Rockstar Games Hacked, Hackers Threaten a Massive Data Leak If Not Paid Ransom
This is just my opinion but that is not much of a threat and I think they should ignore it. Rockstars social platform has always had abhorrent security and players have always been able to easily doxx one another, know where other players live, boot each other out of games to the point of requiring multiple mod-menus just to be in a multi-player lobby in my experience thus extortion of money for player data from snowflake is just redundant.
Good. Let it die. It's hard for me to say where exactly Star Trek went off the rails but everything of recent has been complete trash in my opinion as a moderate Star Trek fan. Some say everything from the Kelvin timeline but I did enjoy Picard S1/S3 despite the inconsistencies. Picard season 2 should not have existed at all. Strange New Worlds is not Star Trek. The captain is basically some random masculine man that is disrespected through the entire show. He exhibits no characteristics of a Starfleet captain beyond the assign rank and uniform. Starfleet Academy is some woke fever dream that never should have been funded, again in my opinion. I believe that iteration is a mockery of the Star Trek franchise.
Current Earth politics do not belong in shows that are supposed to provide people escapism and entertainment. Sell the franchise to people that can respect the franchise, the fan base, that know the lore and that can take it seriously. These are just my opinions for whatever that is worth.
You’re really displaying some ignorance here. Star Trek has always has a political slant.
The basic premise is about a bunch of people living in a progressive sci-fi utopia with UBI.
The show is constantly preaching unity and openness.
It is explicitly anti-Fascist in many episodes.
It has a multiracial cast with a flamboyant “closeted” gay actor.
And most importantly, it famously had the first interracial kiss on television. The show was banned (or, more minorly, the specific episode was banned) in several places in the South because of that.
You’re really displaying some ignorance here. Star Trek has always has a political slant.
No I am not. They had politics, yes. But not anywhere to the point to breaking the audience out of escapism and mapping their politics to the politics of the time. They kept it realistic enough people could associate with it but not to the point of implementing current politics and identity politics.
The basic premise is about a bunch of people living in a progressive sci-fi utopia with UBI.
Yes. And you do realize wars and the level of dystopian hell they had to go through to reach that point right? It's not like they just decided to implement UBI. Over 600 million people died before that was realized and I am leaving out a tremendous amount of pain and suffering. It was a very long period before they entered into a post-scarcity era and even then money was still used and still a problem within some cultures that were cannon.
And most importantly, it famously had the first interracial kiss on television.
Again, I never said anything about race or gender. Woke as it is today covers many other facets including but not limited to "The Patriarchy" which they are trying to depose in Starfleet meaning they never actually watched or understood the show before they bought it.
> Again, I never said anything about race or gender.
I never said that you did. But you did propose, and you continue to double down on, the idea that the original Star Trek was not very political.
> They had politics, yes. But not anywhere to the point to breaking the audience out of escapism and mapping their politics to the politics of the time.
Yes, the interracial kiss was VERY MUCH the politics of the time. That's why it was the FIRST interracial kiss on network television, nearly 40 years after TV networks came about. That's why it was protested/banned and the episode not shown in Southern markets.
Can you give any examples of network TV that were more political than Trek?
Can you give any examples of network TV that were more political than Trek?
Lucille Ball saying the word "Pregnant" in I Love Lucy which I am sure nobody today would believe evoked shock and awe. Samantha and Darren in Bewitched having a single king sized bed in their bedroom. Until that point all married couples had multiple twin beds and were presumed to never sleep together despite somehow having children.
A key difference here is you are citing one episode. These shows we are discussing are entirely centered around modern IDPol issues. It's rammed down our throats through every episode. I will not be gas-lit. I know what I have seen and what I have experienced throughout all the generations of Star Trek and what it has devolved into. I know when I can no longer enjoy a show because it's creators are ripping me out of the experience and away from the fictional setting and I know I am not alone. I am aligned with the majority of the fans which is exactly why the show is being nuked after flushing millions down the toilet.
These are good examples of TV pushing the envelope on societal norms, but if you are discussing "pushing a political view", they rank far below "Trek's first interracial kiss".
> A key difference here is you are citing one episode.
That's true, but...
> These shows we are discussing are entirely centered around modern IDPol issues. It's rammed down our throats through every episode.
I have not seen the new shows. I liked reconnecting with old characters in the first few episodes of Picard S1, but didn't even finish the first season.
So I can't comment on those specifically.
But, I can comment on this:
> I know when I can no longer enjoy a show because it's creators are ripping me out of the experience and away from the fictional setting
This is the EXACT SAME COMPLAINT that the people who were upset about Star Trek in the 60s had.
And it extended a lot farther than the interracial kiss. That's just a very easy and obvious landmark example to point out.
Star Trek first aired in 1966. Less than 10 years after crowds of people were held back by the National Guard, but still managed to throw rocks at and spit on little girls because of forced integration in schools.
Star Trek had a multiracial and flamboyant cast, and was frequently communicating messaging about being non-prejudiced, when the Civil Rights Act had just passed.
Trek also frequently communicated messaging about being non-interventionist and only using violence as a last resort, while the Vietnam War was ongoing and a hot-button political issue.
These were ABSOLUTELY complained about as "woke propaganda" (though not in those terms) by the conservatives of the time.
This is entirely in keeping with the Star Trek tradition. It had a multiracial cast and female officers in 1966, when that was quite unusual in a TV show.
I never suggested it was about race or gender. Yes the original Star Trek had a cast member that was flamboyant in the show, gay in real life and came out before it was cool or even safe for that matter and I had nothing but respect for him at the time and now. The fans respected him without a need for pushing agendas in the show.
