Re: Can Obama be added to the ISP email blacklist?
Even better, report it to Spamhaus.
1773 posts • joined 10 May 2011
Even better, report it to Spamhaus.
When I saw the words "Ransomware" and "as-a-service" I thought you were talking about Windows 10 and Microsoft's new business model.
"Um, what's the point of offering ownership rights if it's not got sovereignty?"
My thought is it's along the line of an exclusive-importation rights deal. Suppose MegaMining Corp lays claim to Apophis, and goes out there with some mining equipment, and then ChinaMiner Corp sends their own guys and gear out there, MegaMining Corp is the only one allowed to sell material mined from Apophis, or any item manufactured from said material, in the USA. Such a law would then make it not worthwhile for ChinaMiner to go and mine Apophis since they wouldn't be allowed to sell anything made from the ore in the USA.
So while neither corporation "owns" Apophis per se, only MegaMining could expect to get any ROI from going out there since they have exclusive importation rights.
Although it would be interesting to see how they'd police and enforce sourcing, given the difficulties we have now of preventing things like conflict diamonds and warlord-funding tantalum from leaking into the world market.
"Forcing people to do something always initiates a negative emotional reaction in people."
Which is exactly why I never embraced it. That and Google's dismal track record in pulling the plug on useful services after people get used to using them. The loss of the iGoogle portal page with its neat little widgets, which had been my startup page for ages, convinced me never to let myself become reliant on Google services again.
I thought trains had several mechanisms in place to prevent them being driven over and above just a key. Further, starting a train isn't like starting a car, just turn the key and go. You have to lap the brakes and pressurise the lines, back up to de-stress the couplings, and a number of other procedures before the train will go.
As I understood it, each driver also has his own brake handle which he attaches to the brake post when he starts up, and without which the train won't move. Then there's the deadman device, which is usually a pedal or button that has to be pressed every minute or so, otherwise the train assumes the driver is incapacitated and automatically applies the brakes.
So these guys not only broke the lock, they must have got a brake handle or something that could function as one from somewhere, and also known about the deadman device, in addition to knowing the rest of the starting procedures. They knew enough about trains to figure all that out, but didn't know about the signalling system or ATPS (which is what would have derailed the train.)
I'd suspect someone who either knows a train driver or someone who wanted to be one but failed the qualifications.
the more I realise my problem is not so much about my data being private, but with analytics and prediction based on it. Just as I have no problem with cameras or people taking pictures of me, but I do have a problem with things like facial-recognition software.
It's not the possession of the data that is so much the issue as the assumptions and judgements that people make based on it. If I knew that my data would just sit unexamined in some secured (and safely air-gapped) government archive and only examined when it is needed in connection with a crime that has been committed I'd have a lot less problem with it.
But when authorities start using predictive software and analytics on my data to try to second-guess whether or not I'm going do something wrong, that I have a big fucking problem with. Minority Report style "pre-crime" methodologies are NEVER acceptable in any free society. You cannot make accurate judgements about my identity or behaviour based on analysis of my past actions, because any such judgement is invariably based on statistics and worse, stereotypes. It does not take into account the unique experiences of my life, my personality, and why I choose to do or say the things I do.
We need to outlaw the use of identifying analytics and predictive algorithms on retained data, and insert requirements to keep such data out of reach unless it can be shown before a judge or magistrate that that particular data has some relation to an already committed crime. Otherwise we abrogate any right to call ourselves a free society.
I would rather die than buy an Apple product in any event!
Hmmm, I didn't see any advert.
I'm not sure which component of my internet armamentarium is responsible for shielding me from that one, although I rather suspect Ghostery is behind stopping YouTube ads more than AdBlock Edge, BetterPrivacy, RemoveItPermanently, uBlock Origin, Self-Destructing Cookies, Disconnect or NoScript.
So all I can suggest is installing all of the above and hope that one of them does the job - if you don't mind cruising around the information superhighway in what amounts to an Abrams tank!
May I suggest to the person who disagrees with me, that you should pay a visit to Australia sometime, and spend a week or two around the farms during grain harvest. I think the experience would make you rather less defensive of our little rodent friends!
