Monday, December 20, 2010

Two today, You're welcome. -- The net neutrality conservative lie

That is lies piled on top of lies piled on top of spin.  Here's some news for anyone who dare disagree with me

Net neutrality maintains the status quo -- as in you can connect to whatever site you want, download whatever is offered without paying anything more.  There are all kinds of network agreements between businesses that maintain the internet.  (Yes, that's how it works.  It might seem to just magically work to you, but it's lots of mid sized, huge and even very small networks intermingled).   One company deciding to charge for certain content could cause a netsplit (We're close to seeing something like that with the level3/comcast debacle).  Do you want a netsplit?  AKA: Do you want to be able to access whatever site you want, or do you want to have to have multiple carriers for different fucking providers (e.g. "I use Comcast to connect to Facebook, and Qwest to connect to twitter"). Don't think that would happen?  You're an idiot.  You've clearly not been paying attention to any of the history of capitalism.

Failure to maintain this status quo, legislatively, or via regulatory authority means the death of the only thing that you use your computer for: a free and open internet (And perhaps, a porn and music collection).

I know a lot of people don't believe it/understand it.  This is a very brief post, but I have convinced hardened anti-net neutrality republicans that they should change their mind.  I can change yours too.  If you're interested in FACTS instead of BULLSHIT PROPAGANDA you should send me a message.  I've been around this silly "internet" thing before there was a "world wide web".  I know how this shit works, and I know how ill intentioned over-zealous capitalist fucks want to change it.   (Twice in one day with the capitalist fucks!)

From the fox-news poll:

Should the Government Regulate the Internet?

Thank you for voting!





Total Votes: 31,191
SPINNNNNNNNNN Good GOD. "Let the web regulate itself" -- YOU FUCKING IDIOTS.  BROKEN RECORD, SELF ANNIHILATING, IGNORANT BUFFOONS!  I've got to go to bed before I give myself a heart attack.

**EDIT (I had to):  BTW, your internet connectivity costs the same to your network provider regardless of what you connect to/the content you use/view/create/edit.  Don't eat the fucking lies!


Oops [we] did it again.

Does anyone run facebook?  I mean.. Google has made mistakes as well, but the number of mistakes FB has made in the past year adds up to all the flubs Google has ever made  (This is an approximation, If you don't think it's accurate, justfuckinggoogleit).  At least Google's motto is Don't be evil, and arguably, they've been rather non-evil, I mean -- if you want to bring up the China shit, look at the back of your fucking keyboard (You too you fucking smug hipster Mac users).  If Facebook eclipses Google for searching in the next 2-3 years (Which I doubt, but the zeitgeist might lean that way), you've only yourselves to blame.  I've serious doubts that Facebook will choose to push forward with cutting edge technology at a tiny price or even free as Google has done for us all.  I doubt we'll see open source APIs that make the web better coming out of Facebook.  FB is to greedy over-zealous conservative capitalists, Google is to liberal mixed economy capitalists.  Just a thought.  And yes, you may mark my words.

GOOGLE:  Make a fucking better "social network platform" already, Jesus fucking Christ; you've got the money.


Thursday, December 16, 2010

Maybe we should have taken McVeigh to the farm.

Really?  I mean, they're talking about
Pentobarbital, which is also used for physician assisted suicides, but the question at hand largely ignores that fact, and I highly doubt the 105 people that voted Yes knew that.  "Put 'em down like a dog", because, that's not hypocritical or anything.  I just imagine a bunch of Texans running around with hard-ons after reading about John David Duty being killed with the same stuff used to send fluffy off to the farm.

P.S. The more interesting part of the story is that the dude was spending 3 life sentences for rape, attempted murder and robbery.. He was executed for killing another inmate. 


