Aaron

If you're stressed just because you're a stressy type of person, then you should work on that. But if you're stressed because you have to work so hard to get a 1st, then you're probably not a 1st class student. Take it easy and get the 2:1; a piece of paper isn't worth your health and noone cares if you have a degree or not after your first job.

surely though, the law has to be followed to the letter? And the letters include a H and an E, (he) but no S (she), so it can only be applied to men. Isnt that how the law works? I thought the law was put in place to make things clear, and to mean what it says, and to say what it means?

Like iiisecondcreep said - language is dynamic. You can't interpret the law according to the latest snapshot of your local dialect.

Last time I looked there were hundreds of people DDOSing their proxies :

The problem here is, Anonymous is utterly unstoppable. The FBI is a set group working from a set computer system. Anon is a ragtag collection of script kiddies with LOIC engines. They can rarely be tracked down, many using ghost systems and multiple proxies.

A small amount of organisation and they can take basically anything down.

Unless they have a new version of the LOIC tool it doesn't work with (normal) proxies.

The very next day after the web gives SOPA a big f**k you? All sounds like a 'false flag' to me.

So i just had a quick read from other sources, and some of the better ones show a much more understandable story. She already volunteered at a museum which is in the area of work she'd like, and she was supposedly forced to work, unpaid, at poundland.

There are several different angles to approcach this, and how you judge her will vary depending on your views from each angle. But I typically find things much more intereststing, and less one-sided, when you get your news from somewhere other than the Daily scumbag training/indoctrination maual.

so can we go back to the thread topic? id like to hear your views on what i posted last?

Well worries of potential abuse is fine (and very justified) but arguing from effect is subjective. In my mind the effect is irrelevant when the legislation is unjustified and immoral in the first place. A person has no right to profit from their mind's labour. Ayn Rand thought that they do, and she was an inspirational thinker, but she was confused on several issues. A person only has the right to try to profit from their mind's work. Theft is only theft if you take and deprive the owner of property against their will.

The state has no righteous authority to enforce copyright and patent laws. The only authority they have is derived from their monopoly on violence; and anyone who has considered the reasoning against state initiated coercion and suports it anyway is an evil person. If people didn't support evil then this SOPA topic would be redundant.

I suppose that in all this, the upside is that, in the grand scheme of things, our inflation rate is not quite so bad as some pundits are making out.

I just did a search on Google and apparently inflation rates in 1975 were at 25%!!! That must have been absolutely crippling for those on a low income.

Do you happen to know if people were actually worse off though? What I mean is that some people call what we're experiencing now 'stagflation', as in the money supply is expanding but people's income, etc, is actually decreasing.

'Normal' inflation sees incomes, etc, following behind. Also the inflation figures quoted are a joke because they ignore all sorts of things. In this case they happen to be the things that are increasing dramatically due to the new money being printed being used to speculate on food comodities, and energy.

I don't know what flavour the inflation took back then.

It doesn't make it clear whether she was paid by Poundland or not, does it?

So if we assume she wasn't paid, you think it's ok for her to sue the relevant people for expecting her to do something to 'earn' her benefits and gain some work experience??

Well jsa is less than the legal minimum wage. But I don't "believe in" benefits anyway, so whether you earn them or not doesn't matter much to me personally.

**edit** I should add, just to be clear, that i don't "believe in" minimum wage laws either.

I'm not sure I get it. Did poundland pay her for her work? If so then fine. If not then she's most definitely in the right and if one doesn't like it then one shouldn't suport socialist policies.

No you havent, because apart from the hyperbole, you forgot to mention that the authorities declined to assist wikileaks in redacting sensitive information.

and as a throw away comment, wikileaks can shove a 24ft giant pink 'rod' up itself, it was negligent and endangered the lives of 1000's of servicemen /women and innocents in afghan/iraq and other war zones. That alone is crime enough in my eyes to outweigh every good it has supposedly achieved. (this is a big personal grip of mine)

That's bs popaganda.

