cf141q5325

I heard the same conclusion from the other side just a few days ago. A friend in computer vision said it about robotics.

Also https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-repor...

>U.N. Under-Secretary General and ESCWA Executive Secretary Rima Khalaf said the report was the “first of its type” from a U.N. body that “clearly and frankly concludes that Israel is a racist state that has established an apartheid system that persecutes the Palestinian people”.

Article points out however, that the statement does not represent the position of the UN secretariat.

I never heard of the Torie angle before, is there any evidence to assume that?

There is quite a bit of evidence that pro Israel Lobby groups, as well as Israeli Embassy Staff are heavily involved.

There is a documentary about the whole issue from Aljazeera, which allegedly got censored due to intervention by the Qatar government.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-parts-of-censor...

Some reporter went undercover for 6 month with a hidden camera infiltrating some of the groups.

https://www.aljazeera.com/investigations/thelobby/

As a result, one embassy official had to resign

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/israel-diplomat-force...

They named Youtube, Snapchat and Twitter as their competition

>“This is one of the few ways that publishing has evolved into the 21st century, by having to listen to people’s immediate reaction to what they’re publishing,” she said.

I find it extremely sad that this is broadly phrased as something positive. Just consider how many great works of literature were publicly dammed and published regardless only to be redeemed decades or centuries later. Setting a precedent, even just a moral one, that public outcry should be considered when deciding on publishing is absolutely horrible.

>Do workers rights include the right to not be constantly bombarded with political messaging you don't agree with and to be intimidated into keeping your own opinions silent?

As a said, workers but also in a broader sense society.

edit: Maybe a more concrete example would help, lets take Whistleblower protection for example

I dont think anyone is arguing it wouldnt be better for stock owners. Workers rights are generally the opposite of an improvement for stock owners. Thats not what they are there for. Its targeted at improving and safeguarding workers and in a broader sense society. In this case its so employees arent just silently doing what they are told matter the consequences those actions will have for the rest of the world.

I would agree, that CS isnt special here, its something common to at least STEM. And personally I dont know why the first 1 year isnt optimized for that. I dont think for example, that there is any reason to teach Math 1 for CS every semester with a Prof in a room limited by how ever many students might fit in. Its simply basic knowledge, that just doesnt change but that you need to know as a prerequisite for understanding later stuff. There is absolutly no reason to waste the time of Professors, or students for that matter, on that. Instead of making admission to college dependent on prior work, why not simply provide the necessary books and film it once. You learn the fundamentals yourself. Admission would be a lot fairer, we wouldnt waste an incredible amount of time of Professors and they could in turn teach actually interesting stuff.

The whole thing got quite apparent when a former roommate of mine studying mechanical engineering asked his father to help him study for a first year course and they figured out, that his father used the exact same literature in his college days as my roommate did at the time. The content hasnt changed, yet we keep throwing time at manually repeating it or going even as far as reinventing it with everyone writing their own script on the topic.

Someone did that with his bus ticket.

https://gizmodo.com/australian-biohacker-who-implanted-trans...

Max Justicz post about the vulnerability

https://justi.cz/security/2019/01/22/apt-rce.html

Its a quite common problem when detonating old naval mines, torpedoes or other unexploded ordnances at sea. In Germany the Kampfmittelräumdienst (Bomb disposal service) uses bubble curtains

https://dosits.org/galleries/audio-gallery/anthropogenic-sou...

to dampen the noise when they have to detonate those at sea.

https://youtu.be/GlxADbslYHw?t=944

There is also the approach to just copy objects existing objects to safe yourself the cost of running the constructor in order to shorten your startup time.

To the culture of deliberate sleep deprivation, the medical profession had(?) something similar which resulted in the Libby Zion Law .

They were part of a group that is classified as a terrorist organization.

Power consumption I would assume

Fyi the girl is the daughter of then Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.

>Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by an American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

>The US is on the list this year because of a mass shooting at a newspaper.

The Annapolis shooting to be precise.

>Meanwhile, the shooting deaths of five employees of the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Maryland, in June propelled the United States into the ranks of the most dangerous countries for the first time.

Not just now, it never was a good idea to collect those information. You can look as far back as national census data with IBM and the holocaust.

Multiple radio stations exist in parallel and you dont have to listen to any of them. Once you put up one speaker system at a location, like a central park that is the focus of a protest, you drown out everyone else. You are in control of the communication infrastructure and bought yourself an authority position.

