How very helpful of the Boston Globe to give me a free reverse lookup of listed and unlisted numbers in the Massachusetts area (or at least, free reverse lookup of the few remaining subscribers). Clueless fucks.
"Ever deliberately setup a server filled with thousands of titles so that thousands of unknown "friends" can download them? Ever attempted to profit from illegal distribution?"
You will. And the company that will make it happen? AT&T.
Hop in your time machine and demand he be impeached, then, douchebag. I already bitched out my elected officials over Clinton's misconduct, but--surprise!--there's a new fuckhead in town and I'm not concerned with what an ex-leader is no longer responsible for. Stop living in the past.
"'We've got to find a way to harmonize this so it's rational,' said Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA's chief executive officer. 'There are going to be new technologies that are great for fans, and great for the entire music world, but they're all operating on different platforms, and all operating on different rule sets'."
It's already rational. Listeners are not prohibited from taping music they hear on the airwaves for personal use. Different platforms don't automatically suspend fair use rights as the RIAA hopes. Presumably digital radio stations already pay standard RIAA fees and operate under similar restrictions (no playing an entire album, etc.), so the only "problem" here is that the RIAA wants even more money for something that's already allowed. Fuck you, RIAA, and your boot-licking douchebag employees like Bainwol here.
"Spammmers that want to comply have got to send their list to the state and the state does the checking. The spammer never gets the registry."
Not that I think it's a problem, but it's absolutely trivial to get a list of kids' addresses in this scenario. I send this list to the sanitation group:
"The states let parents and schools register any email address accessible to a child, at no cost. Each month, companies must pay to have a designated third party examine their marketing lists for addresses that appear on the registries. The cost for a business can total thousands of dollars, and violators face stiff fines."
That is unfair. I propose that instead of these monetary obligations to sanitize their email lists, marketers be allowed to police themselves. Then, if caught sending adult-oriented spam to kids, the marketing firm in question would have to line up all their executives to be shot in the face by the parents. I think this is more than fair, and would not place undue costs on marketing companies. Vote today.
"Since 9/11, the Bush administration has run into far more delays and outright refusal to grant warrants from the FISA court"
It's worth noting that until 2002, after GWB illegally went around FISA, the court approved every single request to hit their desk (4 after resubmittal). Every single one.
"50 additional units to be delivered to DARPA 2Q06"
It means 2nd Quarter of 2006. Most government funding starts in October (we started 1Q06 in 10/2005), so if I'm not mistaken 2Q06 should be sometime in the next couple of months. If I am mistaken, 2Q06 would be sometime between April and June.
"'[Pentium II with a minimum 64MB RAM] corresponds to an average PC issued between 1998 and 1999,' Hilf said."
In 1998, the latest Slackware distro ran fine on my 386DX40 with 8MB of RAM, though X was a bit choppy. Conversely, the newly-released Win98 required a 486DX66 and 16MB RAM.
Hilf should have just gone all-out and said that many modern distros which come on DVD won't even install on older boxes because they lack DVD drives. It would have been just as valid.
"*eyeroll* at stupid people on this board who can't fathom the reality of science from real geniuses."
I'm curious as to why this "real genius" went running to scotsman.com instead of to peer-reviewed scientific journals with this amazing discovery. I'm also curious as to why his explanation makes no fucking sense at all, but the fact that he took it to scotsman.com puts it in perspective.
"Again, I ask not why would the "good guys" write an exploit, but why would they need to write a version meant to be undetectable?"
It's not written to be undetectable, it's written to be *hard* to detect, and again, it's aimed at active pentesters. Metasploit has always been a 100% full disclosure project.
"But why would someone make a program specifically designed to make an undetectable/untraceable version of the exploit?"
The Metasploit project is aimed at legitimate penetration testers and security researchers. Arguing that this sort of information shouldn't be accessible "to the bad guys" is useless, because the bad guys have already had it for months.
"I don't have the time to rehash it all here for you."
But you do have time to completely fail to understand what I wrote, instead wasting my own time by making the point that the non-validity of ID somehow makes your claims true.
Science does not bend to your whims, regardless of infinity. And since I'm an atheist who believes ID is at least as much horseshit as you're spewing here, don't bother bringing it up to bolster your claims.
Far be it from me to mock idiots on Slashdot, but I'm in a holiday mood.
"Warrantless searches happen all the time, and have been repeatedly upheld as legal."
I couldn't help but notice that every single one of his examples have undergone judicial review. I'll let you figure out the moral of this story.
