StupidMonkey, the reason he has his own trolls is that he is actually their troll; he pokes them with a stick just often enough to get them to keep wasting their lives humping his leg.
Everybody else that had trolls that determined either left or put in the legwork to get them banned, get their ISP accounts shut off, etc., until they lacked means or desire to continue. He's the first one to successfully monetize them and turn them into part of his schtick.
I've been observing this for awhile and I still can't decide if I should be impressed or disgusted.
I still get 20+ phone calls and emails from recruiter each day.
That seems really inefficient, my advice is to change your number and not post it on "networking" websites. A person who claims to have survived 60 job interviews in less than a year should already know that being on that sort of recruiter list is a waste. When you're out of work, buy a burner phone and email your preferred recruiters with the number; when you get a new job, turn off the service.
That's a huge amount of time listening to messages and deleting them.
You should really upgrade your English comprehension. As a published author, creimer could probably help you if you asked nicely enough.
Basically, hyphens have no banned usage. That is merely a matter of style. Where they are required, they are required only to maintain internal consistency. To actually be incorrect, it would have to change the meaning in a way that would conflict with the rest of the statement; pretty much impossible here where the phrase is parenthesized.
So, while your complaint is horseshit from the start simply by its form, (attempting to correct something that is a matter of style) it is also wrong in that normally pedants would report the best usage as being the way he already wrote it; your correction is still not an error, it is just in poor style. And taste, but that is another matter and is probably hopeless. Here, he used the age as a noun that retells "older friend." When using the age as a noun, as in "a 54-year-old," then you should hyphenate. Had he worked the age into a smoother sentence the non-hyphenated version might have been preferred; but who spends that much time word-smithing a slashdot comment?
His actual technical error was simply that "years" should have been singular.
Keep trying, you'll be fluent soon, and who knows, maybe you'll even advance enough to fulfill your childhood dream of being a real credentialed blog editor!
Right, that implies that there was somebody at the time who worked there and was keeping them secret, and that person stopped working there 30 years ago and didn't tell anybody that it was there before departing. So nobody read it for at least 30 years.
Sorry about your comprehension, hopefully you're just having an off day and it isn't any serious medical problem.
He didn't say anything at all about the people staying at home. He narrowly discussed observations about people traveling. If the people at home are just as idiotic as the ones traveling, you're supporting his thesis. And yet, you use the word "no" instead of the word "yes." I guess it is true after all; idiots are not only traveling and staying at home, they're even on the internet!
Hey there, Dill Weed, since you skipped all your anthropology studies I'd like to point out that "gregarious" is a personality trait, not a moral or ethical stance.
A lot of people in that time period understood very clearly that there are much more detestable things in the world than, "He holds a self-righteous opinion" or whatever your complaint it.
You think that there is nothing in the world worse than a person saving your life and patting themselves on the back for it, somebody else might also consider the outcome, "OK what if hadn't saved you, and also wasn't patting himself on the back? Better, right?"
You fell on your face with that one; knowing that secrets requires a clearance is what I was fucking saying above. If you could read, you'd know that. Not every single argument can be won by "I know you are but what am I," in some cases the whole fucking point is that there is a difference in information access and so you don't fucking know. You can in fact know that you don't know, simply because you don't have access to data.
What we know is, the government controls the data, and the data in the media is horseshit. That doesn't mean we can't know if it is horseshit or not; if we couldn't tell the difference because we don't have the data clearance, then we'd already know we don't know anything.
Yup. Those were my words. You might do better if you took the time to comprehend them.
You said, "All blargs are blorgs, and blorgs are bad. Therefore blargs are bad." I said, "No, not all blargs are blorgs, and when you buy a blarg you can choose if it is also a blorg." And then you just repeat yourself, "Infotainment can turn a blarg into a blorg and nobody is safe from infotainment."
But I already pointed out that you can in fact choose. Bluetooth that is wired into the ECM is not something that lands on your windshield and now your car has it. It is a knowable thing that you can make decisions about.
You're just failing an IQ test by arguing without comprehension of what the other people are saying.
You might want to consult the extradition treaty first, because generally the process is that they have to assume that evidence is good. Extradition doesn't weigh evidence, that is for the trial court to worry about; extradition proceedings have to do mostly with the paperwork.
