Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 2) 718

by Xest (#48633327) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

You don't question the science by simply asking arbitrary nonsensical questions or pushing long debunked theories though. You have to actually do science and come up with some results that bring into question the pre-existing science.

If you believe your college taught you that you can defeat an established scientific theory by repeatedly asking arbitrary questions about it then you either weren't listening or your college was shit and you need a refund.

I know it's hard, I know it means that to question the science means you'd have to actually put some effort into investigating it to come up with a question that actually has some merit to it rather than sitting as a little armchair troll that simply detests the idea that humanity might not be perfect and may in fact cause some problems in the world after all, but tough shit, it is what it is.

Comment: Re:Is it old-fashioned of me to think.... (Score 1) 110

by Xest (#48632173) Attached to: Hackers Compromise ICANN, Access Zone File Data System

This was my first thought when I read about this yesterday too. Why oh why isn't such an important system air gapped from the rest of the general drones in ICANN's offices?

I mean seriously? Can the fucking receptionist communicate directly with these core servers for example?

I know it's hard for many IT workers, but sometimes you just need to get off your fat arse and walk over to the system you need to administer to maintain security. Anyone working somewhere important like ICANN that puts convenience of being able to remain on their arse over security needs to be fired. If they want a job where they can put convenience over security then they can go work in 99% of other organisations that don't need that level of security.

Comment: Re:Dubious because facts (Score 1) 182

by Xest (#48625921) Attached to: US Links North Korea To Sony Hacking

"It's a bit too much to go just to get a movie off the screen."

This is the country that's detonated nuclear bombs, sunk warships with torpedos, and fired artillery barrages at it's neighbours civilian villages, and leaked lists of thousands of civilian bank customers details just because it hasn't been given enough attention for a week like a petulent little child.

Nothing is a bit much for North Korea, if the Kim dynasty's fragile little egos are upset then you can expect an extreme reaction. This is the fat little man-child who had his own uncle executed - the guy is basically a living incarnation of Eric Cartman.

Comment: Re:Dubious because facts (Score 3, Interesting) 182

by Xest (#48625887) Attached to: US Links North Korea To Sony Hacking

Honestly, Marc Rogers' analysis is fucking awful. It's entirely speculation - it's no different to your average Slashdot post where someone is just stating their opinion and passing it off as fact. Examples:

"1. The broken English looks deliberately bad and doesnâ(TM)t exhibit any of the classic comprehension mistakes you actually expect to see in âoeKonglishâ. i.e it reads to me like an English speaker pretending to be bad at writing English."

Really? Please expand on that. Please give examples. To me it looks like just about every other piece of broken English I've seen online. Simply declare it not such without explaining why is not an argument.

"2. The fact that the code was written on a PC with Korean locale & language actually makes it less likely to be North Korea. Not least because they donâ(TM)t speak traditional âoeKoreanâ in North Korea, they speak their own dialect and traditional Korean is forbidden."

Interesting, but hardly stone cold evidence. If it was a North Korean spy that's trained in South Korean because they were behind the past hacks on South Korea then they may find that this is the easiest configuration for them. Is the North Korean dialect even a configuration option? If not then what else could they use? English? I'd guess not given how broken their English is.

"3. Itâ(TM)s clear from the hard-coded paths and passwords in the malware that whoever wrote it had extensive knowledge of Sonyâ(TM)s internal architecture and access to key passwords. While itâ(TM)s plausible that an attacker could have built up this knowledge over time and then used it to make the malware, Occamâ(TM)s razor suggests the simpler explanation of an insider. It also fits with the pure revenge tact that this started out as."

Again, entirely just speculation, poor use of Occam's razor. Occam's razor doesn't suggest it was an insider out to get Sony any more than it suggests the attackers simply spent a bit of time surveilling their target before following through with the hack. This argument again adds nothing.

"4. Whoever did this is in it for revenge. The info and access they had could have easily been used to cash out, yet, instead, they are making every effort to burn Sony down."

Isn't this an argument FOR it being North Korea rather than against given that North Korea has vocally made it clear that they're unhappy with Sony over the film? If anything this is an argument in favour of it being North Korea.

"5. The attackers only latched onto âoeThe Interviewâ after the media did â" the film was never mentioned by GOP right at the start of their campaign."

