Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: How on earth did you get that result? (Score 5, Insightful) 495

by SplatMan_DK (#47363091) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains

I don't know where you went to school, but you should ask for a refund. Or read up on basic percentage calculations.

Microsoft claims that 93% of the malware traffic is traced to No-IP. But that says nothing about the total amount of traffic for No-IP, nor does it say anything about the total volume of legitimate domains. Malware traffic could be as little as 1% on No-IP's infrastructure while still accounting for 93% of malware DDNS traffic.

It is completely wrong to state that 93% of No-IP domains are hosting malware. A large number of legitimate customers are being affected by this, and Microsoft is not resolving their DDNS domains correctly (as promised). The actual percentage of legitimate vs malicious domains is unknown, as is the distribution of legit/malicious traffic.

Also, Microsofts claims are disputed by No-IP, so we should not take them at face value. No real evidence of malice has been proven (yet), which makes it extremely questionable that this was conducted ex parte.

Finally, the fact that No-IP was a favorite for malware is not (or should not be) in itself sufficient to take control of the domains like this. I sincerely hope Microsoft can prove No-IP did not respond properly to requests. Or that they can document that an extremely large portion of total traffic on No-IP was malware (which we know nothing about at this point).

Simply quoting the 93% number is a pile of BS. I can't stand by itself. I can say with certainty that at least 93% of the Nigerian scam mail I have received the last year has used a hotmail.com or outlook.com account. But surely this does not prove that Microsoft is willingly aiding Nigerian scammers and that their domains should be seized?

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47084185) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

The world + dog is already trying to cut their funding?

And no, I will not compare the situation to the civil wars in Lybia and Syria. Regimes their were as bad as Saddam, and their atrocities are much greater than the moderate/secular freedom forces. Granted, there are religious fanatics fighting as well (and fortunately among them selves too) but that is to be expected in ANY civil war zone, and they are certainly not being funded by western governments.

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47082747) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

Yes that seemed an interesting read. Completely unbiased, with no specific agenda but the truth. Right?

Too bad there isn't a "livingunderterroristimposrdsharia.org" website, but there is nobody to make it since the population living under such conditions are robbed of their resources, denied education, denied free speech, and routinely abused. ;-)

I am not saying drones are great, but stop fighting terrorist fanatics is not a solution either. Not by a long shot.

Provide some examples of realistic alternatives. Then we'll talk!

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47080513) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

Why wouldn't I be real?

There is no evidence to support the notion that collateral damage (while unfortunate and very problematic in many areas) causes significant rise in terrorists abilities to recruit new subjects. They are able to do that "perfectly fine" anyway. Losing a child or a nephew does not make a peasant suddenly long for harsh Sharia-rule.

The argument is mostly put forth by critics who have no more than Hollywood movies as "evidence" to back it up.

I will take the word of a military intelligence analyst over that ... any day and twice on Sunday.

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47072663) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

Unlimited manpower?

Are you aware that civilian populations in areas controlled by these groups wish for more western intervention - not less? Their girls are being raped and kept from getting an education. Their boys are killed or recruited into armies of fanatics. They are forced into a rule of Sharia for which they have no desire. They are forced into paying tribute to the groups for "protection"; while being systematically abused by them.

The civilian population does not see these groups as any kind of "salvation" and no, they are not flocking to the local terrorist recruitment center when their nephew is killed by a drone strike. They curse these religious fanatics as much as we do, the recognize that the nephew died because of the fanatics presence, and they prey the US will continue to fight, because for them the alternative (ie. permanently being under the control of religious fanatics) is so far far worse for them.

Comment: Re:Yes (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47072647) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

It seems to me that while you claim I am not thinking as "a religious/political/get-out-of-our-country fanatic" you are at the same time trying to apply common sense to their way of thinking. And I believe you have a thoroughly misguided understanding of their rationale for being as fanatic as they are.

See, they don't believe that America is "the Great Satan" because their leaders are killed. No, the US is "the Great Satan" because girls can go to school and get an education, girls can marry whom they please, rape is illegal, stoning is illegal, and alcohol is served in public places.

