How do your degrees and certifications play a role in the availability of surveillance-specific work to you? If anything, surveillance is mostly unrelated to your fields except through a very tenuous connection between your disciplines and requirements for individuals in the surveillance industry. Unless the specific use of your algorithm development skills to this point has been in surveillance and therefore all of your job experience is surveillance related (i.e. the development of cryptographic algorithms), I don't know how you would be able to find only surveillance-specific work related to what you do.
FYI - I have ~25 friends living in SD who are all in tech industries, many of whom actually share education and programming skills with you, and 3 of whom also specialize in algorithm development (mostly dealing with the medical field or compression and optimization) and while they did have difficulty finding jobs specifically dealing with algorithm development, they were easily able to find other jobs in the tech sector related to their various expertise. I'm not saying it is hunky-dory for everyone living down there, but I'm saying that tech-related employment in San Diego is pretty good to my knowledge, especially recently. Don't get me wrong...I don't think you're lying, I just know people who would likely disagree.
With regard to moral posturing and selling out, I have found in my own experience that you're exactly correct. Most people will act in self interest and disregard what's right...unfortunately those of us who choose the less evil path end up treading the more difficult sometimes. I've done this myself and while it wasn't easy, I'm better off than those I know who did sell out because I stuck to my principles and found employment with a company with principles similar to mine. Stick to it...you'll find what you're looking for.
Aside from base assumptions, what makes you believe that Snowden entered employment with the NSA with the intent to release data he was exposed to? Also, what gives you the impression that he has an interest backing him (other than those like Julian Assange who provided assistance after the initial release of his information)?
As stated below, he worked for the CIA and the NSA so of course he has training, but what do you see that gives away his backing interest in any way? In my opinion, the fact that the US gov't has hunted him so furiously and has taken the exact opposite approach that they mandate regarding any other nation's political refugees seeking asylum is what put such a potential fount of knowledge in other countries' hands in the first place.
What if you make comments wishing for others' death and you are subsequently killed by those people? That seems to follow your childish line of reasoning appropriately enough. It is probably a good thing that you haven't been an integral part of the evolution of man or the weight of the old testament would have crushed us by this point.
The fact that you wish such a violent death on this man outlines the vast difference between people like you and the rest of us free-thinking individuals. We don't correlate only possible negative consequence with new technologies, studies, or avenues of thought...we try to explore ALL possibilities and think of ways to benefit others and build societies instead of assuming the worst of any advancement in technology or thought. If one were to apply your logic to any critical invention or advancement in human history we would still think the world was flat, we would be bloodletting to cure disease and infection alike, and we would take 10 years to travel across the US with half our family dying of dysentery.
The man is building a gun in his home using new technological advancements and not using it on people. Until he does, he deserves to be treated as though he would never do anything of the sort. Maybe he is a gun enthusiast and just likes them? I like computers and I build those...does that mean I steal from people using them? I like working on cars and I build those also...does that mean that I run people down in the street with them? Maybe he just feels, as Alexander Hamilton did (even though he is Canadian), that "it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
If you believe that simply getting rid of all guns is the answer, you have a simple mind. Try putting a little more thought into it for once...explore all avenues and ask yourself these things constantly: Does your government have any interest in you being anything other than an automaton? What happens when the pretense fails and those with power want to keep their power? There are plenty of examples in human history of fallen empires and societies. The United States was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent this but what happens when the people themselves, who are supposed to act as a check to their elected officials, fail to live up to their end of the bargain? (I'm assuming you're from the US, but this is a fairly universal concept.)
Call me a nut...I'll keep my guns and continue not killing anyone, just like I've done for 20 years. I'm sure you are thinking, "what good are guns against tanks and a modern military anyway?" I tell you that I would rather die with them in my hands than become a slave.
If the site is designed for those of us who have been through semi-advanced maths and if the spambot had no ability to perform basic calculations sure.
Ultimately I agree that it would be easier for you or I to solve than trying to decipher the Sumerian cuneiform that most CAPTCHAs pass off as text...in practice, however, I think this would alienate about 90% of the target audience while making it easier for bots to decipher and bypass.