*EDIT* After time passed since I made the screen shot, the Yes has skewed even more upward.. a few thousand people and it's now 85% - 15%

Sunday, December 12, 2010


Snowmaggedon?  You're all fired.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

My first periodical.. still my favorite

Posted 10 Dec 2010 04:45:38 UTC

New York, NY, December 10, 2010 - 2600 Magazine, a quarterly journal for the hacker community that has published since 1984, is speaking out against numerous media reports that hackers are responsible for a spate of attacks on numerous e-commerce corporations as part of the ongoing Wikileaks controversy.
Denial of service attacks against PayPal, Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, and other corporations and entities have been underway for the last few days, as widely reported in the mainstream media. Each of these targets had previously taken some sort of action against the whistleblower website and its affiliates. The media reports almost invariably refer to "hackers" as being behind these actions. While there is great sympathy in the hacker world for what Wikileaks is doing, this type of activity is no better than the strong-arm tactics we are fighting against.
These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn't accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills. While writing such programs requires a good degree of ingenuity and knowledge of security weaknesses, this doesn't mean that everyone who runs them possesses the same degree of proficiency, nor should we necessarily believe people who claim to be doing this on behalf of the hacker community.
What the above named corporations have done to Wikileaks is inexcusable and constitutes a different sort of denial of service attack, one that is designed to eliminate an organization, an individual, or an idea. We find it inexplicable that donations can easily be made to hate groups and all sorts of convicted criminals through these same services, yet somehow a website that publishes leaked information - and which has never been charged or convicted of a crime - is considered unacceptable. We believe it's not the place of credit card companies or banks to judge the morality or potential threat level of anyone, let alone those who are following in the long tradition of journalists and free speech advocates worldwide.
The assault on Wikileaks must not be overshadowed by the recent denial of service attacks and these certainly must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community. This will play right into the hands of those who wish to paint us all as threats and clamp down on freedom of speech and impose all kinds of new restrictions on the Internet, not to mention the fact that the exact same types of attacks can be used on "us" as well as "them." (Interestingly, it was only a week ago that "hackers" were blamed for denial of service attacks on Wikileaks itself. That tactic was ineffectual then as well.) Most importantly, these attacks are turning attention away from what is going on with Wikileaks. This fight is not about a bunch of people attacking websites, yet that is what is in the headlines now. It certainly does not help Wikileaks to be associated with such immature and boorish activities any more than it helps the hacker community. From what we have been hearing over the past 24 hours, this is a viewpoint shared by a great many of us. By uniting our voices, speaking out against this sort of action, and correcting every media account we see and hear that associates hackers with these attacks, we stand a good chance of educating the public, rather than enflaming their fears and assumptions.
There are a number of positive steps people - both inside and outside of the hacker community - can take to support Wikileaks and help spread information. Boycotts of companies that are trying to shut Wikileaks down can be very effective and will not win them any sympathy, as the current attacks on their websites are unfortunately doing. Mirroring Wikileaks is another excellent method of keeping the flow of information free. Communicating with friends, family, classes, workplaces, etc. is not only a way of getting the word out, but will also help to sharpen your skills in standing up for what you believe in. This is never accomplished when all one tries to do is silence one's opponent. That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem.
2600 Magazine has been publishing news, tutorials, and commentary by, about, and for the hacker community since 1984. We were sued in 2000 by the Motion Picture Association of America for linking to a website containing source code enabling Linux machines to play DVDs and thus became the first test case of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In a similar vein, we are supporting Wikileaks by linking to their existing website through We've already changed where this address points to twice as Wikileaks sites have been taken down, and will continue to ensure that this link always manages to get to wherever Wikileaks happens to be. We hope people follow that link and support the existence of Wikileaks through whatever method is being publicized on their site.
Emmanuel Goldstein, Editor
+1 631 751 2600

Friday, December 10, 2010

Merry go fuck yourself!

Let's beat the merry into them!  If you don't say exactly what we want (We say we don't care about words and how could insensitive things possibly hurt other peoples feelings?  Yes, these are the same idiots who absolutely HATE political correctness.), we'll boycott you.

Because if you say "Happy Holidays" you're disrespecting Jesus (somehow).  Because the whole thing isn't based around the randomly decided date of the birth of Christ anyhow?

I originally made that blink but it was too dumb, you're welcome.

