We were at diner the other night, and a friend of ours just went through a drug test, we were talking about it.... someone asked for clarification what he was doing that we were talking about... my response is exactly as I see it
"He pissed in a cup for someone else's amusement"
People who take drug tests for their job are people who piss in a cup because someone dangled a dollar in front of them.
> Maybe it wasn't a terrorist per se, maybe that was somebody else who blames the US for the fact that the middle east has been at war for 3,000 years.
He would have to be pretty ridiculously misinformed to think that the area has been at war for 3,000 years.... or that the
Thats pretty true but, I don't have that much I NEED windows on this PC for, mostly video game related stuff. If I really have to, I can do most of that under linux with some work.
The whole question that is commonly asked is a bit of a mistake.
What people don't seem to realize is alcohol has some very specific features that have nothing to do with reaction times; and it is quite evident in some of the studies on pot and driving.
Quite simply, drunk people, when asked to rate how impaired they are, consistently underestimate their impairment and, this problem gets worst as they drink more.
Most other psychoactive chemicals don't do that. Marijuana users do not underestimate their impairment. Users of most drugs, other than alcohol, are generally able to compensate adequetly. Its alcohol that specifically has a problem with this.
I had this realization a while back from mention of a very old economic theory, one truely beyond its time since it comes from before the real advent of general purpose computing. Its a very simple concept.... decentralization is more efficient as information flows.
You need big central orgs when information is bottlenecked and can't move to where it needs fast enough. The Internet turns this concept on its ear. We need the government we have because it used to be reasonable that it takes 6 weeks for someone to get to Washington in an "emergency".
Its time to break this shit up, its too big and centralizes way too much power into way too few hands.
> Do they really mean what they say or did they "block them" from
Right there is where the doublespeak starts.
The thing is, everybody knows the intelligence agencies use front companies. So, if the data sharing is available to everyone else, they can easily get it by just....not disclosing who they really are. They just, get access through a front. Problem solved.
This is 100% CYA and misdirection. The only barrier they want to create is one around the truth of what they share and wan to keep sharing with "businesses" which may or may not just happen to contain fronts for intelligence services.... but....not them directly....because that may provoke scrutiny.
Mechanically yes. I agree anyone can corrupt a file, or send the wrong file. Technically though, no. Not when its pointed out that the file was truncated. I do not believe anyone with his level of knowledge would ever knowingly release a truncated file along with a signature for a full file.
Now, if that was the end of the story..... he made a mistake and then thought better of it....ok fine. However, the signatures match. Thats a very unlikely coincidence, and when you combine the two..... it looks terribly bad and its the retraction that doesn't hold water.
My wife and I were just chatting on this and she brought up an excellent point.... she said she thought he was tired of people asking him if he was Satoshi so, maybe he decided to go with it since he keeps getting asked.
I mean, if I was constnatly being asked if I was someone, I would probably start fucking with the occasional person who asked..... tho, public statements does seem a bit beyond the pale.
This. But it doesn't even pass the stink test far enough to question.
I honestly think the whole thing is summarized by two things.
1. He is claiming to be a person who MUST have intimate knowledge of how to use a hash properly 2. He attempted to prove his identity without providing the full document he claimed to sign.
I don't care if the signature was the same....its highly unlikely to be a real collision but, real collisions are possible. No, what I care about is that he even tried to not release the whole document he claimed to sign with it.
Anybody who understands digital signatures even in a cursory manner knows this doesn't prove anything. There is no way I believe the real Satoshi Nakamoto makes that particular mistake.
In fact, the ONLY proper response to that allegation is "Sorry the file got truncated in the upload, here is the full one". And in reality, it should be "this public archive is where I got the original, so you can see I didn't craft a collision intentionally".
> if you do so after you know the material shredded was needed for an investigation or lawsuit.
This. As a budding young sysadmin this was always one of the first things that came up as why we really need a data retention policy. The last position you want to be in when a lawsuit arrives is having just erased data with no clear policy as to why you did it.
Its not even entirely about whats true or what can be discovered but what can be proven to the satisfaction of men, and that is always going to be a larger set. Best to have a policy and stick to it.
Yes, but the idea that explicitly installing software to display ads while you browse free tutorials means that you can be expected to have understood that you just installed a full remote control and data gathering package; seems a bit beyond the pale to me.
In no way does it make sense that "display ads" translates meaningfully into "allow full control and full access to my PC at any time it is on and connected"
Also, for anyone not making the connection: > The unknown party reset their email address, deleted a playlist, saved music to their device, and started following a new playlist.
Key.... started following a new playlist. So they are listening to it. Good.
Does anyone else not see how this situation is what the Hampster Dance was made for.
True.... one thing is undeniably true though. The script was written by a shit coder who echos everything out in a human readable mess rather than spitting CSV output like someone who actually had spent two minutes thinking about what he was going to do with it.
Based on the redacted pastebin data, its not clear to me what the source is. This looks like output of a script.