Sum Ting Wong = Something wrong.
Wi Tu Lo = We too low.
Ho Lee Fuk = Holy fuck.
Bang Ding Ow = Bang Ding Ow.
So it reads "Something wrong...we too low. Holy fuck!" Bang ding. "Ow!" I'm sad that you needed that spelled out for you. Way too low works as well, but the main problem is that you need a sense of humor.
No no...the patent trolls sue the company they identify as infringing. Therefore what the parent was trying to say was that the patent troll has to sue that 'infringing' company in the company's home county so that they cannot judge shop and present the suit in the area most likely to give them the judgement they want.
Hmm...you lost me when you said we won't be able to successfully manipulate the body's immune system...what about vaccines? That is pretty effective manipulation, sans-bridge.
This is very correct. Unless it is untreated for a SIGNIFICANT amount of time, it causes relatively little permanent damage if any at all.
I live in Bakersfield, CA and have for 30 years without getting 'infected' and for a 6-7 years I was landscaping in the dust and sun for my dad. By the same token, however, my best friend also worked with me for a couple years and did get Valley Fever. I know many people who have had Valley Fever but the percentage of people is similar to or less than those who get the Flu so this is absolutely full on fearmongering. As previously stated, it does take a lot of time to recover and it sucks A LOT, however, with treatment it goes away.
For everyone out there scared by this, don't be. You can get it, sure...if you do, it sucks. The likelihood that you will get it, though, is very small...just don't snort lines of dust like it is cocaine or inhale deeply when a little dust devil passes you by and you will almost certainly be fine...you know, normal behavior.
WTF are you talking about? Your logic is that because of the functions of Malware is that many Malware programs install keystroke loggers, and because the AC post that I replied to mentioned keyloggers (even though he did not identify Malware), this somehow somehow refutes or invalidates my point??
Since you obviously don't know how this works, Malware has access to the user's machine; however, in most cases the author or distributor of the Malware DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE MACHINE (in other words, the 'You' that the OP referenced). The OP, which is most likely you posting AC, identified that this is not a vulnerability because you can already access the machine and install a keylogger to steal the password. I did not say that this was not possible - to make sure you understand, I will explain slowly. My statement means that Malware designed specifically to obtain cookies that has been installed can forward that information to an unauthorized destination and therefore this cookie can be taken advantage of to gain access to sensitive information or to ordering interfaces with stored credit cards...which is definitely a vulnerability completely independent of the physical or remote access style vulnerability that the OP referenced.
The vulnerability in question is the fact that a cookie can be copy-fucking-pasted and used as though the new location is the authorized, authenticated user with stored credit card information. I hope you are extremely high because your comment is probably one of the most idiotic that I've seen since I registered for Slashdot.
Is it easier for you to remember words that have no relation to the location whatsoever, or even to one another for that matter, than a street address or lat/long coordinates? For me it is just as difficult because they are meaningless. If the 3 words represented a descriptor for the location or anything along those lines, I would be with you...what we see here, though, is arbitrary, useless words that correlate to nothing except a seemingly random spot in the world - retarded.
Ultimately it is like saying 65.55.58.201 is MUCH more difficult to remember than juggle.hairball.foam when you're trying to get to Microsoft's website. The point of using words for referencing locations or things is that they describe those locations or things. Again - peter.pan.statue I am totally on board with being a 3 word descriptor for a site that may not have an address. It is easily searchable and MUCH easier to remember than any street address that may exist but even still, Google does this already for any interesting landmarks simply by searching, even when there is not a street address associated with the site.
This seems like something that further obfuscates things and removes any sort of descriptive context from it that would make the service usable.
The idea is that every citizen in the country has a right to bear arms so that, in the event the government decides they want power indefinitely and implements a new governmental structure, there are millions of guns and citizens to prevent them from outright declaring the constitution invalid. The fact that our constitutional rights and amendments have been ERODED over years seems instead of simply stricken from the record to me represents a direct result of the 2nd amendment's existence..otherwise we would never have returned from martial law following any one of the wars that our country has gone through. Until the "Patriot" Act was introduced, the government was essentially unable to find and/or put into law an overarching 'workaround' that allows them to essentially do whatever they want. This is being a bit general but unless you're retarded you know what I'm getting at.
