189 posts • joined Thursday 17th January 2008 12:39 GMT
Well... as I said, given their appearance, this person is likely to have been on hormones for more than a year, so unless she was remarkably prescient, I doubt it was done for the purpose of evading capture. Which would lead me to suspect gender dysphoria - a person uncomfortable with birth gender and transitioning to the gender they associate with psychologically. No question of them being gay or not - sexuality and gender identity are two seperate things.
Regarding 'orgasmic', its not the same thing as being capable of sexual arousal. Hormones do suppress sexual arousal, but post operative arousal has a great deal to do with the skills of the surgeon involved in retaining erectile tissue and getting it in the right place. Additionally, it''s common for women (transsexual or otherwise) to describe orgasm as a 'whole body experience' which isnt focussed in the same sense that male orgasm is.
Transsexual women dont actually become non-orgasmic as such. Hormones do make you infertile and prevent erectile function over time however, which isnt quite the same thing.
Re: Just airbagged?
Given her overall shape, this certainly isnt a disguise - hormones dont give you those sorts of curves in a year. A couple of years at the least would be my guess. So the surmise that she is in fact transsexual is probably accurate.
In Europe (including the UK) she'd most likely be given the option of serving the rest of her sentence in a women's prison, but I've no idea what the situation is like in Colombia. Hopefully they'll do the civilized thing.
She should certainly be serving her time - gender dysphoria is no defence against the crimes she's been found guilty of.
Its not really a question of 'Are the Chinese hacking US systems?', but 'Why would they not be hacking them?'
If I were a nation state trying to build myself a viable industrial complex for the purpose of profit, I certainly would be.
There are no cats.....
Sadly, he's mostly right.
Although its important to differentiate between security training and security awareness because they're not the same thing. Technicians designing and building systems should certainly be trained to code and designed securely and I genuinely believe that that's money well-spent.
Staff (and indeed Management), need to be security aware, even if that awareness extends only to knowing the extension number of the Information Security team and to have the confidence to be able to call that number if they see something that doesnt look quite right.
To be honest, though, the motivation for many companies I've worked for in paying out for security training can often boil down to 'If they dont know the Policy, you cant sack them if they breach it'.
Re: Visa vs VisaEurope
The governance of VISA is complex to say the least, but Visa Europe have, since around 2004, been a seperately constituted company with a Board consisting of representatives from European financial institutions. Visa Europe and Visa Inc. (who are registered in the State of Delaware) share a common network for interchange purposes, share common standards etc but may adopt seperate policies should they see fit to do so.
So there's no actual obligation on Visa Europe to play ball with the US although they've obviously seen fit to do so up to this point. A big falling out between Visa Europe and Inc. doesnt seem likely, regardless of which way they jump.
Re: TrishaDminus TrishaDminus
"I suggest you calm down, park the penis envy, and accept that maybe not everyone shares your tender concerns for Mr Kretsinger, and the more you try to lecture the more likely your viewpoint will be held up to ridicule"
That knee of yours seems to be causing you some trouble.
You see, Mr B, I didnt mention whether Codie K deserved his sentence or not. For the record I'd say that a year is about right. What I raised was the curious tendency of commentators on here to consider that rape in prison might in some way be considered to be appropriate punishment.
Which apparently makes me some sort of bleeding heart liberal, but hey ho....
"You forget (because you probably don't work in IT) that many of the posters here are involved in defending their company's and home systems from such tw@s as Cody Kretsinger and may even have suffered attacks from his "crew" of numpties"
The problem with people who think they can win arguments through personal abuse is that they talk through their arses. Yes, I work in IT. I've been in information security for somewhere like 25 years, starting with RACF. Yes, one of the organisations I work for has indeed been hit by Anonymous.
Which was pain in the neck but at least it got me some budget.
Now go wave your dick at someone else.
Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?
Once more for the hard of understanding.....
'Major Policy Issues' = Matters of government policy upon which a reasonable person might expect MPs to be divided on party lines. Examples - the Economy, Law & Order, Industrial Relations etc.
Likelihood of consensus politics - next to zero
'"Moral Issues" = Matters of policy where MPs might be expected to divide, not on party lines, but on grounds of personal belief, sense of ethics etc. Examples - Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Age of Consent etc.
Likelihood of consensus politics - quite high.
Private members bills are likely to succeed in the latter case.
Now... was that too difficult to comprehend?
The likelihood of rape is not the issue.