Sure and North Korea spent a few days figuring out whether to admit responsibility or not rather than outright denying it. It's now becoming the defining point of their campaign which seemed to be something North Korea was keen on - if it was the internal employee theory then why has Rogers' now changed his mind about maximising damage? Simply making Sony cancel a $42million film is small fry damage - an inside job would focus on continuing to be far more damaging than that. But to follow on this same point:

"After all, if everyone believes itâ(TM)s a nation state, then the criminal investigation will likely die."

What? Why? The FBI will just give up if it's thought to be a nation state? No, on the contrary it'll be escalated to the CIA and NSA. This point doesn't even make sense.

"6. Whoever is doing this is VERY net and social media savvy. That, and the sophistication of the operation, do not match with the profile of DPRK up until now."

Um, you mean they can use Twitter? So can half the child population of this world. Unless there's a suggestion that North Koreans are inferior people with IQ's less than your average child and who couldn't possibly look at what's worked for other succesful hacker groups like anonymous then this point is monumentally stupid.

"7. Finally, blaming North Korea is the easy way out for a number of folks, including the security vendors and Sony management who are under the microscope for this."

How the fuck is turning this into something where it turns from a corporate problem un-associated with the US government to threats of mass terrorist attacks on US soil requiring intervention by the US government including the president an easy way out exactly? Getting the NSA/CIA et. al. involved isn't an easy way out for anyone.

"8. It probably also suits a number of political agendas to have something that justifies sabre-rattling at North Korea"

Yes because it's not like there's been any reason to sabre-rattle at North Korea up until now is there? I mean it's not like they threatened to nuke the mainland US not so long ago or anything is it.

"9. Itâ(TM)s clear from the leaked data that Sony has a culture which doesnâ(TM)t take security very seriously."

This is a valid statement of fact but I don't really see what relevance it has to whodunnit.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone is giving this guy time of day. It reads like a 9/11 conspiracy theory blog post - 99% speculation, 1% bullshit, and some of his points even just outright contradict each other.

Am I saying it's North Korea? Not for certain, I personally think it probably is with odds of maybe 60% or so, but I'm open to the idea to a reasonable degree that it's not. Posts like Rogers' don't add anything even though they purport to be great insights - his comments are no better than anything you or I can string together, he has no great insight, he's not even close to finding some groundbreaking evidence that shatters the NK theory and on the contrary, even strengthens it in some cases.

His is another perspective, and one or two bits are interesting considerations, but it really does nothing to debunk the possibility of it being NK. His case is incredibly weak, and IMO weaker than the arguments for it being NK in the first place.

Long story short, thanks for your opinion Marc, but you've not argued your case anything close to well or consistently enough.

Comment: Re: First amendment? (Score 1) 250

by Xest (#48608955) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

"Lawrence was paid 7 percent of the movie's profit, while Bale and Cooper received 9 percent, according to emails sent to Pascal. Amy Pascal, the co-chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment is the only woman earning $1 million or more at the studio."

Profits? more fool them. With Hollywood accounting it sounds like they probably all got nothing regardless :) 7%? 9%? It's all $0 once Hollywood has fiddled the figures to make sure the movie makes zero profit!

Comment: Re:Check your math. (Score 1) 880

by Xest (#48608291) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

"I don't need to spin it â" ISIS and Al Qaeda do it themselves. Few of the Muslims are actually fighting, yes, but they are funded by the much larger group of people."

Yes, just like the IRA were funded by Catholics in America, just like leftist guerillas in South America are supported by local farmers and so on and so forth. What is your point still? It's not like there's a higher level of funding amongst muslims for this sort of thing than any other group. You might want to think that or pretend there is to satisfy your apparent hatred for this group of people but the problem there is your hatred, not the group of people in question.

"I know about it quite well â" enough to understand, that nothing in the doctrine of either flavor of Christianity compels its followers into doing the things IRA has done."

That depends who you ask. Many members of the IRA would disagree, just as many members of ISIS would disagree with many muslims on it being a religion of police. It doesn't really matter what the books say only the actions of the people, and there's no more Islamic fundamentalists than there are extremists of many other groups.

"Yes, Christianity too has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities, but one had to pervert the doctrine to make it usable to that end. Islam, unfortunately, does not need any such creative interpretations. It is quite explicit."

