue spooky sounds and wavy, ghost-story hands).
Being able to get higher-quality service from a superior provider for less money is a lot more like Bell vs bullshit MCI back in the 80s, after all. Fuck free trade medicine. Think I'd go to a doctor who went to some Caribbean medical school because they couldn't get into an American medical school? Hell no.
The AMA and state medical boards are just like any other professional organization -- they set the minimum standards necessary to be considered elegable to practice a profession. You may call it "barrier to entry," but I disagree. I don't want to go to a doctor that other doctors wouldn't consider fit any more than I'd want a guy who read the law in his spare time to be my defense attorney or to drive on a bridge by someone who failed to get the PE stamp. The rest of the world isn't IT and self-education isn't going to cut it when death is on the line.
he successfully used a computer, which makes him a nerd. The prosecutor is a chick, and chicks hate nerds.
Well, the article is from a 'White Nationalist' (aka Neo-Nazi) magazine, National Vanguard, sponsored by the 'White Nationalist', National Socialist organization National Alliance. Most of the rest of the article after what the AC posted is a little more blatantly obvious as to what their message really is. Just sayin'.
With Visa and Mastercard, it was pretty much the whole story, though. There was no violence in the street and shootings like in Iran. I can't remember if the Georgia incident coincided with the brief shooting war or was just around the same time, but as I said in my original post, news of internet infrastructure being impaired isn't going to carry as much weight as images of Russian tanks rolling down the streets.
So, a study of groups which are all pretty much the opposite of banking and financial institutions must clearly be secretly linked to an attempt to discredit people attacking the banks? I might need to get more tin foil, but when Russia 'attacked' Georgia or Wikileaks was under attack, the concept of DDoSing hadn't been in the news so much. Those were basically treated as curiosities on the sidelines of more major news coverage. After all, what's a little bandwidth choking when tanks and bombs are also involved?
The widespread, highly-publicised attacks against major corporations probably brought more attention on the subject, which previously had been something that was smaller scale and used either for tactical or strategic reasons, either by governments or crime rings, or maybe from time-to-time for personal revenge. Maybe its just the type of news sources I read, but there have been many, many stories about the Anonymous attacks and it seems to be getting coverage across the board.
Given the heightened awareness, is it any wonder that social scientists might start to take a broader look at it? Besides, this is still a pretty far cry from "attacking Visa is an attack on Human Rights!", although the bullshit title for this posting would make one think that. They're saying that many human rights and alternative media sites (one might include Wikileaks under that heading) are under an ever-increasing pressure from attacks like this, which is probably true, and has nothing to do with Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, etc.
... until I see it on Wikileaks.ch!
The American Revolution was more like a second chapter in the English Civil War, not a revolution. To borrow from a speech in the film 'The Wind that Shakes the Barley,' the only thing that the war changed was "the colour of the flag and the accent of the powerful." But, we took the same colours anyway, and just changed the pattern. Many of the Revolutionary leaders would have continued to live perfectly fine, happy, comfortable lives with lots of money had they remained in the British Empire. The real revolution, in terms of major social upheaval, didn't happen until the 1860s and didn't really finish until the 1960s. Hell, the end of slavery would have come sooner had the colonies remained such.
I like America. Hell, my family has largely been here since the 1650s. However, it seems to me that a lot of our national mythology is mostly that: mythology, and since we have the misfortune of being an Enlightenment-based "idea nation," questioning it can get you labelled 'un-American' in a way that one can't really be "un-English" when one is English.
HURD might be finished if Linux hadn't attracted all the developer attention that wasn't going to the 386BSD derivatives.
I think it's supposed to be "commemorates," like when we commemorate Pearl Harbour Day.. Ironically, both those anniversaries fall within a day of each other, and both shall equally live in infamy...
Yes, but a 'traditional' intercept on a definite person will carry more weight than 'we think this douche had the ip address that the logs on the server claims the post is from'
At least they don't charge the organizers to off-set the overtime for the police who have to go out and man barricades and try and keep people safe, if necessary. You're still thinking that the permitting and charges are for the protest itself, but the reasoning is that there are associated costs incurred by facilitating it in an orderly manner so that everything goes as smoothly as possible, both for the protesters and for other people who just happen to be around that day.
