While I think you are right, the US has no problem putting pressure on foreign governments not doing what it wants them to do. So I'd expect some crazy made up reason to bring him over.
Says it's crap and doesn't use them. I'd take that as hint that they are worthless. To me I say we just let people bring knives on planes then *if* someone tries to blow up a plane the people will have a easy way to stop them. Knowing that a plane is full of armed and pissed of passengers would be a great deterrent.
I have to disagree with you. 30 months in prison for simply brining down a website for a while? How is that not excessive? The analog equivalent would be if someone took down a poster for a day and then put it back up. I really don't think anyone would actually care if someone did that. Should he be punished? Absolutely there is no excuse for a DDoS, it's just rude. I just don't think 30 months in jail fits his crime. A better use would be to force them to teach computer security classes.
If you are saying that a DDoS is an attack on free speech then, any site take down should be met with such force. Including ones that people don't like or think are offensive. This would also apply to ISPs and gov'ts messing with sites. If you are ok with that then, I would agree with you on the attack of free speech part.
Yeah I don't want an independent group to monitor media content. Last time I checked I was perfectly able to judge and monitor content on my own. I don't need for someone to tell me I don't like something. I can figure that out all myself. The other crazy thing about TV and radio etc. is if I don't like what's on I can change it to something else.
I am not a big fan of that method though. Ever since they did that the number of comments has been dramatically reduced. I think that method hurts more then it helps. I never saw that many "uncivil" comments.
Few things a good security scheme is secure with and without the manual. Take for example public key encryption. Where part of it is public. Even if you know part of it then you still can't crack the other part. If you have to depended on part of your "security" being secret then it really isn't secure. If you design your system in such a way that even if you know how it works it is still hard to break that is a good system. OpenSSL is another example open source implementation of SSL . Back on topic the TSA is all about "security theater" they want people to feel safe. They have no idea how to actually make the planes safer. Personally I say let it all be open. Just think what terrorist would be stupid enough to try and blow up a plane if they know everyone on the plane is armed? That tends to take the "fun" out of it.
That's the problem, what you think is pg13 may be R for me or vice versa. Hence the big problem with it all, there is really no universal decent/indecent code.
with transparaency, people can see what you are doing. For a a lot people that scares the crap out of them. The people with views outside of the mainstream (i.e the copyright extremists) know that if people knew what they really wanted they would never get it. So they resort to hiding behind secrecy.
You misunderstand no one has said that subscriptions weren't important. They just said that subscriptions do not alone generate enough money to support a newspaper. In other words if you took away all the money adds bring in and only look at the cost of the subscription the newspaper would go out business very quickly.
in the Ars Technica article. They all say the same thing that everyone here is saying especially Mike. Also I do think it was good for Ars to publish this. They made it clear that it was an opinion and that he was legitimately trying to convince people (that he is completely wrong is another story).
Are distractions and time wasters really bad? Taken to an extreme yes, but overall? I would argue no. Just look at TV I know there was a huge "OMG people will never leave there house " because of TV reaction. Just look at people today, with the advent of Facebook and things like that people are interacting with more people then ever. Besides how often do you "just need a break"? Some people just use Facebook etc, for that. (Just want to add in that I don't use Facebook because I think it's a huge stalker net)
Better watch out
That bakery better watch out before they get labeled a terrorist for making fake boarding passes.
It's not going to matter anyway
he is just going to have a "tragic" accident and disappear forever
Very interesting
I will have to try this when I get back to work to see if it's DoD wide.
Re: Re: No Worries
While I think you are right, the US has no problem putting pressure on foreign governments not doing what it wants them to do. So I'd expect some crazy made up reason to bring him over.
When Israel..
Says it's crap and doesn't use them. I'd take that as hint that they are worthless. To me I say we just let people bring knives on planes then *if* someone tries to blow up a plane the people will have a easy way to stop them. Knowing that a plane is full of armed and pissed of passengers would be a great deterrent.
Re: Pretty serious crime
I have to disagree with you. 30 months in prison for simply brining down a website for a while? How is that not excessive? The analog equivalent would be if someone took down a poster for a day and then put it back up. I really don't think anyone would actually care if someone did that. Should he be punished? Absolutely there is no excuse for a DDoS, it's just rude. I just don't think 30 months in jail fits his crime. A better use would be to force them to teach computer security classes.
If you are saying that a DDoS is an attack on free speech then, any site take down should be met with such force. Including ones that people don't like or think are offensive. This would also apply to ISPs and gov'ts messing with sites. If you are ok with that then, I would agree with you on the attack of free speech part.
Re: Self policing is a joke.
Yeah I don't want an independent group to monitor media content. Last time I checked I was perfectly able to judge and monitor content on my own. I don't need for someone to tell me I don't like something. I can figure that out all myself. The other crazy thing about TV and radio etc. is if I don't like what's on I can change it to something else.
Re: Re: And here comes Google:
That's the thing about Google Tv it would let you do that. Google Tv is really just a protocol.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where is the link to the story?
While I like that
South Carolina lost (I am a Clemson alumni) the premise of this is just stupid. The full implications of this are just amazing.
Re:
I like your plan. Even if they aren't done by email we can just get their names and accuse them 3 times. It should be fun
Re: obviously
I agree there are a few other articles on this and that is what they all allude too.
Re:
I am not a big fan of that method though. Ever since they did that the number of comments has been dramatically reduced. I think that method hurts more then it helps. I never saw that many "uncivil" comments.
Re: A nice rant, but...
Few things a good security scheme is secure with and without the manual. Take for example public key encryption. Where part of it is public. Even if you know part of it then you still can't crack the other part. If you have to depended on part of your "security" being secret then it really isn't secure. If you design your system in such a way that even if you know how it works it is still hard to break that is a good system. OpenSSL is another example open source implementation of SSL . Back on topic the TSA is all about "security theater" they want people to feel safe. They have no idea how to actually make the planes safer. Personally I say let it all be open. Just think what terrorist would be stupid enough to try and blow up a plane if they know everyone on the plane is armed? That tends to take the "fun" out of it.
Re:
That's the problem, what you think is pg13 may be R for me or vice versa. Hence the big problem with it all, there is really no universal decent/indecent code.
Re: Re: Re:
don't have to just have to accuse you 3 times and then you cant' do it anymore.
That's the problem
with transparaency, people can see what you are doing. For a a lot people that scares the crap out of them. The people with views outside of the mainstream (i.e the copyright extremists) know that if people knew what they really wanted they would never get it. So they resort to hiding behind secrecy.
Re:
You misunderstand no one has said that subscriptions weren't important. They just said that subscriptions do not alone generate enough money to support a newspaper. In other words if you took away all the money adds bring in and only look at the cost of the subscription the newspaper would go out business very quickly.
Read the Comments
in the Ars Technica article. They all say the same thing that everyone here is saying especially Mike. Also I do think it was good for Ars to publish this. They made it clear that it was an opinion and that he was legitimately trying to convince people (that he is completely wrong is another story).
Re: progress isn't in the eyes of the beholder
Are distractions and time wasters really bad? Taken to an extreme yes, but overall? I would argue no. Just look at TV I know there was a huge "OMG people will never leave there house " because of TV reaction. Just look at people today, with the advent of Facebook and things like that people are interacting with more people then ever. Besides how often do you "just need a break"? Some people just use Facebook etc, for that. (Just want to add in that I don't use Facebook because I think it's a huge stalker net)