What if the scenario really is, account information stolen from other sites is being tried against spotify accounts with the same email address, and scraping account information when it hits? That looks easily as likely to me.
If that is whats going on, then spotify is right, they are not being hacked at all, their users are being comproimised based on data taken from somewhere else.
It is totally ignoring that people started ignoring the signals before they started staring at devices. Its not a matter of not seeing it...people have decided they don't care and don't need to pay attention. No amount of making the signal bigger, or moving it, is going to change that people don't give a shit about your signal.
Exactly, makes it even cheaper to not include people with skills they don't actually need. This makes them a lot more lean and increases ROI substantially.
Not only is it not a self-correcting problem; this is already a failed solution.
We have had pedestrian walk/don't walk lights for decades now. They are mostly ignored. Mostly rightfully so since it is often safe to walk when they say not to, but, many pedestrians act as if they have right of way even if the crosswalk is signaled and says don't walk.
So, how is adding a new light, which has the same meaning as the one people are already ignoring, supposed to help in any way? Frankly, I think these traffic control people are scrambling to come up with ways to remain relevant after they have done everything they can and all the future advancements in safety will really be from robotic cars and likely never again anything they do.
See, they COULD setup DDOS infrastructure, they could spend time herding bots, and refreshing their botnet, but, every bit of effort they spend is cost. Cost that is being spent on something other than finding people who will pay.
It is like going to trial, a lot more companies will threaten legal action than will go through with it. Its cheap to threaten, its expensive to follow through, especially if it doesn't work out and becomes 100% cost.
In short, contacting someone takes effort, following through with a threat takes more on top. The follow through is, quite literally, throwing good money after bad, and has a much lower ROI than the initial contact.
All they have done is cut out the unprofitable part of their business.
Basically, it is exactly what I would expect from the kind of out of touch people who are still unironically using the prefix cyber in 2016 to coin new words.
Anyone who has been paying even a little attention knows that the only acceptable words with that prefix are -punk -dyne and -sex, and only occasionally -space but only if its funnier than making a "tubes" reference.
Slashdot Mirror
We were at diner the other night, and a friend of ours just went through a drug test, we were talking about it.... someone asked for clarification what he was doing that we were talking about... my response is exactly as I see it
"He pissed in a cup for someone else's amusement"
People who take drug tests for their job are people who piss in a cup because someone dangled a dollar in front of them.
> Maybe it wasn't a terrorist per se, maybe that was somebody else who blames the US for the fact that the middle east has been at war for 3,000 years.
He would have to be pretty ridiculously misinformed to think that the area has been at war for 3,000 years.... or that the
Seems this could be a very simple input filter when a story is submitted. Could even generate a warning and shit.
Time to set the precedent then!
I am perfectly happy to send them, with all of the evidence to very public and open courts and let these questions be decided....in the daylight.
Thats pretty true but, I don't have that much I NEED windows on this PC for, mostly video game related stuff. If I really have to, I can do most of that under linux with some work.
I have a better solution for me....I just canceled my reservation for 10. It was supposed to downgrade from 7 to 10 tomorow. Now it wont be.
Problem solved.
The whole question that is commonly asked is a bit of a mistake.
What people don't seem to realize is alcohol has some very specific features that have nothing to do with reaction times; and it is quite evident in some of the studies on pot and driving.
Quite simply, drunk people, when asked to rate how impaired they are, consistently underestimate their impairment and, this problem gets worst as they drink more.
Most other psychoactive chemicals don't do that. Marijuana users do not underestimate their impairment. Users of most drugs, other than alcohol, are generally able to compensate adequetly. Its alcohol that specifically has a problem with this.
Actually, its the internet.
I had this realization a while back from mention of a very old economic theory, one truely beyond its time since it comes from before the real advent of general purpose computing. Its a very simple concept.... decentralization is more efficient as information flows.
You need big central orgs when information is bottlenecked and can't move to where it needs fast enough. The Internet turns this concept on its ear. We need the government we have because it used to be reasonable that it takes 6 weeks for someone to get to Washington in an "emergency".
Its time to break this shit up, its too big and centralizes way too much power into way too few hands.
> Do they really mean what they say or did they "block them" from
Right there is where the doublespeak starts.
The thing is, everybody knows the intelligence agencies use front companies. So, if the data sharing is available to everyone else, they can easily get it by just....not disclosing who they really are. They just, get access through a front. Problem solved.
This is 100% CYA and misdirection. The only barrier they want to create is one around the truth of what they share and wan to keep sharing with "businesses" which may or may not just happen to contain fronts for intelligence services.... but....not them directly....because that may provoke scrutiny.
Mechanically yes. I agree anyone can corrupt a file, or send the wrong file. Technically though, no. Not when its pointed out that the file was truncated. I do not believe anyone with his level of knowledge would ever knowingly release a truncated file along with a signature for a full file.
Now, if that was the end of the story..... he made a mistake and then thought better of it....ok fine. However, the signatures match. Thats a very unlikely coincidence, and when you combine the two..... it looks terribly bad and its the retraction that doesn't hold water.
