* Posts by h4rm0ny

4573 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008

Climate denier bloggers sniff out new conspiracy

h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

Oh, and I guess while I'm dealing with the absurdities of your attack on my integrity, I might as well ask you if you yourself read the entire 33 page paper before commenting here? Because the point that I was making was a basic and uncontroversial one about sample size, for which simply downloading and looking at the actual raw data (which I did), was sufficient. You are the one that claimed to have evaluated and found flaws in the paper itself. I have skim-read it and pretend no more than that. But if you're going to write accusations like "you haven't even read the paper" or suggest that you have greater insight into it, then I want to know if you're actually claiming to have read those 33 pages of small-size text before telling me I'm wrong. Because if not, you just sound like you're trying to argue by sounding knowledgable, rather than actually pointing out anything that is wrong in my argument.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

Oh, and amusingly in an earlier post of your own you write:

"1100 responses is a perfectly reasonable number for a survey like this"

So it's okay for you to round off 47 respondents, but the moment someone you disagree with writes the same thing, they are are lying and it shows what they write is flawed? I don't suppose you're going to apologise, are you?

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

"The sample size wasn't 1100. You haven't read the paper. I genuinely don't know why you are pretending that you have."

There were 1,147 respondents. If you think someone using common short-hand of knocking off a couple of digits to make a more human-readable number is grounds for accusing someone of lying, then I pity you. Yes, it's quicker to say: "eleven hundred" than it is to say "one-thousand, one-hundred and forty-seven" and I type as I talk, typically. I gave easily understandable criticisms and explained in layman's terms why your comment about sample size was misleading. And you choose to respond by saying because I wrote 1,100 instead of 1,147 I am "pretending".

Insulting and contrived.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: denial denial denial bwahahaha

Someone always seems to try and link those they disagree with to any group that is popularly disliked as a way of attacking them, no matter how ludicrous. Someone was on here the other month ranting about how fascism was a right-wing ideology. Completely oblivious, apparently, that it's a Left Wing ideology. Mussolini pretty much brought the term into modern usage as part of his socialist movement. The NAZIs were the National Socialist Workers Party. But "fascism" is bad. Right wing politics is (to the poster) bad. Therefore Right Wing is Fascism. It's muddy thinking at its best (worst). Some people don't care about accuracy - they just love throwing mud and hoping it will stick. It's easier than making an argument for some people.

2
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

"OK. I have now read the rest of your previous post and it contains not one single reference to anything specific in the paper. I have no idea why you're pretending that it does."

Well there was the specific reference to ten of the respondents disbelieving the Moon landings and the specific reference to the sample size of 1100. That's about all I needed for my point. If you want the specific column references and labels for the relevant questions, they are 'R / CYMoon', 'Y / CYClimChange' and 'AC / Cause CO2'. But that's hardly necessary or germaine. So I have no idea what "specific reference" omissions you feel are undermining my argument.

It's an explanation of why ten respondents are the applicable sample size for talking about whether or not AGW-skeptics are more likely to disbelieve the Moon landings, not the total 1100 respondents. You could ask a thousand people what they thought of Lady Gaga but if only ten of the respondents to the survey are muslims, then your sample size for what muslims think of Lady Gaga is not 1100, but 10. The point is basic and understandable.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Meh!

I too would love to see such an article. Academics tend to be very wary of approaching this particular elephant in the room however, for fear of the massive attacks on them it tends to generate. We certainly can support more people on the planet than we currently do. We almost certainly cannot support everyone with an average US-level lifestyle. Whether we can support the current or greater numbers of people that we have right now long term, or if we're consuming resources at a greater level than we will be able to replace them, I have no idea. Fossil fuels will obviously run out, a shift to nuclear should be able to cover us for quite a long time. But potable water is actually being used at a greater rate than it is being replaced from what I've read and there is agricultural degredation as land is depleted of nutrients and forests are destroyed to make land for growing cattle feed (soy) for the US beef market. Long-term sustainable or not, I have no idea. And the climate is changing (whether by human activity or something else) so that will have effects. But whilst we don't know for certain how much we can sustain long term, there certainly seems no technological or socialogical reason why there needs to be quite so many of us. We could all still create new technologies and have a good social life if there were only four billion of us. So why take the risk?