Nonsense and you'd be as mad as hell if it was something you'd laboured to produce, spent money in perfecting it basically done all the hard work for someone to come along and just copy it and reap the rewards!

No. I'd be stupid.

Copyright laws are what allows civilized society to exist.

Seriously?! society would degrade and cease to be civilized if we didn't have Harry Potter ? Or the Die Hard franchise?

There is no justifiable reason to pirate software/music/games/art/etc. The company/band/individual/etc produced a product and they have the right to charge or to not charge anything they want for it. If you don't like the price don't buy it, a high price or price at all does not justify theft or piracy.

'piracy' (a misused term) in this case needs no justification because while it is wrong to steal, there is nothing wrong with copying. If your product is something that is easily reproducable then you need to offer some kind of incentive for consumers to purchase your product from you rather than someone else. The MPIAA and RIAA are desperately trying to cling to a dead business model that is long obsolete. Copyright as we know it today came about in 1709 in order to promote the production of new books by offering the author a relatively short period of time where they can profit in order to make it worth while. Now just because someone decided to make it worth while for authors to write, in order to expand the volume of print available, doesn't make it right.

Copyright and patent laws now are far removed from the original intent, with works being protected by copyright now for 120 years. This period of time has grown steadily over the years thanks to corporate lobbying. Copyright & patents are now arguably damaging to innovation, and, ofcourse, are still immoral because they represent the use of violence to limit people's freedom to do whatever they want to do as long as they don't violate anyone elses rights.

There is no justifiable reason to use coercion (violence or the threat of violence used to influence them) against anyone so long as they aren't initiating coercion against you. If you want to make a fortune selling a product then sell something that isn't made up of 1s & 0s that anyone can rearrange into the same pattern.

There are always 2 sides to everything, or should that be 2 viewpoints some viewpoints maybe masked by an unswerving hatred for the establishments but hey its no more a wrong viewpoint than any other

Anyone's hatred for any given establishment is irrelevant. But given two viewpoints, the one (if correctly) argued from first principles is the truth. The one that cannot be derived from first principles is very likely to be an untruth. We live in a world of language, and language is twisted and contorted so that people, who's sense of reality is built around language, believe in things that don't exist and believe things that are untrue to be true. Philosophy is all about establishing truth, and an view correctly derived from axiomatical truths must necessarily be true.

Something slightly related I read today that I might as well post here:

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/01/0 ... um=twitter

It would be very easy to have TMBF taken down, just by posting a misic video or something.

Even tho they are breaking the law to do it?

Do you advocate people taking the law into their own hands, hwere will it end?

Well that's fine and dandy if you believe the law is always just, purely on the basis that it's "the law".

Lets be fair this sopa act wouldnt be needed if people didnt use the internet to rip off others so who is intentianally to balme am sure the big corporations really didnt want to waste time with stuff like this but have been forced to do so, am sure if you felt you were being ripped off you wouldnt stand back and just shrug your shoulders.

Copyright laws are fundamentally immoral. Noone is getting "ripped off". All of this is a symptom of big business buying off politicians so that they can continue to profit from an obsolete business model.

I would also hasten to add personally I think it probably isnt going to make much difference to the average law abiding user of the internet its seems as with most things rumour gets out of hand!

It would fundamentally change the entire internet experience. People won't be able to upload videos to sites like youtube (with about 8 years worth of content uploaded every day how could they manually check every single upload for copyright infringments?). You'll only be able to get news from state approved soures because dissenting sources will be shut down. It means big corporations will OWN the internet, and it means internet censorship (think wikileaks etc) will be democratically introduced into law.

Again fair enough Aaron however it is unlikely in this case symantec is leaking the code as the is from legacy security software NAV 10.2 which is 5years old. since then there has been SEP11 which was all new code (sep12.1 RU1 being the latest) so it would not make a difference to symantecs current software.

