It's still snake oil. Unless you have access to an internal network to snoop on you are going to be hard pushed to see any pattern at all externally that will stand up as hard evidence.
But, it fits a narrative I suppose. Lots of security companies who have a narrative they want to sell and lots of Twitter accounts who try to appear credible retweeting it wildly for the same. But of course, we all know an IP address can be mapped to a particular identity.
Reading shit headlines like that always brings home the fact that most reporters are almost completely ignorant about the subject matter at hand, and will generally spew whatever their "sources" tell them, even if the primary article says something completely different.
It gets worse than that. You've got a lot of credible (until now) technical commentators on Twitter and elsewhere regurgitating this crap as fact. It's clickbait nonsense.
Who got caught? Did you read the article? Did you actually visit ThreatConnect's website and read their best guess?
Based on the evidence they presented, it only suggests that a Russian VPN provider was involved in the obfuscation of the originating network. The rest of the analysis is click-bait speculation and should be disregarded.
Indeed. It's utter bullshit and a trail of incredibly obvious and bludgeoned together obvious breadcrumbs. What's worse is that you've got a lot of technical commentators on Twitter and elsewhere lapping it up, who now have no credibility whatsoever.
America certainly is. But go ahead, do the world a favour and shoot each other until there is no one left. The people who wrote that amendment saw it coming.
There are disturbed and violent people everywhere in the world. Nowhere is the death toll higher than in the US. The truth here, alas, hurts too many people.
But let's break the Second amendment down for you idiots that can't read a simple sentence. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I suggest you re-read your own sentence there. Nowhere there does it say that everyone has a right to carry guns. Nowhere. What we have is a Supreme Court 'interpretation', which is entirely predictable. Remarkably, this hadn't even really been ruled on until 2008 whereas before the militia clause was actually read. Also note the use of 'well regulated', and that is very clear. That is not a free-for-all I'm afraid. "A fraud on the American public" is what Justice Warren Burger called it.
As it is the duty of the citizen to bring his own arms to the common defense of the community, a citizen must have a weapon to bring. If the citizen is disarmed the militia is disarmed. Thus the well regulated militia requires that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Not for hunting, but for defense of self and of community.
That's the kind of mental gymnastics you get to justify this. A well regulated militia is exactly what it means - it does not mean *everyone* - and everything after is in that context. If you simply take the second part then the first part means nothing, which is clearly nonsense, but there you are.
So your attempt to lie about what the 2nd Amendment means is false. As a functional militia is necessary for the safety of the state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because to infringe on that right breaks the militia. The right is reserved to the people as it is with every other right up until the 9th amendment.
I'm afraid that is exactly the kind of brain damage America has over the 'right' to bear arms now and the assumptions now (since the 80s) made are comical, if they weren't so serious. The caveats in the (poorly worded) amendment are there for a reason because they probably knew what it would mean, and their fears certainly came true. The amendment has been so bastardised over the years that there is no going back. We'll simply see things get worse until everyone is in a Mexican standoff and everyone gets killed.
We do know what we are talking about when we bring up this right. A right protected by the Bill of Rights not granted by it. You however do not know what you are talking about.
No, you don't, and it's a 'right' you certainly didn't have until the nutjobs turned up in power from the 80s onwards. I hear you lot are big on the idea of 'originalism', yer?
No the second amandment talks about militia AND peoples right - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, the uncomfortable truth is that it does not say that at all. There is nothing whatsoever in the constitution that talks about everyone having the right to have guns. That is a Supreme Court 'interpretation', but lots of mental gymnastics will be performed to say that.
Yep. You'll get an awful lot of vitriol about Americans and their 'rights' (which they don't have because the constitution actually talks about an armed militia, which can be disbanded, from colonial times) but equally everyone else has a right that those around them don't carry guns. It's called common law.
But, no matter how many people or even children get killed, this will never change. We'll just have to wait until everyone there is shot and killed. Sandy Hook was the end for any kind of sensible gun control. Blow away some kids and the country says "Meh".