Wow, you almost made my heart bleed.
My wife and I were just chatting on this and she brought up an excellent point.... she said she thought he was tired of people asking him if he was Satoshi so, maybe he decided to go with it since he keeps getting asked.
I mean, if I was constnatly being asked if I was someone, I would probably start fucking with the occasional person who asked..... tho, public statements does seem a bit beyond the pale.
This. But it doesn't even pass the stink test far enough to question.
I honestly think the whole thing is summarized by two things.
1. He is claiming to be a person who MUST have intimate knowledge of how to use a hash properly
2. He attempted to prove his identity without providing the full document he claimed to sign.
I don't care if the signature was the same....its highly unlikely to be a real collision but, real collisions are possible. No, what I care about is that he even tried to not release the whole document he claimed to sign with it.
Anybody who understands digital signatures even in a cursory manner knows this doesn't prove anything. There is no way I believe the real Satoshi Nakamoto makes that particular mistake.
In fact, the ONLY proper response to that allegation is "Sorry the file got truncated in the upload, here is the full one". And in reality, it should be "this public archive is where I got the original, so you can see I didn't craft a collision intentionally".
> Republican members of Congress are there because money paid for them to be there.
The word "Republican" is irrelevant to the truth of this statement. With, or without this word, the statement is factually true.
"Car expert's still not getting laid, Expert confirms"
> if you do so after you know the material shredded was needed for an investigation or lawsuit.
This. As a budding young sysadmin this was always one of the first things that came up as why we really need a data retention policy. The last position you want to be in when a lawsuit arrives is having just erased data with no clear policy as to why you did it.
Its not even entirely about whats true or what can be discovered but what can be proven to the satisfaction of men, and that is always going to be a larger set. Best to have a policy and stick to it.
Yes, but the idea that explicitly installing software to display ads while you browse free tutorials means that you can be expected to have understood that you just installed a full remote control and data gathering package; seems a bit beyond the pale to me.
In no way does it make sense that "display ads" translates meaningfully into "allow full control and full access to my PC at any time it is on and connected"
Also, for anyone not making the connection:
> The unknown party reset their email address, deleted a playlist, saved music to their device, and started following a new playlist.
Key.... started following a new playlist. So they are listening to it. Good.
Does anyone else not see how this situation is what the Hampster Dance was made for.
True.... one thing is undeniably true though. The script was written by a shit coder who echos everything out in a human readable mess rather than spitting CSV output like someone who actually had spent two minutes thinking about what he was going to do with it.
Based on the redacted pastebin data, its not clear to me what the source is. This looks like output of a script.
What if the scenario really is, account information stolen from other sites is being tried against spotify accounts with the same email address, and scraping account information when it hits? That looks easily as likely to me.
If that is whats going on, then spotify is right, they are not being hacked at all, their users are being comproimised based on data taken from somewhere else.
It is totally ignoring that people started ignoring the signals before they started staring at devices. Its not a matter of not seeing it...people have decided they don't care and don't need to pay attention. No amount of making the signal bigger, or moving it, is going to change that people don't give a shit about your signal.
Exactly, makes it even cheaper to not include people with skills they don't actually need. This makes them a lot more lean and increases ROI substantially.
No, it doesn't. Likely ALL it does is increase costs and create a few extra jobs installing them.
It is unlikely to solve any problem, and is most likely to be ignored, just like the existing signal lights for pedestrians are.
Not only is it not a self-correcting problem; this is already a failed solution.
We have had pedestrian walk/don't walk lights for decades now. They are mostly ignored. Mostly rightfully so since it is often safe to walk when they say not to, but, many pedestrians act as if they have right of way even if the crosswalk is signaled and says don't walk.
So, how is adding a new light, which has the same meaning as the one people are already ignoring, supposed to help in any way? Frankly, I think these traffic control people are scrambling to come up with ways to remain relevant after they have done everything they can and all the future advancements in safety will really be from robotic cars and likely never again anything they do.
See, they COULD setup DDOS infrastructure, they could spend time herding bots, and refreshing their botnet, but, every bit of effort they spend is cost. Cost that is being spent on something other than finding people who will pay.
It is like going to trial, a lot more companies will threaten legal action than will go through with it. Its cheap to threaten, its expensive to follow through, especially if it doesn't work out and becomes 100% cost.
In short, contacting someone takes effort, following through with a threat takes more on top. The follow through is, quite literally, throwing good money after bad, and has a much lower ROI than the initial contact.
All they have done is cut out the unprofitable part of their business.
Looks like just a bunch of cyberfapping to me.
Basically, it is exactly what I would expect from the kind of out of touch people who are still unironically using the prefix cyber in 2016 to coin new words.
Anyone who has been paying even a little attention knows that the only acceptable words with that prefix are -punk -dyne and -sex, and only occasionally -space but only if its funnier than making a "tubes" reference.