It's not that it's something to say to avoid acknowledging "virgin birth", and other such absurdities, it's not that people would say happy holidays because they realize that Christmas and the New Year are BOTH imminent, it's not that people would say happy holidays because they are not interested in offending someone who has placed themselves IN THE FUCKING STORE TO BUY SHIT... It's simply said because it's politically correct.  Right. I feel like I've said this a billion times: You don't have to be politically correct, but it's generally a good idea to not be an asshole to someone you don't know.
"I don't think we bullied; we simply let them know if you are going to offend us, we are going to use our back pocket as our voice and not shop in your store."

Well, on the bright side, they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow the stores up.  Yet.

You know what?  I'm taking the lowest road possible.  Merry go fuck yourself.

**Edit: Adding a blink tag in anywhere fucks the whole goddamn thing up pretty bad.. even if you remove it.


From man to man

GOD: "Yo Abraham, kill your son"
Abraham: "Word"

Free translation provided by BOTD.

Friday, December 3, 2010

..because owning something doesn't mean it's yours

Wow, a Judge who is siding with freedom, and blowing up in the face of bought-and-paid-for prosecutors.  Full text follows.  By David Kravets,  I copy-pasted the article from here

LOS ANGELES — Opening statements in the first-of-its kind Xbox 360 criminal hacking trial were delayed here Wednesday after a federal judge unleashed a 30-minute tirade at prosecutors in open court, saying he had “serious concerns about the government’s case.”
“I really don’t understand what we’re doing here,” US District Judge Philip Gutierrez roared from the bench.
Gutierrez slammed the prosecution over everything from alleged unlawful behavior by government witnesses, to proposed jury instructions harmful to the defense. When the verbal assault finally subsided, federal prosecutors asked for a recess to determine whether they would offer the defendant a deal, dismiss, or move forward with the case that was slated to become the first jury trial of its type. A jury was seated Tuesday.
Among the judge’s host of complaints against the government was his alarm that prosecutors would put on two witnesses who may have broken the law.
One is Entertainment Software Association investigator Tony Rosario, who secretly video-recorded defendant Matthew Crippen allegedly performing the Xbox mod in Crippen’s Los Angeles suburban house. The defense argues that making the recording violates California privacy law. The other witness is Microsoft security employee Ken McGrail, who analyzed the two consoles Crippen allegedly altered. McGrail admitted that he himself had modded Xboxes in college.
“Maybe two of the four government witnesses committed crimes,” the judge said from the bench. “I think it is relevant and the jury is going to hear about it—both crimes.”
The government had fought to keep the witness conduct a secret from the jury.
Crippen is charged with two counts of violating the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and faces a maximum five years for each count if convicted. The government maintains Crippen, a hotel car-parking manager, ran a small business from his Anaheim home modifying the firmware on Xbox 360 optical drives to make them capable of running pirated copies of games.
The judge on Wednesday even backtracked on an earlier ruling that had prohibited Crippen, 28, from raising a “fair use” defense at trial.
Crippen was hoping to argue to jurors that it was legal to hack the consoles because the modification had noninfringing purposes, like allowing the machines to run homebrew software, or permitting limited fair use of copyrighted material such as making backup copies of video games.
While the judge ruled last week that such a defense was not permitted by the DMCA, he seemingly changed course during his speech.
“The only way to be able to play copied games is to circumvent the technology,” Gutierrez said. “How about backup games and the homebrewed?”
The fair-use issue came up as the judge berated prosecutor Allen Chiu’s proposed jury instructions, which included the assertion that the government need not prove that Crippen “willfully” breached the law, in what is known as “mens rea” in legal parlance. The judge noted that the government’s own intellectual property crimes manual concerning the 1998 DMCA says the defendant has to have some knowledge that he was breaking the law.
“The first prosecution 12 years later, and you’re suggesting a mens rea that is akin to exactly contrary to the IP manual: that ignorance of the law is no excuse?” the judge barked.
“You didn’t even propose a middle ground,” Gutierrez continued. “What’s getting me more riled, it seems to me I cannot communicate the severity to you of what’s going on here.”
As the judge worked through his laundry list of complaints over the prosecution, word of the unusual judicial rebuke spread through the courthouse, drawing a trickle of about a dozen prosecutors and defense attorneys into the courtroom to watch from the gallery.
“I apologize to the court,” Chiu said at the end.
Court is recessed until 1:30pm.