"Only someone who's never had a problem with rodent vermin would want to own one as a pet..."
Damn straight. I have two cats for precisely that reason!
"But what if they transfer their ill-gotten gains directly to charity?"
Well, firstly for some reason I doubt they do. Second, even if they did, it doesn't excuse blackmailing people with ransomware. To argue a charitable cause as a justification for such vile behaviour is treading perilously close to ends justifying means.
"wanting humans dissected for public entertainment is beyond sociopathic and into psychopathic land."
Or the product of a mind that has been reading too many George R.R. Martin novels lately... ;)
Time to bring back public gibbetings and perhaps introduce live human dissections posted to YouTube. These fucking worthless sociopathic parasites serve no good use to humanity whatsoever. They can't be redeemed or rehabilitated. They are vermin, and they should be exterminated, like vermin.
"That said, bitcoin is very traceable, far less anonymous than cash."
If that's the case then why are there no stories about people hunting these ransomware scammers down for the purpose of peeling their fingernails off one by one?
" I worked at the Pit but not underground as a mechanic. This was regarded as a big step up."
When I whur a lad I 'ad to git oop at 11 o'clock at night 'alf an hour afore I went to bed...
Until the buggers build in IR scanning and DNA sampling to verify that a real live human is attached to the thing.
"Sorry, but I just can't take anybody who uses the phrase "SJW" unironically seriously."
That's most likely because you are one, in which case going by the the majority of comments and upvote/downvote ratios in this thread, not many people would take you seriously either.
Actually their academic pretzel-think is very simple; once you strip away the political game-playing, weaselling and manipulative bullshit, it really all just boils down to, "If you're male, you're wrong and deserve to be punished because you're to blame for every nasty thing men have ever done to women."
GitMeMyShootinIrons, meet Captain Jean-Luc Picard:
"I don't know how to communicate this, or even if it is possible. But the question of justice has concerned me greatly of late, and I say to any creature who may be listening, there can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions."
I'd be more than happy to toss some of my hard-earned in their general direction, and I'm sure a lot of other science geeks would as well.
Fortensplibe's reaction likely has little to do with the fact that they are women and more to do with them both being greedy power-grubbing politicians - and in my view even more so for people hiding them behind the gender card to shield them from criticism.
"...but it's nice to think that someone's on the ball."
No it's not. What we need is for these incompetent buffoons to run around like chooks with their heads cut off, passing the buck from department to department, until the entire damnable metadata retention scheme blows out costs and problems like Krakatoa and comes down around their bloody ears!
These days basic civil liberties ride on ensuring the politicians are so busy tying each other up in knots that nothing ever gets done and the people get left alone. That's exactly why in every election I always vote for opposing parties in the Upper and Lower Houses (Liberal Senate, Labor Parliament or vice versa) - precisely so that any new bills proposed by the Lower House are more likely to get blocked by a hostile Senate, thus leaving things as they are and preserving what few fucking freedoms we have left!
Yep. This is the real tragedy of technology.
When I was younger I used to fantasise about full-immersion VR. The worlds I'd create! I'd be like Reginald Barclay from Star Trek - I'd never come out of the holodeck! I'd be willing to spend my whole life in there, building my perfect world.
Now? No fucking way. Not with the way the likes of Google or Microsoft or Facebook will implement it, every thought, every action monitored and profiled and fed through analytics software in order to milk every last possible penny out of me, or to "treat my illness" if my fantasies stray too far from normative ideals.
It was a beautiful dream, as usual ruined by human greed and opportunism.
That's part of Melbourne Cup culture - the women all compete to see who can front up in the most elaborate and outlandish headgear!
"Yep. That's definitely paranoia."
Yep. That's definitely arrogance.
"50's paranoia. It's grrrrrrreat!"
You know, I used to hate smugness. That was until I got the joy of saying "I told you so" to all you head-burying ostriches that love using that word "paranoid" every time someone expresses concern about erosion of liberties and destruction of privacy, until the reality hits home and the chickens come in to roost. Then when the cops are turning your house upside down because a microphone in your smart TV picked up somebody saying something suspicious, I'll smile smugly and say "I told you so. You called me paranoid, but I fucking told you so. You deserve this."