What this affects is mostly the civil forfeiture cases in New Zealand.
Also note that they got this victory because the government wasn't willing to defend the civil case because of secrets. That basically means that even if you get the court in to listen to your blah-blah that it affects extradition, as soon as they get to the "government didn't defend it because of secrets" part and they tell you to shut up because they're just not able to go there in that sort of proceeding.
Well, even after it is explained to you, you still don't understand. You don't know that it can't even [blah blah blah]. That's the "communication" part, where you believed some bullshit because, well, because you're credulous and they took the time to mislead you.
There isn't a funding problem, that's just you jumping to conclusions based on the false understand above. Real funding is decided by other people, many of whom get shown real information.
My family travels with smart phones, but we don't use those sorts of apps. We don't get that sort of spam.
The stuff that leaks from credit card usage doesn't give out your info, but if you use third party banking apps those are unregulated and can do anything with your data without telling you. That's why I only use mobile banking provided directly by my bank.
The reality is that any app that asks for permission to know your location is a suspect. If you install apps with that permission, and they also ask for your phone ID, you can be pretty certain that they're selling your data. Your travel itinerary was probably sold separately numerous times; one time for each app you gave that combination of permissions to! Furthermore, some websites ask for that information; if you never turned it off in your browser, you might be leaking it there too.
But this story shows, it isn't enough just to be wary of app permissions; even apps without excess permissions are dangerous! Software tools are powerful, downloading random shit was stupid in the `90s, and it is still stupid today. And the average user still does it without any sense of caution at all.
A foreign state actor hacked into a US Naval Destroyer and with precision knocked out the steering to the ship at a critical moment where by it couldn't maneuver and was rammed by merchant vessel. And then moments later restored the steering to a working condition. Is that it? Do I have it right?
No, but if you could read you'd know that no technical details are being discussed, only high level causality. Only an idiot would even be willing to make an exclusive list of potential exploit types, much less narrow it down one weak theory to use as a straw man.
If you apply Occam's Razor, the explanation that accounts for everything you said with the least assumptions is that you're ignorant of the details, and yet you jumped to conclusions anyways. It seems to actually account for it without any assumptions at all, since when you misrepresent the discussion, we already know that you're either ignorant or feigning ignorance. And we can resolve that easily with Hanlon's Razor.
The Navy isn't denying because they haven't finished investigating the accident and don't want to start publicly ruling things out.
The military isn't the DMV, so that analysis falls short. Even after they finish an investigation, what they say to the public will be whatever they think is to the military benefit of the United States; they have no requirement to communicate openly or to hold public meetings, and they have no institutional theories telling them to be open and honest with information.
Have you ever heard that carrots improve night vision? I did, all through school. Why? Was it because of science? No, it was because the military of the UK decided during WWII that it would help them to tell people that their pilots could see the enemy at night because England was growing lots of carrots for the war effort, and German pilots didn't have carrots. The goal was to hide the existence of coastal air defense radar as long as possible.
It is the same as everything else. If it is about the military and their strengths and weaknesses, you won't know what those are. You won't be able to distinguish between the information that is intended to mislead the enemy, and the information that is legit leaks, and the information that is published because the military thought it wasn't important.
Like with the F-35. People say stupid things, even thought they should be well aware that they don't even have a security clearance and that real military secrets aren't available to media broadcasters. Also, they should be aware that if the military can convince the enemy our new plane sucks, that is an advantage for us; just like if we could convince them it is better than it really is, that would also benefit us. With the F-35 the plan seems to be to leave them unsure if it is a super-plane or a boondoggle. The skepticism from the public about the plane is a great victory for US military communication. Anything that prevents the enemy from having accurate information about our capabilities is good for us. So you can never really know the details of the performance of military equipment unless it is sold on an open market and widely reviewed by private organizations.
Even after the Navy completes their investigation, it is unlikely we'll know the details until some future date when it doesn't matter and they stop protecting the secrets. That remains true even if they release a report on the outcome of the investigation!
Never believe The Man, but also never believe The Other Man, or The Little Man, or The Man That Knows The Secrets That He Didn't Keep Secret.
I suggest Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I can't imagine the level of sophistication it would take to get two vessels to run into each other.
