One leak of the OpenID db, one PFY with a grudge, one Swedish website later and we're all screwed.
Plus whoever owns OpenID knows every site you visit and the frequency.
Keep it.
The answer to all of those: just run your own - that way it's under your control from the start.
So far, how many have been identified? Based on my (sometimes flawed) memory, the number in the past year can be counted on one hand. That doesn't add up to a whole lot of risk.
Until people *are* identified, consistently and regularly -- and not just in theory -- there's no risk.
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing. It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way. Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
When you're picketing, staging a sit-in, etc you're putting yourself at some risk. At minimum, there's the risk of recognition, of having your name and face associated with your action. You're also taking some of your time and energy to do something that's of value to you.
For a DDOS attack, you're anonymously pushing a "go" button. Quite possibly you're not even still at your computer while it runs. Woooo, there's a way to make a statement.
The nature of the attack itself strips it of both credibility and value - instead, it gets classified (by those who even notice it) as whiny children playing their whiny child games.
And yet when I strike gold and have millions to give away, I would be in a position to do the research and determine where I want *my* money to go. I am not saying that every charity bears the halo of an angel -- but I am saying it's better that people decide for themselves; and that even at 50% I suspect it would be more efficient than the government could manage. As I mentioned in another reply though -- we really can't measure that. The money our government spends is not a percentage of income received, so we really have no way of knowing *how* efficient it is with its charity (social programs, disaster relief, international aid, medical care, etc).
Thanks for the link, BTW, that's an excellent resource.
The U.S government (this being an almost exclusively American religion) takes a much smaller fraction of its revenue to provide charitable aid than most private charities.
In fact, the government can pay *more* than it takes in from taxes -- the beauty of deficit spending and a national debt with no cap.
Because of this, any comparison based on money outgoing vs money spent is fairly meaningless. Allowing the government to redistribute the money (even if it were the idealistic picture you seem to imply) also cedes control of that money. Is the government is better able to decide which causes are "worthy" of your money than you are? I guess some might feel that way; I just can't bring myself to agree when I look at any budget figures at the State or Federal levels.
'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?
You're right, of course. THe things we need should be just given to us by right. Of course they have to come from somewhere -- the easiest candidates for providing them are those same rich guys you don't want to beg. After all -- when you can just take, why go through the humiliation of begging?
I think I missed where your need becomes the rich guy's obligation. Or your neighbor's, for that matter.
I love the "paytaxesinstead" tag -- because the government will be so much *more* efficient with large sums of money than a charitable organization could?
But what do mastercard.com customers find? A web site that doesn't response. There's no message they can receive - they'll just come back later, when the site is back online.
The message is reported by the news. Maybe those customers should tune in from time to time and not spent all their energy on meaningless consumerism.
Which doesn't *really* counter my point. Aside from that -- generally when you're checking at the MC web site, it's not to make purchases.
Oh, don't get me wrong -I'd hop right onto a lower price plan as well (though I'm actually grandfathered into 30/mo unlimited 3G on AT&T ). It's just that I also need something that has coverage through at least the five states I usually travel through; no insane roaming rates for leaving those five states; and consistent, quality service. I can't see a startup offering that any time soon, not a lower price point. (And unfortunately, we don't have a free market... nor is there any chance of fewer regulations coming along...)
It's interesting , the different habits we can develop - when doing such tasks as that, I dedicate my pinky to holding down the Shift key and compensate with my ring finger.
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.
CU, Martin
Not sure why this is marked Troll. Here's another perspective - anonymous sends the clear message: "If you support suppressing this information, we will suppress you*. Because when we do it, it is right and good -- and when you do it, it's wrong and evil and must be punished." Here's the problem with that line of thinking: when it's wrong for one party to do it, it's no better when the other party does it.
That barely touches on the overtly childish nature of the behavior. "LA LA LA LA I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU CAN, NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU NOW!". Nor does it get into how this affects a large number of third parties (eg Mastercard customers) who have had no part in this decision -- and yet must still pay the price now.
And before somebody compares it to a sit-in on the basis of that last comment, there's a critical difference: a sit-in involves people with names and faces, standing up [or sitting down] for what they believe in - though doing so may cost them reputation, time, and even money. On the other hand, the type of action under discussion involves a bunch of wannabes hiding behind distributed botnets, Tor, and various anonymous proxies pressing a button or running a script.
In addition, when customers show up at a physical place of business to discover a sit-in preventing them from receiving service, they get a clear and immediate understanding of why - thus a message is sent to them as well as to the business they're supporting. They may even learn of practices that weren't aware of, and change their own behavior appropriately. But what do mastercard.com customers find? A web site that doesn't response. There's no message they can receive - they'll just come back later, when the site is back online.
There is no basis for comparison between the two types of actions.
he sense of the word "discrimination" that you provided in no way involves taking action.