The better educated people are and the more opportunities there are for women in the workplace, the greater population reduces in a humane and voluntary way.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

"That's an awful lot of words. Unfortunately, the first few lines of the third paragraph are nonsense so I didn't bother reading the rest"

That's a good start.

"As I said in my previous post, the relevant figures and calculations are all detailed in the full paper - which is available as a pdf linked to in the article. I can't see anything unusual in there. Can you point out the problem you see with the statistics in the actual paper?"

I have both the report and the raw data used for it open right now. If you had bothered to read my full post, you would find the information you requested already posted.

0
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: It's real!

"I believe in mood landings, I had a right strop at the top of the stairs the other day."

Bloody Daleks.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Giggle

"Thank you, your angry swivel-eyed foaming made me continue to giggle."

I think it is right to get angry about bad science and academic dishonesty. If that makes you giggle like an idiot, that's up to you.

For most of us, laughing at people for caring about things stopped being considered cool sometime in Secondary School.

1
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Libertarians reject science shocker

I have some vegetarian sausages in my freezer. They're quite nice actually.

0
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

Granted it's about the difference in ratios, but when 0.9% of your sample report believe the moon landings are a hoax and 6 out of those 10 also agree with the author that burning fossil fuels over the last fifty years has increased the atmospheric temperature to some measurable degree, then you're on very dodgy ground in making your headline conclusion that AGW-skeptics believe the Moon landings were faked. More of the believers in hoax also believe that CO2 raises temperatures than don't believe that.

Now what you're saying is that it can still support that conclusion if you are looking at the ratios. I.e. if 40% of people who think CO2 has no effect disbelieve the Moon landings, but just 20% of people who do think CO2 has an effect do, then disbelievers of CO2 causing warming are more likely to be disbelievers of Moon landings.

That's potentially true, but there are some serious problems with it. The first is that the sample size actually is too small. You say that 1100 responses is reasonable, but that is the number of total responses. The number of applicable responses as any good statistician would immediately pick up on, depends on which question you are asking - in this case whether you believe the moon landings are faked correlated with belief in AGW - which in this case is just ten people. I'll illustrate. If I ask a thousand people to rate Lady Gaga as a musician as Good or Bad, that could be a decent sample size (we'll ignore selection bias for now, just as the author of this study has). But if that group there are 10 Muslims and 7 of them say she's Good, then whilst my selection group for how "people" think might be 1000 respondents, my selection group for what muslims think, is ten. Not 1,000. But ten. The reason is because there are 2bn muslims in the world and 10 is a non-representative sample. Think of it as a Venn diagram where whatever you want to test has to fall into the intersection of both groups. The moment you start restricting the set of people you're talking about, you have to start discarding some of your responses. That's a slight simplification, but good enough for non-Statisticians and essentially true. There's nothing that really changes that basic principle.

The sample size really is too small to draw the conclusions drawn from it and the way it is presented, is very far from suggesting to people that of the respondents, only 0.9% who believed the Moon landings were faked; and that of them, 60% were actually believers that CO2 increased global temperatures. The stated conclusions and headline are horribly misleading to the point that I call them wilfully disingenuous.

And the whole thing is flawed from the outset not just because of the framed questions and ropey analysis, but because it has the selection bias from Hell.

Disraeli said there were 'lies, damnded lies and statistics." I wouldn't even dignify this paper with that last one, just the first two. It knew what it wanted to prove and by Jupiter, it would do so! I wonder how many of the commentators here actually have the survey and the results spreadsheet open and have looked at it. I have, and it's rubbish. If I can poke holes in it, then any competent statistician would (and will) rip it to shreds. This thing is a blot upon the whole field of statistics. Sorry that I worked my way up into a rant, but however cynical I may become, an academic should be better than this.

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Libertarians reject science shocker

I misread that. He got more than 10 respondents. It was 10 respondents who said that that the Moon landings were hoaxes (that's 0.9% of respondents). And interestingly, those 10 respondents included people who agreed with his views on AGW.

Apologies for the wrong information.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Some Confusion

Yep - I initially misread it like that and posted similarly above. You can actually get hold of the data yourself now (it's been provided by one of the AGW-skeptic sites) and see how dubious the conclusions are. 0.9% of respondents apparently believe the Moon landings were hoaxes.