"So what lies at the other side of the Earth of the Ontong Java Eruption"
The antipode of Java is Colombia and Venezuela, and I don't think there are any major impact craters there. However it doesn't follow that even if the Deccan super-eruption was triggered by an impact shockwave, that all super-eruptions are. If that were the case you'd also have to start wondering what was opposite the Yellowstone supervolcano (whose antipode is in the southern Indian Ocean near the French Southern & Antarctic Islands) and the New Zealand supervolcano (whose antipode is in Portugal.) So clearly while the Deccan supervolcano may have been influenced by the KT impactor, the others likely had different causes.
The problem with NoScript these days though is that too many sites fetch content from fifty different domains to build the page. So you Allow for the main domain, and nothing happens except NoScript reloads with a two-screen-high list of domains the site also wants you to Allow in order to see anything at all.
We need to let website owners know that this practice is unacceptable. We need to show them that it is costing them customers and traffic, and that their losses will only get worse. We need to send the lazy and incompetent buffoons passing themselves off as "web developers" these days the message to do the bloody work they're paid to do and set up the site properly on a single domain, instead of just throwing together a five-minute mashup of calls to half the internet fetching libraries and frameworks to do their job for them.
Speaking from a web development perspective I couldn't agree more.
I remember we in the industry spent years proselytising Firefox and installing it on the computers of all and sundry to force Microsoft to bring IE into line with the W3C standards, because every website had to be developed twice: once for W3C, and again for IE, which doubled the time and cost of development.
We eventually won that battle, and there were a brief, glorious few halcyon years where we could design a website ONCE under W3C and it would work everywhere. It was a truly joyous time.
And then Apple and Samsung came along and fucked it all up by shoving fondleslabs and smartphones in everyone's faces. At first it was a non-issue; but a few years ago mobile/slab traffic became significant enough to warrant being factored into the design specs.
Which took us straight back to the bad old W3C vs IE days: we went back to having to design every website twice again, this time one for desktop and one for mobiles. Grrrrrrrrr!
No wonder I have hardly any hair left, and what there is has gone gray!
I have to point out that you've neglected the vital fact that besides the dropped consonants and vowel changes, we also often run all our words together in rapid-fire machine-gun bursts of speech.
What does real "Strine" sound like?
= "Get out of it you thick bastard, and have a bloody go, you mug!"
Regardless of who owns all of cloud, they will own my data over my rotting corpse.
I decided the IoT would never have a place in my house the moment I read this Reg article about smart light bulbs and how the company selling them was climbing on the rentism/ransom business model for $10 a month.
So, three reasons why IoT will never be allowed in any house I live in:
1. Security risks of being hacked and having everything in my house turned against me.
2. Being nickel-and-dimed into bankruptcy by 350 different Ransom-as-a-Service subscriptions required every month just to keep everything going.
3. The inevitable spying, monitoring and profiling for the purposes of everything from exploitative advertising to being put on pre-crime watchlists that will go with it.
Fuck that shit and the bastards' backs it rode in on.
"No decent Indian Takeaways in the capitals either..."
If you're in Adelaide, Beyond India does a good arse-burning vindaloo, along with a decent range of other Indian goodies. They also do home delivery if you live within about 6 km of the city or Modbury areas for when you don't feel like going out to eat.
I did the same maths as you when I read that, and translated it into real-world terms: it comes out to about 15 20' shipping containers' worth of sand, so a fair sized convoy of semi-trailers and a bloody big hole in the beach that a great many beachgoers, not to mention the shire council responsible for its upkeep, would definitely notice!
For the maths geeks:
20' shipping container = 12.051 m x 2.34 m x 2.38 m = 67.11 m3
Assuming 1 mm3 per sand grain, 1000 mm x 1000 mm x 1000 mm = 1 m3 = 1 billion grains of sand, so 1 trillion grains of sand = 1000 m3.
1000 m3 / 67.11 m3 = 14.9 shipping containers.
Assuming a density of about 1600 kgm-3 for dry packed sand, that's about 1600 metric tonnes of sand (for our American friends, 1764 short tons.)
