you are a pinhead, with no knowledge of either history or computer science. observe
- What made kevin great what this up this point most errors that were exploited were what were known as fencepost errors, tedious to find and with unpredictable behavior once exploited. Kevin was a pioneer in looking for how to leverage the functionality that made computers worthwhile against them. The man in the middle attacks that exploits a three way handshake is elegant and sophisticated because it puts the defending system in a position of lessened value (that in order to defend against it the computer would be unable to complete a three way handshake). Coupled with the ability to social engineer, this mindset is what is dangerous, this level of clanking balls and imagination.
Your question is asinine. This man hacked networks and systems. You want to know if he can compromise a fucking home pc?
Can a brain surgeon remove a fucking wart? Kevin didn't teach people how to hack, he taught people how to think like hackers
http://www.pogostick.net/~pnh/ntpasswd/
or just go to fucking bugtraq
 

Another facet that wasn't mentioned in the paper is that as America attempts to legislate the internet so that the mega rich can become ultra rich, we simply remove ourselves from meaningful discussion about the problem and social view of file sharing.
As a security buff i learned from experience that while the "rules" if examined presented my ideal view of the world, or let others know whats actually important to me, my logs function as a mirror, telling me how things actually looked.
On behalf of the mega rich, the mega powerful are attempting to create a rule that says this transaction shouldn't happen, but the logs tell us that the general population in no way shape or form shares this view of the world.
If it was viewed as say child porn, in which the vast majority of the user community sees the issue in much the same manner as the rulemakers you get a set of logs that indicate that this view is shared and a small set of transgressions presented in the logs..
this is not so in the case of file sharing, hence, a waste of time and effort, the file sharing medium will change, the methods will change, but the desire will not

We wonder why America is viewed(rightly) as falling behind other countries and then you see nonsense like this getting airplay. I wonder how many Profs in India believe evolution and global warming is bullshit? When your beliefs are so retarded that you need to pass a law stopping people from calling you a moron you know there is an issue. But on a more important level, how could not allowing a science faculty to discipline a prof who clearly ignores rational scientific thought hurt....right?

Oh great,
Julien Assange gets nominated for times man of the year and politicians suggest we kill hium
WikiLeaks is up for the NPP and we want to make viewing it illegal
The internet is up for the NPP and (obviously) cooler than the other side of your pillow and we might royally bollocks up Nuetrality

Goddamn it, soon North Korea is going to call us and be like, wtf guys quit being such assholes. If that happens I am making an Obama loking at things blog

The problem I have with this is that I think its just noobs selling shit to boobs.The more this story develops I become more and more uncertain that HBGary had te technical know how to make working root kits, and 0-days for multiple OS's. I betcha these guys would just sit waiting for bugtraq to update and hurriedly package it, that i do believe they are capable of. Some of the things that were apparently willing to sell or selling require superior technical understanding, and if the twats at HBG had that, they wouldn't be so chock full of epic loss right now

Dumbest article ever, and if there is even a smidge of truth to it, dumbest script kiddies ever. I love the bit at the end
"Mr Barr also burrowed deep enough into a US military group and a US nuclear plant that he could trick workers there to click on web links that, if they had been malicious, could have installed spying software on their computers"
hahahahaha, too fucking right mr barr, you go get em! except wait.... thats complete bullshit.
Quick, lets hire Aaron Barr, he is the haxorz... I think he wrote this article!

Over the last few years we have seen an acceleration of this type of nonsense. A couple years ago we were seeing it in the cellular phone world, where all of asudden every provider decided that *unlimited* plans were misnamed because uh... they had limits. Users would sign up for an unlimited talk and txt plan for 100 and the end of the month would recieve a 200$ bill.
As with any oligopoly there were no real unique plans for users to choose from, it was the same doublespeak from all of the providers.
As we see happening today with many data and bandwidth providers
But there is hope, as we saw in the cellular world, some people heard the hue and cry and rushed to meet thier needs. Public mobile, wind mobile etc began to offer truly unlimited plans and cause the many people to switch to companies that don't subsidize your phone, but also don't lock you in to bullshit contracts.
The real danger is that the FCC allows this oligopoly to block competition (as the cellular companies, of which Verizon was one, tried to do).
Data plans are simply to profitable for the market not to try and fill something so many people will pay for, like an unlimited plan, the question is if it gets the chance....
 

George bush should be played by Danny Devito
Assange should be played by jon Heder
that as far as i have gotten

Ideas?

Well, it looks like someone finds my lack of faith disturbing.

He got his brand new iLiver last year and is getting an iHeart now, one organ at a time, So why do people keep modding my Jobs/Vader comparisons down?!

Ok, my bad. I wasn't terribly clear on the what I was looking for, I grasp the difference between jurisdiction and extradition, but does the US have Jurisdiction to charge him with anything? Leaving aside the Espionage act, I'm not entirely sure there is anything to charge him with. It may have to fall under some international treaty. Having though about this the 2 points I would make are.
One. Alright, the whole poisoned pill scenario that Assange has know enacted in my mind means he loses the right to use the 1st Amendment as a shield, The whole blackmail bit means he isn't a reporter anymore, I know in previous posts I had said he was a journalist. Journalists don't commit blackmail, or use threats to void prosecution.
Two. Even though I am willing to concede he isn't a journalist, if the US extradites him to Guantanamo, they immediately forfeit the moral high ground as well.
It will be interesting to see how this ends, thats for certain.