Had I said "Amazon was perfectly within its rights to discriminate", I would be forced to agree with you - my definition would not apply. But here's what I wrote (emphasis added):
Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination:
The prefix "act with" is a crucial difference, such that the phrase could be read as: "Amazon was perfectly within its rights to have taken action on the basis of having made a distinction or discernment; of having noted or perceived differences between things."
(again, I'm talking in terms of language here, not whether ditching them is right or wrong, so quit accusing me of that).
Fair enough.
You are not Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland, and you don't get to make words mean what you'd "like" them to mean. Not if you have any intention of meaningfully communicating with people.
Have you ever looked up the dictionary definition of the word "set"? There are (depending on the dictionary) between 40 and 80 of them. It must be nearly impossible for you to settle on the single correct definition, applicable for all usages.
Well - the estimate is something like 30% of the US market has smartphones - and nearly all smartphones require expensive data plans. It's not a stretch to say it's around 10m, though of course the plans aren't $100 in reality.
I'd agree re: competitors, but that comes down to infrastructure. There's little chance for a small player to get that in place to the point where they can actually compete on services and coverage. Not impossible.. just a lot of barriers.
And once they do, the guys with the expensive plans can certainly drop their prices. Once the newcomer is absorbed or out of business, back up they go...
I don't entirely disagree with your premise - I just think that the providers have done their research in determining current price points; and that they're probably getting close to an optimal balance between pricing and volume.
Good God! Since when does "discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things" have anything to do with shutting them down? You just typed a whole mouthful of gibberish right there!
You can add some exclamation points if it makes you feel better, but until you explain *why* this is the case it's only so much vapor. Much as GGP was, when claiming "discrimination" in the sense you'd like me to use - there's nothing to substantiate it. Amazon is a business; this was a business decision. What evidence is there that says anything to the contrary?
In this day and age, it's unusual to use the word "discrimination" in a sense other than the one I've provided. If you want to communicate with people today, you'd better start catching up on your vocab, Rip Van Winkle.
Somebody who wants the services that the mirror offers - eg the ability to purchase source materials directly from the article itself. There have been times I've come across book references in Wikipedia that I wanted to purchase (or check price).; or have seen references to an actual product that I want to get.
Slashdot Mirror
One leak of the OpenID db, one PFY with a grudge, one Swedish website later and we're all screwed. Plus whoever owns OpenID knows every site you visit and the frequency. Keep it.
The answer to all of those: just run your own - that way it's under your control from the start.
How many people have been identified?
I'm sorry, where's this "risk" you speak of?
Until people *are* identified, consistently and regularly -- and not just in theory -- there's no risk.
For a DDOS attack, you're anonymously pushing a "go" button.
It’s rarely truly anonymous, or as anonymous as it needs to be (since, after all, people have been found and arrested for it).
What, two people? Out of how many? So far, your chances of getting caught and identified are statistically insignficant.
Quite possibly you're not even still at your computer while it runs.
You paid for the computer, you’re paying for its internet connection, and you’re paying for the electricity to run it.
And there's a comparison between this and getting off your ass and taking action in the real world ... where? I think I missed that step.
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing. It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way. Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
When you're picketing, staging a sit-in, etc you're putting yourself at some risk. At minimum, there's the risk of recognition, of having your name and face associated with your action. You're also taking some of your time and energy to do something that's of value to you.
For a DDOS attack, you're anonymously pushing a "go" button. Quite possibly you're not even still at your computer while it runs. Woooo, there's a way to make a statement.
The nature of the attack itself strips it of both credibility and value - instead, it gets classified (by those who even notice it) as whiny children playing their whiny child games.
Testing. which requires rapid account number entry vs programming which benefits from the arrow/home/etc keys.
The problem then is I can't use them for arrow/home/etc any more... I only enter account numbers when testing, the rest of the time num lock is off.
Define "fair share" - the top 10% of income earners pay more tax dollars than the lower 90% combined.
If you do programming and also type a lot of account numbers, num lock has value too...
Thanks for the link, BTW, that's an excellent resource.
The U.S government (this being an almost exclusively American religion) takes a much smaller fraction of its revenue to provide charitable aid than most private charities.
In fact, the government can pay *more* than it takes in from taxes -- the beauty of deficit spending and a national debt with no cap.
Because of this, any comparison based on money outgoing vs money spent is fairly meaningless. Allowing the government to redistribute the money (even if it were the idealistic picture you seem to imply) also cedes control of that money. Is the government is better able to decide which causes are "worthy" of your money than you are? I guess some might feel that way; I just can't bring myself to agree when I look at any budget figures at the State or Federal levels.
'cause conservatives like to laud this kind of thing as a sign that their take on capitalism works. But why should us lower classes have to go begging to some rich guy just to get what they need?
You're right, of course. THe things we need should be just given to us by right. Of course they have to come from somewhere -- the easiest candidates for providing them are those same rich guys you don't want to beg. After all -- when you can just take, why go through the humiliation of begging?
I think I missed where your need becomes the rich guy's obligation. Or your neighbor's, for that matter.