Maybe instead of the random errant 'nuts' that you describe we should all take a personal responsibility and march on Washington and force our elected officials out of office for not working as agents of the people and therefore violating the entire purpose of their postings. Most of those 'nuts' were sane people driven to paranoia by the things that most of us ignore outright as SOP for the government. Maybe if we were all a little nuttier and didn't have one-dimensional opinions like yours, we wouldn't have things like PRISM and the Patriot Act.
It may be a website problem but it becomes a consumer problem, especially when the method of payment stored on an account can potentially be utilized by re-using cookies.
Except it is not memorable because the 3 words don't describe anything you would normally associate with the location. Look at the example they give for the Peter Pan statue...'union.prop.enjoy' instead of 'peter.pan.statue' or 'pan.statue.landmark'. If union.prop.enjoy is an example of what we can expect, then none of the 3 word summaries will have much of anything to do with the locations or objects they purport to describe except to give us very arbitrary word associations.
Okay I'll take a crack. TFS states that the 3 word summary for the Peter Pan statue is 'union.prop.enjoy' instead of 'peter.pan.statue' or 'pan.statue.landmark'. If union.prop.enjoy is an example of what we can expect, then none of the 3 word summaries will have anything to do with the locations or objects they purport to describe except to give us very arbitrary word associations.
Are you mentally retarded? VLC Player is a VIDEO PLAYBACK SOFTWARE which HBO DOES NOT HAVE ANY CLAIM TO. If VLC infringes, so does Windows Media Player.
Parties are obsolete. We don't need 'sides' to get behind and we don't need some arbitrary party organization dictating the policies of those 'sides' to the elected officials belonging to those parties. Our elected officials were elected to represent the will of the will of the people and I don't believe many people would argue that this is what our politicians are currently doing or have done for quite some time. Two party politicians get elected based upon their campaign's stated goals and somehow everyone turns a blind eye when almost immediately the stated goals of their official change because he/she is 'on their side'.
Instead of a flag hanging in the wind, how about not supporting one of the big two? Instead, we might all have to actually pay attention to the politics of the candidates we elect and the candidates might actually have to act on what they say in order to even get elected...you know - how it should be according to the idealistic definition of democracy that you have. Seems more educated and enlightened a way to do things than to just know that you are a democrat or a republican and therefore that is just how you vote. In a society in which we intentionally launch objects and vehicles into space and control scientific research vessels remoly on OTHER PLANETS, shouldn't we all have to progress together instead of electing people who 'just know what to do' so that we can avoid the added stress of having to pay attention to what the fuck is going on? Er wait...that cuts into my (social trend following and facebook updating/beer drinking and nascar) time...nevermind, fuck that shit.
Not to everyone. As another commenter posted already, the back pocket works perfectly for his Nexus tablet:
I'm 5'9" and I wear almost nothing but jeans and jean shorts most days. I don't wear skin-tight jeans, but neither am I wearing "fat guy" jeans... they fit "right" in my eyes: no struggle to button, but they're far from cargo pants territory.
My Nexus 7 TABLET fits in the BACK POCKET of my pants without struggling to get it in and out. It's actually comfortable there (aside from the weight, which is a bit much and tries to pull my pants down). Now, yes, that's only true if I'm standing up... sitting ain't happening... this "phone" (phablet I guess is the term they invented?) should fit just as well as it's smaller.
I'm a large guy at 6'1" and I also wear comfortable clothing...I currently own a Note II and it will be nigh impossible for me to ever go back to a screen size that is not at least comparable to this one. Larger than the 5.5" that my phone currently offers may be pushing it but for some who use their back pocket or for women who don't store their phone in a pocket, I can see this being extremely useful. For example, my mother is getting older and has difficulty seeing the keyboard on smaller phones so she purchased a Note II and she loves it. She can use it somewhat like a tablet while also easily being able to type, call people, etc.
