"May be responsible"???? What happened to the FBI and their concrete "sources can't be reveled" proof?

This tells a lot about what was first reported and how the actual claim of it being North Korea was fabricated. Most interesting is the line "Among the more than 11,000 newly-released files are hundreds of employee usernames and passwords as well as RSA SecurID tokens and certificates belonging to Sony". Ahhhh yea I'm going to say North Korea wasn't involved in the least in this......... Former employee(s) seem about a million times more likely.

Add to it that Sony is NOT an American company, that the scripts used had HARD CODED passwords and network routes in it, plus the amount of people Sony laid off this year. The whole thing is utter bullshit and the FBI latched on to it for some reason, most likely PR or to use it as an excuse to stomp on US citizens rights. I can't believe on so many tech site that have people that have knowledge of networks and security you still have people that believe the whole thing and investigate it very little.


Now we have douche bags like Bruce Schneier and Kevin Mitnick saying that the technology doesn't exist to stop these attacks. The author of Applied Cryptography first main point is that they shouldn't have made racist comments about President Obama or insulted its starsor (what ever the fuck that means)???? WTF???? How is that even part of the story of a so call security expert talking on the attacks? Gee wouldn't the first logical conclusion be that if they used simple encryption on their emails then even if stolen the attackers would have found the email files useless?


I'm sorry, I'm sick of the "experts" insulting our intelligence with stupid comments that are pretty easy to see as nonsensical. The are either paid shills or make comments like those to keep their business revenue flowing.

1/2 a dash of PR


1/2 a dash of bullshit (fresh)


Two sprigs of the Smith Mundut act repeal


1 whole FUD, chopped


1 government w/control issues


Mix ingredients in a large water cammode briskly then flush on to American public

He probably doesn't want to disturb all that deep under water methane!

Comments here have restored some faith in slashdot commenters to me slightly. I was always baffled when the so called tech savoy community was "all in" on climate change with all the information that is at their finger tips on the internet and articles like this resulted in trying to shout out people with the claims of "deniers, deniers, deniers!!!"

Why not wrap it up in the BS that is Net neutrality and then they can let the government be their lapdogs footing the bill to find "copyright infringement" like they always have?

When has yahoo mail ever really been secure? Every couple of years it "Yahoo mail has a security hole because of (insert issue here)".

Quick, give this guy a huge grant and don't ask any more questions!!!

I think half the time it's the "I am not going to admit I was fooled" crowd that has to stick to the lies they have been fed. To admit otherwise means they might be full of shit. You can tell them all the facts and how numbers were manipulated, how temps were hen pecked to show warming, how no warming has happened in 15 years, how the guy Al Gore called his "mentor" on climate change actually admitted that green house gases effects have been massively overstated and how the amount of money spent has been wasteful and would be way better spent elsewhere. You tell them that and the only thing they can come up with is "You are a denier!" like that is a actual valid rebuttal. When you have to change the name of what you believe because the actual name is a action that isn't happening, I think you seriously need to look in to what you believe and the actual facts of the matter. None of the "believers" what to do that because their biggest fears might come true, that they have been duped and are completely wrong.

Sorry, but while the preservation of land is about the environment, it is not about the climate. Just like the whole weather is not the climate bullshit passed off as fact one time, then when it's supporting climate change, it's fact the other way. So you can't claim all is about one. But that same token I could go as far to say that buffalo, just like is claimed like cattle, put off CO2 so they have contributed to green house gases. I don't want to see any species extinct but to claim that was all in the name of climate change is complete and utter bull. If anything climate change has done more harm to the setting aside of lands and protecting animals since it is in direct competition for funds with each other, and "climate change" is raking in the money quite more massively then producing parks and protecting wildlife. Hell, hunting has done more in the way of funds to protect species and insure proper management then any climate group around. Add to that all the holes in so called "facts" from groups like the IPCC and you'd have to either be a idiot or obtuse on purpose not to see the scam for cash that the whole thing has become.

Step one: get person to "hack" the white house network
Step two: Claim "It's Russia!"
Step Three: Stir up media reports about "How safe is the internet really" and "Do we need the government to police the internet?"
Step four: Put in place controls that cripple the internet, spies on all Americans, and causes more laws to be written that stomp of the rights of Americans.


Yeah they can track down who is illegally downloading the latest Bastille album but they have these loose "links" to Russia that they claim if "fact!" it is them.


Couldn't be THIS could it?????

At 200 miles a day, a tesla would not be a good choice unless you like a added level of stress in your day. I know what the number and stats are for range, but those are akin to the MPG ratings on gas vehicles. If you are in the perfect environment where access to charging isn't an issue, you'd be ok, but that's few and far between in most parts of the country. Add in cold/heat effects on range to the equation too. With the price of teslas right now, if you spent that then ended up being stressed about range issues, I am pretty certain it would be the last tesla you would buy. And for that matter, who would spend this much on a car and be doing their own maintenance on it? Not many. I think the maintenance argument is weak at best. If you do regular oil changes (3000 to 5000 miles, maybe more depending on car and driving style) and don't drive a vehicle in to the ground so to speak (never clean it, never maintain it, drive it like you stole it) non-regular maintenance would be pretty much the same between the two. Plus tesla's main argument for not having private owned dealers is that the cars are "too technically advanced" for private dealerships to work on. Does that mean I would have to send my car to California to have issue serviced? I am sure they have some awesome service program that takes good care of the owners in these events, but I am also pretty certain that this is more about control then it is it being "too advanced". I'd say the Volt, Leaf and others have as much or even more technology and dealers can work on them just fine.

I thought "WTF who modded a serious question as a troll"? Then saw yours modded -1 troll and realize what this site was and what made it great has faded in to the blur of the internet. Now mod this "troll" hacks!

This is on slash dot why exactly?