Yeah, good idea. I was connected to an "Anonymous" IRC server the other day. There were about 3,000 people on it, which is probably unusually high. The Whois/DNS/etc didn't resolve, and they were running a bunch of servers, which seemed to be in different countries. I briefly chatted to a few people from all over the world.
So, what you're proposing, is a world wide policing effort, which would take insane amounts of money, and co-operation, to catch fleeting moments with groups of people. Also, I wonder how many of them have Dynamic IP's.
""Anonymous" probably has an inner circle of ring leaders who mostly know what they're doing." What the fuck? Inner circle. I have heard this over and over again in this thread. The most you'll find of any "inner circle" is a group of people on 1 particular issue with 1 particular attack in mind. I've been around a lot of these now, and the people change each time, the servers change as well.
Do you have any proof/experience/evidence/etc, which suggests that "Anonymous" has an "inner circle". I knew a few "ring leaders" who did some stuff with the Scientology campaigns, and they haven't done shit since, or anything before.
For you to be in "an inner circle", you would at least need to...
Be EXTREMELY passionate about EVERY cause that comes up, this means you're extremely passionate about Scientology, Iran, Gene Simmons, The Australian Government and WikiLeaks, to name a few major ones.
Have a LOT of free time on your hands ALL the time.
Do you think this is likely? Especially given how diverse the attacks have been. I've listed a few ones which most people would have various levels of excitement about. This is without getting into the WAY more diverse ones, such as attacks on Habbo, Gaia, Hal Turner, and similar.
People voluntarily go and download an application, then set it up with the required information, to become apart of the botnet.
It sounds like you think that these botnets are something like the traditional botnets like Darkness, Kraken, and Storm. They aren't. While sometimes someone with control over one of these will be apart of this, the most recent ones, and a lot of the ones before that, are basically ASKING a lot of people to VOLUNTARIALLY refresh websites, or run LOIC, or similar.
I've got a feeling that you know little to nothing about this, and have almost no experience/knowledge of how any of these operations have been run.
Also, I work with "major corporate websites", and they're less amazing and powerful that you might think.
When MasterCard was dropped recently, the IRC control channel had about 2,000 nodes at any one time. These were all people running LOIC a voluntary. To put this in perspective, I believe they were making HTTP requests, with MasterCards root website having a 30kB response, with each user running 20 threads, making a hundred (or more) requests per second, this means they were asking MasterCard's website to send them 5.72 GB per second (2000*30*100/1024/1024).
If they were just sending random data (which was another method used), then they could have been sending the amount above, or even more, depending on what connections they had.
You think so? I've looked at a few of these, each time, and there's generally different people running it. While you might be passionate against Scientology, you might not be passionate about Iran, or Gene Simmons, or WikiLeaks, to name a few major ones.
If you're not extremely passionate in each instance, and also have a lot of time on your hands, then you sure as hell won't be "controlling the botnets" every time. Hell, even based on a DDoS by DDoS basis, I've known a few people who were controlling one Scientology DDoS who weren't controlling the ones before or after.
I think you think this group is far more cohesive than it is. Don't try to apply these old models of how groups/organizations work, for something like this, as these groups basically do permit you to come and go relatively as you please, and each new issue, allows for a new set of "group" "leaders". Your logic is akin to the United States treating "terrorists" as a cohesive group.
It seems I had an account on Gawker / LifeHacker / etc. The problem being, when I login now, I can't use my usual passwords. I want to know what password it is, so I can take that into account.
Does anyone know how I could brute force that?
I haven't jumped into their code or anything, and aren't sure what algorithm they're using. But is there an easy way people have figured out to brute force their passwords? I usually set pretty non-trivial passwords, but since I know what I'm likely to have set, I can restrict the character set, and length, and hopefully crack it quickly.
Any ideas is are much appreciated.
Especially ideas which aren't "grab their function and edit it for your password only then write something which calls it for every possible iteration".
Re:youre on /., a geek or a nerd, and you dont car
on
Today's WikiLeaks News
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree. We should voluntarily give them a big red button (by NOT doing what they don't want us to do).