The question of who is providing and controlling infrastructure is a real threat to protest movements, as it is easily possible to co-opt a political movement through funds this way.

We have clear limits on what lobbying is allowed to do and what kind of interference in a democratic system through funds is prohibited. Take vote buying as an extreme example or simply the ordinary regulations over campaign financing. We dont have that clear cut rules for what is acceptable in the case of non parliamentary political movements. Calling the targeted funding and co-opting of political movements problematic is appropriate in my opinion.

It becomes problematic if it is used to lobby for political change with private funding as a magnifier. Once you start to pump so much money into political movements, you can co-opt and change them. You get to drown some currents and magnify others by simply providing infrastructure and funding. It can be as simple as providing a speaker system to a protest and deciding who gets to use it.

Its a question common to campaign contribution and whether super PACs are to be considered free speech.

This always rubbed me the wrong way. To say that the election was hacked implies that people were manipulated to do the "wrong thing" instead of the "right thing". To debate on that level seems extremely anti democratic, as it inadvertently leads to either the assertion, that people are to stupid and irresponsible to have a say in their future or to have the access to information restricted, to make sure people dont respond to the information by doing the "wrong thing". In both cases you have a higher authority decide what is best for people as they are to irresponsible to decide for themselves.

>This also occurs at the street level. I've read stories of people not wanting to talk to the police about a murder because they are afraid the police will find some weed and arrest them instead.

Sadly a common example is the question whether to call 911 in case of domestic violence for the same reason.

FYI, the quote is about the Oil Tanker that collided with the ferry.

We do have actual proof of TAO and who used it. Actual evidence which could be used in for example a trial. A high likelihood attribution isnt evidence. There is a limit to how sure you can be with attributions of cyber attacks.

This is directly from the rant you posted.

"Attribution is a good example of doing true intelligence analysis; there are no certainties"

>Why do you feel the need to have a strong opinion about it?

A lot of people try to use attribution as something it isnt is, as evidence. There is no reason to muddy the water and use the misrepresentation of attributions for political means. This nonsense gives the entire field a bad rep. Its intelligence analysis and not forensics.

I find it a bit rich to call others ignorant, when your argument consists of nothing more then the assertion that your counterpart is wrong and unnamed experts would agree with you.

Please do elaborate.

1. Attribution is not about proofing something, or finding "the one proof", but about verbalizing that there are indications that someone might be responsible. And quantifying this likelihood.

2. Having a reasonable level of attribution of cyber attacks cant ever be realistic if your opponent isnt a moron, as the indications you work with can be artificially created to fool you. There is no way to differentiate between a high likelihood attribution and a clever enough framing. While this is also true for real life attribution, for lets say chemical weapons, it is much easier to create indications in cyber attacks. And the incentives to do so are clear.

You are taking one reasonable critique, that you cant expect a "one proof" in attribution and turn it around to make attribution to something that could actually proof something. The limit of attributions is that you can vocalize, to what degree something looks like it was done by someone. Nothing less but also nothing more.

Rant is the right word, though he makes a rather good summary

>Attribution is not about having a smoking gun. Attribution is a good example of doing true intelligence analysis; there are no certainties and you only can come to an assessment such as low, moderate, or high confidence. Almost every single piece of data put forward in that assessment can and should have counters to it. Very reasonable counters as well.

Which is completely in line with.

> People do this all the time because people working in the sector know [0] that attribution, with anything "cyber", is near impossible, if the attackers know what they are doing it actually is impossible.

And that is plain and simply right. There is no credible way to actually attribute anything cyber. You can make an argument, that something looks like it was done by X, but not that something was actually done by X.

I heard recently about the degree of rivalry between Chinese Hacker groups and how some get rid of competition by framing them for attacks. Which is absolutely brutal if you remember some hacking offenses face the death penalty.

> It's a shame to see.

Really depends what you want from life doenst it? It becomes problematic when people do it without realizing the consequences.

>Once registered, companies are able to use crypto to pay 23 kinds of business taxes from sales tax, utility tax, to employee withholding taxes and more. BitPay, a crypto payments service provider based out of Georgia in the United States, will process all crypto tax payments.

About the processing volume

https://support.bitpay.com/hc/en-us/articles/206003676-How-d...

They look like the anti money laundering limits, anyone know how much bitcoins they actually take with a single transaction?

Reminds me of a lot Brian Krebs doxing of the pr0gramm staff.