People slobbering over the prospect it, however, is.
How clever of you, by the way, to come up with the epithet 'TrishaDminus' .....
Laugh? I almost did...
Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?
"Tax issues which definitely do not"
Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?
"....but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues....." Complete cobblers. Just for example, both the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, and the Abortion Act 1967 were actually private member bills passed with cross-party support and both were very major policy issues."
Spendid. You've just given two examples that exactly prove my point. Both of these related to moral issues that transcend party boundaries, rather than tax issues which definitely do.
Go stand in the corner or something...
Re: The Difference?
" Actually, she could present a bill to Parliament even in opposition, and if she was actually more interested in the good of the public rather than making self-serving soundbites, she could form a cross-party alliance on the matter. Many UK laws have been passed with support from more than just the governing party. This carefully manufactured idea that Labour in Opposition can "do nothing" is a fraud - they could do plenty by working with the other parties, but it would mean overcoming their Labourite tendency to scoring political points over actually serving the people that elected them."
I'm going to stick by what I said. The fact that she's Labour is irrelevant. Our Parliamentary system tend (rightly or wrongly) to be adversarial and it's rare for parties of any stripe to work with other parties. Yes, laws have been passed with support from just the governing party, but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues.
Regarding the 'self-serving' bit - she chairs a major Select Committee, for goodness' sake. She's obliged in that role to speak up.
It always fascinates me that, whenever El Reg posts a story about some hacker/script kiddie being sent to prison, there's always a proportion of commentards who seem to think that it's an entirely acceptable element of his punishment for him to be gang-raped.
I mean, really?
It seems to me that people dont appreciate the difference between Google and Margaret Hodge.
If sufficient people dont approve of Ms Hodge's activities or attitudes, they have the option of not voting for her. Its called Accountability.
As regards all the cries of 'Well, change the Law then' ... erm, she's an Opposition MP. And the Opposition doesnt get to change the law. That's the whole point.
Re: Also for export
"You have totally mixed up your "left" and "right" senses. But don't worry, I am sure that if you apply for a political asylum, the Norks will be happy to oblige. They will also cure your left-right confusion PDQ. Oh, and don't wait too long - the fewer raving pseudo-socialist morons this country has at any particular time, the better."
The point being made, Shirley, is that governmental idiocy respects no political boundaries. Or are we no longer allowed to criticise our own Glorious Leaders?
Is this the same Stephen Fry who's always being quoted on the interwebs as saying 'Nobody has the right to be offended'?
Suck it up, Stephen. It seems you can dish it out but you cant take it.
State Your Claim
"So your claim is that you wrote all of the plays of William Shakespeare?"
"That's right - and me and the Mrs wrote the Sonnets"
Re: "There is no mainstream party [...] which offers to dismantle these crippling stealth taxes"
"Ok, so UKIP are effectively the Conservative Party as the current lot have moved to the left to replace New Labour as the current Labour lot move towards true Marxism"
In what alternative Universe could the current centre-left Labour Party even be considered to be moving to true Marxism?
That's about as accurate a statement as claiming that David Cameron is a reincarnation of Adolf Hilter.
The fact of the matter is that, with the exception of the ''Oh, wouldnt it be nice if it was still 1955' Party (aka UKIP) all of our major political parties have been in a race for a bland centre-right/centre-left middle ground for decades
"What are our policies? Why, they're whatever it takes to win the next election"
Bonjour, Frank, je m'appelle 'Christine'.
Oh Dear. What a pity. Never mind.
A falling out amongst two middle-class Arthur Daleys. Perhaps they ought to get proper jobs.
First thing I'd like to say is - well done, commentards! It's nice to see an online forum with grown-up attitudes on display.
I am, for want of a better word, transgender. Unlike Michelle, however, I'm still physically male and live what you might call a transvestite lifestyle. But I am quite involved in the trans community and the issue of 'stealth' is one of those that's under constant discussion. It's important to realise that many trans women find the issue of their previous 'maleness' to be somewhat distressing (else they'd not be trans), and do not wish to be reminded of it. I'm sure that Michelle will confirm that it's a long hard slog through counselling, psychiatric testing, hormones and surgery, not to mention all of the practical considerations of finding work, establishing relationships etc etc. So many people at that point simply want to get on with life and being basically just women.