The other elephant in the room is how he chose the sites to send the survey too. A lot of mainstream AGW-skeptic sites are checking and confirming they aren't aware of being contacted.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This could've been an interesting take on the story...

He seems to have also had an interesting approach to choosing who to send the surveys too, with a lot of mainstream AGW-skeptic sites checking and confirming that they aren't aware they were ever contacted. So it seems he may have deliberately picked fringe sites to contact as well.

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Giggle

In what way is it a "brilliant story"? Have you read the survey? It contains numerous questions that cannot be answered in any way other than that which confirms the author's preconceptions, there seem to be three different versions of the survey floating around, the conclusions are based on the ten responses the author actually got to their survey (an absurdly small sample size), no realistic measures to control for self-selection of the sample group - indeed, it actively prejudices the sample group. For instance, the survey sent to the "non-skeptic" group was done under the author's own name whilst elsewhere that was concealed. It was also a very odd list of "skeptic" sites that the author chose to select for sending the questionnaire to, avoiding several popular and mainstream "skeptical" sites, and instead targetting more fringe sites.

Read a question that asks you to assert whether the 2003 invasison of Iraq was about WMD or not and tell me whether you think that question is an acceptable way to categorise people as "conspiracy theorists" or not.

The author of this study is a crank. I have seen YouTube videos by him where he says he has seen <insert flawed viewpoint> posted on AGW-skeptic forums, therefore AGW-skeptics think that thing. It's like saying I saw a post about how great the iPad is on Reg forums thus the view of El Reg is that the iPad is great. And I'm not exagerating. This person actively demonizes people he disagrees with using fundamentally flawed logic and terrible science. And if you take a look at this survery, even if more than 10 people had responded to it and they weren't purely self-selecting, the flaws in it would make it very difficult to tease out any actual meaning from the results.

The only way I can see this making you giggle is if it confirms some bias you already have and therefore you just like seeing an attack on those you disagree with, regardless of whether that attack was actually legitimate or not.

3
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Libertarians reject science shocker

And you got all this from his 10 respondents who participated in his survey? You are certainly a master of insight to be able to get the above from such a tiny sample size.

3
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: It's real!

And how do you feel about Iraq as a conspiracy theory. One of the questions in the survey reads:

"The Iraq War in 2003 was launched for reasons other than to remove WMD from Iraq..." and asks you to rate the truth of the statement.

So if someone thinks just maybe WMD (I'm sure we'll find some soon) wasn't the reason, they're a "conspiracy theorist" and lumped in with people who don't believe in the mood landings?

16
0

UK ice boffin: 'Arctic melt equivalent to 20 years of CO2'

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

"With those figures in mind I say lets get fracking."

No, lets get building nuclear power stations. There's more fuel long-term, less environmental pollution (I'm not talking warming - I am an AGW-skeptic - I'm talking air pollution) and for the sake of 0.1p difference per kwh? Nuclear.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Joke

Re: This is actually quite good for the UK power wise.

"How can something that isn't a cost effective power source become even more cost effective?"

Volume.

0
0

Emotional baggage

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Thirded (fourthed, whatever we're up to). Anyone who is serious about a career in programming (or closely related hands on work, DB design, etc), I would recommend not to take ICT at A-Level of GCSE. Get a hard science subject, e.g. Maths or Physics. I believe a lot of University lecturers in Computer Science would prefer a lot of their new students didn't arrive with ICT A-levels. Enough knowledge that they will get bored in the first year introductory parts, badly taught enough that it will cause problems. At any rate, doing Drama isn't a bad thing either. It's fun, it's creative and quite frankly all that matters for a career in programming is that you get on to the degree level course. An ICT A-Level is essentially wasted time if you then go on to do a degree. No employer is going to care if you have a Comp. Sci degree AND an ICT A-level. The former completely replaces the latter. Better to have Comp. Sci. plus Drama. It may work out for the best.