"But their portrayals of female hackers as muslims or S&M lesbians was a bit much."
That was so overdone that it passed beyond the bounds of social-justice intrusiveness into pure, concentrated hilarity.
It was as if someone played "let's see how many token minorities we can compress into a single character!" So we end up with the ultimate political-correctness singularity: a female Muslim ethnic-Arab transsexual lesbian mute computer whiz, which just about covers every possible base - sex, religion, race, gender identity, sexuality, disability, and profession.
It was so far over the top that when this character first appeared and was introduced as such to Elliot, my friend and I were folded over on the floor in stitches!
Whoever came up with this character wasn't pandering to political correctness. They were taking the absolute piss out of it. And they pulled it off in such a way that the usual horde of habitual offence-takers didn't utter a bloody word of complaint. In this day and age, that was an undisputed masterstroke of genius!
"Still not being clear then. WTF does "sunset" mean in that context?"
It means that if you were relying on them for your data storage needs you're going to lose all your data if you don't find someone else to store it, and go through the hassle of copying it all over to your new provider - which if it is GBs or TBs worth, is going to take some time and cost quite a bit of bandwidth.
Which is one major reason why my company doesn't use cloud services, and never will, no matter how much the snake-oil salesmen push it on us.
" Google Play subscribers will be opted in, ..."
And that shit is exactly why I don't have any credit card or payment method associated with my Google account or my Android phone.
"Perhaps passing this bill *will* encourage "alternatives" to the Silicon Valley tech companies and so reduce their influence. Why do you have problems with that?"
I don't have any problems with it at all; actually I'm all for it. It would be much better for privacy and security if every country did have its own search and social media hosted within its own borders in addition to the global giants.
The globalism of the internet has advantages as well as disadvantages. For example, the internet have made it possible for me to find and communicate with my cousins, aunts and uncles in the UK who I hadn't seen since emigrating to Australia decades ago - I've never been great at writing letters, but email and social media means I've been able to stay in touch.
But that same globalism has concentrated unspeakable wealth and power into the hands of a few multinational players - players whose home legal jurisdictions mostly fall within the purview of what I consider to be the most dangerous regime to arise since the Third Reich. Godwin be damned, most people here including many Americans themselves know I'm right about this. History is repeating itself and the US government is spearheading the revival.
So my original statement was made from the point of view of one of those players - that the US government is undermining their global business model, not from my own point of view. I was wondering why the US government seems so hell-bent on undermining what amounts to its own global internet powerbase, because their actions seem counterproductive to their goals. Why are they doing that? What am I missing here? I apologise if my post didn't make that clearer.
In the end, I do wonder what difference it would make if intranational Google and Facebook alternatives were set up, even if people did start using them instead of the multinationals. The Australian government is every bit as intrusive and tyrannical as the US government is, not to mention the EU, and no doubt such alternatives would still be privacy nightmares, regardless of whether it's the FBI/NSA or ASIO/AFP or GCHQ/MI5 who snoops my data - they all share it among themselves anyway (look up Five Eyes if you haven't already.)
Ultimately the only way to approach this is to assume that everything you put on the Internet is visible to anyone who really wants to see it. As the venerable Orwell so aptly put it:
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
Senator Wyden is right on the ball. It looks to me like the US government is doing everything it possibly can to undermine global trust in American businesses. The EU is already looking to establish EU-controlled alternatives to Silicon Valley giants over data privacy and security issues; other nations are doing likewise, and this is simply going to push them away all the harder.
Given that what used to be called a “publicly accessible database”, is now called “the Cloud”
I believe "cloud" refers to a network structure, not a database.
ISTR from my college IT course in networking that "cloud" simply referred to an unknown network - that is, any part of a network topology outside of your direct administrative influence, ergo not under your control. Generally that was taken to mean the internet.
For example, if your network existed in multiple physical locations connected by lines not owned or exclusively leased by your organisation, then the links between the locations were shown as passing through an "internet cloud" to indicate that any network traffic through that section was passing through unknown or undefined infrastructure not under your control, therefore not secure. The "cloud" symbol thus illustrated areas where a VPN or SSL was needed to secure data passing though the unknown network.