OK, you can't imagine what the technical details would be, that means you're not going to be able to measure the adequacy required for it have likely been stupidity.
Applying Hanlon's Razor to your comment, it is more likely that you just didn't understand Hanlon's Razor than that you intentionally impersonated an idiot.
If you're smart enough not to be planning open war with the US, then ramming cargo ships during peace time might be the most damage you could hope to do with it.
I know it sounds smart, "Gosh there is a better use for that, just ask me." But your analysis leaves out numerous obvious considerations. Hacking the navigation of warships during wartime just gets the automatics turned off, and they're navigating manually. During wartime, they're also not navigating close to civilian vessels, or any other vessels, and so you won't even cause a crash; during wartime you cause a slight annoyance and they go to manual. During peacetime you can actually use this and cause damage!
Also, simply saving an exploit for the future isn't obviously returning more value than using it while it works. What if they find and fix the bug before you ever make use of it? For the Russians and Chinese who have large intelligence agencies with large numbers of exploits, and seats on the UN Security Council, it is generally going to make more sense to save stuff and only use the lower risk tools. But for North Korea, that's a very different evaluation; short term politics might be a lot more important, risks are very different, outcomes of discovery are also different.
And finally, we have no idea if it would be "one of the most advanced hacks ever" or just a simple exploit that was previously unknown, with a fancy target.
I was waiting for the moron to come out and blame Obama, but I was hoping they'd at least have the courage to put their name by it. I guess the "nationalists" haven't got quite that brave yet.
You're still failing to comprehend the difference between "we don't know how many" and "we don't know if there are any." They do have different meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
StupidMonkey, the reason he has his own trolls is that he is actually their troll; he pokes them with a stick just often enough to get them to keep wasting their lives humping his leg.
Everybody else that had trolls that determined either left or put in the legwork to get them banned, get their ISP accounts shut off, etc., until they lacked means or desire to continue. He's the first one to successfully monetize them and turn them into part of his schtick.
I've been observing this for awhile and I still can't decide if I should be impressed or disgusted.
I still get 20+ phone calls and emails from recruiter each day.
That seems really inefficient, my advice is to change your number and not post it on "networking" websites. A person who claims to have survived 60 job interviews in less than a year should already know that being on that sort of recruiter list is a waste. When you're out of work, buy a burner phone and email your preferred recruiters with the number; when you get a new job, turn off the service.
That's a huge amount of time listening to messages and deleting them.
You should really upgrade your English comprehension. As a published author, creimer could probably help you if you asked nicely enough.
Basically, hyphens have no banned usage. That is merely a matter of style. Where they are required, they are required only to maintain internal consistency. To actually be incorrect, it would have to change the meaning in a way that would conflict with the rest of the statement; pretty much impossible here where the phrase is parenthesized.
So, while your complaint is horseshit from the start simply by its form, (attempting to correct something that is a matter of style) it is also wrong in that normally pedants would report the best usage as being the way he already wrote it; your correction is still not an error, it is just in poor style. And taste, but that is another matter and is probably hopeless. Here, he used the age as a noun that retells "older friend." When using the age as a noun, as in "a 54-year-old," then you should hyphenate. Had he worked the age into a smoother sentence the non-hyphenated version might have been preferred; but who spends that much time word-smithing a slashdot comment?
His actual technical error was simply that "years" should have been singular.
Keep trying, you'll be fluent soon, and who knows, maybe you'll even advance enough to fulfill your childhood dream of being a real credentialed blog editor!
Right, that implies that there was somebody at the time who worked there and was keeping them secret, and that person stopped working there 30 years ago and didn't tell anybody that it was there before departing. So nobody read it for at least 30 years.
Mass migration has been part and parcel of European life for centuries.
Longer. At least 130000 years.
Sorry about your comprehension, hopefully you're just having an off day and it isn't any serious medical problem.
He didn't say anything at all about the people staying at home. He narrowly discussed observations about people traveling. If the people at home are just as idiotic as the ones traveling, you're supporting his thesis. And yet, you use the word "no" instead of the word "yes." I guess it is true after all; idiots are not only traveling and staying at home, they're even on the internet!
Hey there, Dill Weed, since you skipped all your anthropology studies I'd like to point out that "gregarious" is a personality trait, not a moral or ethical stance.