0
0

Ballmer predicts 400 MILLION Win 8 Surface and Lumia fumblers

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @Tom 38

"Yet it seems that was too much for Ballmer. Released in 2010 and nearly EOL'd in 2012, that's only 2 years. "

It's not EOL'd. Nokia are bringing out a new Windows 7.8 phone before the end of the year and new apps will continue to be released for it and it is still officially supported and you will see updates for it continue. Plus, a large number of people are simply not going to care - it's a nice smartphone that still does everything they wanted when they bought it. Win8 has different hardware requirements. You would have been the first to complain if Win7 phones had been released with massively over-powered hardware at vastly higher cost for the sake of being ready for a new OS two years in the future. (Actually Bob Vivstakin would be first, but you take my point).

"Given the fact that developers need to cough up $100,-/year to be even allowed to access their own phone for personal development one has to wonder here... How likely is it that when WP8 is out people would still develop software for WP7.5? So IMO this is effectively killing the WP7 market."

$100 is a trivial business cost quite frankly. I charge more than that per hour for development work. No-one other the most casual, doing it for fun programmer, is going to skip out on releasing software for the sake of $100.

1
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: What counts as a tablet?

And some people actually suggest that there isn't an anti-MS bias here! The post contains a simple factual assertion, easily verifiable, and it gets downvoted. Do people actually require video footage of someone pressing the compile button in VS without re-writing their application?

2
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: The Surface Pro looks pretty tempting

You should be able to put Linux on the pro version as you want. The RT, being ARM-based, is almost certainly going to have a locked bios that will prevent installing a different operating system. Possibly if someone produces a signed Linux bootloader, I'm not sure.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge
Pint

Re: Maybe.

"@h4rm0ny - it may of been someone else, so apologies after looking through your back-catalogue of text through-out articles responses. there are a couple of hardcore anti-apple people around here that spout out rubbish "

Thanks for replying with that. Pint for you. It's easy to get people confused around here, I've done it myself. There are hardcore anti-apple types. Every OS has its fanpeople. Even Microsoft seems to have acquired a cheerleader here recently (like a lonely butterfly emerging before the Spring ;).

As far as I'm concerned, any modern OS is an impressive feat of engineering and treating companies like your favourite football team is silly. We're not citizens of the state of Androidtopia or something. We're customers. Everytime one of them produces something better and improved, we benefit either immediately by buying it, or in the second order when their competitors up their game. Celebrating a failure in the market for a good product, is just a shame, imo.

1
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Maybe.

"anyway, pot kettle black. I'm sure you're chucking crap in every Apple article possible from what I remember"

Find me one instance of that.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: MS need to shed Ballmer

"Balmer throws chairs at his staff: he is not a “people person”."

Originally it was rumoured that he'd thrown a chair across the office when someone told him they were going to work for Google. Now chair throwing is apparently an established fact, a recurruring thing, and at actually targeted at people. In a few more years, he'll be using a custom built catapult to launch sofas at people's kids.

2
4
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Maybe.

I haven't clicked on the link but I'm guessing that it is the momentary freeze of a pre-release version of the Netflix app running on the pre-release OS that was installed on the pre-release hardware in a demo that he finds so damning. I'm guessing it's that because he posts it repeatedly every week. If someone as overtly prejudiced against Microsoft as Bob is reduced to this as a damning inditement, then Win8 is looking pretty good. (And I've been using it for a couple of months on the Desktop and am finding it very reliable and quick).

3
14

Google snags patent on price discrimination

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Google gazumping

I'd be interested in any tools for blocking Google tracking. If you block Google Analytics then about a third of the sites I visit (including the W3schools when I need to come to the surface for a bit of web-work from my databases) will break. They just hang because they're waiting for Google Analytics to respond. What's the solution to this? Just redirect Google Analytics to a local 404 or something? Or are there plugins available to deal with this problem?

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Use a bot?

That poses an interesting problem for them. They have to keep the prices low for shopbot visitors because otherwise they wont even come to your site in the first place.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: market stalls violate google patent?

Nah - stock market works the other way round. Big players with the most money get charged less than others.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Each according to his/needs, each according to his/own abilities? Or...

"Yes, i am standing by for the frackin down-thumber schills"

Schills (sic) ? You think TARGET is paying people to downvote critics on El Reg forums? I think you overestimate the effect of your comment on their shareprice.

0
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This is evil

"By the way the examiner who failed to find the blatantly obvious prior art on this should be given a pink slip straight away."