All I'm pointing out is that for many people, portability is a non-issue and functionality becomes the most critical aspect of their purchase. To each his/her own.
I don't disagree with you in that publicity is also a major motive for both DT and for Mr. Johnson's team. My point was, though, that it is still silly to say that they their reason for pulling out is that they believe the con is about openness and community and that the request for Federal agents not to attend violates that in some way. The entire point of the con is to provide an open forum for whoever registers to come and be able to hear talks from security researchers and hackers alike about penetration testing, cracking, vulnerability testing, network security, application security, etc. There's also the fun aspect of it that a lot of people come for specifically but that's part of what makes DefCon different than BlackHat or any of the other security oriented conferences that cost a grip of money.
By saying that they do not want to attend because the feds aren't invited tells me that their true goal is not to share their research with the community, but rather that they are doing it as a publicity stunt as you said, or that a part of their target audience is the federal government. Either way, their reasoning is disingenuous because they are refusing to contribute to the community because people who were never officially asked to attend initially were asked not to attend...wtf? This is even more ridiculous because the true intent of most feds not attending purely out of interest in the subject matter (i.e. the ones who are actually being asked not to attend) is to jam up the actual attendees...WTF??
Realistically I don't care about sequestration hitting the feds or whether or not they do or don't attend. I don't need a reality check where any of this information is concerned because it simply doesn't matter to me and it really wasn't what I was getting at. As you said, the feds that will attend are the ones genuinely interested, coming back to see friends, or those there for ulterior motives and the simple uninvite from DT will do nothing to stop them at all (and rightfully so!) I have always thought that DefCon was an awesome thing for the community because of the simple fact that anyone is invited and it has an element of anonymity to it. There's also the fact that you CAN be exposed to such cutting-edge information without spending a shitload of money.
DefCon 8 was literally the point at which I decided I wanted to get into network engineering and security and of the 13 years since first attending, I've been in that exact field for 9 of them (even though I've only been back to DefCon 5 times since). Hell, we probably went to DefCon the same year for the first time and fact that you have attended every year since shows that you find it to be a valuable source of information. My point is that an organization or presenter that pulls their talk from DefCon because of the fed uninvite is going against the very community that the con caters to. I know that had certain presenters not been there at DefCon 8, I may not have ended up in the field I'm in now.
PS: Not sure if it was intentional but saying "I don't know shit, I've only been going to the con for 13 years" makes it sound like we are arguing...or like you're being a dick. Either way, I don't think that's the case but do correct me if I'm wrong.
We do not want to make this a "political" move, and we do not make this decision based on their motivations. The issue we are struggling with, and the basis of our decision, is that we feel strongly that DEF CON has always presented a neutral ground that encouraged open communication among the community, despite the industry background and diversity of motives to attend. We believe the exclusion of the "feds" this year does the exact opposite at a critical time.
James and I do not feel that this should be about anti/pro government, but rather a continuation of openness that this event has always encouraged. We both have much respect for DEF CON and the entire organization and security community.
The specific inclusion of the federal government was never the intent of DefCon. The intent was to provide a neutral ground for people working in the security industry or on the fringes of the industry to be able to come together and discuss ideas, problems, and solutions. The Feds began coming, not to participate in the DefCon community but hoping to catch hackers or to recruit them. Obviously there may be some federal employees who attend for the same reasons we do, but DefCon prizes anonymity and those who would legitimately be attending obviously could not and would not be excluded.
For your team to purposely pull your talk from DefCon because they have asked that the feds not attend this year is absolutely silly. If your purpose is openness and community, it seems rather fishy that the organizers simply asking that the 'Feds' don't attend (i.e. the guys trying to track hackers) would incite you to pull your talk. I think it is completely disingenuous to say that this is not a political move because the community will still be there - you just aren't targeting the community anymore with your talks and your target audience may not be present...at least that's the way you make it seem.