I love the "paytaxesinstead" tag -- because the government will be so much *more* efficient with large sums of money than a charitable organization could?
The message is reported by the news. Maybe those customers should tune in from time to time and not spent all their energy on meaningless consumerism.
Which doesn't *really* counter my point. Aside from that -- generally when you're checking at the MC web site, it's not to make purchases.
Oh, don't get me wrong -I'd hop right onto a lower price plan as well (though I'm actually grandfathered into 30/mo unlimited 3G on AT&T ). It's just that I also need something that has coverage through at least the five states I usually travel through; no insane roaming rates for leaving those five states; and consistent, quality service. I can't see a startup offering that any time soon, not a lower price point. (And unfortunately, we don't have a free market... nor is there any chance of fewer regulations coming along...)
It's interesting , the different habits we can develop - when doing such tasks as that, I dedicate my pinky to holding down the Shift key and compensate with my ring finger.
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.
CU, Martin
Not sure why this is marked Troll. Here's another perspective - anonymous sends the clear message: "If you support suppressing this information, we will suppress you*. Because when we do it, it is right and good -- and when you do it, it's wrong and evil and must be punished." Here's the problem with that line of thinking: when it's wrong for one party to do it, it's no better when the other party does it.
That barely touches on the overtly childish nature of the behavior. "LA LA LA LA I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU CAN, NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU NOW!". Nor does it get into how this affects a large number of third parties (eg Mastercard customers) who have had no part in this decision -- and yet must still pay the price now.
And before somebody compares it to a sit-in on the basis of that last comment, there's a critical difference: a sit-in involves people with names and faces, standing up [or sitting down] for what they believe in - though doing so may cost them reputation, time, and even money. On the other hand, the type of action under discussion involves a bunch of wannabes hiding behind distributed botnets, Tor, and various anonymous proxies pressing a button or running a script.
In addition, when customers show up at a physical place of business to discover a sit-in preventing them from receiving service, they get a clear and immediate understanding of why - thus a message is sent to them as well as to the business they're supporting. They may even learn of practices that weren't aware of, and change their own behavior appropriately. But what do mastercard.com customers find? A web site that doesn't response. There's no message they can receive - they'll just come back later, when the site is back online.
There is no basis for comparison between the two types of actions.
* Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
he sense of the word "discrimination" that you provided in no way involves taking action.
Had I said "Amazon was perfectly within its rights to discriminate", I would be forced to agree with you - my definition would not apply. But here's what I wrote (emphasis added):
Amazon is perfectly within its rights to act with discrimination:
The prefix "act with" is a crucial difference, such that the phrase could be read as: "Amazon was perfectly within its rights to have taken action on the basis of having made a distinction or discernment; of having noted or perceived differences between things."
(again, I'm talking in terms of language here, not whether ditching them is right or wrong, so quit accusing me of that).
Fair enough.
You are not Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland, and you don't get to make words mean what you'd "like" them to mean. Not if you have any intention of meaningfully communicating with people.
Have you ever looked up the dictionary definition of the word "set"? There are (depending on the dictionary) between 40 and 80 of them. It must be nearly impossible for you to settle on the single correct definition, applicable for all usages.
Dear sir or madam,
Please stop ruining my faux-witticisms with facts.
With kindest regards,
Me.
One, has 10,000,00 signed up for these plans?
Well - the estimate is something like 30% of the US market has smartphones - and nearly all smartphones require expensive data plans. It's not a stretch to say it's around 10m, though of course the plans aren't $100 in reality.
I'd agree re: competitors, but that comes down to infrastructure. There's little chance for a small player to get that in place to the point where they can actually compete on services and coverage. Not impossible.. just a lot of barriers.
And once they do, the guys with the expensive plans can certainly drop their prices. Once the newcomer is absorbed or out of business, back up they go...
I don't entirely disagree with your premise - I just think that the providers have done their research in determining current price points; and that they're probably getting close to an optimal balance between pricing and volume.
Let it not be said that Slashdot cares not for the Queen's English.
Double-negatives, though... now that's another matter entirely.
That's really cool - I'd had no idea that they did that.
Good God! Since when does "discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things" have anything to do with shutting them down? You just typed a whole mouthful of gibberish right there!
You can add some exclamation points if it makes you feel better, but until you explain *why* this is the case it's only so much vapor. Much as GGP was, when claiming "discrimination" in the sense you'd like me to use - there's nothing to substantiate it. Amazon is a business; this was a business decision. What evidence is there that says anything to the contrary?
In this day and age, it's unusual to use the word "discrimination" in a sense other than the one I've provided. If you want to communicate with people today, you'd better start catching up on your vocab, Rip Van Winkle.
Unusual? Read more. Talk less.
On the other hand - as seems to be happening - when 10,000,00 sign up for a $100 service, why would they change the price to $10?
Somebody who wants the services that the mirror offers - eg the ability to purchase source materials directly from the article itself. There have been times I've come across book references in Wikipedia that I wanted to purchase (or check price).; or have seen references to an actual product that I want to get.