True, but different for your OP. However, to go with this thread, would you have supported a restaurant that denied service to 'colored' people 50 years ago? The restaurant refused to serve a group of people and they got picketed so that 'decent' folk couldn't use it, or it made it slightly more difficult to get in, would you be against the picketers? The restaurant was perfectly within their legal rights at the time to deny service, and may have been legally obligated to do so. Hell, the owner really, really wanted to serve them but didn't want to put up with it

To be clear I do not support the actions of the DDoSer's(my response was to email and call Amazon and VISA and let them know I would not be using them for my XMas shopping because of their action) but there is a group out there that is angry and frustrated and doesn't know what to do. This is their way of replying back to the attacks against open information with a statement of "Censorship, for what ever reason, will not stand. You were so afraid of real 'merican's not using you that you took the easy way out. This is the penalty for not standing with an open society"

Is it childish, Yes. Is it effective, No, and judging from NPRs lazy, and standard, fact check free, coverage it was counter productive since they associate 'supporters' of wikileaks and, by Ad Hitlerorum reasoning, wikileaks itself with people trying to harm business and there for America. But what other avenue is there?

Why didn't the DOJ/FBI issue the take down notices to the original, attacker/coverage of the attacker, as they supposedly did to those covering the response? If the original attack had never happened then there would have been no need to turn to Amazon in the first place.

I am sure at this point we have all been assaulted with the calls for assassination of Assange, the evil of letting the US 'secrets' out, really, the full on blitz of US media about how evil free information is. The problem and the frustration that many people have with this is the hypocrisy that is carried out in our name. If you substitute N. Korea or China for USA in the documents and related news articles, how many calls do you think there would be from US press that what was being done was wrong? I bet Kristol, Coulter, Liz Cheney and the Washington Post editorial team would be calling for invading what ever country it was because, "Well they said rude things and are trying to stifle a free press."

Instead we get a media, hungry for access and a little PO'd the leakier didn't trust them with information, clamoring for more press censorship.

With the self-proclaimed government watch dog, the fourth estate, doing the dirty work of the government. Is it any wonder a frustrated people are resorting to whatever means they really know in a cyber age to say(in a counter productive and ineffective way) "Not in my name?

How is this any different than the attacks against Wikileaks to begin with? Someone or some government didn't like that Wikileaks(and many well know newspapers) were reporting that a US Ambassador said someone was rude or that US diplomatic people are asked to spy, so they took Wikikleaks down. Are the DDoS just a cruder version of what ICE did last week when they seized domain names, without a conviction, from people who were linking to places to buy fake coach bags?

Really what it comes down to is the question of why is it OK for a Government to shutdown someones access because

but not OK for individuals to do the same thing?

Yeah and I bet your post will be modded down because everyone here is a commie librul! Wake up LAMESTREAM media. Do you think Clinton would have been censured or Spitzer forced to resign if they were not Republicans? How about all those Democrats like Sanford, Ensign and Vitter who were given a pass on their sex scandal and remained in office?

Don't even get me started on the last Democratic administration in the White House! Between the illegal wiretaps on US Citizens, the erosion of civil liberties, starting two wars where hundreds of thousand innocent civilians died, a treasury secretary and democratic appointed fed chair Bernanke telling BoA to lie on their SEC filings to cover financial issues did the LAMESTREAM media cover any of this in detail? No, they just glossed over it and used their media empire controlled by the nefarious liberal Rupert Murdoch to change the public discourse on seriously illegal stuff. The democratic VP at the time, Dick Cheney, even leaked classified documents containing the name of a current undercover operative to the press and then lied to congress! A republican Bill Clinton was censured for lying about a BJ but a leak of classified information that put a undercover operative at risk(more people than the pentagon says has been hurt by the wikileaks information) and nothing happens to them! The Democratic president at the time, George Bush, is even going bragging that he committed war crimes without any calls from the press that action be taken against him. You can be if it were a Republican in charge then they would have been impeached if not sent to the Hague.

You even have the librul media repeating false claim by democrats that giving money to really, really rich people who won't spend it is better for the economy than giving it to poor people who will immediately spend every penny(because, well, poor and things like food, rent and heating costs money that they do not have to spend.) I bet if it was republicans making those claims they would be laughed at by every media organization.

