Constant hack attempts on AWF

[The_Doc_Man]

Adam, claiming that corporations are the cause for police being unable to devote enough personnel to crime solving is perhaps a little bit of a stretch. I believe your anti-corporation paranoia is kicking in. Start taking your meds again.

 

[neuroman9999]

Adam, claiming that corporations are the cause for police being unable to devote enough personnel to crime solving is perhaps a little bit of a stretch. I believe your anti-corporation paranoia is kicking in. Start taking your meds again.

it's not necessarily corporations, grandpa. It's the SYSTEM. I'm sure you're old enough to realize the flaw in it, right? And once again, as we both know, if you require ignorant people to thrive in a system where they don't know how to make it work because they don't have the intelligence level to do so, you get huge amounts of crime. HELLO. oh, and you can take you ""meds"" comment and shove it. I take nothing, because I need nothing. If you don't understand why, don't even ask. You don't even match my level of knowledge. =)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You don't even match my level of knowledge.

And yet you deny self-aggrandizement. Adam, I should be deeply insulted by that, but when I consider the source, it is easy to tell you to peddle your dreams elsewhere.

 

[neuroman9999]

And yet you deny self-aggrandizement. Adam, I should be deeply insulted by that, but when I consider the source, it is easy to tell you to peddle your dreams elsewhere.

why would you be deeply insulted by that? You know damn good and well that this whole back and forth means absolutely nothing between you and I and it never has for years.

 

[vhung]

if AWF been attempted to hacked several times
>positive, well depended wall though several blocks done
>longing why they have to do it, is it to test the strength,
maybe for distruction, they are competators...
>is there a way to give path to the hackers which lead the AWF to find the current location on time of attempt
>someways if they could be identified, more time to spend to know there cause
>MORE POWER AWF be still

 

[Isaac]

if AWF been attempted to hacked several times
>positive, well depended wall though several blocks done
>longing why they have to do it, is it to test the strength,
maybe for distruction, they are competators...
>is there a way to give path to the hackers which lead the AWF to find the current location on time of attempt
>someways if they could be identified, more time to spend to know there cause
>MORE POWER AWF be still

My favorite line from that is:

MORE POWER AWF be still

!! Yeah! Sounds like the call of a leader in a movie like The Patriot!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@vhung - you were speculating on hacker motives. Hackers hack because they can. No, I'm not stating something trivial here. If everyone carefully patched their systems and bought a good anti-virus package, hackers would starve. (Which wouldn't hurt my heart for a Planck time unit.)

The concept of "low hanging fruit" drives hackers everywhere. They are looking for a poorly maintained site that they can pluck clean. They constantly look for an inroad to steal information or hijack something so they can do code encryption blackmail (the infamous BitLocker scams). They want to be able to tap into a site in hopes that they can steal financial information or personal information that could lead to identity theft.

The odds are very great AGAINST the hackers being direct competitors of AWF. But very great in favor of them being people who see western cultures as being rich whereas they are poor. There are two ways for them to get wealthy. By stealing it (which is a form of either socialism or communism, both of which take from the wealthy and try to redistribute it); or by finding out the secret of capitalism - that things you do gain in value in proportion to the labor you put into it. With half a brain you can make money WITHOUT having to steal it from someone else.

 

[vhung]

My favorite line from that is: !! Yeah! Sounds like the call of a leader in a movie like The Patriot!

well
>i didn't mean it but it does...
>thanks for the recognition

 

[vhung]

@vhung - you were speculating on hacker motives. Hackers hack because they can. No, I'm not stating something trivial here. If everyone carefully patched their systems and bought a good anti-virus package, hackers would starve. (Which wouldn't hurt my heart for a Planck time unit.)

The concept of "low hanging fruit" drives hackers everywhere. They are looking for a poorly maintained site that they can pluck clean. They constantly look for an inroad to steal information or hijack something so they can do code encryption blackmail (the infamous BitLocker scams). They want to be able to tap into a site in hopes that they can steal financial information or personal information that could lead to identity theft.