Absolutely. Not only is there prior art for this (we could also include Monty Python's Life of Brian which I seem to recall involved a detailed illustration of this process and a gourd), but having just skim-read the patent, there's no actual methodolgy in this at all.

If Google had conducted research and concluded that if visitor x comes back to an item in the store more than 4 times a month, they have a 98% chance of purchasing, if they look at similar items in a range X% above and y% below the items cost, then the chance of them buying at base price + 1/3% is only 1% lower than the chance of them buying it at base price so put the price up... that sort of methodology and actual research, then I could see at least that they would have done some work that they might want to protect.

But the only innovation I can see here is the creativity needed to spin the definition of 'haggle' out to 24 pages.

0
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: This is evil

Age doesn't tell you what technology can do, but it does tell you what people will do with it.

1
0

The world's first Windows Phone 8 hands on – what's it like?

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: A CENTIMETER THICK? 175 GRAMS????

You must have a very small lap.

2
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Disappointing

"I have a professional SLR... I wish my lenses were £400. Try adding another zero to the end of that, then if you really want to go to town, double, triple and even quadruple that."

Oh I'm well aware that there are more expensive ones out there. I'm also well aware that I am not a good enough photographer to need them. ;)

I agree with your whole post and I've experienced the same myself.

2
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: BBC NEWS

WP7 isn't being completely dropped. Nokia are even bringing out a new WP7 device in parallel with the WP8 ones. You can code for both WP7 and WP8 at the same time. I agree many will hold off from buying a WP7 device in favour of wating a couple more months, but anyone who buys a WP7 device is still going to get something that works well as a phone with a lot of modern features and software being released for it for a long time to come.

4
9
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Microsoft caught red-handed faking the PureView ad

Uh, that's Nokia, not Microsoft.

If you're interested, a proper video of a non-OIS camera and the Nokia one, both mounted on the same rig and carried by someone walking, is here:

Nokia OIS

Looks like a nice feature.

1
2
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: BBC NEWS

I've given up using the stock market as a good way to determine value of a company. Half the time people are manipulating it, the other half people are deliberately shorting it. Look at the way Facebook share price rises just before another slide begins where you can see that some invisible hand (bad joke) has pumped it up so that smaller fish will buy in and the bigger fish can divest themselves of toxic shares at less of a loss. There are big players in the markets and whenever they're confident that a stock is going to start going one way, it's in their interests to begin that process with a slight shift in the other direction so they can get in at a better price point (whether lower, or higher if short selling). It's a bit like someone counter-turning on a motorbike.

Basically, be wary of drawing any conclusions from the stock market unless it's your field of expertise. My area of expertise is technology so I look at that to determine value, and these look like solid products. I think they will sell well.

13
3
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Disappointing

8MP is actually plenty for most purposes. At that point, image quality is far more influenced by issues such as lens quality than raw MP. Yes, if everything else is the same then more MP is better, but a 15MP camera is far from necessarily better than a 10MP camera without knowing *a lot* of other information. I have a professional quality SLR. Lenses for it can cost £400. It is 18.5MP, less than half that of the Nokia N8 and takes better pictures than any camera phone ever has and, possibly than they ever will.

MP in a camera is a lot like RAM in a computer. If you don't have enough, it's a problem. But once you've gone beyond what you need, adding more and more isn't going to make anything run faster or better.

4
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: SD card

"96GB is going to come very close to holding my whole music collection finally pensioning off my ipod."

With a typical song being about 4 minutes in length, encoded in 320Kbps, 96GB is... about 17,000 tracks? Do you have every full length piece of Classical music or something? How can you possibly listen to that much music? Genuine question - not criticising.

3
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Downvotards amaze me

A poster declares that 0.7mm thicker than one of the market leaders means a phone is useless and you can't see people wanting to express how silly they think that is as being other than a "MS shill", then I believe you should reassess your own biases.

27
0
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: I had a Lumia 800

Complete opposite for me. I bought the Lumia 710 because of the OS which I liked a lot. I really didn't care much about camera quality or memory so the cheaper one was great for me. I found the OS very responsive and it did everything I cared about. So much so I wasn't planning to upgrade to a WP8 device, though the cheaper one of these new phones looks useful.