So, your worry about giving them an "excuse to stick a big red button on the internet" (like they haven't already tried, and don't have enough reasons already), is that we voluntarily do it for them, by stopping everything they don't like, regardless of whether its just to do so?
Probably because its comparatively cheap, you likely pay good money to be there (unlike locals) andthis probably affords you the same treatment the better off Cubans would get. For tourists, he did say he was treated like a king.
Remember, in countries which are poor/communist, tend to have 2 very different levels of quality. One which the ruling generals/party members get access to, and the one for everyone else. You'll also find that being someone from another country, you get as good a treatment as they can give you. Have a look at Vice Guide to North Korea. Though that's a far more extreme country, it gives you an idea.
Need? So, your problem with Assange is that he doesn't have ENOUGH power? You now want him to decide what you need to know? To some extent, he already does this. What if what he believed doesn't line up with what you believe? Then he's even worse, because you've forced him to me more biased.
In case you haven't read any of the news, WikiLeaks is working side by side, with large reputable news organizations. So even if you don't think he's a "journalist", you can't argue the others aren't.
In conclusion, you talk like a retard, and your shits all fucked up!
Yeah, I know a few people who've been to Cuba (we're not restricted from holidaying there), and Moore's representation was FAR from accurate.
A story I remember from a friend of mine who stayed with a doctor was that, their doctors were quite well trained, they had man power. In fact, they'd often send their doctors over seas to help out, as that was their easiest method of support in times of disaster. However, despite all that, they had a hard time getting things as simple as bandages. Let alone more relevant machinery. So you might get a doctor with good knowledge, but he likely won't have the tools needed to treat you.
He came back with so many amazing stories, that are so foreign to here.
Planesdragon raped me, and though we've no evidence to have a formal warrant, we're asking him to come to Sweden to answer the allegations. Why won't you come to Sweden to answer the allegations?
Don't trust a word this accused rapist Planesdragon* says.
(*: If he's innocent, he can go back and defend himself. If he's innocent, he has little reason not to and a big scary reason to do so... namely, to clear his name.)
Yes and no. While some are bad and have too limited a field of view, some are really good and capture most of the information you need. While looking out the window is okay on some cars, on many modern cars, with high sides and backs, it is almost impossible to accurately judge how close you are to other objects at the back and on the opposite side. I see your anecdotal evidence with my anecdotal evidence, when I wen't driving with a friend a while back he had this brand new BMW with an absurd amount of cameras on it which were stitched into one picture, with guides and estimates on distance. We went into the city, and everywhere we wen't, he could reverse parallel park with ease and confidence, because he could see how far he was from things. Made it so much easier.
It's good tech, and he still looked out his windows, and still used his mirrors, which might be the problem with this girl you know. I think she might have been using the system in a way it wasn't designed for. Instead of solely using that to reverse, it should be used to visually confirm how far you are and where you are positioned from things.
Given I work in the very area you're talking about, I doubt the information is out there. The hints in the blurb aren't anything you can go by, to definitely judge a company.
Internally each company based on when they invested in the technology, how much they invested, what their estimated capacity was, what their estimated time to obscolescence was, will have different economies of scale for even IDENTICAL technology. Hell, a company which has 2 plants which produce the same IDENTICAL components, would have 2 different economies of scale for each plant.
Additionally, with the sensitivity to the variables, even researchers who attempt to estimate how much/and what a company should be investing in, and what the resulting economies of scale is, would likely vary immensly.
So, I'm sorry, but it is a far more complicated problem than you've suggested.
GM developed the platform in Australia which most of their cars run on around the world. This is why they all have similar configurations, and feel/look the same. Despite the fact that they source parts from the same/similar suppliers, and keep branding consistent. At the time it was a huge undertaking and Holden (GM's Australian Subsidiary), released a movie called 6 Billion Dollar Baby, which was about the development of the platform and how it had cost Holden (not sure about GM, overall), an estimated 6 Billion Dollars to the release date.
Yes, and no. While most production have economies of scale, without more information we can't be certain if this one does. This requires technology specific information, and business specific information, as to whether they're setup to have economies of scale.
Given this is a new process, it is entirely possible that they are not setup for this.
Without more information, we won't know. However, given they are a desired car, this car has benefits for the rest of the company, and GM has competent management, then we can assume they know all this, and would scale up production if possible.
