Page 141 of 148

Re: Can we admit that Obama is totally the current president?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:09 pm
by Ted Pikul
Erik Bonin' wrote:
Durham wrote:
delgriffith wrote:Spent a good 30 seconds trying to figure out if that Gretchen Carlson pic was a .gif

It isn't. But I thought she was shaking her head.



I'll tell you who is shaking their heads........,,,,,,The American People !!!


Image


I always feel like Kennedy and Bush need to be switched

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:12 pm
by The Priest
Also appreciated how Teddy Roosevelt is applauding.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:14 pm
by Amblin
The look on Nixon's face tells the whole story.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:14 pm
by sideshow raheem
I'd say it fits, in the populist narrative Kennedy is respected because he looks presidential and was assassinated while Bush's fiscal irresponsibility and unpopular War have led many to think he betrayed conservative principles. I like the ambiguity on Nixon and am confused by the apparent ambiguity on Johnson(wouldn't they hate him the most?)

Re: Can we admit that Obama is totally the current president?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:35 pm
by cram
Image[/quote]
has anyone pointed out that bench guy is brian wilson?

Image

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:41 pm
by delgriffith
Wish I coulda gone to that Biden speech this morning. I was next door working :(

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 1:44 pm
by Ted Pikul
Teddy Roosevelt was, like, the living personification of the Second Amendment

Re: Can we admit that Obama is totally the current president?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:10 pm
by Milquetoaster Strudels
cram wrote:Image

Holy fuck, hobbit hands

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:22 pm
by clothbound
So we’ve still got a lot of work to do to rebuild this economy so that it lasts, so that it’s solid, so that it’s firm. But what I want you to know is that the degree you earn from UNC will be the best tool you have to achieve that basic American promise -- the idea that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family and own a home, send your own kids to college, put a little away for retirement. (Applause.) That American Dream is within your reach. (Applause.)

And there’s another part of this dream, which is the idea that each generation is going to know a little bit more opportunity than the last generation. That our kids -- I can tell you now as a parent -- and I guarantee you, your parents feel this about you -- nothing is more important than your kid’s success. You want them to do better than you did. (Applause.) You want them to shoot higher, strive more, and succeed beyond your imagination.

So keeping that promise alive is the defining issue of our time. I don’t want this to be a country where a shrinking number of Americans are doing really, really well, but a growing number of people are just struggling to get by. That’s not my idea of America. (Applause.) I don’t want that future for you. I don’t want that future for my daughters. I want this forever to be a country where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. (Applause.) That’s the America I know and love. That’s the America within our reach.


Overall, I get what he's selling here and think it's a positive thing. However, a fair shot? Like the lottery? A lot of what he's saying is just off the mark, more like a dog dreaming of chasing rabbits than an American Dream.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:59 pm
by Shalabi
He's done that before, last year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9t97kDI68k&t=2m29s

In the end, the folks I hear from in letters or meet when I travel across the country – they aren’t asking for much. They’re just looking for a job that covers their bills. They’re just looking for a little financial security. They want to know that if they work hard and live within their means, everything will be all right. They’ll be able to get ahead, and give their kids a better life. That’s the dream each of us has for ourselves and our families. And so long as I have the privilege of serving as President, I’ll keep fighting to put that dream within reach for all Americans. Have a great weekend, everybody.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:58 pm
by can
i'm not sure what your problem is with that wording

the idea is equal opportunity, no? how would you expect him to phrase it

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:25 am
by grammatron
Yeah I don't get that complaint either.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:32 am
by chandler
He better veto CISPA, or he's losing my vote

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:43 am
by mcwop23
SERIOUSLY GUYS wrote:He better veto CISPA, or he's losing my vote


Out of curiosity would you simply not vote in the election or vote for Romney?