Yeah, because it's not like the Bible has anything like that is it? -

âoeSlaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.â (1 Peter 2:18)

âoeWives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.â (Ephesians 5:22)

âoeI do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.â (1 Timothy 2:12)

âoeThis is what the Lord Almighty says... âNow go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.â(TM)â (1 Samuel 15:3)

The problem is you've fallen hook line and sinker to classic far right spiel just as Russian's have currently with Putin and just as Germans did with Hitler. You create an enemy, which can be easy when there are plenty of that group that give reason for themselves to be hated, and then you focus wholly on that enemy and claim them to be the source of all the world's ills. You ignore the hypocrisy of the fact that other groups are just as guilty and that the problem isn't the group, but bad individuals. Congratulations on being small-minded enough for fall for this type of thing, you're the perfect example of the "useful idiot". You don't have to be though, whether you continue to be is your choice, you sound proud of it, but you really shouldn't be- there's no pride in ignorance.

As for your final note well guess what? Turns out that the Bible similarly denies women freedom of speech if you're to adhere to the examples quoted above which is clearly a breach of the 1st amendment. Again, is that too inconvenient for you?

I get it, you're scarred from years of fighting and turmoil, you want someone to blame, and it's easier for you to take it out on a whole group than get your head round the fact that evil people exist everywhere in every group and every walk of life. They'll always find an excuse, but rather than realise it's an excuse you've simply fallen for their nonsense. You think they're the fools, but they're the ones peddling the excuse- you're the one gullible enough to buy it.

I don't know, maybe you're religious yourself, and this creates the irony that you've decided your religion is more flawless and more right and that they must be wrong. Personally? It's all nonsense, I grew out of fairy tales when I was about 8, which makes it easy for me to step back and see that they're all just stories, often used as excuses to do bad things. Judging by your focus on the constitution I guess you're American and I can see therefore why you blame Islam, because Islamic extremists are the only ones that've attacked you in recent years so you believe they're the only problem. I'm from the UK, and that's also why I can see that it doesn't matter what someone's beliefs are, more people have died in my lifetime in my country to Christian fundamentalism than to Islamic fundamentalism even though we've been attacked equally by both.

Do yourself a favour, learn about the wider world, learn about violence both current and over the last 30 years in Mexico, South America, in Europe, in Africa, in Burma and so forth. It wont take much to realise there's a world outside your own country where violence comes from people of all beliefs and walks of life. Continue listening to nothing but the low quality drivel that's passed off as news in your own country though and it's not surprising you're so ignorant of the fact that it's more than just Islamic extremists out there that find an excuse to commit atrocities.

I'll even get you started:







See? Bad people always find an excuse. Focus on the bad people and the reasons why they are bad, not the excuse they use for being bad - focussing on the excuse gets us nowhere and achieves nothing. Look at the reasons for being bad from childhood bullying, through to extreme poverty, through to desire for revenge, through to just plain old being born a fucking psychopath, they're the real problems that need to be tackled to stop this shit.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 1) 416

by Xest (#48608141) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin

Right but now you're changing the scenario to try and avoid the fact you were clearly wrong. We're not talking about a consensual relationship, we're talking about a request for sexual favours in return for him doing his job - teaching.

And, well, "deported to Islam"? what the fuck does that even mean? Islam isn't a place, it's a religion. You can't deport someone to a religion. This is just comical, I know Slashdot jokes about basement dwellers but your apparent complete lack of grasp of societal boundaries coupled with your massive ignorance of geography and beliefs is surely evidence that you can only be a basement dweller. Does your mum even know you're on the internet?

I should stop now, it's pretty clear you're like 10 years old so maybe when you grow up you'll look back at your post and realise how hilariously stupid you were as a kid.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 1) 416

by Xest (#48602195) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin

Yes I'm sure all those students will be greatly upset that they don't have to fuck their professor to be able to learn.

I'm sure they'll also be greatly upset that creeps like you don't get to insist they fuck you if they want anything from you.

Do you give your doctor a blowjob if he asks for one when you go for your flu vaccine? should he really stay in the job if he asks that of you? Is your understanding of ethics and norms so fundamentally broken that you're really that creepy? Or are you just one of those people who can't back down even though they're wrong? It's one or the other, I really just still can't tell which and I'm not sure if that's more or less disturbing than you just out and out admitting you're a creep that prefers to support sexual predators over normal people.