Even if nobody killed their leaders they would still see the US as "the Great Satan" and continue their holy war - now better organized and with better leaders. Not because of Drone Strikes, but because their twisted minds honestly believe we should all die for sending our girls to school and allowing them to choose their husband for themselves.

Seriously. They are so far beyond any kind of rational thinking that the only alternative to fighting them is winning once and for all!

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47072619) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

This is an interesting philosophical dilemma discussed for thousands of years.

If you ask a true consequentialist then the answer might be n-1; where n is the number of people saved.

If you ask a parent then the answer will often be n - [own_children] .

If you ask a pacifist the answer will be 0 ... hence the scarcity of pacifists.

Your question cannot be answered without establishing further parameters for he discussion. Such as "is the preservation of society worth paying lives for".

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47072607) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

It is not only done to protect Americans in the US. It is also done to increase the chance that the affected countries can build and grow a healthier population and economy. The best way to do that is through education - which incidentally the extremists groups oppose.

So yes, things could be way worse. If you stop fighting these groups, so they no longer has the US as their enemy, they will turn their attention back to the local population in a bid to impose Sharia upon them. They will force children out of school and establish rules and a society which will over time will significantly decrease the life quality of millions. And it will get worse and grow more terrorists, because a rule of Sharia governed by fanatics only has one outcome: An army of fanatics large enough to wipe out the "unbelievers".

There is no alternative to fighting them; except perhaps winning once and for all.

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47072593) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

Best recruiting strategy?

Aaaaah, don't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. I think you've seen too many Hollywood movies. It may help these groups on some levels, but the civilian population who gets tyrannized by religious fanatics imposing Sharia upon them seldom see them as any kind of "salvation". If the death of an innocent civilian in a drone strike can "recruite" someone, then they were already lost.

These people are so fanatic they justify murder and rape of 6-8 year old children, while murdering and mutilating any other civilian who stands in their way.

The normal population in areas terrorized by these groups often wish for increased western intervention - not the opposite. For very very obvious reasons.

Comment: Re:Correlation vs correlation (Score 1) 433

by SplatMan_DK (#47072577) Attached to: U.S. Drone Attack Strategy Against Al-Qaeda May Be Wrong

Actually that is completely wrong. They may use "the Great satan USA" as justification now, but trust me, if the US withdrew and ruined that somehow, they would just find some other way of justifying what they do.

You're talking about religious fanatics but you are trying to apply common-sense-thinking into the equation. That makes no sense at all.

Religious fanatics spawn all over the globe, with and without the help of the US. And in areas where US influence is sparse or absent they happily use other excuses for their behavior.

Stop applying any kind of common-sense to these peoples reasoning. They're so fanatic and moronic they are justifying the murder and rape of 6-8 year old girls for crying out loud; as well as slaughtering and mutilating innocent civilians along the way.

Most civilian population in areas hit by extremist morons actually wish for increased western intervention - not the opposite!

Comment: Re:Summary not entirely accurate. (Score 1) 106

Fine. The streaming client is available for Linux, and is officially supported on their own Linux distro. The streaming server is "planned" for non-windows platforms but is not available yet.

Be negative about it if you must. But from a business-perspective it makes perfect sense to make things in the order they did. And you know it.

Comment: Re:Next to the TV (Score 1) 106

by SplatMan_DK (#47065091) Attached to: Valve In-Home Game Streaming Supports Windows, OS X & Linux

This would require working video decoding equipment for DRM protected content in an open architecture (PC) on an open operating system (Linux).

In other words: Won't happen; sadly.

They (Valve) could have included a DVD player and DLNA player though. I am quite surprised they didn't.

Comment: Re:Summary not entirely accurate. (Score 1) 106

by SplatMan_DK (#47064995) Attached to: Valve In-Home Game Streaming Supports Windows, OS X & Linux

What are you talking about?

The streaming functionality is obviously more interesting when a windows-host is involved, so one can stream a Windows-game to a Linux box (for example running SteamOS on a NUC), but Steam itself works perfectly fine on Linux as does a number of games.

What "trick" are you talking about?

Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing. -- Roy L. Ash, ex-president, Litton Industries

Working...