"Because ... we don't have jurisdiction in China"

At which point, may I ask, Does the United States of America have juristiction over an Australian, living in the UK, whose website is hosted in Sweden?

I also do feel it important to mention that the New York Times had access to all original documents before they were ever posted anywhere at any time. The agreement is that the newspapers and the website publish together.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20101128/ts_yblog_thecutline/nyt-worked-several-weeks-on-leaked-cables-wikileaks-wasnt-direct-source-for-docs

As you can see, 4 European newspapers and the NYT and wiki all post at the same time. I fail to see any difference that would indicate a greater or lesser degree of guilt.

The Assange bashing bit at the end is just 3rd and 4th party opinion. Its got no place in the middle of a legitimate arguement, it detracts rather than adds to the point you are trying to communicate. Assange is not a US basher, Manning worked for the US army, hence the cables deal with America, hence the lions share of the Embarrasment is ours. It is ultimately irrelevant either way, assholes abound, and being a douchebag does not preclude one from being right, or in the right ( morally, not politically)

Other than that your post is factual and well reasoned. It is important to note (as you did) that we are waiting to find out what exactly happened.
 

Your item 1 is beyond offensive, relying on science to solve this issue shows an underlying misunderstanding of this issue and the social ills it drags along with it.
Because we can make someone thin doesn't mean we can make them healthy. Because we can regulate the storage of fat or sugar in a patients body doesn't mean we can cause an entire generation of people to care about themselves. We are talking about our bodies, we only get one, for our whole lives. The assertion that we should treat it with less than complete respect and regard is not just just damaging to bodies, but psyche's as well.
Secondly, what is this, grade 6 "it depends how you define healthy" ummm. no.
Healthy is defined as the absence of imperfection, disease or impairment. for everyone, everywhere, at all times. We do not decide what the definition is. "
If you have never lived a healthy lifestyle because you find them distasteful, you have nothing to compare your current frame of reference to. Having never been healthy, you wouldn't know what you are missing, which is probably a blessing for you.

I believe I begin to see your point. I guess where we differ is that I don't see saying it as more or less offensive as doing it.
Lets see what we can agree on
- This is a ridiculuos policy. I think we agree on this
- This policy, so poorly thought out, manages to somehow offend both the west and the (middle) east at the same time! I think we agree on that.
- This policy, or a closely related cousin of it has been in effect for 30 years. I believe i have enough evidence to prove this
-Presidents have no business setting the policy (no matter where it sits on the agends ) of a science and space agency

ok?

Where we disagree seems to be where you assert that this behavior is new, or more objectionable than before. I believe condescension whether behind closed doors or in the media is inappropraite for our elected officials. To me they are equally objectionable Screwing someone is wrong, whether or not you announce it to the world, no? This just makes Reagan sneaky and Obama a blowhard. Neither of which is a term i wish to use to describe the person in this position.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. Its the details and historical context where I think you are not seeing the whole picture.

I always get blasted for saying this to my friends but I truly and honestly believe that the presidents are in a relay race, they just get handed a baton and keep running in the same direction.
Meanwhile back at the ranch,
They keep us all occupied and happy by claiming there are such things as" a left" and "a right" and these two groups take turns blaming eachother while helping divide the populace. I promise you I am not trolling right now, I truly believe that Obama is not clever enough to set policy, he just tries to take credit for the policies that are working, and needlessly complicate the ones that aren't. Building a bridge to Muslim countries using something as imaginative and innovative as space is simply...beyond him. Ergo- it was already there

Hey, great comments, you seem to be missing half my post though!

You also refer to it as the "new top priority" when i don't see that anywhere and I am looking at a transcript now. so you are just sort of making that exact phrase up because it sounds worse, and really there is no need. It is absurd at face value, there is no requirement to sensationalize it. Obama is a complete Asshat for ever suggesting this policy expand or continue, (because it really was already there).
The worst part about Administrators deciding the function of scientific and engineering groups is that soon these groups no longer know who the true master is, science and progress, or some ridiculous notion of helping people who neither need nor require the help of a space agency.

Again, a buffoon is someone who provides amusement through their appearance. We have never met so you are unfamiliar with my appearance. You really need to keep a dictionary handy, at least for insults, although the rest of would appreciate it if you used it for definitions as well.

There is a difference between "the foremost" and "one of the foremost" --please reference above dictionary

Your post again fails to differentiate between how sending Prince Sultan into space to be the 1st Muslim in space while wearing religious garb and being completely unqualified for the job (They invented the role of payload specialist for him)and this policy would be the complete opposite in policy.

You also remain incorrect in your assertion that this isn't the same thing other presidents have done. I believe we already covered that , you just refuse to comment on it. I could bring up the time Bush said to all Muslims (during a televised address from Iraq) "you are a good and gifted people"
Or link you to things Nixon said in his new tapes
Or when Clinton said that African Americans watch the same news that regular american do.
I could literally fill a book with dumb things Bush said, half of which were a thousand times worse so please, stop with the whole "couldn't be more paternalistic, dismissive, and humiliating. "
nonsense. By becoming enraged on behalf of a group it is you being paternalistic. The irony is... expected