A lot of people in that time period understood very clearly that there are much more detestable things in the world than, "He holds a self-righteous opinion" or whatever your complaint it.
You think that there is nothing in the world worse than a person saving your life and patting themselves on the back for it, somebody else might also consider the outcome, "OK what if hadn't saved you, and also wasn't patting himself on the back? Better, right?"
It does seem especially strange to be anti-American in the post-WWII period. Mental illness can be very cruel.
You fell on your face with that one; knowing that secrets requires a clearance is what I was fucking saying above. If you could read, you'd know that. Not every single argument can be won by "I know you are but what am I," in some cases the whole fucking point is that there is a difference in information access and so you don't fucking know. You can in fact know that you don't know, simply because you don't have access to data.
What we know is, the government controls the data, and the data in the media is horseshit. That doesn't mean we can't know if it is horseshit or not; if we couldn't tell the difference because we don't have the data clearance, then we'd already know we don't know anything.
which I think is what the real threat is in modern times - mindless, shrieky fearmongering about abstract threats.
"Nothing is terrible except fear itself" -- Sir Francis Bacon
Yup. Those were my words. You might do better if you took the time to comprehend them.
You said, "All blargs are blorgs, and blorgs are bad. Therefore blargs are bad." I said, "No, not all blargs are blorgs, and when you buy a blarg you can choose if it is also a blorg." And then you just repeat yourself, "Infotainment can turn a blarg into a blorg and nobody is safe from infotainment."
But I already pointed out that you can in fact choose. Bluetooth that is wired into the ECM is not something that lands on your windshield and now your car has it. It is a knowable thing that you can make decisions about.
You're just failing an IQ test by arguing without comprehension of what the other people are saying.
You might want to consult the extradition treaty first, because generally the process is that they have to assume that evidence is good. Extradition doesn't weigh evidence, that is for the trial court to worry about; extradition proceedings have to do mostly with the paperwork.
What this affects is mostly the civil forfeiture cases in New Zealand.
Also note that they got this victory because the government wasn't willing to defend the civil case because of secrets. That basically means that even if you get the court in to listen to your blah-blah that it affects extradition, as soon as they get to the "government didn't defend it because of secrets" part and they tell you to shut up because they're just not able to go there in that sort of proceeding.
Don't worry, his extradition is based on accusations of financial crimes committed in the US, and he's still getting prosecuted and extradited.
The GCSB acted illegally, but they're not the ones accusing him, and they're not the ones who collected the evidence that the US is going to use.
Well, even after it is explained to you, you still don't understand. You don't know that it can't even [blah blah blah]. That's the "communication" part, where you believed some bullshit because, well, because you're credulous and they took the time to mislead you.
There isn't a funding problem, that's just you jumping to conclusions based on the false understand above. Real funding is decided by other people, many of whom get shown real information.
My family travels with smart phones, but we don't use those sorts of apps. We don't get that sort of spam.
The stuff that leaks from credit card usage doesn't give out your info, but if you use third party banking apps those are unregulated and can do anything with your data without telling you. That's why I only use mobile banking provided directly by my bank.
The reality is that any app that asks for permission to know your location is a suspect. If you install apps with that permission, and they also ask for your phone ID, you can be pretty certain that they're selling your data. Your travel itinerary was probably sold separately numerous times; one time for each app you gave that combination of permissions to! Furthermore, some websites ask for that information; if you never turned it off in your browser, you might be leaking it there too.
But this story shows, it isn't enough just to be wary of app permissions; even apps without excess permissions are dangerous! Software tools are powerful, downloading random shit was stupid in the `90s, and it is still stupid today. And the average user still does it without any sense of caution at all.
If it turns out that it isn't possible, there are also open source apps, and weather is always going to be available over public APIs.
I would have thought that stories like this expose the deeply insightful nature of his frivolous-sounding blather.
I'm enough of a LUDDITE that I don't app apps, and I use a regular website to access weather information; even from a mobile device.
You don't need a hoverboard for each foot to garden in the rain, you just needs some good clogs.
And if did want to use an app, it would be open source.
A foreign state actor hacked into a US Naval Destroyer and with precision knocked out the steering to the ship at a critical moment where by it couldn't maneuver and was rammed by merchant vessel. And then moments later restored the steering to a working condition. Is that it? Do I have it right?