So, in all likelihood they're telling the truth, or they are really stupid.
I see there is a not operator on the send commands first arguments. Depending on how the or statement evaluates, the not applies to pix and vidz, or just the vidz.
Either way, I'm guessing you are asking them to send anything except pix or vidz, else the not operator was totally unnecessary and just confused the situation.
Easily the worst offender for me is Sun, or should I say Oracle, then again Oracle is dumping Java, so I guess now no one?
Either way, each time it installs an update, I get a new fucking plugin installed. The old one isn't removed either. The result being a list of all the past versions. So fucking annoying.
Indeed at an absolute minimum we need regulations to prevent media monopolies.
That's absurd. This type of company doesn't lend itself well to economies of scale, nor are there's (non-artificial) barriers to entry, meaning while a really good one could try to become a natural monopoly, you'd likely still get monopolistic competition.
No, we need a well informed electorate to keep them in check.
And you're saying we need government interfering with the news, to make it better? So, the institution currently stomping around the world, trying to stop the news from getting out. The one institution that has abused their rights, and attempted to control the media when they think its in their/our best interests. This is the institution you want regulating our media companies?
You talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
I used to LAN heaps, and this was back when games did actually support that.
Do you know who played them like that?
No one. That's a fucking shit gaming experience. Hell, when I'm around at a friends and we're playing console games, only rarely do we split the screen. Usually we do single and share turns.
Though I do recall when I was a kid we liked to do that, and we do that for casual games. So in that context maybe consoles are better, though there are often PC variants of those casual games anyway, and very few people don't have a computer these days. Especially if they're really into games.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, good idea. I was connected to an "Anonymous" IRC server the other day. There were about 3,000 people on it, which is probably unusually high. The Whois/DNS/etc didn't resolve, and they were running a bunch of servers, which seemed to be in different countries. I briefly chatted to a few people from all over the world.
So, what you're proposing, is a world wide policing effort, which would take insane amounts of money, and co-operation, to catch fleeting moments with groups of people. Also, I wonder how many of them have Dynamic IP's.
""Anonymous" probably has an inner circle of ring leaders who mostly know what they're doing." What the fuck? Inner circle. I have heard this over and over again in this thread. The most you'll find of any "inner circle" is a group of people on 1 particular issue with 1 particular attack in mind. I've been around a lot of these now, and the people change each time, the servers change as well.
Do you have any proof/experience/evidence/etc, which suggests that "Anonymous" has an "inner circle". I knew a few "ring leaders" who did some stuff with the Scientology campaigns, and they haven't done shit since, or anything before.
For you to be in "an inner circle", you would at least need to...
Do you think this is likely? Especially given how diverse the attacks have been. I've listed a few ones which most people would have various levels of excitement about. This is without getting into the WAY more diverse ones, such as attacks on Habbo, Gaia, Hal Turner, and similar.
Do you know how these botnets are formed?
People voluntarily go and download an application, then set it up with the required information, to become apart of the botnet.
It sounds like you think that these botnets are something like the traditional botnets like Darkness, Kraken, and Storm. They aren't. While sometimes someone with control over one of these will be apart of this, the most recent ones, and a lot of the ones before that, are basically ASKING a lot of people to VOLUNTARIALLY refresh websites, or run LOIC, or similar.
I've got a feeling that you know little to nothing about this, and have almost no experience/knowledge of how any of these operations have been run.
Also, I work with "major corporate websites", and they're less amazing and powerful that you might think.
When MasterCard was dropped recently, the IRC control channel had about 2,000 nodes at any one time. These were all people running LOIC a voluntary. To put this in perspective, I believe they were making HTTP requests, with MasterCards root website having a 30kB response, with each user running 20 threads, making a hundred (or more) requests per second, this means they were asking MasterCard's website to send them 5.72 GB per second (2000*30*100/1024/1024).
If they were just sending random data (which was another method used), then they could have been sending the amount above, or even more, depending on what connections they had.
You think so? I've looked at a few of these, each time, and there's generally different people running it. While you might be passionate against Scientology, you might not be passionate about Iran, or Gene Simmons, or WikiLeaks, to name a few major ones.
