It appears that a Russia based cybercrime team has set its sights on offering a new banking Trojan targeting the Linux operating system. This appears to be a commercial operation, which includes support/sales agents and software developer(s). It has an anti-research tool box, which includes anti VM, anti-sandbox and anti-debugger features.

The Trojan’s developer claims it has been tested on 15 different Linux desktop distributions, including Ubuntu, Fedora, and Debian. As for desktop environments, the malware supports 8 different desktop environments, including Gnome and KDE.

With recent recommendations to leave the supposedly insecure Windows OS for the safer Linux distributions, does Hand of Thief represent the early signs of Linux becoming less secure as cybercrime migrates to the platform?

My rebuttal will come once I sober up. I honestly did not expect a reply and you have proven that my assessment of you as a shill or Jones fan was in fact incorrect. Kudos. I have skimmed through your response and see that I have some homework ahead of me. The shitty thing with politics is that despite having opposing views, we are both likely as right as each other.

I base the ~$900 figure off the current (not original) charges and a sighted copy of all transactions. After the cited interview, many charges were dropped, and some added.

This is a great reference

I would like to apologize for previously calling you a paid shill. I now realize my error. Nobody would pay you for this shit.

Telstra was more than willing to negotiate as is evidenced by their submissions to the RFP 2007/09. Telstra was embroiled in a pre-existing matter of open-access with the ACCC. Telstra's submission was excluded as it was purely based on Telstra winning the battle against the ACCC which Labor could see just wasn't going to happen. On top of this, the Howard Government (Liberal) attacked Labor's FttN plan claiming it wasn't viable due to the ageing copper. The whole process involving public funding, private funding, regulators and politics of the worst kind made Labor realize that, if they are going to pull this off, they need to go all out and do the thing themselves. Telstra did have a lot to do with this but are far from the 'only' reason why Labor updated their plan. We already had access to Telstra's last mile needed by the FttN and they couldn't do dick to stop it. We are no longer dependent on Telstra.

Fibre has been around long before Google - as has gigabit fibre. Labor highly underestimated the demand for bandwidth, originally looking for a way to get Australians off the typical (upto) 8/1 Mbps ADSL and on to something that resembles current LANs. During public consultation (something LNP have yet to do), Australian techies (your typical Slashdot, Delimiter or Whirlpool reader) kept asking about Gigabit services, pointing out that it would use the exact same infrastructure. It took some time but Labor found a way to be able to offer it and keep the existing pricing. Most people don't (yet) care, but for Australia's forward-thinking technologists, this is a big win

Predicted by who? You? NBNCo's own corprate plan shows in Exhibit 2.12 that downstream trends from 1985 - 2012 extrapolated to 2025 that demand for and reliance on gigabit services and beyond are more than likely. It is available and it cost us nothing ectra to have it made available.

You, sir, have obviously never written a business plan. Conservatism is the name of the game. You plan for worst case. What we are seeing is that, as of Feb 2013, 41% have opted for the fastest available 100/40 plans and 11% have opted for the entry level 12/1

Our NBN is a project that has been planned, approved and started. We could spend another year, 5 years, 10 years, 50 years fine-tuning the project. Sure, it isn't perfect, but let us just finish it. Simon Hackett is a great man. I use his former ISP Internode whenever possible. He understands technology, he understands networks, he understands users. He does not, however, understand politics. A project as big as this isn't as simple as 'sign this piece of paper and we'll break ground tomorrow'. There is a lot of wheelin' 'n dealin' back-room politics. The unions want something, the greenies want something, the Indigenous want something, the media want something. On top of all this, Hackett is part of the G9, the very same consortium who don't want this NBN because it kills their entire business plan. The very same consortium that wanted to build out a privately-owned NBN and lock out competition.