That's why the symbol was a cloud, to indicate a nebulous, chaotic entity in your network topology to be considered a weakness or vulnerability requiring resolution from a security auditing perspective. The cloud symbolised an issue of data and network control, not public accessibility.
As far as I'm concerned, that's still what the cloud represents.
This philosophy is the backbone of our business at work. Our websites are more expensive than those of our competitors, but that's because we custom-build them for each client from our own codebase, the old-fashioned way. No Wordpress or Joomla, no jQuery, no huge clunky libraries or frameworks or cross-calls to 15 different CDNs to turn the site into a lumbering, bandwidth-hogging oil tanker.
Our team designs websites the old fashioned way, with little overhead, minimising graphics and avoiding things like Java and Flash entirely. We also do very little in the way of analytics. Other than visitors-per-page-per-month and straightforward sales data, most clients don't need or want a blow-by-blow account of each user's actions on each and every page. Only what is needed to make the site work is included, with no bloat or unnecessary crap.
Simplicity is our main selling point. This means our sites load blisteringly fast and are easy and cheap to maintain. When we show our clients that, most of the time they're willing to fork out the extra upfront dough!
"Those cookies that track you from site to site allow advertisers to know..."
What those tracking cookies also allow advertisers to know is what your interests are. The same advertising agency will place ads on multiple sites. Google, of course, has its tentacles into just about every site on the internet, but others turn up on a very regular basis, as a glance at NoScript's Options list will tell you whenever you visit a site.
Every time you visit a site with an ad by that ad agency, its builds a list tied to a unique ID linked to you. They might not know your name and address, but they know every site you visited that has their stuff embedded in it - in effect, what they have is at least a partial duplicate of your browser history. In fact more than your browser history because if you're browsing in privacy mode your browser isn't storing your history but those ad trackers certainly are. Furthermore, those trackers not only store what pages you visit and when, but how long you spend on each one and some of them even track where your mouse goes and what parts of the page you scroll to. With Google Analytics being nearly universally deployed that means Google have your complete browser history whether you're using Chrome, or in privacy mode, or not.
Ad agencies use this information to "tailor" ads to what they think you're most likely to click on. So if you've been browsing sites that review and/or sell things like RealDolls, sex toys, fetish gadgets and so on, you can expect ads for those things to start appearing even on sites that have nothing to do with them. Depending on your computer-sharing situation, this can lead to some really awkward questions.
Not only that, but insurance companies also pay ad companies for this data. When they correlate it with other identifying information they most certainly can find out who you are. And if you've been browsing health sites looking for ways to stop smoking or asking questions about why you keep waking up at 3AM with a screaming gutsache, you'll suddenly find you're paying rather more for your premiums than most people.
It is this sort of thing that concerns me the most with online ads. I don't want to be tracked and profiled and have a map of my likes and dislikes methodically built up by people I've never met and don't know. I find the very idea of being pried on and a dossier being worked up about me for the purpose of being milked and exploited in this fashion intolerably odious.
And before anyone gives me that worn-out bullshit about "nobody cares about your likes and dislikes and shit," YES THEY FUCKING DO. They don't care on a personal level, no, but they still collect the information and use analytics software to draw conclusions about it. Some of those conclusions will be erroneous, but may potentially lead to problems for me down the track, say when I want to travel or buy insurance or apply for credit, for instance.
That is my primary reason for using adblockers.
Ah, yes, the usual boring descent into the familiar ad hominem stereotyping hypocrisy of the modern progressive-liberal. Disagree with someone who doesn't support your agenda? Just abuse the fuck out of them, that'll do the trick. Amazing cerebration you have there.
Frankly I'm amazed you didn't manage to work the words "neckbeard", "autistic", "virgin", "mansplaining", or "manchild" into your diatribe. I can appreciate why you didn't resort to "misogynist", "sexist", "redneck" or "bigot" though. I mean, those ones have really been thrashed to death now haven't they?
But anyway, thank you for demonstrating to us all the blind reflexive abusiveness that characterises the modern progressive mentality.