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:48 am
by chandler
I would probably not vote for any presidential candidate

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:50 am
by The Priest
it's pretty unlikely cispa even makes it to Obama

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:50 am
by The Dirty Turtle
something like cispa needs to pass immediately, though not saying the current language in cispa is totally appropriate
its not sopa

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:56 am
by chandler
An ISP is not required to shield any personally identifying data of its customers when it believes it has detected threats, which include attack signatures, malicious code, phishing sites or botnets. In short, the measure seeks to undo privacy laws that generally forbid ISPs from disclosing customer communications with anybody else unless with a court order.

The bill immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for voluntarily disclosing customer information thought to be a security threat. Internet companies are also granted anti-trust protection to immunize them against allegations of colluding on cybersecurity issues. The measure is not solely limited to cybersecurity, and includes the catchall phrase “national security” as a valid reason for turning over the data.



yes, something like that needs to be passed immediately

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:57 am
by carlperkins
seriously guys i'd been wondering how you would vote in this election. keep us updated.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:05 am
by Mean Princess
mcwop23 wrote:
SERIOUSLY GUYS wrote:He better veto CISPA, or he's losing my vote


Out of curiosity would you simply not vote in the election or vote for Romney?

What reason is there to vote if you think both candidates aren't looking out for your best interests? Obama's definitely done some pretty indefensible things the last couple years. That doesn't mean Romney is any better, just that it's becoming morally difficult to support Obama.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:09 am
by it’s frank
a vote for romney or obama is a a vote for meme culture, ankh

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:18 am
by mcwop23
Mean Princess wrote:
mcwop23 wrote:
SERIOUSLY GUYS wrote:He better veto CISPA, or he's losing my vote


Out of curiosity would you simply not vote in the election or vote for Romney?

What reason is there to vote if you think both candidates aren't looking out for your best interests? Obama's definitely done some pretty indefensible things the last couple years. That doesn't mean Romney is any better, just that it's becoming morally difficult to support Obama.


Username/post

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:26 am
by ssshhhooo
SERIOUSLY GUYS wrote:He better veto CISPA, or he's losing my vote

What state do you live in?

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:28 am
by chandler
pa

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:32 am
by The Dirty Turtle
so heres my take on cispa

i dunno if anyone here has noticed that theres been lots of breach deadlines over the course of the last few years and companies everywhere are losing all of your information faster than they can collect it. a lot of it was driven by anonymous, but anonymous isnt the group that the government is actually real concerned about. the best description i heard about anonymous and whether it was "cyber war" was an army storming across your boarder and then going immediately to the post office and standing in line in front of everyone.

govs, military contractors, major companies, etc. are worried about apt (advanced persistent threat). these types of attackers are often government sponsored and usually interested in long-term access to strategically significant computer networks. the term first became popular after operation aurora in 2009 when google found evidence that the chinese government was all up in their business (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/ ... china.html), but since then more and more examples have been popping up. one of the most interesting ones was when someone broke into rsa to steal the information needed to compromise the session tokens, it is thought by most people that the information about the securid tokens was then used to attack lockheed martin, with the intention of stealing god knows what. im pretty sure lockheed contends that they got in, but didnt get anything that they wanted (which happens).

that said, when evidence of a breach like this starts to take place (and they happen all the time, they just might not wind up in headlines), the fbi is usually brought in to investigate and they classify most of what they find so people actually cant act on it. its the theory that you dont disturb the spider web, because as long as the web is still there, you know where the spider is. so they control the information so security vendors dont all of a sudden start blocking some ip address and tip off to some attacker that people are on to them, because the reality is that they still need more info.

this is where cispa comes in. gov and industry need a way to share classified stuff, specifically, signatures that go in network intrusion prevention systems. the way signatures work is that they look for malicious stuff in network traffic (whether thats like a flash object inside an excel document, or exploit code targeting a specific software vulnerability). anyway, they arent perfect and often times dont know exactly what they are looking for. false positives are a reality in every single intrusion prevention system on the planet because that is the nature of the technology that were talking about. not every threat looks the same on the network, so network protections need to look for weird stuff. maybe ive got a legitimate reason to embed a flash object inside an excel worksheet, but probably not, and if thats going over the wire you probably you want your network security technology flagging that.