No, but if you could read you'd know that no technical details are being discussed, only high level causality. Only an idiot would even be willing to make an exclusive list of potential exploit types, much less narrow it down one weak theory to use as a straw man.
If you apply Occam's Razor, the explanation that accounts for everything you said with the least assumptions is that you're ignorant of the details, and yet you jumped to conclusions anyways. It seems to actually account for it without any assumptions at all, since when you misrepresent the discussion, we already know that you're either ignorant or feigning ignorance. And we can resolve that easily with Hanlon's Razor.
The Navy isn't denying because they haven't finished investigating the accident and don't want to start publicly ruling things out.
The military isn't the DMV, so that analysis falls short. Even after they finish an investigation, what they say to the public will be whatever they think is to the military benefit of the United States; they have no requirement to communicate openly or to hold public meetings, and they have no institutional theories telling them to be open and honest with information.
Have you ever heard that carrots improve night vision? I did, all through school. Why? Was it because of science? No, it was because the military of the UK decided during WWII that it would help them to tell people that their pilots could see the enemy at night because England was growing lots of carrots for the war effort, and German pilots didn't have carrots. The goal was to hide the existence of coastal air defense radar as long as possible.
It is the same as everything else. If it is about the military and their strengths and weaknesses, you won't know what those are. You won't be able to distinguish between the information that is intended to mislead the enemy, and the information that is legit leaks, and the information that is published because the military thought it wasn't important.
Like with the F-35. People say stupid things, even thought they should be well aware that they don't even have a security clearance and that real military secrets aren't available to media broadcasters. Also, they should be aware that if the military can convince the enemy our new plane sucks, that is an advantage for us; just like if we could convince them it is better than it really is, that would also benefit us. With the F-35 the plan seems to be to leave them unsure if it is a super-plane or a boondoggle. The skepticism from the public about the plane is a great victory for US military communication. Anything that prevents the enemy from having accurate information about our capabilities is good for us. So you can never really know the details of the performance of military equipment unless it is sold on an open market and widely reviewed by private organizations.
Even after the Navy completes their investigation, it is unlikely we'll know the details until some future date when it doesn't matter and they stop protecting the secrets. That remains true even if they release a report on the outcome of the investigation!
Never believe The Man, but also never believe The Other Man, or The Little Man, or The Man That Knows The Secrets That He Didn't Keep Secret.
I suggest Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". I can't imagine the level of sophistication it would take to get two vessels to run into each other.
OK, you can't imagine what the technical details would be, that means you're not going to be able to measure the adequacy required for it have likely been stupidity.
Applying Hanlon's Razor to your comment, it is more likely that you just didn't understand Hanlon's Razor than that you intentionally impersonated an idiot.
If you're smart enough not to be planning open war with the US, then ramming cargo ships during peace time might be the most damage you could hope to do with it.
I know it sounds smart, "Gosh there is a better use for that, just ask me." But your analysis leaves out numerous obvious considerations. Hacking the navigation of warships during wartime just gets the automatics turned off, and they're navigating manually. During wartime, they're also not navigating close to civilian vessels, or any other vessels, and so you won't even cause a crash; during wartime you cause a slight annoyance and they go to manual. During peacetime you can actually use this and cause damage!
Also, simply saving an exploit for the future isn't obviously returning more value than using it while it works. What if they find and fix the bug before you ever make use of it? For the Russians and Chinese who have large intelligence agencies with large numbers of exploits, and seats on the UN Security Council, it is generally going to make more sense to save stuff and only use the lower risk tools. But for North Korea, that's a very different evaluation; short term politics might be a lot more important, risks are very different, outcomes of discovery are also different.
And finally, we have no idea if it would be "one of the most advanced hacks ever" or just a simple exploit that was previously unknown, with a fancy target.
I would expect the navy to have the best procedures, training, and personnel but in several cases lately they have fallen short.
You left out "equipment," and if you only read the headline you'd know that it is one of the suspects.
I was waiting for the moron to come out and blame Obama, but I was hoping they'd at least have the courage to put their name by it. I guess the "nationalists" haven't got quite that brave yet.
You're still failing to comprehend the difference between "we don't know how many" and "we don't know if there are any." They do have different meaning.