If you're not extremely passionate in each instance, and also have a lot of time on your hands, then you sure as hell won't be "controlling the botnets" every time. Hell, even based on a DDoS by DDoS basis, I've known a few people who were controlling one Scientology DDoS who weren't controlling the ones before or after.
I think you think this group is far more cohesive than it is. Don't try to apply these old models of how groups/organizations work, for something like this, as these groups basically do permit you to come and go relatively as you please, and each new issue, allows for a new set of "group" "leaders". Your logic is akin to the United States treating "terrorists" as a cohesive group.
Best $12 a year service, and now they're doing Xmarks for $8 per year.
Two of my favorite add on's to any browser!
Now I audit my passwords regularly, and maintain passwords WAY stronger than necessary, which are different per login.
It seems I had an account on Gawker / LifeHacker / etc. The problem being, when I login now, I can't use my usual passwords. I want to know what password it is, so I can take that into account.
Does anyone know how I could brute force that?
I haven't jumped into their code or anything, and aren't sure what algorithm they're using. But is there an easy way people have figured out to brute force their passwords? I usually set pretty non-trivial passwords, but since I know what I'm likely to have set, I can restrict the character set, and length, and hopefully crack it quickly.
Any ideas is are much appreciated.
Especially ideas which aren't "grab their function and edit it for your password only then write something which calls it for every possible iteration".
I agree. We should voluntarily give them a big red button (by NOT doing what they don't want us to do).
So, your worry about giving them an "excuse to stick a big red button on the internet" (like they haven't already tried, and don't have enough reasons already), is that we voluntarily do it for them, by stopping everything they don't like, regardless of whether its just to do so?
You Sir, are a fucking genius.
Probably because its comparatively cheap, you likely pay good money to be there (unlike locals) andthis probably affords you the same treatment the better off Cubans would get. For tourists, he did say he was treated like a king.
Remember, in countries which are poor/communist, tend to have 2 very different levels of quality. One which the ruling generals/party members get access to, and the one for everyone else. You'll also find that being someone from another country, you get as good a treatment as they can give you. Have a look at Vice Guide to North Korea. Though that's a far more extreme country, it gives you an idea.
Need? So, your problem with Assange is that he doesn't have ENOUGH power? You now want him to decide what you need to know? To some extent, he already does this. What if what he believed doesn't line up with what you believe? Then he's even worse, because you've forced him to me more biased.
In case you haven't read any of the news, WikiLeaks is working side by side, with large reputable news organizations. So even if you don't think he's a "journalist", you can't argue the others aren't.
In conclusion, you talk like a retard, and your shits all fucked up!
Yeah, I know a few people who've been to Cuba (we're not restricted from holidaying there), and Moore's representation was FAR from accurate.
A story I remember from a friend of mine who stayed with a doctor was that, their doctors were quite well trained, they had man power. In fact, they'd often send their doctors over seas to help out, as that was their easiest method of support in times of disaster. However, despite all that, they had a hard time getting things as simple as bandages. Let alone more relevant machinery. So you might get a doctor with good knowledge, but he likely won't have the tools needed to treat you.
He came back with so many amazing stories, that are so foreign to here.
Sorry, no can do. There's a software patent on building computer / browser related bonfires, it's owned by IBM though SCO says they actually own it.
Also, you have to accept the request, to know its repetitive and then throttle it.
Also, throttling would require routers further out for you to do the work, or for you to setup a really expensive decentralized network (like Google).
Is Mozilla Netscape seriously still around? I could have sworn the split off was the creation of FireFox (or Phoenix, from memory).
Planesdragon raped me, and though we've no evidence to have a formal warrant, we're asking him to come to Sweden to answer the allegations. Why won't you come to Sweden to answer the allegations?
Don't trust a word this accused rapist Planesdragon* says.
(*: If he's innocent, he can go back and defend himself. If he's innocent, he has little reason not to and a big scary reason to do so... namely, to clear his name.)
