switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 100 101 102 103 [104] 105 106 107 108 ... Last
[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 00:40:03 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Someone wanna clue me in as to what this whole lulzsec thing is about?

[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 08:59:42 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You didn't read the article, I guess.

It's 'hackivism'. Activism using hacking techniques in a very public way to expose corruption, lax security, and irresponsibility.

I'm rather concerned that it could lead to draconian measures in law, though.

[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 13:04:26 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Ah, they claim to be part of Anonymous. I'm beginning to think that there is no Anonymous.

[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 13:16:25 EDT from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

They were originally part of Anonymous and branched off to act on a specific target and message with a handful of hackers with similar ideals, then disbanded after "50 days of mayhem on the internets" which, on their rampage, made Operation #AntiSec (which they encourage flaunting everywhere, and is apparently still active among independent hacktivist groups). Once their 50 day rampage was done, they 'disbanded' and re-merged with Anonymous. Anonymous has no leader, unlike LulzSec who's leader was reportedly 'Sabu', and therefore don't really have a clear direction, they just collect ideas among the group and target who's on their hit-list first.

The difference between Anonymous and other hacktivists: exposure.

By all technicality, nobody is responsible for the "Anonymous" group since they have no leader, but they act on their own without needing a directing force.

[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 15:32:46 EDT from Ladyhawke @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The problem with the current form of hactivism, though, is that the exposure doesn't come without severe collateral damage to private citizens who have nothing to do with the "fight of the day"; collateral damage which is not only seen as not an issue and a justified means to an end, but "lulz-worthy".

Hactivism would make a stronger case if approached in a way that exposed only the issue targeted - or at minimum does less harm to innocent bystanders.

TV Anchorman: In a surprise announcement, the Republican National Committee has revealed it is bankrupt. A spokesman for the party said they had plenty of money in their accounts last week, but today they just don't know where the money has gone. But not everybody is going begging. Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the United Negro College Fund announced record earnings this week, due mostly to large, anonymous donations.

[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 15:47:12 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If it exposed only the issue targeted, nobody would care. That's the problem.
Data security is only interesting to data security people until it has an effect on something that matters to everyone else.

Not just data security but pretty much any issue, really. As long as "things are just fine" nobody cares; you have to hit them in the pocketbook (or present that type of threat).

[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 16:31:12 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Yeah, that's pretty much their position on the issue. Until you get grassroots support, nothing gets done. Well, hacking Sony's site and giving away normal people's subscription information qualifies for that. But, if you look carefully, nobody's credit card information was released in this hacking spree. At least, I do not recall seeing that... just account information (which is still bad, but nowhere near as bad as a credit card).

[#] Wed Jul 06 2011 17:11:29 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The big problem with Anonymous is that their goals started out sort of worthy, but with each new target they get more and more self-centered and inane. Like pissing on Sony just because they want to enforce their DRM.

[#] Thu Jul 07 2011 04:45:22 EDT from saltine @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Releasing the accounts of Sony players I suppose was a way of bankrupting sony, and not releasing banking data was a way of protecting the average joe. Although that assumes that they even had access to creditcard data..

[#] Thu Jul 07 2011 05:15:54 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

hm, i'm pretty shure they had, since they knew all the other credentials.

[#] Thu Jul 07 2011 17:04:10 EDT from Ladyhawke @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Indeed.  Plus, releasing individual email addresses does not bankrupt Sony - but does lead to lots of identity theft since most email users can still be reeled in with fishers.  So, yeah, I get the thought behind it; I just think the execution needs a bit of modification.

[#] Wed Nov 02 2011 11:14:50 EDT from the_mgt @ Uncensored

Subject: nternet explorer drops below 50% of web usage

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

[#] Wed Nov 02 2011 22:00:55 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hey Ford, have you seen this yet?

They're doing a new version of the Magic Jack that doesn't require a computer.
It costs slightly more but ... it doesn't require a computer. At $29.95/year it still seems like a bargain, and you can port a landline number to it now.

[#] Thu Nov 03 2011 18:42:00 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

An acquaintance from where I lived over a year ago used magic jack, he liked it.  I have used Vonage since 2004 in one way or another.  I like the web interface of Vonage and I can set it up to ring my cell phone at the same time as my "land" line phone. 

[#] Tue Nov 08 2011 21:09:12 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I hadn't seen that, though I wonder why, you'd think they'd pitch it to their current customers.
It's a bit pricier at $70 for the gizmo, and since I already have a computer running it doesn't buy me much.
You have to hook it to your router anyway, so it's not much help.
Now when they make it speak wifi then they'll have got something good.

[#] Wed Nov 09 2011 09:46:18 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Since it's designed to host a POTS line, which has to be plugged in, I'm not sure I see the value in making the Ethernet side wireless. And it's got to get power from somewhere. Do you have an all-wireless setup, even on the non-portable computers now?

Anyway if they're going to offer this level of service, where the startup cost is higher and the recurring costs are slightly higher, in exchange for no advertising ... I'd like to see them offer a version that uses no hardware at all. Gimme the SIP credentials and let me connect with Asterisk or with the ATA of my choice.

I suppose the main reason that isn't being done is because most people aren't well versed enough in IP telephony to configure SIP on their own and the tech support costs would eat up any profits.

[#] Wed Nov 16 2011 20:43:29 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

Subject: Root a Kindle

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What can you do with this? Well, it completely opens up the Android OS so that you can bend it to your will.



[#] Fri Nov 18 2011 13:51:47 EST from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Since it's designed to host a POTS line, which has to be plugged in,
I'm not sure I see the value in making the Ethernet side wireless. And

it's got to get power from somewhere. Do you have an all-wireless

the wirelessness of the ethernet side is to allow you to move the whole shebang around your house more convienently.
Most phones I've seen lately (not that I've looked much) are cordless, but you still have to plug in the base station to power the cordless signal.
With this gizmo you have to plug the base station in somewhere near your router, as opposed to an old classic phone where you have to plug it in near a phone jack.
Make the gizmo wifi enabled and you can move the base station anywhere there's a power outlet (within wireless range of your router)
Not that you'd move it between rooms that often, but it avoids you having to run a phone line or an ethernet line to whereever you want the base station to be.

[#] Mon Nov 21 2011 16:30:26 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have a set of cordless phones ... I wanted to have the base in a location where there is power but no phone line. A cordless with the charging base and the phone base as separate components is *really* expensive. Then I discovered that you can simply get a consumer grade system with two handsets for really cheap; the second base is merely a charger with no phone connections on it.
(And then I found another charger base for $10 on eBay, so I was able to deploy the second phone to another location; the line-connected base is now sitting in my basement with no phone in it.)

Go to page: First ... 100 101 102 103 [104] 105 106 107 108 ... Last