Slashdot Mirror
How do your degrees and certifications play a role in the availability of surveillance-specific work to you? If anything, surveillance is mostly unrelated to your fields except through a very tenuous connection between your disciplines and requirements for individuals in the surveillance industry. Unless the specific use of your algorithm development skills to this point has been in surveillance and therefore all of your job experience is surveillance related (i.e. the development of cryptographic algorithms), I don't know how you would be able to find only surveillance-specific work related to what you do.
FYI - I have ~25 friends living in SD who are all in tech industries, many of whom actually share education and programming skills with you, and 3 of whom also specialize in algorithm development (mostly dealing with the medical field or compression and optimization) and while they did have difficulty finding jobs specifically dealing with algorithm development, they were easily able to find other jobs in the tech sector related to their various expertise. I'm not saying it is hunky-dory for everyone living down there, but I'm saying that tech-related employment in San Diego is pretty good to my knowledge, especially recently. Don't get me wrong...I don't think you're lying, I just know people who would likely disagree.
With regard to moral posturing and selling out, I have found in my own experience that you're exactly correct. Most people will act in self interest and disregard what's right...unfortunately those of us who choose the less evil path end up treading the more difficult sometimes. I've done this myself and while it wasn't easy, I'm better off than those I know who did sell out because I stuck to my principles and found employment with a company with principles similar to mine. Stick to it...you'll find what you're looking for.
Aside from base assumptions, what makes you believe that Snowden entered employment with the NSA with the intent to release data he was exposed to? Also, what gives you the impression that he has an interest backing him (other than those like Julian Assange who provided assistance after the initial release of his information)?
As stated below, he worked for the CIA and the NSA so of course he has training, but what do you see that gives away his backing interest in any way? In my opinion, the fact that the US gov't has hunted him so furiously and has taken the exact opposite approach that they mandate regarding any other nation's political refugees seeking asylum is what put such a potential fount of knowledge in other countries' hands in the first place.
What if you make comments wishing for others' death and you are subsequently killed by those people? That seems to follow your childish line of reasoning appropriately enough. It is probably a good thing that you haven't been an integral part of the evolution of man or the weight of the old testament would have crushed us by this point.
The fact that you wish such a violent death on this man outlines the vast difference between people like you and the rest of us free-thinking individuals. We don't correlate only possible negative consequence with new technologies, studies, or avenues of thought...we try to explore ALL possibilities and think of ways to benefit others and build societies instead of assuming the worst of any advancement in technology or thought. If one were to apply your logic to any critical invention or advancement in human history we would still think the world was flat, we would be bloodletting to cure disease and infection alike, and we would take 10 years to travel across the US with half our family dying of dysentery.
The man is building a gun in his home using new technological advancements and not using it on people. Until he does, he deserves to be treated as though he would never do anything of the sort. Maybe he is a gun enthusiast and just likes them? I like computers and I build those...does that mean I steal from people using them? I like working on cars and I build those also...does that mean that I run people down in the street with them? Maybe he just feels, as Alexander Hamilton did (even though he is Canadian), that "it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
If you believe that simply getting rid of all guns is the answer, you have a simple mind. Try putting a little more thought into it for once...explore all avenues and ask yourself these things constantly: Does your government have any interest in you being anything other than an automaton? What happens when the pretense fails and those with power want to keep their power? There are plenty of examples in human history of fallen empires and societies. The United States was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent this but what happens when the people themselves, who are supposed to act as a check to their elected officials, fail to live up to their end of the bargain? (I'm assuming you're from the US, but this is a fairly universal concept.)
Call me a nut...I'll keep my guns and continue not killing anyone, just like I've done for 20 years. I'm sure you are thinking, "what good are guns against tanks and a modern military anyway?" I tell you that I would rather die with them in my hands than become a slave.
If the site is designed for those of us who have been through semi-advanced maths and if the spambot had no ability to perform basic calculations sure.
Ultimately I agree that it would be easier for you or I to solve than trying to decipher the Sumerian cuneiform that most CAPTCHAs pass off as text...in practice, however, I think this would alienate about 90% of the target audience while making it easier for bots to decipher and bypass.
Sum Ting Wong = Something wrong.
Wi Tu Lo = We too low.
