Asinine.

The cost of "recovering" from the DoS attack by LOIC is zero.

Let me repeat that cost. The cost they necessarily incurred in FIXING the site from this attack is zero.

There is absolutely a justification for charging him for the cost of business loss for 15 minutes, and the cost for incident responses, which should be minimal. Even at standard incident response consulting rates for good quality infosec people, you're at $10,000 per week. I'm shocked they spent 19 weeks "fixing" this issue, at those high incident-response rates. I've responded to this sort of thing before and the customer had a comprehensive report and detailed findings for under $15k much of the time.

The cost of "fixing" the site so that it was less vulnerable to LOIC is absurd. Even in court, if you break a window, you are liable to replace A WINDOW. You are not liable to replace the window with steel, or with crystal, or refurbishing the whole building to move the windows around.

Say what? Do you feel oppressed?

I'm a security consultant. I've responded to DoS attacks before, even for some large companies that you have heard of. I've never charged $183,000 to do it. The problem isolation, log correlation and report creation takes 2-4 weeks total. Nobody in their right mind charges more than about $10,000 per week for this work.

They got fleeced and some guy had to pay for it.

It's a bit like someone throwing a brick through the display window and then being found liable for the cost of a business doing a complete engineering survey and environmental impact analysis for the entire manufacturing plant.

Oh, you're falling into the Austrian Economics trap of thinking of everything as a rational system.

People aren't rational. People who are violating the law especially aren't rational.

There is ample statistics that show increases in penalties do not have a linear impact on crime on any macro scale and in many cases, increases in punishment result in no net increase in compliance.

They do, however, from a utilitarian view, impact the overall good generated by the justice system.

Therefore increasing penalties shows a diminishing return (and a rather rapid one, in my view).

I view a 1 minute DoS attack as roughly akin to orchestrating one minute of blocking the entrance to a store (or maybe multiple stores). Such an act, while punishable by a trespassing fine, probably on the order of $100-$500, the "online" equivalent of $183,000 and two years probation does not match the act, especially when he was one of only several thousand people doing the same thing.

There are a few countries in the 1960s and 1970s that adopted the policy that there is no social justification for "making an example" of someone, and that the purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation and fair application of rules, rather than vindictive retribution, catharsis for victims, or the attempt to squash crime through draconian punishments.

Those countries (Norway, Denmark, Korea, New Zealand) stand in contrast to those countries who adopted a policy of "tough on crime" during the same period (the US, Britain, France). Looking back, the crime rates in these countries diverged, and today we find those countries with liberal justice systems having seen their crime rate drop much faster than those with draconian justice policy.

Sure, this is anecdote, but I don't buy vengance or harsh deterrence as justified reasons for rolling out the stocks on the few people who are caught at a relatively rare crime.

Actually, the *location* of the capital of Sweden is 59.3294 N, 18.0686 E.

The capital is most definitely Stockholm.

Wait.

"two millenia ago, some guy once wrote..."

that's evidence?

LOL

EVOLUTION HAS EVIDENCE.

There is no other theory that does.

Unless you also want me to teach your children that science might also accept that Vishnu created the universe in his battle with the evil Brahama and that we might also accept that the Giant Tortoise of the south pacific spawned us from one of his eggs, all having roughly the same probability.

If you claim "creation science" as science, I claim that Zeus lives on Mt Olympus, but he is merely invisible to non-believers.

Clearly. Prove that he is not. Prove it!

Hah. Old thread, needs brief response.

I have no proof, nor does anyone else, as to whether a "creator" exists.

I do, however, have ample and sufficient reason to believe that if such a creator exists, he has no influence on the daily operation and events that unfold on Earth, or throughout the Universe, and no reason to think otherwise.

If you wish to believe that the Universe spawned from a loving creator, more power to you. However, the Universe *IS* 14.6 billion years old, the early *IS* 4.6 billion years old and life *DID* evolve from single-cellular organisms. I state this, scientifically, with what I regard as ample evidence. That is to say that it is sufficiently improbable that it is not true, that I can safely discount the tiny probability that it is not.