Thanks, but you don't. You also misunderstand how this works. Logout does clean up child processes - unless you explicitly tell the shell not to, which is what nohup etc. are for. You haven't the faintest idea what you are banging on about.
Because that's what happens when APIs change.
1. Create API.
2. Provide compatibility options for things that don't work with the API.
3. Set a new default.
4. New API is slowly adopted and compatibility layer eventually disappears.
We're at 3....
Are we really? I'd love to know where the compatibility options are since this breaks default behaviour and isn't compatible, but then, we have a lot of raving nutcases around who don't understand these things at all these days. The problem here is that this change was pulled out of the blue because no one could be bothered to fix Gnome and no one actually has a plan at all. People are now performing mental gymnastics to justify it. It really is something to behold.
We have a lot of laughable numbskulls like the idiot above trying to claim there is some sort of grand plan and reasoned argument for this.
So because this idiot can't configure GNOME properly he decides that the entire world their servers needs to stop working properly.... and that screen/tmux should be reimplemented!?
Those are some pretty strong meds you're on if you don't think that this is changing existing behaviour. It's why Linus had to swear at systemd developers about not breaking userspace. Clearly that hasn't sunk into the thick skulls.
good grief. if all your scripts of 10 to 20 years are without any modification in any way, that's future proofing in the extreme. (or no updates at all)
Welcome to the harsh reality of the real world called "It fucking works".
Slashdot Mirror
Hinkley was not only criminally expensive, it was a nuclear disaster waiting to happen.
It's still snake oil. Unless you have access to an internal network to snoop on you are going to be hard pushed to see any pattern at all externally that will stand up as hard evidence.
But, it fits a narrative I suppose. Lots of security companies who have a narrative they want to sell and lots of Twitter accounts who try to appear credible retweeting it wildly for the same. But of course, we all know an IP address can be mapped to a particular identity.
Reading shit headlines like that always brings home the fact that most reporters are almost completely ignorant about the subject matter at hand, and will generally spew whatever their "sources" tell them, even if the primary article says something completely different.
It gets worse than that. You've got a lot of credible (until now) technical commentators on Twitter and elsewhere regurgitating this crap as fact. It's clickbait nonsense.
Who got caught? Did you read the article? Did you actually visit ThreatConnect's website and read their best guess? Based on the evidence they presented, it only suggests that a Russian VPN provider was involved in the obfuscation of the originating network. The rest of the analysis is click-bait speculation and should be disregarded.
Indeed. It's utter bullshit and a trail of incredibly obvious and bludgeoned together obvious breadcrumbs. What's worse is that you've got a lot of technical commentators on Twitter and elsewhere lapping it up, who now have no credibility whatsoever.
I was talking about saving bandwidth for them. They're on Amazon, remember.
They do have Netflix boxes for ISPs, but they have to pay ISPs good money to host them.
Got to keep those bandwidth costs down!
The literal interpretation is a 'well regulated militia'. That does not mean everyone. Now go and shoot yourself. Or one of your relatives.
America certainly is. But go ahead, do the world a favour and shoot each other until there is no one left. The people who wrote that amendment saw it coming.
It would more adequately satisfy the 'well regulated' part of the constitution, but, even this will be met with massive resistance.
Or we could just ban violent, disturbed people.
There are disturbed and violent people everywhere in the world. Nowhere is the death toll higher than in the US. The truth here, alas, hurts too many people.
The problem is the how.
Not really. They could just read their own constitution properly and not the revisionist stuff we've had since the 80s.
But let's break the Second amendment down for you idiots that can't read a simple sentence. A well regulated militia being necessary for the protection of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I suggest you re-read your own sentence there. Nowhere there does it say that everyone has a right to carry guns. Nowhere. What we have is a Supreme Court 'interpretation', which is entirely predictable. Remarkably, this hadn't even really been ruled on until 2008 whereas before the militia clause was actually read. Also note the use of 'well regulated', and that is very clear. That is not a free-for-all I'm afraid. "A fraud on the American public" is what Justice Warren Burger called it.