Again, where do you get your number from - 2GB? Telstra's ARPU for FY2010 was $56.15. This is for fixed broadband services such as ADSL and ADSL2. Telstra DSL subscribers have an average peak of 9 Mbps according to speedtest.net. The NBN expects that these customers would be willing to spend more, perhaps even up to double, for speeds in excess of 10 or 100 times what is currently available. A fair assumption, especially once you consider trends and overseas adoption.

headasplode.jpeg.
Firstly, the monthly charge will also apply in addition to the $3,000 installation. Secondly, I would love to pay $150/month for 1Gbps. I would actually pay more like $300 plus. I am currently paying $149.99/mo for (up to) 8000/1200 Annex M, twice. That is $300 a month just to stream SD CCTV off-site (and lots of surfing). Lastly, I can pay ~$3,000 now to get fibre installed. This ~$3,000 figure is for those who live within 500m of a node. This will be approximately 40% of the population, much less if you consider Greenfields estates. Another 30% will be in the 500m to 900m mark (The limit of VDSL with vectoring). This will cost them from ~$3,000 for 500m to ~$4,500 for 900m. Those who can't get VDSL due to distance will likely be stuck paying $5k plus. Additionally, every single time somebody upgrades to fibre, part of the road and driveway will need to be dug up. Sure it also needs to be with FttH, but doing it all at once lets you save with economies of scale.

Did you really just say that? How is this FttP network with 1:1 100/40 Mbps (later 1000/250) slower than HFC's 'up to' shared 100/8, 4G's 'up to' shared theoretical 60/1, or FttN's unproven 'up to' 25/5 (later 50/5 and for some 100/5)? ADSL2+ has a maximum theoretical speed of 25Mbps (24Mbps in Australia). A tiny proportion of the population achieve consistent sync speeds anywhere near that. Most fall within the 5 - 10 Mbps downstream and very few achieve even 1Mbps upstream without Annex M.

I suggest you spend a bit more time studying the policies.

In an attempt to avoid name-calling, I am going to walk around the block, calm down, and then come back and refute every single claim you have just made.

I don't know why I am wasting my breathe on such an obvious paid shill (or worse still, an Alan Jones follower). Hopefully I can translate the above copypasta for everybody else.

The Craig Thomson case is far from over and it is more than likely that he will prevail in court. Craig Thomson was arrested in NSW by Victorian Police on credit card fraud charges. These charges total a little over $900 AUD and Craig was authorized for up to $50,000 per annum in work-related and incidentals.

Expensive meals refers to the time he met with a journalist over lunch for purely work-related reasons. From memory, the bill was ~$55. The 'prostitutes' he supposedly bought with credit card was misreported after another publication printed 'pornographic movies'. Comically, the original publication also misreported as the movie in question was an R-rated action flick watched in his hotel room while staying for official business. The biggest stretch comes from 'Holidays Interstate'. This actually means he bought a soft-serve icecream to have on camera.

Scot MacDonald was a Liberal MP. As for NSW Labor corruption, at least the party is focused on cleaning it up. Two gone already. Eddie's little empire stretched much further than ALP though, most his mates are Libs. No Liberal Corruption, eh?

Disclosure: I am not an ALP, Liberal or National member. I do not intend to give my first preference vote to any of these parties. I have previously been a Young Liberal.

I agree that the choice of government is binary - Liberal or Labor. By voting for minor parties, we can achieve a few things. Firstly, we can signal to the other parties that we, the voters, are not completely happy with them. Secondly, we could again force a minority government which will help prevent a further shift to the right. Lastly, your first preference vote will help fund the campaign for that minor party*.

That is right. Each First Preference vote is worth $2.49* .

* = If that minor party achieves 4% or more of votes in any division.

That is just the Senate ballot. The House of Representatives ballot isn't that impressive. Look at Sydney:

Australian Labor Party (Centre Right)
Liberal Party (Right)
Greens (Left)
Citizens Electoral Council (Far Right Fascist)
Palmer United Australia (Right)
Socialist Alliance (Left)
Christian Democratic Party (Right)

No independents. No candidates for truly transformative parties like Pirate Party (Left) and Wikileaks Party (Left). ALP, LP, PUA, and CDP all run the same platform, the Greens are too detached from reality, uncompromising, and unsupportive of incremental improvements, and SA, well, we've seen nothing from them except the 'Free Assange' campaign. Choice? No candidate represents what I want.