As a software developer I feel that 5 years is definitely not a long time at all as far as software is concerned. And i very much doubt it's all new code, unless you have some inside information. But it would be VERY unlikely.

ALso rmbr the detail it was from athrid party company the code was taken not symantec networks if it had been then yes that would have been a serious lapse in business integrity. Also it was a small segment not the whole lot.

Does it make a difference whether they leaked their code directly or through a proxy?

but still a forum of people can still discuss a strategic approach and move towards in unison... thus being more effective as now many hands are working to a common goal

Well then that would completely change the dynamics of Anonymous, and turn it into a criminal organisation. Besides the fact that being an official group would defeat the whole point (not that it would be possible to define a discrete group), doing so would make everyone participating vulnerable to coercion. Anonynmous is, however, as their mascot 'V' says, an idea. And ideas are bullet proof.

Are you a memeber of anonymous ha? ha?

Anonymous has no 'members' because it's not a group or a club.

I hate symantec with a passion!

All about the money and not the product.

If you pay a sub every year/ 2 years to Symantec then please stop and use anything else

I myself use AVG along side Malwarebytes and its free and works a treat.

My better half downloads lots of dodgy stuff/porn (not me) and the pc never gets hit

@ work I have the AVG network edition and it runs like a dream unlike Endpoint!

(I havent used endpoint for years so it may be better now but I will never go back)

I don't use anything at all (anti-virus/firewall), other than the built in windows firewall and anythjing thats running on the router. 5 years now and no isues.

A little like how when they get hold of hundreds of thousands of creditcard details, from sony psn or something like that, instead of selling them, or using them, they publish them to cause a huge stir and prompt sony to either implement proper security that their customers would expect (often during these hacks those details aren't even encryted), or cause the public to leave sony knowing that they aren't taking their personal security ahead of extra profits.

Well I guess that if they were real "baddies" they wouldn't have announced it, and just made use if it. I've not looked at any related articles yet, but 'hackers' in general do alot of this in order to expose security companies' shitty security. Anonymous destroyed HBGary, although that was a bit more personal, but it goes to show that alot of people putting their trust in security experts are getting riped off.

Symantec make millions selling their products, and if they are leaking source code then perhaps those millions in profits are unjustly gained.

In a year's time, when Libya is looking more like Sommalia, people will wonder what happened and and they'll look towards us.

Getting there...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/world ... wanted=all

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... 1120120104

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/upd ... tid=pm_pop

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 ... -in-libya/

http://rt.com/news/libya-justice-collapse-tripoli-227/

Feels like masturbation to me.

A subject you obviously know a lot about

@Solo That's fecking funny

I'm with Guy Martin. Nothing wrong with it!

Anonymous are doing good and very important work that you are all benefiting from.

You might get the odd anomaly, ofcourse, because there isn't really a centrally organised heirarchy so anyone can operate under the banner of 'anonymous'.

 

Whilst they may be doing very important work, I find their atittude (linked youtube video being a prime example) quite abhorrent. their rash declarations and reneges reduce their credibility. and general anarchist approach shallow and poorly thought out. they could be far more effective if they applied sound reason to their endeavour. for instance if they had created a 15minute video highlighting why SOPA was so bad, educating people (which is essential) and on that basis justifying their action then i think the support would be much more forth coming and their own campaign far more effective.

The anarchist approach is central to the meme, and imo adds credibility. Anarchism is, afterall, the only noble and morally justifiable state of (non)government (Uncle Ron in my avatar is a special case because he's cool ; )). That's why the icon is a man with no head.

I doubt they care about educating mindless morons. Anyone who isn't a mindless moron is perfectly capable of educating themselves when they come across something they are unfamiliar with.

Anonymous are doing good and very important work that you are all benefiting from.

You might get the odd anomaly, ofcourse, because there isn't really a centrally organised heirarchy so anyone can operate under the banner of 'anonymous'.