The odds are very great AGAINST the hackers being direct competitors of AWF. But very great in favor of them being people who see western cultures as being rich whereas they are poor. There are two ways for them to get wealthy. By stealing it (which is a form of either socialism or communism, both of which take from the wealthy and try to redistribute it); or by finding out the secret of capitalism - that things you do gain in value in proportion to the labor you put into it. With half a brain you can make money WITHOUT having to steal it from someone else.

nice
>they had a big cause for that means
>we must be in order always
>we can't simply motivate them but rather undressed them

thanks doc...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

we must be in order always

Excellent advice, @vhung. About 15 years ago, the SAMS Institute listed the most common causes of sites being hacked. Within the top five on their list were keeping the operating system patched, keeping the applications/utility programs patched (e.g. MS Office counts in that group), and keeping the Anti-Virus package up to date including code and viral signatures. Three out of the top five were things that you could do just by making a scheduled event on your Outlook calendar to patch/update everything not less often than once per month. I forgot the others and their list isn't so easily available to me since I retired.

 

[vhung]

Excellent advice, @vhung. About 15 years ago, the SAMS Institute listed the most common causes of sites being hacked. Within the top five on their list were keeping the operating system patched, keeping the applications/utility programs patched (e.g. MS Office counts in that group), and keeping the Anti-Virus package up to date including code and viral signatures. Three out of the top five were things that you could do just by making a scheduled event on your Outlook calendar to patch/update everything not less often than once per month. I forgot the others and their list isn't so easily available to me since I retired.

silly
>operating system patched (thus they try to destroy hardware)
>applications/utility programs (study the software weakness and sell us their products)
>Anti-Virus package (too serious)

they want to make money, finding their best clients target, what a world of Information Technology

thank you again doc

 

[zeroaccess]

By stealing it (which is a form of either socialism or communism, both of which take from the wealthy and try to redistribute it); or by finding out the secret of capitalism - that things you do gain in value in proportion to the labor you put into it.

Socialism and communism work by social contract. There is a social contract in place in which it is acceptable that resources and services are better distributed amongst the population. Not theft. Note, corruption and power can twist these systems into authoritarian command and control, in which they are no longer socialist or communist systems.

Capitalism sometimes works based on the idea of hard work = get rich. However, most of the time you just see a bunch of people slaving away and getting the minimum in return while all the real money funnels to the top to someone else. This system is also ripe for corruption.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

When the social contract was instituted at the point of a gun, as occurred during the Bolshevik Revolution, it is theft. How many Russians do you think were ACTUALLY in favor of having to share what they made? When the USSR rolled over Poland or other Balkanized nations, did they have a vote? When China annexed Tibet, did THEY have a vote?

I will grant that capitalism has it very rough spots. You might wish to look up the work of Economist Abraham Maslow, who researched the psychology of labor and why some people work hard without advancement.

 

[Isaac]

Interesting points. Given the recent surge in negative viewpoints on capitalism, brought about by many different events and outcomes, it's a worthy discussion. @zeroaccess I see what you mean--socialism and communism can, theoretically work as a totally collaborative system whereby the public in its entirety has accepted, and continues to accept (that's the key), certain roles of government and certain roles of people. But many see this as a completely unrealistic utopian version of something that never works that way in practice.

I guess what it comes down to is the generation that truly "accepted" a system (whether communist or capitalist), vs. future generations. And I'll admit this problem applies equally to capitalism and communism. One generation may choose, for whatever reasons, to accept a newly minted format of life. The challenge comes when future generations wake up in the morning to that system--something they didn't choose of course--and then begin forming opinions that either consitute an ongoing acceptance, or a resistance and a conclusion that it's not working or isn't fair.

One possible question is, when it comes to capitalism vs. communism, which system has a better record of future generations being born and thinking "Hmm, this system has its advantages and disadvantages, but I guess it's probably the best one--I accept" ?