Comment: Re:Check your math. (Score 1) 880

by Xest (#48599313) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

"Once again, nothing in Christian scripture compels Christians to fight other faiths. On contrast, Koran does so compel its followers. That's the fundamental asymmetry.."

It doesn't matter. There are about 1.3 billion muslims in the world and the fraction causing problems in practice is minimal however you try and spin it.

Groups like the LRA and many other African Christian groups, Mexican cartels justifying their actions using Christianity and so on and so forth could make ISIS look tame with the amount of people they've killed and the manner in which they've killed them. ISIS beheads a single Westerner and it's headline news, a Mexican drug cartel beheads 40 people and you've really got to fucking dig to find any news on it.

"IRA's fight was purely secular â" nothing in Catholicism insists nor mandates the sort of things they've done."

How old are you 10? Were you even around when the troubles in Ireland were at their worst? I just don't understand how else someone can be this fucking ignorant. You're so utterly oblivious to what the Irish troubles were really about that you think the IRA's fight is secular? You really don't know about the whole Catholics vs. Protestants thing? How can you even begin to join a discussion like this when you're so profoundly lacking a clue on it?

"Muslims, once again, must fight other religions â" in order to remain good Muslims. Because Koran â" which they believe to be the word of God verbatim â" says so."

The Bible says an awful lot of things that aren't particularly nice either, but guess what? most Muslims like most Christians have learnt that some of what these texts say are plain fucking stupid and opt not to pursue them. This is why we're finally starting to see women bishops in the UK as but one example - because it turns out that although the bible preaches misogyny it's not actually cool in this day and age. We hear about Islamic fundamentalism more in the West because it's currently the biggest threat, 30 years ago in the UK though it was the IRA, a wholly Christian conflict.

You can try and justify this how you want but you'd still be wrong. South and Central Africa is ravaged by Christian fighting but the focus is wholly on the Middle East/North Africa because the West has largely given up on the West of Africa and the middle east is where we're primarily trying to interfere nowadays.

It seems that there are violent thugs from every walk of life and the proportion seems similar whatever they purport their cause to be. Whether it's leftist guerillas in South America, Mexican drug cartels in Central America, Far right fascists in Northern and Eastern Europe, Russian Orthodox imperialists in Russia and surrounding states, Christian fundamentalists in Europe and Africa, Islamic fundamentalists in the middle east, Buddhist fundamentalists in Burma, or whatever else- bad people find reasons to kill, pretending that one group of bad people is somehow worse than another is stupid. There's not even really a metric by which the worst of the worst, ISIS or Al Qaeda can compare to the Mexican drug cartels in terms of amount of kills and level of violence - groups like La Familia and Knights Templar cartels claim religion as being key parts of their foundations just as ISIS do, so you cannot simply claim one is secular whilst the other is not.

What about individual acts of terrorism in the West? Well in recent years Anders Breivik killed more kids in the name of Christianity in Norway than the Ottawa shootings, the current Sydney situation, the London 7/7 bombings, and a few French anti-semitic incidents combined. 9/11? small fry. Want to know what real horror sounds like? Try the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 where Russian backed Serbian Orthodox fighters thought it would be fun to kill roughly 10,000 muslims in a single massacre often using things such as hammers to beat them to death so as not to waste bullets and then dumping them all in mass graves.

So you can say things like "the IRA is secular" or whatever all you like which is complete nonsense, but what you really mean is that you have a very specific hatred of a certain group of people. I even understand that, and understand and sympathise with why - they're targetting us because we're targetting them so it feels like they're the only bad guys in the world if all you have is a very ethnocentric western view of the world as you clearly do, but don't try and dress it up as anything else.

The number of Christians and Muslims in the world is absolutely staggering, 1.2bn - 1.5bn is a big number. People often have trouble with big numbers, and if you're one of those people as you seem to be, then take it from me, the number of actual muslims engaging in violence out of the more than a billion people who identify with muslims is as much a drop in the ocean as the number of Christians doing the same.