Ho Lee Fuk = Holy fuck.
Bang Ding Ow = Bang Ding Ow.
So it reads "Something wrong...we too low. Holy fuck!" Bang ding. "Ow!" I'm sad that you needed that spelled out for you. Way too low works as well, but the main problem is that you need a sense of humor.
Those would be jokes sir.
No no...the patent trolls sue the company they identify as infringing. Therefore what the parent was trying to say was that the patent troll has to sue that 'infringing' company in the company's home county so that they cannot judge shop and present the suit in the area most likely to give them the judgement they want.
Hmm...you lost me when you said we won't be able to successfully manipulate the body's immune system...what about vaccines? That is pretty effective manipulation, sans-bridge.
Goes to show how effective those cameras are for real crime. High five to wasting taxpayer money NYC!
This is very correct. Unless it is untreated for a SIGNIFICANT amount of time, it causes relatively little permanent damage if any at all.
I live in Bakersfield, CA and have for 30 years without getting 'infected' and for a 6-7 years I was landscaping in the dust and sun for my dad. By the same token, however, my best friend also worked with me for a couple years and did get Valley Fever. I know many people who have had Valley Fever but the percentage of people is similar to or less than those who get the Flu so this is absolutely full on fearmongering. As previously stated, it does take a lot of time to recover and it sucks A LOT, however, with treatment it goes away.
For everyone out there scared by this, don't be. You can get it, sure...if you do, it sucks. The likelihood that you will get it, though, is very small...just don't snort lines of dust like it is cocaine or inhale deeply when a little dust devil passes you by and you will almost certainly be fine...you know, normal behavior.
AHHHH. That's not punny dude.
I wish I could mod you up with exponents.
WTF are you talking about? Your logic is that because of the functions of Malware is that many Malware programs install keystroke loggers, and because the AC post that I replied to mentioned keyloggers (even though he did not identify Malware), this somehow somehow refutes or invalidates my point??
Since you obviously don't know how this works, Malware has access to the user's machine; however, in most cases the author or distributor of the Malware DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE MACHINE (in other words, the 'You' that the OP referenced). The OP, which is most likely you posting AC, identified that this is not a vulnerability because you can already access the machine and install a keylogger to steal the password. I did not say that this was not possible - to make sure you understand, I will explain slowly. My statement means that Malware designed specifically to obtain cookies that has been installed can forward that information to an unauthorized destination and therefore this cookie can be taken advantage of to gain access to sensitive information or to ordering interfaces with stored credit cards...which is definitely a vulnerability completely independent of the physical or remote access style vulnerability that the OP referenced.
The vulnerability in question is the fact that a cookie can be copy-fucking-pasted and used as though the new location is the authorized, authenticated user with stored credit card information. I hope you are extremely high because your comment is probably one of the most idiotic that I've seen since I registered for Slashdot.
Is it easier for you to remember words that have no relation to the location whatsoever, or even to one another for that matter, than a street address or lat/long coordinates? For me it is just as difficult because they are meaningless. If the 3 words represented a descriptor for the location or anything along those lines, I would be with you...what we see here, though, is arbitrary, useless words that correlate to nothing except a seemingly random spot in the world - retarded.
Ultimately it is like saying 65.55.58.201 is MUCH more difficult to remember than juggle.hairball.foam when you're trying to get to Microsoft's website. The point of using words for referencing locations or things is that they describe those locations or things. Again - peter.pan.statue I am totally on board with being a 3 word descriptor for a site that may not have an address. It is easily searchable and MUCH easier to remember than any street address that may exist but even still, Google does this already for any interesting landmarks simply by searching, even when there is not a street address associated with the site.
This seems like something that further obfuscates things and removes any sort of descriptive context from it that would make the service usable.
The idea is that every citizen in the country has a right to bear arms so that, in the event the government decides they want power indefinitely and implements a new governmental structure, there are millions of guns and citizens to prevent them from outright declaring the constitution invalid. The fact that our constitutional rights and amendments have been ERODED over years seems instead of simply stricken from the record to me represents a direct result of the 2nd amendment's existence..otherwise we would never have returned from martial law following any one of the wars that our country has gone through. Until the "Patriot" Act was introduced, the government was essentially unable to find and/or put into law an overarching 'workaround' that allows them to essentially do whatever they want. This is being a bit general but unless you're retarded you know what I'm getting at.