Perhaps the answer to that question has more to do with education/indoctrination--versus having to do with results & success--than anyone, on either side, would like to admit.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isaac, if you look up the work of Abraham Maslow (warning: bring strong black coffee), you would see that normal human motivation and communism are completely antithetical unless EVERYONE successfully and gainfully participates at a fairly strenuous level AND there are enough resources for everyone. The key word there is "enough" - because the pyramid of motivations has VERY high limits on "enough." In fact, according to Professor Maslow, there are at least four levels of "enough." And for humanity, well known for liking moving targets, there is never "enough." It cannot happen in the human animal. It is the subtle background of WHY we bust our buns to improve ourselves, to get ahead, to reach goals and to achieve some level of success. Communism and socialism externally impose the meaning of "enough" - which is contrary to human nature. Which is why, as totally flawed as it can be, capitalism is so darned popular.

 

[Jon]

Look at the average standard of living in communist countries vs capitalist countries and then come to a conclusion based on that empirical evidence.

 

[Isaac]

@The_Doc_Man @Jon
Both of your posts, taken together, kind of leads into my response. Jon I respect that method, but what I was trying (and maybe failing) to do was step back at an even more abstract level and try to measure people's general feelings toward their system, rather than just material resources.

Basically, even though I know your method comes out pretty strongly in favor of capitalism, I was trying to play devil's advocate and acknowledge another dimension to it - the fact that there will always be some people who are willing to endorse and accept socialism (for whatever philosophical reasons they have), even through personal sacrifice. So I was aiming for the ultimate measure being, "Who actually WANTS this?"--regardless of whether they are successful, materially well/better/worse, etc. Because there are always those people who buy into an idea regardless of money...
So I was toying with the idea of making the standard be, Who wants this--rather than outwardly deeming it as "more acceptable" if there is more material wealth vs. "less acceptable" if there is less.

Trust me, I completely come out on the side of capitalism. I was just making an experimental "nod"/tribute to the notion that, "if you want it that way-then fine" - the question is how many people want it that way? People certainly exist who live in countries doing much worse than capitalist countries, and they still, for whatever reason, don't want to support capitalism.

I would be willing to subscribe to the idea that "Give people whatever it is they say they want--even at the expense of material well being", (because technically, as freedom-lovers, we shouldn't be telling people what it is that they want, right?)....... except that it certainly seems unfair when education plays a huge role in convincing people that less is more, somehow.

An extreme hypothetical might be a society where anyone deemed unproductive is immediately shot in the head. Who knows--this might produce a high economic standard for those left. But in that case, standard-of-living would be an inadequate basis (to most people) to judge the right or wrong.

Coming back to reality and putting my fanciful mental feet on the ground for a moment, I completely agree that capitalism
a) seems to work better, in terms of overall standards of living in material ways
b) seems to be much better at meeting normal standards of human motivation and satisfaction - which most people have, unless they are unfairly indoctrinated and educated to believe some other reality-defying principles.
TDM I will check Maslow out. But, I just ran out of my jug of cold coffee! Out to do some shopping..

 

[Jon]

In a capitalist society, some will always do better than others. But you want that. Else, do you want to live in a system where those who strive get nothing extra? It just ties into human motivation.

Curiously, in a communist country like Russia used to be, did you get a choice of job or were they just allocated? What type of economy does Russia have now? Is it really just capitalist?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Even mainland China isn't totally communist or socialist any more. They HAD to allow some incentives through because otherwise their economy was going into the tank. The death of Chinese communism and the death of other totalitarian forms of socialism will be information, from those folks who figure out how to bypass the state ISPs that block so much.

I'm not saying it was all due to Ronnie Reagen's idea, but the Star Wars initiative, even though it never really amounted to anything, slammed the USSR into a mode where they could not afford to keep up. And thus the USSR crumbled because their form of communism wasn't productive enough. You can talk about the evils of capital all you want, but the USSR didn't have enough money to spend in the rest of the world's markets to get things the government wanted/needed. I see a similar prediction for North Korea. KJI will break his own country's back (and bank) with his militaristic saber rattling posture. Creditors, even the PRC, can go only so long before they want a return on their investment.

 

[zeroaccess]

Capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism comparisons, especially as you see in heightened political debates, are a waste of time because what we really see over time is a melding of the systems into hybrids. As discussed above. The United States, the Nordic region, and China are good examples of this. Each have their own flavors, of course.