For me it is about the dynamics between characters and the disrespect for the uniform, disrespect for Starfleet in some odd type of defiance of perceived patriarchy. The recent shows are not Star Trek. They are trying to retcon Starfleet decorum, Starfleet regulation and that barely even begins to touch on the issues they are introducing. The writers are trying to suggest a military could operate with everyone just being cool buds a situation that would quickly devolve into utter chaos. That is not science fiction but rather fantasy fiction. The "Captain" in Academy flagrantly disrespects their own command position so hard it's just a slap in the face to the audience and the franchise. Being true to Star Trek word would have gotten back to command and she would have been removed, decommissioned and memories of Star Fleet secrets wiped from her mind a capability that both the Federation and the Romulans possessed.
For some time a number of people and companies have been using OSSEC for that job. [1] There are a couple versions of it free open source and enterprise. There are a handful of other programs that also keep an eye on checksums.
If tinkering with OSSEC one of the first steps should be to configure whitelisting for IP ranges and CIDR blocks used by your company, SNAT addresses and bastion IP's so that someone does not lock everyone out. It does a lot more than checksums.
Anyone that can adapt, improvise and overcome. This term can be applied to any field though most commonly used today to suggest one that utilizes extensive computer and network knowledge to remove any obstacles in their path to gain access to any data they require access to or accomplish any goal or mission in the computing field.
adding, one can test it here [1] though I think it also depends on the client using DoH [2] For people already using Cloudflare or Google DoH DNS it should just work.
To get ECH to work for me I had to enable DoH in my local Unbound DNS daemon and point Firefox to it rather than using unencrypted DNS on my LAN. I had to force a refresh (shift-F5 on tls-ech.dev). I only use my own recursive DNS so I get query logs and can block some ad/malware sites.
Among many other items this would never be accepted. This momentary cease fire is just regrouping time for everyone involved and that has always been the case for Iran.
It is acceptable, if only enriched for civilian reactors, not weapon grade what they did - and Iran was about to agree to that condition before their leadership was wiped out. If the new leadership will agree, remains to be seen. But I believe china or russia are also not strongly interested in a nuclear armed Iran.
There no feasible escalation path for the US. Trump has alienated allies and much of his anti war supporters. A forever war quagmire in a country 3x larger than Iraq is unlikely, as is carpet bombing. So what's left? A JCPOA style agreement with a Maga bumper sticker on it, with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb, which is the best option from their pov at this point.
Carpet bombing would be a waste of munitions. Iran to your point is massive and surface level bombing would mostly take out civilians. The civilians have been through enough. Most of Irans military and religious leaders are in missile cities that are 500 meters+ under mountains of rock, the same places they are creating nuclear material. These bunkers are immune to bunker busters and nukes. That will require ground troops and likely a lot of them. How that plays out specifically I have not a clue. I can only hope that they share body-cam footage and that casualties are kept to a minimum. If there is one thing I can give Iran credit for that is building some amazing and very impressive bunkers using US dollars.
with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb
This game has already been played out many times before. Obama unfroze 1.7 billion, Biden gave them upwards of 6 billion. All together the US has given them upwards of 60 billion to pinky promise they wont build nukes. Never pay a bully, ever. They used that extortion money to build bunkers, pay their proxy soldiers to attack Israel and all the gulf states and to work on their bunkers. There will be no more of that. Shame on anyone that falls for those shenanigans again.
Age old story of all choke points of course. I was taught about choke points by a family member that served in WWII and it's funny, thinking back I was in trouble because I could not find the Strait of Hormuz on a world globe that had no writing on it. I mean seriously ... who keeps such a globe just sitting around for such an obscure moment? That lesson stuck with me. It was a strange lesson but it stuck nonetheless.
Was just reading that this is the first time a waterway choke point (other than canals which are man made) has had a toll. The implications are intriguing for their novelty and unknown second order effects.
Also, the comment about the globe reminds me of a quip from The Daily Show that went something like "... something something War, or how Americans learn geography." You are lucky to have prior generations which provide such inter-generational teaching moments.
The Iran nuclear agreement was absolutely working for the year or so it lasted. International inspectors finally got to see things. Iran did not have a significant nuclear program during Trump's first term when he killed the agreement.
After Trump killed the agreement, what was Iran supposed to do? If the US can just ignore a diplomatic agreement, there's no reason for Iran to follow it. That means diplomacy is basically off the table. So they built a nuclear weapons industry again.
If Iran just wants to kill kill kill, why did it shut down it's chemical weapon industry? Why no dirty bombs? Why no gas attacks? Why is Iran, fighting an actually existential war, pulling it's punches? Why is it not hitting desalination plants like it can? They demonstrated that they have weapons that could hit Europe.
International inspectors finally got to see things.
Or so we are told. I have my doubts that they had access to all the missile cities. We will never know. Nobody will ever know until ICBM's, SRBM's and SRAM's start rolling out of their bunkers and Iran becomes a nuclear power. I believe this has been the goal of their stalling tactics and bullying. Too many nations trust but never really verify. This is how things went wrong with North Korea.
Give tourists paid access to all the bunkers. I want to ride an e-bike through all of them.
> Never pay a bully, ever. They used that extortion money to build bunkers
Which bully are we talking about here? I'm guessing Donald Trump, who took millions in "donations" to demolish a 3rd of the white house to build a new bunker with a stupid ballroom on top (which will never get built, but the GOP will just shrug when asked where the money went).
reply