Maybe instead of the random errant 'nuts' that you describe we should all take a personal responsibility and march on Washington and force our elected officials out of office for not working as agents of the people and therefore violating the entire purpose of their postings. Most of those 'nuts' were sane people driven to paranoia by the things that most of us ignore outright as SOP for the government. Maybe if we were all a little nuttier and didn't have one-dimensional opinions like yours, we wouldn't have things like PRISM and the Patriot Act.
Ever heard of Malware? If you were to somehow become infected, your cookies are open game.
It may be a website problem but it becomes a consumer problem, especially when the method of payment stored on an account can potentially be utilized by re-using cookies.
Except it is not memorable because the 3 words don't describe anything you would normally associate with the location. Look at the example they give for the Peter Pan statue...'union.prop.enjoy' instead of 'peter.pan.statue' or 'pan.statue.landmark'. If union.prop.enjoy is an example of what we can expect, then none of the 3 word summaries will have much of anything to do with the locations or objects they purport to describe except to give us very arbitrary word associations.
Okay I'll take a crack. TFS states that the 3 word summary for the Peter Pan statue is 'union.prop.enjoy' instead of 'peter.pan.statue' or 'pan.statue.landmark'. If union.prop.enjoy is an example of what we can expect, then none of the 3 word summaries will have anything to do with the locations or objects they purport to describe except to give us very arbitrary word associations.
Are you mentally retarded? VLC Player is a VIDEO PLAYBACK SOFTWARE which HBO DOES NOT HAVE ANY CLAIM TO. If VLC infringes, so does Windows Media Player.
Parties are obsolete. We don't need 'sides' to get behind and we don't need some arbitrary party organization dictating the policies of those 'sides' to the elected officials belonging to those parties. Our elected officials were elected to represent the will of the will of the people and I don't believe many people would argue that this is what our politicians are currently doing or have done for quite some time. Two party politicians get elected based upon their campaign's stated goals and somehow everyone turns a blind eye when almost immediately the stated goals of their official change because he/she is 'on their side'.
Instead of a flag hanging in the wind, how about not supporting one of the big two? Instead, we might all have to actually pay attention to the politics of the candidates we elect and the candidates might actually have to act on what they say in order to even get elected...you know - how it should be according to the idealistic definition of democracy that you have. Seems more educated and enlightened a way to do things than to just know that you are a democrat or a republican and therefore that is just how you vote. In a society in which we intentionally launch objects and vehicles into space and control scientific research vessels remoly on OTHER PLANETS, shouldn't we all have to progress together instead of electing people who 'just know what to do' so that we can avoid the added stress of having to pay attention to what the fuck is going on? Er wait...that cuts into my (social trend following and facebook updating/beer drinking and nascar) time...nevermind, fuck that shit.
I'm 5'9" and I wear almost nothing but jeans and jean shorts most days. I don't wear skin-tight jeans, but neither am I wearing "fat guy" jeans... they fit "right" in my eyes: no struggle to button, but they're far from cargo pants territory.
My Nexus 7 TABLET fits in the BACK POCKET of my pants without struggling to get it in and out. It's actually comfortable there (aside from the weight, which is a bit much and tries to pull my pants down). Now, yes, that's only true if I'm standing up... sitting ain't happening... this "phone" (phablet I guess is the term they invented?) should fit just as well as it's smaller.
I'm a large guy at 6'1" and I also wear comfortable clothing...I currently own a Note II and it will be nigh impossible for me to ever go back to a screen size that is not at least comparable to this one. Larger than the 5.5" that my phone currently offers may be pushing it but for some who use their back pocket or for women who don't store their phone in a pocket, I can see this being extremely useful. For example, my mother is getting older and has difficulty seeing the keyboard on smaller phones so she purchased a Note II and she loves it. She can use it somewhat like a tablet while also easily being able to type, call people, etc.