So - did the woman featured in the article deceive her husband? Obviously she did. Is it understandable for her to have done so? I'd say that it was. It should also be noted that she comes from an Asian culture that has a rather more relaxed attitude to the acceptance of trans women. I feel a great deal of sympathy for her. I'm not totally without sympathy for her hubby either even if he does appear somewhat unevolved.
We're public guardians bold yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're chary
When danger threatens we're not there
But when we see a helpless woman
Or little boys who do no harm…
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
To show them we're the beaux gendarmes
Re: Suppress natural instincts
"Live in a society where girls are not allowed to have boyfriends or do normal teenage stuff, where men are expected to marry a cousin, where natural instinct and desire are suppressed. Where couples exist in loveless partnerships. Where these men look at women as if they are property, where women are have less value than men. "
But enough about the US MidWest .......
... am I thinking "Man with Two Brains" here?
He's much cuter than Justin Bieber..
No idea if he sings better but I wouldnt be surprised...
"We help organisations improve their security and limit the impact of a targeted cyber attack, saving operational costs and avoiding the costs of a breach which may amount to tens of millions of pounds. We do this using Detica Treidan technology. It detects targeted attack activity, intelligently prioritises alerts and doubles the speed at which analysts are able to investigate them"
Rather on the expensive side, I'm afraid....
Re: About time, I suppose
Thank you for grasping the point.
The idea that BAE=Bad may be perfectly true, but it's irrelevant. Detica may be owned by BAE but they have a reasonable track record in investigative and forensics work and I'd use them again.
I take issue with the idea that Stuxnet had limited success - it was designed to take down Iranian centrifuges and that's exactly what it did. Demonstrating that it's perfectly realistic (if bloody hard work) to build targetted malicious code to do a specific job.
Zero day attacks are being used all the time to attack elements of our critical national infrastructure at the very least for the purpose of intelligence-gathering and quite frankly we need all the help we can get. Bitter experience tells me that you can firewall to your heart's content, deploy antivirus all you like and this stuff will still get through.
The paradigms are changing. People need to understand that.
.. to work out what's actually wrong with this initiative.
BAE may well be a bloated defence contractor but my experience of Detica has been fairly positive.
They may not be quite as good as they think they are, but you could say that about a lot of organisations.
On the odd occasion that I have to make an early morning Wiltshire - London train journey, I really dont want to talk to anyone. Anyone at all. My usual practice is to plug in the iPod, insert headphones to muffle the noise, switch iPod off and go to sleep.
The Register says:
"Look - Great Guy jumping out of tin can"
Commentards 'Mutter mutter, balls of steel, modern hero, inspiration.....'
The Register says:
'Look - Bad Guy mouthing off about space research'
Commentards - 'Mutter, mutter, idiot, didnt do anything special, stupid idea ....'
"Yes the renewal/efficiency/social elements have increased by 50% but it doesn't say from what percentage of the total bill those elements were, just as it doesn't say what proportion of the total is affected by the 9% increase in transmission and distribution charges."
Percentage of the total bill for those elements is about 5%.
Rather changes the perspective, doesnt it?
I'm not quite sure I follow the logic that goes from:
'Plant used in herbal medicine may help treat cancer'
'Herbal medicine is bullshit'
One has to assume that herbal medicine traditionally (when it was 'alternative' only in the sense that the only other alternative was remaining ill/dying) must have been based on good old empirical scientific observation. As in:
1/ Take a guess at what's wrong
2/ Administer herb
3/Observe whether they get better or not
It's actually not far removed from the methodology adopted by the average GP
That seems scientific enough to me although obviously limited by lack of analytical tools. Admittedly, relying on such methods when you have a potentially fatal illness and when other alternatives exist seems wilfully stupid but there you go
Re: I missed that fine point on the thread.
In spite of what Mr Gumby says, Hotmail, Yahoo, etc have never provided a free lunch. Take a look at the right hand of your screen and what do you see? Advertising material.
The model of alleged free services has always been that access is given at a price. That price being bloody adverts.
Data mining wasnt part of the deal. It now is.
Buy a domain, run your own email, and tell Hotmail to sod off for moving the goalposts. Or accept data mining of course
Or indeed people who's reaction to news of new malware is to castigate the stupidity of the average PC user.
I'd remind anyone working in IT of one small fact...
It's the 'dumbass' end user who pays your wages, whether directly or indirectly.
Only if you're any good at it.....
We Dont Need ...
The viewpoint best expressed as 'We dont need no steenking philosophers' is probably evidence that we do.