"There are good reasons for not getting FISA warrants."
It's funny that he brings up the Moussaoui case, because the bipartisan report at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html specifically mentions it as well. Before you flame me for actually researching official reports instead of basing my opinions on what a few disingenuous and intellectually dishonest neocon dipshits write, you might want to take a look. The report concludes that the mishandling of the Moussaoui case was due to a lack of proper FBI training and problems within the agency, not through any failing of the FISA court. Inefficient FBI processes were what lead to warrant applications not being made within the 72-hour time limit to the court. There' much more in that vein, but this is the best part:
"IV. The Importance of Enhanced Congressional Oversight An undeniable and distinguishing feature of the flawed FISA implementation system that has developed at the DOJ and FBI over the last 23 years is its secrecy. Both at the legal and operational level, the most generalized aspects of the DOJ's FISA activities have not only been kept secret from the general public but from the Congress as well. As we stated above, much of this secrecy has been due to a lack of diligence on the part of Congress exercising its oversight responsibility. Equally disturbing, however, is the difficulty that a properly constituted Senate Committee, including a bipartisan group of senior senators, had in conducting effective oversight of the FISA process when we did attempt to perform our constitutional duties."
[...]
"Oversight of the entire FISA process is hampered not just because the Committee was initially denied access to a single unclassified opinion but because the Congress and the public get no access to any work of the FISA Court, even work that is unclassified. This secrecy is unnecessary, and allows problems in applying the law to fester. There needs to be a healthy dialogue on unclassified FISA issues within Congress and the Executive branch and among informed professionals and interested groups. Even classified legal memoranda submitted by the DOJ to, and classified opinions by, the FISA Court can reasonably be redacted to allow some scrutiny of the issues that are being considered. This highly important body of FISA law is being developed in secret, and, because they are ex parte proceedings, without the benefit of opposing sides fleshing out the arguments as in other judicial contexts, and without even the scrutiny of the public or the Congress. Resolution of this problem requires considering legislation that would mandate that the Attorney General submit annual public reports on the number of targets of FISA surveillance, search, and investigative measures who are United States persons, the number of criminal prosecutions where FISA information is used and approved for use, and the unclassified opinions and legal reasoning adopted by the FISA Court and submitted by the DOJ.
As the recent litigation before the FISA Court of Review demonstrated, oversight also bears directly on the protection of important civil liberties. Due process means that the justice system has to be fair and accountable when the system breaks down.
Many things are different now since the tragic events of last September, but one thing that has not changed is the United States Constitution. Congress must work to guarantee the civil liberties of our people while at the same time meet our obligations to America's national security. Excessive secrecy and unilateral decision making by a single branch of government is not the proper method of s
"The FISA court has only turned the government down, what, twenty times in thirty years?"
Between its inception in 1979 and the time Bush told the NSA to shit on the fourth amendment (2002), the FISA court denied 0 applications (3 or 4 were resubmitted with changes, but ultimately all passed muster).
So it's not a matter of bypassing the unusually lenient FISA court for expediency, regardless of what the traitors are trying to claim. FISA threw warrant approvals around like candy for almost 23 years. Only AFTER Bush tore the fourth amendment out of the constitution and blew his nose with it did FISA start denying warrant requests.
Not only that, but it doesn't matter whether Clinton or anyone else did the same thing. If it's illegal, it's illegal. If these retards who think Clinton's behavior somehow excuses Bush want Slick Willie behind bars, they're free to pursue any avenues open to them to make it happen. That doesn't get Bush off the hook, however.
That's another of my favorite arguments from these morons: "Bush briefed congress! Including Democrats!" So? Indict all of the treasonous fuckers. "Tu quoque" is never a valid defense.
Slashdot Mirror
How very helpful of the Boston Globe to give me a free reverse lookup of listed and unlisted numbers in the Massachusetts area (or at least, free reverse lookup of the few remaining subscribers). Clueless fucks.
"Ever deliberately setup a server filled with thousands of titles so that thousands of unknown "friends" can download them? Ever attempted to profit from illegal distribution?"
You will. And the company that will make it happen? AT&T.
*cough*
If it installed itself, you've got bigger problems than adware.
"Geeks get no dates, and science is unpopular. ...but then there's always alcohol."
And roofies.
Hop in your time machine and demand he be impeached, then, douchebag. I already bitched out my elected officials over Clinton's misconduct, but--surprise!--there's a new fuckhead in town and I'm not concerned with what an ex-leader is no longer responsible for. Stop living in the past.