All I'm pointing out is that for many people, portability is a non-issue and functionality becomes the most critical aspect of their purchase. To each his/her own.
I don't disagree with you in that publicity is also a major motive for both DT and for Mr. Johnson's team. My point was, though, that it is still silly to say that they their reason for pulling out is that they believe the con is about openness and community and that the request for Federal agents not to attend violates that in some way. The entire point of the con is to provide an open forum for whoever registers to come and be able to hear talks from security researchers and hackers alike about penetration testing, cracking, vulnerability testing, network security, application security, etc. There's also the fun aspect of it that a lot of people come for specifically but that's part of what makes DefCon different than BlackHat or any of the other security oriented conferences that cost a grip of money.
By saying that they do not want to attend because the feds aren't invited tells me that their true goal is not to share their research with the community, but rather that they are doing it as a publicity stunt as you said, or that a part of their target audience is the federal government. Either way, their reasoning is disingenuous because they are refusing to contribute to the community because people who were never officially asked to attend initially were asked not to attend...wtf? This is even more ridiculous because the true intent of most feds not attending purely out of interest in the subject matter (i.e. the ones who are actually being asked not to attend) is to jam up the actual attendees...WTF??
Realistically I don't care about sequestration hitting the feds or whether or not they do or don't attend. I don't need a reality check where any of this information is concerned because it simply doesn't matter to me and it really wasn't what I was getting at. As you said, the feds that will attend are the ones genuinely interested, coming back to see friends, or those there for ulterior motives and the simple uninvite from DT will do nothing to stop them at all (and rightfully so!) I have always thought that DefCon was an awesome thing for the community because of the simple fact that anyone is invited and it has an element of anonymity to it. There's also the fact that you CAN be exposed to such cutting-edge information without spending a shitload of money.
DefCon 8 was literally the point at which I decided I wanted to get into network engineering and security and of the 13 years since first attending, I've been in that exact field for 9 of them (even though I've only been back to DefCon 5 times since). Hell, we probably went to DefCon the same year for the first time and fact that you have attended every year since shows that you find it to be a valuable source of information. My point is that an organization or presenter that pulls their talk from DefCon because of the fed uninvite is going against the very community that the con caters to. I know that had certain presenters not been there at DefCon 8, I may not have ended up in the field I'm in now.
PS: Not sure if it was intentional but saying "I don't know shit, I've only been going to the con for 13 years" makes it sound like we are arguing...or like you're being a dick. Either way, I don't think that's the case but do correct me if I'm wrong.
We do not want to make this a "political" move, and we do not make this decision based on their motivations. The issue we are struggling with, and the basis of our decision, is that we feel strongly that DEF CON has always presented a neutral ground that encouraged open communication among the community, despite the industry background and diversity of motives to attend. We believe the exclusion of the "feds" this year does the exact opposite at a critical time.
James and I do not feel that this should be about anti/pro government, but rather a continuation of openness that this event has always encouraged. We both have much respect for DEF CON and the entire organization and security community.
The specific inclusion of the federal government was never the intent of DefCon. The intent was to provide a neutral ground for people working in the security industry or on the fringes of the industry to be able to come together and discuss ideas, problems, and solutions. The Feds began coming, not to participate in the DefCon community but hoping to catch hackers or to recruit them. Obviously there may be some federal employees who attend for the same reasons we do, but DefCon prizes anonymity and those who would legitimately be attending obviously could not and would not be excluded.
For your team to purposely pull your talk from DefCon because they have asked that the feds not attend this year is absolutely silly. If your purpose is openness and community, it seems rather fishy that the organizers simply asking that the 'Feds' don't attend (i.e. the guys trying to track hackers) would incite you to pull your talk. I think it is completely disingenuous to say that this is not a political move because the community will still be there - you just aren't targeting the community anymore with your talks and your target audience may not be present...at least that's the way you make it seem.
Exactly....the guys in Hawaiian shirts and dark sunglasses who obviously don't belong are decoys for the actual feds that no one notices.