Most conflicts have some religious twist to them, you can dispute whether religion is the reason, or the excuse for such conflicts, but cherry picking one conflict and claiming it's the reason and then for the others saying it's just the excuse and they're not really adherents? That's nonsense and smacks of just being an excuse to persecute and attack one specific group over another equally bad group making you as bad as anyone that merely preaches jihad on Twitter or whatever, because it's the exact same twisted bitter logic and justification for division that you're using.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 1) 416

by Xest (#48599117) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin

I think you should probably take a tissue and whipe those tears from your eyes. Honestly, it's not the end of the world that you're wrong.

Or maybe you're just upset that you think sexual harassment is okay and are upset that no one's willing to back you on that.

Being an idiot on Slashdot is fine, you're more than welcome to keep being that. Being a sexual predator? that's not okay, don't expect anyone to come and tell you it is so that you can satisfy that blatant perversion of yours. Don't get upset when someone tells you to stop trying to justify sexual harassment as okay. It's not.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 3) 416

by Xest (#48583513) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin

On the contrary, the legal definition of harassment contains explicit clauses about applying pressure to trying and obtain sexual favours. If this person was worried about failing the class and felt their only option was to ask for help and this guy told them the only way they were getting his help is through sexual favours then this is very clearly within the bounds of harassment.

I think you have a very narrow view of what harassment actually is, because your description only covers a small portion of what is legally defined as harassment.

Comment: Re:class act (Score 1) 171

by Xest (#48581265) Attached to: Julian Assange Trying To Raise Nearly $200k For a Statue of Himself

If you can't even stop pretending that "Anklagad" and "Ã¥talad" are these weird mystical Swedish concepts when in fact they simply map directly to the accused (Aklagad) and charged (Ã¥talad), then what's the point even trying to debate the rest of your points directly? You'll only read what you want to read, twist what does suit how you want to twist. It's all pointless.

There's a certain irony that you feel that by digging back 2 years you've managed to find five whole posts on the topic of Assange by me, and think that I'm therefore a vehement defender of Assange whilst failing to realise that you've largely confirmed my point, my point was simply that I hadn't bothered to respond to your recent posts until now, and in searching as desperately as you have you seem to have confirmed that given that you've not found a single post in 2014, and barely a handful going all the way back to what, 2011? You say I bother "every bloody time", yet apparently I haven't bothered this year at all.

Now let's compare and contrast this to your posting record on the situation, well it turns out that in the last 6 months alone we can find what, the best part of 100 posts from you on the subject? Have you hit 20 yet on this one single story? I imagine you're close by now.

So just step back and consider this, whose posting record on the topic is probably relatively normal? Whose is rather disturbingly obsessive and abnormal? When you've answered this for yourself, tell me, am I an Assange fanboy? Or are you so obsessively filled with hate for him that anyone that doesn't agree with you is simply in your mind an Assange fanboy? Would an Assange fanboy not even bother to post on a topic about him for a year? to not bother defending him in the face of your many tens, possibly over a hundred posts? Now extrapolate this with your comment, you claim I'm one of the most extreme Assange fanboys on this site, and if the most extreme Assange fanboys on this site are therefore, by logical extension, posting an order of magnitude less than those posting to attack Assange, then which side is most extreme really?

So you see Rei, this is the problem. You're so caught up in your distortions that you have nothing in your mind but distortions. You think a handful of posts across a few years is evidence of fanboyism, yet you think the best part of a hundred posts in less than a year is perfectly healthy. Have I posted more frequently in the past going back even more years? possibly, but if I did it probably wasn't really healthy either.

Whilst I think the case is all a little odd, and the odds don't seem in the prosecution's favour given the way they're misbehaving, as the Swedish courts agree, I'm still perfectly open to the possibility that he will eventually stand trial and be found guilty, not be extradited on to the US, and be out of jail after probably a relatively short sentence. I'm happy with the idea that if I'm wrong, that a few posts I made on the subject were misguided. What about you? are you open to the idea that he may well be innocent? if the case is dropped would you be willing to accept a lack of guilt or would you simply say he cheated his way out of it with political games? if it goes to trial and he's not found guilty, will you not feel a little silly that you spent many hours making hundreds of posts attacking him? or will it just be a miscarriage of justice to you?

"Don't talk to me about disclaimers! I invented disclaimers!" -- The Censored Hacker