so, in the case of apt, the government wants to ship classified signatures to private companies so that they can start looking for evidence of network intrusions that the gov is seeing somewhere. this is a borderline investigative process and the insight comes from when they start seeing the same stuff happening on a couple networks, or even different pieces of the puzzle. when the signature fires on a network, this is the specific information that everyone in the world who cares about security wants to make it easier to share. they want to take and share packet captures really quickly and do the whole "i see this happening, whatd you see, ok i saw this." its hard to understate how important this is.

however, like i said, the nature of ips signatures is that they do fire on legitimate network traffic sometimes. so, let's say i was sending a legit email with a flash object embedded in an excel s/s, and it was going across a network that had one of those classified government signatures that was looking for specifically that type of behavior, thats something that the company is then going to forward along, even though its my private communications and i havent done anything wrong. its the necessary evil.

however, where this all gets real questionable is around what the gov can write network ips signatures for. they could write signatures looking for certain types of plain text communication, put it under the banner of cyber security and then just run around with a public surveillance operation.

obviously no one wants that, but you should understand that the intent of this bill is not reprehensible in the same ways other recent cyber legislation has been (sopa).

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:38 am
by The Dirty Turtle
also they did just put an amendment in there that was trying to limit the scope:

‘‘(4) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE.—
21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘cyber
22 threat intelligence’ means intelligence in the
23 possession of an element of the intelligence
24 community directly pertaining to—
3
1 ‘‘(i) a vulnerability of a system or net
2 work of a government or private entity;
3 ‘‘(ii) a threat to the integrity, con
4 fidentiality, or availability of a system or
5 network of a government or private entity
6 or any information stored on, processed on,
7 or transiting such a system or network;
8 ‘‘(iii) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or
9 destroy a system or network of a govern
10 ment or private entity; or
11 ‘‘(iv) efforts to gain unauthorized ac
12 cess to a system or network of a govern
13 ment or private entity, including to gain
14 such unauthorized access for the purpose
15 of exfiltrating information stored on, proc
16 essed on, or transiting a system or network
17 of a government or private entity.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:40 am
by The Dirty Turtle
the ppl ive seen who are still worried are concerned how this piece could be used though:

8 ‘‘(iii) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or
9 destroy a system or network of a govern
10 ment or private entity; or

in that "efforts" is pretty broad

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:07 am
by clothbound
can wrote:i'm not sure what your problem is with that wording

the idea is equal opportunity, no? how would you expect him to phrase it


Equal opportunity doesn't equal prosperity. It just equals a chance, a token for the slot machine. It's a swindle. That's the problem I was trying to point out. O assumes the American Dream is raising a family that you can send through the broken college system, landing in a little less debt, but nevertheless debt that you can eventually climb out of to retire with. Just enough. Meanwhile, his rich friends (Katzenberg!? Corzine!?) are still fucking us over with taxes that go to who knows how many of their covert economic conflicts against the Chinese. I'm just not buying it this time.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:18 am
by chandler
this probably isn't the thread to discuss this but, whatever:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity

I'm a big opponent of ^ and CISPA and its ilk are meta-examples of that concept. bureaucracies (military, civilian govt, etc.) embrace it all too easily without sufficient critical thought given to the real-world implications of (loss of) privacy and the inevitable abuse of concentrating knowledge in the hands of a few...or if we're being appropriately cynical, perhaps this is exactly what the government and big business want. There is a reason Microsoft and Facebook are among its supporters. I'm no government paranoiac, but how can anyone be comfortable with the thought that ISPs would be shielded from lawsuits AND 'voluntarily' share information on US citizens without the need for a warrant? Orwellian, indeed.

Anyway, TDT, your support of CISPA seems based on the notion that this would increase our 'cyber-defenses', our ability to rapidly respond and share information regarding threats. In purely security engineering terms, as wikipedia points out, even the NIST recommends against STO.

Re: Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:26 am
by black mamba
i believe the so called 'obscurity' is for investigative reasons, not a security strategy (as i think tdt pointed out)