What, 4 years wasn't enough time for the Dipshit-in-Chief to do things legally and ask congress to change existing law? Get a fucking clue.
Similarly, I saw the story, blinked my eyes and this dupe was posted.
Time for my monthly "Fuck the RIAA."
"'We've got to find a way to harmonize this so it's rational,' said Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA's chief executive officer. 'There are going to be new technologies that are great for fans, and great for the entire music world, but they're all operating on different platforms, and all operating on different rule sets'."
It's already rational. Listeners are not prohibited from taping music they hear on the airwaves for personal use. Different platforms don't automatically suspend fair use rights as the RIAA hopes. Presumably digital radio stations already pay standard RIAA fees and operate under similar restrictions (no playing an entire album, etc.), so the only "problem" here is that the RIAA wants even more money for something that's already allowed. Fuck you, RIAA, and your boot-licking douchebag employees like Bainwol here.
"Spammmers that want to comply have got to send their list to the state and the state does the checking. The spammer never gets the registry."
Not that I think it's a problem, but it's absolutely trivial to get a list of kids' addresses in this scenario. I send this list to the sanitation group:
lolita@aol.com
swinger@yahoo.com
bgates123@msn.com
sjobs@apple.com
[...]
They clean it and send me the "allowable email list" back:
swinger@yahoo.com
bgates123@msn.com
sjobs@apple.com
[...]
Oops.
"The states let parents and schools register any email address accessible to a child, at no cost. Each month, companies must pay to have a designated third party examine their marketing lists for addresses that appear on the registries. The cost for a business can total thousands of dollars, and violators face stiff fines."
That is unfair. I propose that instead of these monetary obligations to sanitize their email lists, marketers be allowed to police themselves. Then, if caught sending adult-oriented spam to kids, the marketing firm in question would have to line up all their executives to be shot in the face by the parents. I think this is more than fair, and would not place undue costs on marketing companies. Vote today.
"Since 9/11, the Bush administration has run into far more delays and outright refusal to grant warrants from the FISA court"
It's worth noting that until 2002, after GWB illegally went around FISA, the court approved every single request to hit their desk (4 after resubmittal). Every single one.
"Thanks to this 'principled whistleblower' and his friends we have now lost a source of actionable intelligence."
Moron.
"50 additional units to be delivered to DARPA 2Q06"
It means 2nd Quarter of 2006. Most government funding starts in October (we started 1Q06 in 10/2005), so if I'm not mistaken 2Q06 should be sometime in the next couple of months. If I am mistaken, 2Q06 would be sometime between April and June.
It gets even better.
"'[Pentium II with a minimum 64MB RAM] corresponds to an average PC issued between 1998 and 1999,' Hilf said."
In 1998, the latest Slackware distro ran fine on my 386DX40 with 8MB of RAM, though X was a bit choppy. Conversely, the newly-released Win98 required a 486DX66 and 16MB RAM.
Hilf should have just gone all-out and said that many modern distros which come on DVD won't even install on older boxes because they lack DVD drives. It would have been just as valid.
"I'll stick w/ my Dodge truck."
Except the article was about SUVs, not trucks, so you don't really have a point.
"*eyeroll* at stupid people on this board who can't fathom the reality of science from real geniuses."
I'm curious as to why this "real genius" went running to scotsman.com instead of to peer-reviewed scientific journals with this amazing discovery. I'm also curious as to why his explanation makes no fucking sense at all, but the fact that he took it to scotsman.com puts it in perspective.
"Again, I ask not why would the "good guys" write an exploit, but why would they need to write a version meant to be undetectable?"
It's not written to be undetectable, it's written to be *hard* to detect, and again, it's aimed at active pentesters. Metasploit has always been a 100% full disclosure project.
"But why would someone make a program specifically designed to make an undetectable/untraceable version of the exploit?"
The Metasploit project is aimed at legitimate penetration testers and security researchers. Arguing that this sort of information shouldn't be accessible "to the bad guys" is useless, because the bad guys have already had it for months.
Darwinia is amazing, but I'm sad that my ATI Mobility-equipped laptop (which can handle Battlefront II) won't run it.
"I don't have the time to rehash it all here for you."
But you do have time to completely fail to understand what I wrote, instead wasting my own time by making the point that the non-validity of ID somehow makes your claims true.