"Go on then, enlighten us. What's coming?"
I'll tell you what I see coming within the next decade or so, based on my own experiences, those of people I've spoken to, and the general trend of legislation and social policy:
A ban on men sitting next to children on airline flights because all men are potential paedophiles. Oh, wait, that's already happened.
A ban on men using cameras in public places because all men are perverts trying take pictures of kids or up women's dresses or of cleavage.
A curfew for men so that women can feel safe walking around by themselves at night because all men are rapists.
A ban on men entering childcare or early-learning professions because, you know, all men are paedophiles.
No-go zones for men near schools and some shopping centres so that women can take their kids to / collect them from school and go shopping without having to worry about men perving on them.
Prohibitions on men entering STEM fields at universities to force-level the gender disparity in those professions.
Companies forced by law to ensure their workplaces are minimum 50% female (more is even better) and that all women must be paid 30% gender loading on top of their salaries to address the "gender pay gap".
Automatic guilt on any and all accusations against men of domestic violence, sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape, without trial, to spare the "victim" the trauma of testifying.
Don't think any of this will happen? I've got AUD1000 cash on the barrelhead thats says most, if not all, of these will be in place in at least some areas in Western nations within the next 15 years. Within the next 5 if Hilary Clinton gets elected President of the USA.
Oh yes, this one.
I'm sure my Facebook activity log contains more links to Snopes than to all other web sites combined.
I'm rapidly getting to the point where if I see one more long-debunked "Muslims want to ban Christmas in <insert town name here>" image I'm going to print it out 50 times and shove it down the poster's throat.
If Islamic immigration to the West is that big a problem at least get your fucking facts straight first. You aren't doing your cause any favours by constantly posting debunked bullshit!
"On the subject of El Reg post icons, there are several that I don't even understand: what is the purpose of "Your foster parents are dead", for instance?"
"Your foster parents are dead" is what the T-800 (Arnie) in Terminator 2: Judgement Day says to the young John Connor, when Connor phones his foster parents; Arnie takes the phone off him and listens to Connor's "foster mother" (actually the T-1000, which has just killed her), and identifies its voice.
So that icon relates to the Terminator, and by extension, that aspect of El Reg culture concerned with the Rise of the Machines and robots/cyborgs taking over the world.
"Please don't pull product."
Sadly, they probably will, because these fucking whining fools will now raise a huge fuss, the media will be all over it with their familiar plethora of self-righteous neo-liberal buzzwords, and the usual pile of sanctimonious PC maggots will come crawling out of the woodwork to add their bellyaching to the mix.
Those of us not cowed by these hand-wringing nutjobs need to form an opposing force and let Playmobil know in no uncertain terms that they'll make more money telling the PC whingers to fuck off, and selling to the far larger, albeit less noisy, market that is sick and tired of these do-gooders taking offence at everything.
Especially if we make it clear to the likes of Walmart and Amazon that if they pull this product if Playmobil don't, they'll be the target of a boycott and complaint deluge far greater than anything the PC brigade can raise. I personally will be emailing Playmobil to this effect, and I will email the same to any retailer that pulls it as well.
It only needs to happen once, and these whining bastards will forever lose their power.
For the same reason that political-correctness crusaders get into positions of power.
People who are convinced they know best what's good for everyone else and how everyone should live, are the ones who pursue power in order to be able to realise their vision of shoving their political agendas down everyone else's throats. They push their causes, gather vocal followers, and get themselves elected (or promoted in the private sector) to positions where they can dictate their morals to all from their high horses.
This is exactly why Douglas Adams rightly pointed out that anyone capable of getting themselves elected President of the Galaxy should on no account be allowed to do the job.
I told her I was concerned about storing my contacts in the cloud to which she replied: "It's alright, you can have as many clouds as you want."
Holy shit. I think my response to that would have been something like a moment of stunned incredulity, followed immediately by my putting the phone smartly down and marching stiffly out the door without a word.
"(actually thought he received a light sentence) "
In today's sociopolitical climate, I wouldn't call 7 years on the SOR a "light sentence." The social media vigilante squads will make sure it isn't.