Comment You were almost correct (Score 1) 694
It's not the that the subsidy is too low, it's that the subsidy for carbon based energy production is way too high.
It's not the that the subsidy is too low, it's that the subsidy for carbon based energy production is way too high.
You're new round here, aren't you?
I think you are pretty close.
I suggest that there is some limit on the length of time one can be an admin. Increase the size of the pool (still have screening), but decrease the time you can admin. There are lots of ways. Some sort of cycle - 6 months on, 6 months off - that sort of thing...
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Gee Ted, in your awful future, I would've be paying PER WORD.
Fuck you. You lost. Move on.
There is some truth to what you say, but I don't think this is publicity that the hive will mind.
They have been "hackers on steroids" for a long time now, and this just furthers their reputation as people not to mess with.
I doubt that anyone will do time for this - it's just simply to easy to be anon these days. The only members of the hive who have been caught are LOICers not proxying.
Regardless of all of that, this is still massive HBGary fail.
The emails are the gift that keeps giving, see wikileaks angle today.
Lets just score this:
Anonymous: No damage. No arrests, no lawsuits, no exposure of anyone that wasn't already in the open.
HBGary: Emails stolen. Websited pwnd. Crap security protocols exposed. Significant reputational damage. Corporate imaged tarnished (looking like fools will do that to you).
Summary: There IS such a thing as bad publicity.
Final Score:
Anonymous 5, HBGary, 0.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19548&cid=1878668
I wonder if this still works. Haven't tried it in decades.
Caldera or the real Santa Cruz?
SCO Group is not SCO, it is Caldera.
BRING BACK SIGNAL11
So, you resort to weak hypotheticals.
Just answer the question.
The US was right to kill the reuters journalists, and refuse to release the video?
And this makes Assange a bad guy?
So.... what you are saying is that the US was right to kill those Reuters journalists and refuse to release the video? And that Assange is the bad guy here. Cos, he
Assange has said, quite openly, that he has no problem paying leakers. He sees no reason why this should not happen, after all, they are the ones taking the risk.
Why should the people who are not taking any of the risks (newspapers) profit from them exclusively?
Wikileaks, Assange and all the staffers has costs like anyone else, as do the leakers themselves. The money has to come from somewhere, why shouldn't the newspapers pay?
[Assange] can act like a paranoid prick, yes, but there's a hell of a lot more Stallman in him than Zuckerberg.
Very good point.
I see a lot of similarities between Assange and Stallman. Both have a clear view of what freedom and liberty are, and what needs to be protected to preserve them, and are prepared to work hard at at, produce the tools required, and be the stubborn sons of bitches that they need to be to make sure it happens.
Assange and Stallman create software. Very good, very clever, very directed software, and use it to change the world.
but we have no proof the leak wouldn't have happened without Assange.
And we have no proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist either.
But, I digress.
Assange is many things, but mostly a genius.
He/they created a system (go and check out the Wikileaks mailing list that John Young leaked on Cryptome: http://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm) that allowed people to anonymously upload secret information.
Anonymously.
That is, no-one at Wikileaks has any first hand knowledge of who provided the leak.
So, the evidence is that no-one leaked information on this scale prior to Wikileaks.
And no-one has leaked information on this scale to anyone else since Wikileaks.
The only reasonable inference is that the information was leaked because of Wikileaks, and very unlikely that it would have been leaked without it.
Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.