Just because he was arrested doesn't mean he was actually charged with anything, or still being held. He could have been released and thus perfectly able to answer his phone. Of course, just because they didn't have enough to hold/charge him doesn't mean they didn't have enough to get an order to wire tap him in hopes that he'd say some dumb, incriminating shit to people.
If you're trying to make an organized event/march in good faith, then it pays to go ahead do things by the books. Its not that the police get to determine when/where your protest is, but if you're not trying to screw over everyone else in the city by sucking up roads, or if you don't want your people to get hurt because traffic is coming and the cops aren't there to block them, then cooperation is key. Of course, if your intent is mischief or mayhem, then of course, don't bother. But that might hurt, so make sure its worth it and everyone on your side is down with it.
Or do you mean that CmdrTaco being who he is, people believe what he says Theo has to say.
Well, some people are new here...
the Attorney General is an elected position in VA, he wasn't appointed.
the flood of traffic that comes in because of Slashdot or Digg is an event, due to people actually wanting to read the article (most of those people apparently don't post though, it would seem). The difference between this and a slashdotting is the intent behind the request storm, and by every definition in use this counts as an attack, and that doesn't change just because you have sympathy for the expressed cause de guerre.
Their targets have fat pipes the bandwidth of which these attackers probably can't really fathom, and thus their ability to limit service is somewhat limited. However, having worked in system/network administration positions where i've had to help colocated customers defend against attacks, I will tell you that smaller merchants or other online presences can easily be flooded by these attacks and that it does cost them money and time, and cost us lots of time trying to do our level best to keep them online despite the bullshit (could we have just set null routes to prevent the attack? yes... but then the customer would basically be offline anyway, so what's the point?).
I've seen disks fail due to increased IO just off of legitimate traffic, so I have no problem believing that it could be caused by people with malicious intent. I get the feeling that people think that because its online that its somehow OK, but if people decided to just get together a mob of cars to circle the block to the point where no one could get in or out of parking lots/driveways, would that be OK? It's not breaking windows, but it's definitely going to fuck things up for people who have legitimate business to transact, or who live in the area and now can't get home or out from their house.
Its not cute or funny, its not magically OK because its "for a good cause," etc. In fact, its likely less OK because while picketers (the gp's metaphore) stick to public sidewalks or roads, where as in this case they're traversing private networks and sucking up metered resources, thus costing real money in addition to just attempting to prevent people from getting into the store/office/facility/whatever.
Just because its not the most direct or violent action they could take (some digital equivalent of breaking windows or throwing petrol bombs) doesn't make it OK. Its different from union members picketing a shop that's treating them poorly or occupied people fighting against an occupying force. I'd suspect that nearly all of the participants, if they were to attempt to sue in court, would have their case dismissed due to lack of standing: inability to show that they themselves have suffered harm due to the actions of these target companies.
The attackers don't have to take any substantial risk to themselves, so its easy for people who really don't care and are just looking for an excuse to get involved, and their participation can be automated so they can still throw in their batch of gets and syns while they're asleep in study hall, and the targets basically have unlimited financial resources and the sympathy of the government. This could go on forever and no one has to back down, which is why ultimately its going to be highly ineffective while just helping those who have the most to gain from discrediting wikileaks make their case.
Good thing they advertise speeds "up to ${SPEED}", which is just weasel-y enough to skirt the laws with regards to false advertising then, isn't it?
"simply put, attacking a major online retailer when our parents are buying our christmas presents might affect us" -- what they really meant.
its no surprise they're script kiddies, i just sort of figured that the http port would be common knowledge even to skript kiddies. Oh well.
we were loitering in the anonops irc channel at work the past few days, and one of the questions asked of a bona fide participant was "what's the port for http on www.hillaryclinton.com?" ... i mean, seriously? clearly, we're dealing with brilliant hacker minds here. /sarcasm IP spoofing is likely not a concept that most of them can actually get their minds around as possible.
Sourcefire makes a box that does it, as do some other companies.