As it is the duty of the citizen to bring his own arms to the common defense of the community, a citizen must have a weapon to bring. If the citizen is disarmed the militia is disarmed. Thus the well regulated militia requires that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Not for hunting, but for defense of self and of community.
That's the kind of mental gymnastics you get to justify this. A well regulated militia is exactly what it means - it does not mean *everyone* - and everything after is in that context. If you simply take the second part then the first part means nothing, which is clearly nonsense, but there you are.
So your attempt to lie about what the 2nd Amendment means is false. As a functional militia is necessary for the safety of the state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Because to infringe on that right breaks the militia. The right is reserved to the people as it is with every other right up until the 9th amendment.
I'm afraid that is exactly the kind of brain damage America has over the 'right' to bear arms now and the assumptions now (since the 80s) made are comical, if they weren't so serious. The caveats in the (poorly worded) amendment are there for a reason because they probably knew what it would mean, and their fears certainly came true. The amendment has been so bastardised over the years that there is no going back. We'll simply see things get worse until everyone is in a Mexican standoff and everyone gets killed.
We do know what we are talking about when we bring up this right. A right protected by the Bill of Rights not granted by it. You however do not know what you are talking about.
No, you don't, and it's a 'right' you certainly didn't have until the nutjobs turned up in power from the 80s onwards. I hear you lot are big on the idea of 'originalism', yer?
No the second amandment talks about militia AND peoples right - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No, the uncomfortable truth is that it does not say that at all. There is nothing whatsoever in the constitution that talks about everyone having the right to have guns. That is a Supreme Court 'interpretation', but lots of mental gymnastics will be performed to say that.
Yep. You'll get an awful lot of vitriol about Americans and their 'rights' (which they don't have because the constitution actually talks about an armed militia, which can be disbanded, from colonial times) but equally everyone else has a right that those around them don't carry guns. It's called common law.
But, no matter how many people or even children get killed, this will never change. We'll just have to wait until everyone there is shot and killed. Sandy Hook was the end for any kind of sensible gun control. Blow away some kids and the country says "Meh".
Thanks, but you don't. You also misunderstand how this works. Logout does clean up child processes - unless you explicitly tell the shell not to, which is what nohup etc. are for. You haven't the faintest idea what you are banging on about.
Using Linux on servers isn't a major use case. Rrrrrrrright...........
How much do you want to bet that executive pay won't be following this new model?
Right back at yer. Notice you're not discussing the topic you know nothing about anymore? ;-)
Because that's what happens when APIs change. 1. Create API. 2. Provide compatibility options for things that don't work with the API. 3. Set a new default. 4. New API is slowly adopted and compatibility layer eventually disappears. We're at 3....
Are we really? I'd love to know where the compatibility options are since this breaks default behaviour and isn't compatible, but then, we have a lot of raving nutcases around who don't understand these things at all these days. The problem here is that this change was pulled out of the blue because no one could be bothered to fix Gnome and no one actually has a plan at all. People are now performing mental gymnastics to justify it. It really is something to behold.
We have a lot of laughable numbskulls like the idiot above trying to claim there is some sort of grand plan and reasoned argument for this.
Right back at yer.
So because this idiot can't configure GNOME properly he decides that the entire world their servers needs to stop working properly.... and that screen/tmux should be reimplemented!?
Welcome to Linux userspace development today.
Those are some pretty strong meds you're on if you don't think that this is changing existing behaviour. It's why Linus had to swear at systemd developers about not breaking userspace. Clearly that hasn't sunk into the thick skulls.
good grief. if all your scripts of 10 to 20 years are without any modification in any way, that's future proofing in the extreme. (or no updates at all)
Welcome to the harsh reality of the real world called "It fucking works".
Well established Unix conventions, like using unencrypted connections (Telnet, UUCP, rlogin etc) that sends password in clear text?
Why are you using nonsensical comparisons to justify your total bullshit?