I just wanted to clarify something here as I was slightly confuzzled by some misinformation here even though the point is valid.
- 127.0.0.1 references the loopback interface (actually anything in the 127.0.0.x range does) which won't allow you to access another computer according to IE specs. Just to clarify. Thus, you're either hacking yourself or incorrectly identifying the source of the original attack. This is one such problem with the whole thing...identification of the ACTUAL source.
- Assuming you correctly identified the source, IP addresses change as you noted. So while you can identify the specific attacking computer at a given point in time (assuming you can correctly do so), you still have a risk that the address of the computer that actually performed the act changes before you can respond. Now, granted, if you respond in a very short period of time, the likelihood of the IP address changing is slim, but legally, you have to consider the ramifications of a possible change in address between action and reaction.
Your assumption first of all assumes brute force attacks which, well...don't happen. Blizzard has a huge timeout between password authentication attempts.
Most passwords are stolen when you log into a malicious website which steals your credentials, you download some sort of keylogging software, or when you use the same password on multiple sites and one of them is hacked and your credentials stolen.
Brute force attacks are completely useless against services like Blizzard's authentication service which uses those timeouts.
You might be a developer, but you don't have your facts straight. Stop appealing to authority and get your ducks in a row instead.
Happens with everyone on both sides. Sometimes the people who have been in the business for a long time ALSO forget to take a moment to look at something from a different perspective. Everyone's guilty of it, though, I grant that the younger or newer programmers certainly have a greater tendency to do so. I don't think it's a problem with "new" programmers per se, but a problem with people who are incapable of seeing their own faults or have problems learning.
There actually are a lot of tools available to most companies to do this. Google Ads for example will let you remove any ads you don't want to see on your site or even blacklist a domain beforehand if you already know of a problematic one.
The issue is probably that there are a lot of people out there who don't want to do their jobs and so don't use those tools, or a lot of people who don't know they exist.
Even then, I can get an ad on a number of sites fairly easily by just putting my malicious ad in the pipeline. SOMEONE is gonna let it slip though. Perhaps we should just be upset at the actual offending party rather than constantly trying to place blame on a third party?
I know it might be hard or time consuming, but if you want to contribute to the discussion, please consider replying to the well-reasoned comments that are posted all over this page rather than just throwing out one-liners and responding to the reactionary comments. You are adding nothing to the discourse by ignoring those who've spent a lot of time crafting replies.
Don't feed the shills...eventually they get tired of posting or just move on to other jobs that pay better (seriously, who really enjoys making money posting BS all day long?) and we get a new batch in...
Fighting for the rights of those who don't deserve them is the point and purpose of the constitution. We stand up for even Anonymous because to not do so is to give in to tyranny (the whole, "They took this group, then that, then that, then when they finally came for me, there was no one to stand up for me" thing).
The fact that it was predictable is indicative that it is common knowledge that there are those with power looking to quash the rights of those smaller than themselves. It indicates that you are more than likely shilling for them or just too dumb to tell the difference.
This^. While you might play the game for a shortened length of time, if you only spend a couple dollars on it, it doesn't hurt too much. Spending $10 on a 60 hour game like Mass Effect is worth it. I usually don't play single-player games more than once...but the cost/time spent ratio is good in my eyes. Loss of steam support in a few years? I won't be playing the game, so not worried. If I spend a lot of time playing a multiplayer game, I want a stable service that's going to be around for a long while, and I'm willing to pay for that. Either way, Steam provides a valuable service at a good price point. You don't have to like it. Enough people already do that it looks to stick around for quite some time. Steam is one of the few companies that just treat their customers so well that I just want to GIVE them my money.
You are paying more and getting less than what you expect.
You pay more now for digital copies, but you don't have the traditional benefits of ownership:
- as GP stated, you don't have TITLE to the item.
- you don't have a guarantee of service (i.e. if that service fails in 5 years, you can't hack together your own system to keep using the item at your convenience). So now what you have purchased is limited by time.
- No transfer of ownership possible with the new system.
GP is pointing out that we are paying extra to give away rights consumers have traditionally held. This wouldn't be a problem if they were up front about it, but it's hidden in legalese and in EULAs so that the user never actually reads about what is happening.
The MegaUpload issue is so botched and hung so heavily on Kim Dotcom's bad reputation to make it work out, that when all is said and done, I doubt we are going to find a "vast majority" is really the case. We keep hearing more news that the investigation was not thorough and I intend to keep my eyes and ears open until everything is said and done because it won't surprise me to find out that more has gone wrong with the case. Kim Dotcom doesn't have a lot to his name right now until he gets access to his money. So those high profile lawyers of his must think he has a legitimate case...or at least one that they have a decent chance of winning. That does not aid your position in any way.
Oddly enough, the results aren't even close to the same. They don't describe the same process or the same set of results. The only commonality between you stealing from me and infringing off of me is that you have something that you didn't have before. When you steal it, I no longer have it. When you infringe, I still own the work. You could also procure this work through buying, me gifting it to you, or through me sharing. In the end, all of those things share the exact same commonality that infringing and stealing do. There's a reason for language. Language allows us to differentiate between different situations. Using language improperly to falsely convey an idea also has a term - it's called lying.
Marcus responded below to your comments below with links and evidence. We're still waiting on yours. It's nice of you to come and join in the discussion as a troll, but we don't really place any sort of credence to your words without responses from you that are backed with evidence as well. Also...it's completely pointless to post in response to me. Post in response to Marcus's citation post. That way the conversation can continue rather than get lost in a deep thread.
Im waiting for the day that we start rewarding resourcefulness in school. It's a rare skill in people, probably because we teach it out of people by rewarding rote memorization and the ability to regurgitate information rather than actual critical thinking skills and other important skills like resourcefulness, basic logic, and general common sense. We should spend more time in school teaching people how to see the signs of bias or lack of data and see through these things...teach people how to learn for themselves. Having knowledge is useless if you don't know how to acquire more of it when necessary.
I'm actually more ashamed that we have a teacher here who is criticizing his students for what they don't know and complaining that he doesn't have the time to teach them. Granted, there are many situations in life where I would rather give teachers the benefit of the doubt as they are often overworked as it is; however, I feel that this AC did NOT explain himself adequately if this is one of those. I EXPECT kids to only be somewhat informed. What can you really expect from children in a society where the NORM is to just be spoonfed information. It takes them quite a while to free themselves of that mindset. That's not something to be critical about (unless the particular student is motivated by that attitude I guess), but something that should a teacher should be trying to counter by teaching them to question their sources. Teaching is not an easy job and I don't envy you your responsibility, but I do feel a little let down by your comments above.
I just wanted to make sure you were aware that your last comment of "90% of a tenth of the time" might be misstated. 90% of 1/10th of the time = 9% of the time. Doesn't sound like you were actually intending that.
Why? Regardless of your opinion on security in general, Israeli security is usually regarded as being well trained and effective. He brings expertise (assuming he tells the truth...) in the form of insight into the reasoning behind security guard decisions.