"Hell yea, lets deport him to Guantanamo!" No need, I'm told that in terms of physical violence the average British high-security prison is much more likely to have an impact - or two or three impacts!"
Those of us sufficiently civilised NOT to consider having the shit beaten out of you to be a just punishment for an 18 yr old script kiddie will be relieved to know (from the article) that he'll be receiving six months youth custody rather than a term in a high-security prison.
Which I would consider to be sufficiently draconian a punishment for a silly teenager who needs to grow up a bit.
Fly, All is Discovered
I'm reminded of the probably apocryphal story of the man who sent 10 anonymous letters to local people at random, which simply said 'Fly! All is discovered.' Three of them packed their bags and one committed suicide...
People do have guilty secrets, so perhaps it's not just the gullible who are paying up but the occasional individual who reads the SMS and thinks 'Oh, bugger.....'
But we could go fishing with magnets ...
Wouldnt that be cool?
"Why people think they have some kind of right to watch sport at work is beyond me"
Posting on The Register is of course an entirely different matter ......
"....other security experts argue that the survey illustrates the growing problems with using passwords as a security defence."
This is surely the core to the problem. Passwords are far too easy to harvest and, if they're short enough to be memorable, far too easy to crack, Essentially they're an obsolete authentication method. And, given upteen sites requiring passwords, then of course the average person will re-use passwords. I dont think that there's a realistic expectation that they'd do anything else, is there?
We need a different solution for identity management on the net.
Unfortunately, I havnt the foggiest idea what it is.
Many years ago, I operated mainframes and we ran UCC7. Which was a very effective batch job scheduler. Then they were taken over by CA and it became CA-7. Still effective but to be frank, over the years, it became a complete camel to work with.
I can understand outsourcing to India - I've worked with developers from India for quite a while, on and off, and they can be very good indeed.
But CA-7 IS a camel and there cant be that many people around with the skills to run it, so to get rid of those who do and to replace them with those who dont seems like complete idiocy to me.
The sort of idiocy that led RBS to appoint a marketeer like Fred Goodwin to run the bank, and the sort of idiocy that Hester has sadly failed to get rid of.
There's no getting away from the fact that IT requires skills, and mainframe IT requires specialist skills. And that, in the end, you get what you pay for,
Silly, silly, grasping little people. Mensch is supposed to be representing her constituents, not involving herself in self-aggrandizing nonsense like this. That's her job and it's what she's paid for.
A couple of 'edgy' little twits desperately trying to jump on a technical bandwagon that they dont understand.
Re: Who are we protecting here?
"Education and awareness perhaps that sex is actually a mutually enjoyable activity to be conducted with a partner as well as, a fantasy object? FTFY.
Or do you propose to outlaw fantasy?"
What I propose, Mr Boyle, is that we teach children the difference between the two
I have no problem with pornography as entertainment for adults who CAN tell the difference.
Well ,,,, I dont know.
It's one thing to carry out a bit of social engineering just for the lulz so that you can get into your mate's account and post a photo of your bum (or whatever it is that young men do these days), and another to get into the account of someone you dont know, post an offensive message, and threaten to make all their private emails public.
One is plain silly and the other falls into the category of 'cyber-buillying', regardless of whether your victim's associated with a Celeb or not.
Who are we protecting here?
I think that the whole question of 'protecting children' is a trifle more complex than is being recognised here..
Prepubertal children have no motivation to view porn - it's outside their frame of reference. It's not unreasonable then that they should be protected from accidental access via some form of filtering (either from parents or the ISP). This gives them some form of protection from exposure to images that might confuse or alarm them.
So far so good. The problem doesnt lie with that age group; it lies with an older demographic - kids between (say) 10-16 where the motivation exists to go look at naked women or men and watch them get up to sexy stuff. The problem with extreme porn on the internet is that it presents them (certainly the younger end of that age range) with stuff that they lack the maturity to deal with. It would be very easy for a 13-14 yr old, viewing the extreme end of internet porn, to gain the impression that sex (both straight and gay) was essentially a violent and exploitative activity.
The dilemma is that reasonably savvy kids in that age group are likely to find ways round any filtering imposed by mum or dad and probably round anything imposed by the ISP as well.
So essentially, filtering just aint going to work for that age group.
Difficult to know what will. Education and awareness perhaps that sex is actually a mutually enjoyable activity to be conducted with a partner rather than a fantasy object?
Not an easy call, but sure as hell, filtering isnt going to do it...