Science does not bend to your whims, regardless of infinity. And since I'm an atheist who believes ID is at least as much horseshit as you're spewing here, don't bother bringing it up to bolster your claims.
"Tennessee to Experience Enormous Rise in Business Software Piracy" would have worked better.
Far be it from me to mock idiots on Slashdot, but I'm in a holiday mood.
"Warrantless searches happen all the time, and have been repeatedly upheld as legal."
I couldn't help but notice that every single one of his examples have undergone judicial review. I'll let you figure out the moral of this story.
"There are good reasons for not getting FISA warrants."
It's funny that he brings up the Moussaoui case, because the bipartisan report at http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_rpt/fisa.html specifically mentions it as well. Before you flame me for actually researching official reports instead of basing my opinions on what a few disingenuous and intellectually dishonest neocon dipshits write, you might want to take a look. The report concludes that the mishandling of the Moussaoui case was due to a lack of proper FBI training and problems within the agency, not through any failing of the FISA court. Inefficient FBI processes were what lead to warrant applications not being made within the 72-hour time limit to the court. There' much more in that vein, but this is the best part:
"IV. The Importance of Enhanced Congressional Oversight
An undeniable and distinguishing feature of the flawed FISA implementation system that has developed at the DOJ and FBI over the last 23 years is its secrecy. Both at the legal and operational level, the most generalized aspects of the DOJ's FISA activities have not only been kept secret from the general public but from the Congress as well. As we stated above, much of this secrecy has been due to a lack of diligence on the part of Congress exercising its oversight responsibility. Equally disturbing, however, is the difficulty that a properly constituted Senate Committee, including a bipartisan group of senior senators, had in conducting effective oversight of the FISA process when we did attempt to perform our constitutional duties."
[...]
"Oversight of the entire FISA process is hampered not just because the Committee was initially denied access to a single unclassified opinion but because the Congress and the public get no access to any work of the FISA Court, even work that is unclassified. This secrecy is unnecessary, and allows problems in applying the law to fester. There needs to be a healthy dialogue on unclassified FISA issues within Congress and the Executive branch and among informed professionals and interested groups. Even classified legal memoranda submitted by the DOJ to, and classified opinions by, the FISA Court can reasonably be redacted to allow some scrutiny of the issues that are being considered. This highly important body of FISA law is being developed in secret, and, because they are ex parte proceedings, without the benefit of opposing sides fleshing out the arguments as in other judicial contexts, and without even the scrutiny of the public or the Congress. Resolution of this problem requires considering legislation that would mandate that the Attorney General submit annual public reports on the number of targets of FISA surveillance, search, and investigative measures who are United States persons, the number of criminal prosecutions where FISA information is used and approved for use, and the unclassified opinions and legal reasoning adopted by the FISA Court and submitted by the DOJ.
As the recent litigation before the FISA Court of Review demonstrated, oversight also bears directly on the protection of important civil liberties. Due process means that the justice system has to be fair and accountable when the system breaks down.
Many things are different now since the tragic events of last September, but one thing that has not changed is the United States Constitution. Congress must work to guarantee the civil liberties of our people while at the same time meet our obligations to America's national security. Excessive secrecy and unilateral decision making by a single branch of government is not the proper method of s
What kind of horseshit is this supposed to be? Expanding space can still be finite, regardless of whether we can ever reach the "edge" of it.
"based on those two thing, possibilities must therefore be infinite."
This doesn't follow at all. Even assuming infinite time and infinite space, any possible event must still obey the laws of physics.
"The FISA court has only turned the government down, what, twenty times in thirty years?"
Between its inception in 1979 and the time Bush told the NSA to shit on the fourth amendment (2002), the FISA court denied 0 applications (3 or 4 were resubmitted with changes, but ultimately all passed muster).
So it's not a matter of bypassing the unusually lenient FISA court for expediency, regardless of what the traitors are trying to claim. FISA threw warrant approvals around like candy for almost 23 years. Only AFTER Bush tore the fourth amendment out of the constitution and blew his nose with it did FISA start denying warrant requests.
Not only that, but it doesn't matter whether Clinton or anyone else did the same thing. If it's illegal, it's illegal. If these retards who think Clinton's behavior somehow excuses Bush want Slick Willie behind bars, they're free to pursue any avenues open to them to make it happen. That doesn't get Bush off the hook, however.
That's another of my favorite arguments from these morons: "Bush briefed congress! Including Democrats!" So? Indict all of the treasonous fuckers. "Tu quoque" is never a valid defense.