And don't get me started on the Bircher's/Tea Party advocates in the democratic party and their queen Sarah. You can bet if they were a fringe of the Republicans and not Democrats they would be scorned as unserous and a little dumb rather than celebrated by the libruls at Fox News.

The media is totally biased against Republicans!!!!!


P.S. You’re an idiot.


P.P.S. The problem isn’t Republican vs Democrat for media interference, the problem is those in power vs the rest of us. Favorable stories give the reporters access and “credibility” with the people they cover. Write a bad story and you can be black balled and see major obstacles for your career. What seems to make it worse is that it doesn’t matter who is in power the media will uncritically report whatever they are told and rather than fact check you get an equally biased and BS sound bite from the “other” side to give the appearance of balance. Republicans win, Democrats win and we the Citizens get screwed.

It's a good thing people never use the same passwords in different domains for their own accounts let alone any group accounts. Oh wait people DO.

In this case I am willing to bet they are NOT administered by the same group and since most of the UIDs DON'T look like anything other than test id's the risk is minimal, but the risk would be even less had the site not had the vulnerability.

More importantly, the real story ISN'T about how there was a massive military security lapse and now we are all going to die. The real story is that IT may be slightly embarrassing that a military website was taken down due to an SQL injection and the story helps TO remind all of us that we really SHOULD try to harden our code to these attempts.

P.S. I like you're IDEA of randomly bolding things. IT maY not make your post any clearer BUT it makes it more FUN to wRITe.

When I went through the atl. Airport in aug, the tsa guy tried his hardest to get me to go through the scanner after I opted out. He andhis buddy questiond my sexuality, told me it was incredibly invasive, questioned sexuality again.

In the end the tsa guy was so uncomfortable he only went mid-way up the thigh. Make it more invasive for tsa? Yeah, that's a good idea.

I don't get it. If you have no moral problem with stem cell research than your opposition is to what exactly? More effective treatment for Alzheimer's? Possibly allowing a cripple to walk? Better treatments for cancer?

Would you rather all work be paid for and patented by large organizations who will then control who gets to benefit? "Sorry Mrs. Jones little Johnny's is most likely going to die of Leukemia. Yes there are some incredibly promising and successful gene therapies but you can't afford the price that Merck set for the treatment. No, no the actual treatment isn't that expensive but its like HIV drugs, big farma owns the patent and even though the marginal cost is low they get to set the price. Well yes insurance would have covered it but you don't have any, maybe you should have accepted the job as a corporate officer rather than a hotel maid."

I apologize for taking the argument to an extreme, but this person claims not to have a moral issue with the research (a position I can at least respect if not agree with,) rather they seem to have high school civics level view of the world that says the US federal government should not pay for anything. It's not like this is research for a malarial drug that will primary help poor black and brown people, this is research that has the potential to save the life of someone the poster knows and loves(even if it is themselves.)

What makes it so much worse is that since now being a Tea-Tard is acceptable and so many people agree with the bind mantra of no government spending this somehow got modded insightful.

I thought that the White House National Security Adviser was going around saying that the documents ended in December of 2009 before the surge, and now were winning.

If the documents ended in Dec of 2009 that would mean almost a years worth of documents while Obama was President.

It seems like this scheme would require all the passwords to be either stored as plain text or with the same salt in the hash function.

Wouldn't it make all user passwords more vulnerable if the database was leaked?

Didn't Jesus preach love thy brother?

The confusion you have may be the result of the two categories, Christian and Conservative, not being mutually exclusive and often portrayed as being highly correlated. I personally know far more self-identified Christians who believe that someones sexual orientation is a private matter and none of their business. It seems that it is only the self-identified conservative wingnut that get bent out of shape that we allow gay people to be members of society.

So, in my experience, railing against gay people is a Conservative thing not a Christian one.

ABS News has another article about the incident:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0410/726170.html

You are may be correct in stating that they choose to work in those conditions. And although the conditions may be abhorrent to a citizen of a developed western country it may be the norm in China.

That doesn't mean I am comfortable with supporting those practices.

When people go off about 'what the market will bear' they seem to only factor in the financial cost of producing an individual widget and not the cost of Goodwill, Public Perception etc. that also factors in.

Look at the apartheid boycott's. Damage to companies based on their labor practices was very real and help bring about social change within a country. Even though the practice was the norm in the region.