10
3

UK.gov's web filth block plan: Last chance to speak your brains

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @jon press

"I totally agree that it is wrong to exclude those without kids from this consultation."

Even those who don't have kids may one day, *gasp* later have some.

3
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: There is a 100% effective filter ...

"Kids are always more technically savvy than their parents"

When my kids can write network management software for SDH and SONET telecomms systems, I will consider the possibility.

9
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Green Cross Code

"Why shouldn't kids be looking at porn? I seem to remember jazz mags doing the rounds in my days. Am I a damaged deviant now? (Don't answer that one.)"

The Consultation Form makes no allowance for your views. In one place, it asks how you think filtering of "obviously harmful material (such as pornography)" should be handled. Now I think pornography can be damaging to children because a lot of it is dehumanizing and nearly all of it gives a very distorted idea of what real sex is like (for most of us). But parents should be able to make their own views on this, not have the government mandate what is and isn't harmful. And in my opinion, porn is a lot less harmful than some other stuff such as heavy violence, racist material and the example of the rewards of dishonesty that many of our politicians set for society.

In general, the consultation form is a bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" document with a number of presuppositions and limitations on what you can and cannot say by the framing of the questions. In particular, it makes little allowance for people who think parental controls might affect them if they're not a parent.

But it's still important to make your voice heard and takes ten minutes to fill out. It can be done here: Consultation Form and takes about ten minutes. We still have a few hours to rant at people who can actually do something, rather than just on the El Reg's forums.

11
0

Climate sceptic becomes UK Environment Secretary

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Misnomer

To be fair, I did write that *if* ID presents testable cases, it constitutes a theory. I've never really looked into ID as it doesn't interest me. I don't really see a purpose for it when Evolution already fits observable facts so well and passes scientific testing and observation.

0
0

NASA captures mind-bogglingly gorgeous solar video

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: It really looks like that

And then the triffids come...

1
0

'Natural health' website apparently hacked by sinister forces

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: meh

As someone who was on here arguing the case for organic foods when El Reg covered the original report, it's sadly that I have to agree. Not necessarily that they hacked their own site (though a deliberate Streisland is one possibility), but that it's highly unlikely to be some cunning attack by Evil Corporations. Seriously, the big players are mostly smart enough by now not to think a brief forced downtime would do anything to supress the information (note that the original Streisland effect was due to legal action. I don't think anyone has ever been stupid enough to think DOS is a viable means of supressing information. Anonymous themselves use it as a means of drawing attention to something - e.g. DDOSing the F1 racing in Bahrain to draw attention to their human rights abuses, not because they think it will supress information). So I'm very intrigued to hear how the organization know that the attack was by an organization with "large scale capability".

Couple of possibilities as I see it: a popular attack by script kiddies in the increasingly politically polarized world who see "greens" as something that must be fought against. Possible. The site themselves doing a self-hack either by just faking the hack (which would be quick to unearth by either their hosting company or, if self-hosting, by lack of evidence provided to the authorities to assist an investigation. Thirdly, some very, very stupid person working in the farming industry who just happens to be cozy with a criminal group who have these resources to hand or some criminal who happens to have a dislike of "greenies" or similar. The possibility it's just a motivated individual with the right connections / resources is a real outlier, one of those quirks that gets thrown up every now and then, but it's not very likely, imo.

Without the tinfoil hat on? Most likely things are (a) an attack by unpaid, politically motivated script kiddies (unless a site is ready for this, it really doesn't take that many to bring it down), (b) a self-hack (which I really hope not because it would be very harmful to organic foods) or (c) the script kiddie attack in the first scenario, but with the site deliberately bigging it up to more than it is either for propaganda purposes or because they genuinely live in a conspiracy mindset.

All hypothesis, sadly. None of it testable. We deal in probabilities until more information is released.

0
0

Windows Server 2012: Smarter, stronger, frustrating

h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: Standard licence...

"System Center + Windows Azure complete the story but giving customers a complete Private, Public to hybrid experience."

How does this work and what can you do with it?

1
1
h4rm0ny
Silver badge

Re: @richto

I think with Server 2012 and Powershell you have the remote command line access you ask for, but modded you up for a good answer.

0
2

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018