Yes and no. While some are bad and have too limited a field of view, some are really good and capture most of the information you need. While looking out the window is okay on some cars, on many modern cars, with high sides and backs, it is almost impossible to accurately judge how close you are to other objects at the back and on the opposite side. I see your anecdotal evidence with my anecdotal evidence, when I wen't driving with a friend a while back he had this brand new BMW with an absurd amount of cameras on it which were stitched into one picture, with guides and estimates on distance. We went into the city, and everywhere we wen't, he could reverse parallel park with ease and confidence, because he could see how far he was from things. Made it so much easier.
It's good tech, and he still looked out his windows, and still used his mirrors, which might be the problem with this girl you know. I think she might have been using the system in a way it wasn't designed for. Instead of solely using that to reverse, it should be used to visually confirm how far you are and where you are positioned from things.
For US peoples, "tailgaters" in this instance means someone driving too closely behind your car, not someone having a party at the back of your car.
Given I work in the very area you're talking about, I doubt the information is out there. The hints in the blurb aren't anything you can go by, to definitely judge a company.
Internally each company based on when they invested in the technology, how much they invested, what their estimated capacity was, what their estimated time to obscolescence was, will have different economies of scale for even IDENTICAL technology. Hell, a company which has 2 plants which produce the same IDENTICAL components, would have 2 different economies of scale for each plant.
Additionally, with the sensitivity to the variables, even researchers who attempt to estimate how much/and what a company should be investing in, and what the resulting economies of scale is, would likely vary immensly.
So, I'm sorry, but it is a far more complicated problem than you've suggested.
GM developed the platform in Australia which most of their cars run on around the world. This is why they all have similar configurations, and feel/look the same. Despite the fact that they source parts from the same/similar suppliers, and keep branding consistent. At the time it was a huge undertaking and Holden (GM's Australian Subsidiary), released a movie called 6 Billion Dollar Baby, which was about the development of the platform and how it had cost Holden (not sure about GM, overall), an estimated 6 Billion Dollars to the release date.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Holden+6+billion+dollar+baby
This was likely capitalized and will be depreciated over a very long time.
Yes, and no. While most production have economies of scale, without more information we can't be certain if this one does. This requires technology specific information, and business specific information, as to whether they're setup to have economies of scale.
Given this is a new process, it is entirely possible that they are not setup for this.
Without more information, we won't know. However, given they are a desired car, this car has benefits for the rest of the company, and GM has competent management, then we can assume they know all this, and would scale up production if possible.
So, in all likelihood they're telling the truth, or they are really stupid.
I see there is a not operator on the send commands first arguments. Depending on how the or statement evaluates, the not applies to pix and vidz, or just the vidz.
Either way, I'm guessing you are asking them to send anything except pix or vidz, else the not operator was totally unnecessary and just confused the situation.
Easily the worst offender for me is Sun, or should I say Oracle, then again Oracle is dumping Java, so I guess now no one?
Either way, each time it installs an update, I get a new fucking plugin installed. The old one isn't removed either. The result being a list of all the past versions. So fucking annoying.
Indeed at an absolute minimum we need regulations to prevent media monopolies.
That's absurd. This type of company doesn't lend itself well to economies of scale, nor are there's (non-artificial) barriers to entry, meaning while a really good one could try to become a natural monopoly, you'd likely still get monopolistic competition.
No, we need a well informed electorate to keep them in check.
And you're saying we need government interfering with the news, to make it better? So, the institution currently stomping around the world, trying to stop the news from getting out. The one institution that has abused their rights, and attempted to control the media when they think its in their/our best interests. This is the institution you want regulating our media companies?
You talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.
I am perfectly fine with the government controlling the media, as long as they respect my privacy and stay the eff out of my life.
Regardless, I'm still not fine with that. We need an unregulated media to keep them in check.
I used to LAN heaps, and this was back when games did actually support that.
Do you know who played them like that?
No one. That's a fucking shit gaming experience. Hell, when I'm around at a friends and we're playing console games, only rarely do we split the screen. Usually we do single and share turns.
Though I do recall when I was a kid we liked to do that, and we do that for casual games. So in that context maybe consoles are better, though there are often PC variants of those casual games anyway, and very few people don't have a computer these days. Especially if they're really into games.
But does it run Lin.... oh it does? Carry on then.
...such as PANs LANs...
Is this like PAN's Labyrinth? If so, that's awesome! I can't wait for eye-hand technology!