  Unless, of course, you believe in the "trickster god" theory that he created everything only to APPEAR old, simply to deceive us. If so, more power to you, go away and don't claim it as science.

Theory: The universe may have had a beginning at some point
Postulate: If it began at a single point, it would be expanding
Test: View distant objects and calculate their trajectory
Result: Distant objects are moving away from us
Conclusion: The universe is expanding.
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Postulate: If the universe is expanding, there must have been a point at which it was very small
Test: Run simulations on expanding universe with existing theory of particle physics
Result: Simulation strongly agrees with existing observations of background radiation
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Conclusion: The universe appears to have come from a single point
Postulate: This means it must have a set age
Test: Measure speed of expansion, age of stars, distribution of matter to determine absolute age.
Result: Many measurements seem to agree on a time period for the age of the universe
Conclusion: The universe has an age we can calculate (approx 14.6 billion years)
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Theory: The earth is the center of the Solar System
Postulate: Everything rotates around the earth
Test: Calculate orbital trajectories to determine a consistent pattern of orbit
Result: Postulate does not match calculations or observations
Conclusion: The Earth is probably NOT the center of the solar system
Creationist Conclusion: Someone mistranslated the bible when it said that.

Theory: Dino fossils are old
Postulate: Measuring the age of things can be done with radiometric dating.
Test: Measure the amount of Argon-40 in rocks found very near fossils and calculate relative decay of Potassium-40 over the 1.2 billion year half-life.
Result: The amount of Argon-40 (which can only appear in-situ within rocks due to radioactive decay of Argon-40) consistently reveals an age of 35-2 billion years. Rocks found near fossils are frequently (more than 95% of the time) dated consistently with the particular rock layer they are found in and contain consistent specimens.
Conclusion: Fossils were laid down in a consistent way at dates consistent with them having various ages between 35 and 2 billion years
Young Earth Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way

Theory: Jesus was the son of God
Test: .....
Result: ?!
Scientific Conclusion: !?
Christian Conclusion: Jesus is the son of God

Theory: God created the earth in 7 days
Postulate: My God is and Awesome God!!!
Test: ... only 7?
Result: It was good.
Creationist Conclusion: God did it!!!!!
Scientific Conclusion: what?

Theory: The nature of the beginning of the universe is unknowable
Test: ?
Scientific Conclusion: We don't know, for sure
Creationist Conclusion: I have all the answers, it's in this old book.

Cars today are much better than they were in 1990 when they developed this system.

3-star ratings weren't uncommon back then.

http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/1990-2010+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=3098

There are still some cars that get 4-stars, but this particular model (RAV4) got several 4-star ratings, prompting newspaper articles about "failing" safety tests. People clearly expect perfect security and safety all the time at all costs. (See: Patriot Act)

http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-Detail?vehicleId=8143

Lots of cars ship with air suspension. Audi, Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes and others have shipped this.

I suspect the NTSB tests them in "worst case" configuration.

Considering the Tesla has similar air suspension to the Audi design, it's probably a solved problem that you're frothing about for no reason.

LOL.

+1 hillarious

The firewalling in the Model S is superb. The odds of a fire killing someone are extremely low because the batteries are surrounded by heat shields that will give someone 10-15 minutes to escape before they are actually burned.

I suspect that no fire deaths will ever occur in a Tesla (except, perhaps someone who is already unconscious from striking at tree at 100mph, or similar).

The CoG on the Tesla is already so low that the NTSB had to resort to "extreme measures" (using a ramp for one wheel) to even convince the car to roll during safety testing.

There are not too many non-racecars (Porche, Ferrari, etc) that have to have this measure taken.

There is very little risk of rolling a Model S.

That would be "HIGH END" luxury cars (Over $80k), FYI.