SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard. Twice.
Now, according to BBC, Wikileaks has released another incredible piece of [the CIA] arsenal. Wikileaks reportedly released the code that the CIA uses to disguise the origins of a computer virus as a part of Vault 7.
These hacking tools reportedly include decoy languages like Russian to disguise the national origins of the cyber attack or malware. The release may disrupt the CIA's current operations and reveal previous cyber operations.
Source: https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/04/wikileaks-disrupt-cia/
Also at Ars Technica
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Wikileaks Releases Code That Could Unmask CIA Hacking Operations
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 99 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 04 2017, @05:37PM (28 children)
His stated objective is to be a "Troll."
We mod comments like that down because they make the conversation suck. Why are we putting them on the front page?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @07:00PM (26 children)
Because a small subset of the SN community is alt-right, probably hangs around various "chan" boards, and wants to trumpet their cause as much as possible! The same thing happened with Voat, I was excited for an alternative to Reddit as I saw Reddit becoming more and more corporate / propagandized etc. However, since the people who created Voat were the ones pissed off by downmodding / admin abuse, whatever; that also means many of those pissed off users were the alt-righters who got lots of shit for having worldviews that the majority of people really dislike.
A similar thing happened with Slashdot and SoylentNews, though hopefully to a lesser extent as far as alt-right views go. I appreciate the dedication to non-censorship and non-advertising / selling out, but the fact is that alt-righters (and those with somewhat similar worldviews) went to the new system where they wouldn't feel quite as silenced / censored / abused. It is a strength of the site, but it attracts quite a few people with questionable ideas.
The fact that the submitter linked to Milo's website instead of the sourced BBC article says something all on its own. Very well could have been done as some sort of litmus test "lets see all the cucked liberals yell about a link to Milo and we can point out they are hating the messenger and not listening to the message! Those fucking hypocrite liberal elitist jerkwads!1!!"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:03PM (23 children)
We have a serious RWNJ infestation here. I really think we have some genuine clinical psychopaths posting on these boards.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:34PM
Yup. Too much "logic / efficiency / profit / greed" promoted even at the cost of human suffering. And why? "Muh free markets! Muh money being stolen! Dem lazy turds!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @08:54PM (18 children)
We have a serious RWNJ infestation here. I really think we have some genuine clinical psychopaths posting on these boards.
That might be the case. But even psychopaths need places to sound off. If they do so here, we can refute their ridiculous assertions and laugh at them.
I rather like that there are a lot of, as you say, RWNJs here. It allows me to understand their arguments and point of view. Even though I often disagree, by creating a marketplace of ideas [wikipedia.org] we can compare and contrast to identify the best ones.
Not too many minds will be changed, but at worst we have the opportunity to hone the arguments that support our own ideas.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:20PM (10 children)
Oh, I'm with you 100% on that. It's kind of futile though, since they're impossible to change; their kind only ever changes their mind about something when it causes them, directly and personally, to suffer. And since I haven't (yet) figured out a way to shock people over tcp/ip...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:41PM (7 children)
As an old boss of mine used to say way too often: "When the pain to change is less than the pain to stay the same, people change."
He would say that all the time, and it got real tired, real fast. However, it happens to be true.
I was in Chicago a few years ago (about 20 months before the Obergefell [wikipedia.org] decision) and was walking along Michigan Avenue when I was accosted by a young man asking me to give him money to support marriage equality.
I pointed out to this earnest young man that culture changes slowly. You can't force people to change their ideas about the world, even if those ideas are antithetical to equality and liberty. He got pretty hot about that and I had to leave him to canvass others.
Now that the Obergefell decision is the law of the land, there are, sadly, too many folks who take their own trained in prejudices for the laws of nature and rail against the idea that liberty rests, in large part, with equality of opportunity. That goes way beyond marriage equality of course, but as I said, culture changes slowly.
We can only raise our voices and work towards the day when the psychopaths aren't the ones making the rules. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:32PM (5 children)
What is the point of your anecdote?
You told the kid that you weren't going to give him money because working for change is pointless?
Just how do you think societal change happens? Its precisely because of people like him pushing with everything they have against the massive inertia of society that makes change happen. Without hundreds of thousands each doing their part to move society a fraction of a millimeter social progress would remain at a stand still. Every one of those people making their infinitesimal contribution adds up.
No wonder he got pissed at you.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:39PM (3 children)
What is the point of your anecdote?
You told the kid that you weren't going to give him money because working for change is pointless?
Just how do you think societal change happens? Its precisely because of people like him pushing with everything they have against the massive inertia of society that makes change happen. Without hundreds of thousands each doing their part to move society a fraction of a millimeter social progress would remain at a stand still. Every one of those people making their infinitesimal contribution adds up.
No wonder he got pissed at you.
My point (since you seem to have problems with reading comprehension) was that "culture changes slowly."
Do you disagree with that assessment, or are you just trying to pick a fight?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:44PM (2 children)
That's not a point.
That's an observation.
What was your reason for saying that to the kid?
Why say that rather than a comment on the weather?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:52PM (1 child)
Mostly just to piss you off.
Now piss off, pissant.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:58PM
Translation: You are right, I am a bellend and fuck you very much for scratching my thin skin by pointing that out.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:42PM
And I guess you missed this part too:
We can only raise our voices and work towards the day when the psychopaths aren't the ones making the rules. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later.
Did you not bother to read that far, or do you just want to argue?
In your case, it doesn't seem like it would be a fair fight.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @06:04PM
you should have told him that anyone that let's the government control his/her/it marriage is a pitiful slave and deserves the various injustices that invariably come with a master/slave relationship. stupid socialists think government can be planned into fairness. It's impossible to make this relationship fair.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @10:19PM
Techno/thought'rist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:39AM
their kind only ever changes their mind about something when it causes them, directly and personally, to suffer.
Nah, that's not enough. They will still rationalize it away. If they can't figure out someone else to blame they decide that their personal suffering is a sacrifice to enable something more important. Its OK if I don't get meals on wheels anymore, as long as we keep the terrorists out!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:03PM (6 children)
even psychopaths need places to sound off. If they do so here, we can refute their ridiculous assertions and laugh at them.
When you spend your time constantly re-litigating the same old shit that keeps the conversation from developing into anything better.
Otherwise known as the "don't wrestle with pigs, you just get dirty and they enjoy it" principle.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:10PM (5 children)
even psychopaths need places to sound off. If they do so here, we can refute their ridiculous assertions and laugh at them.
When you spend your time constantly re-litigating the same old shit that keeps the conversation from developing into anything better.
Otherwise known as the "don't wrestle with pigs, you just get dirty and they enjoy it" principle.
Thank you for telling me what I should or shouldn't say. I really don't know what I would do without you.
You're a godsend, friend.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:18PM (4 children)
This has nothing to do with YOU and everything to do with the principle of letting the shittiest smear their shit all over soylent over and over again.
Do you want soylent to be a site where the worst of us are enabled to pull down everyone else, or do you want soylent to be a site of thoughtful discourse?
Guess what the smart people do when they realize the pigs are just getting everyone dirty They leave. And then all you are left with are the pigs.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:23PM (3 children)
This has nothing to do with YOU
If it has nothing to do with me, why are you involving me in your little tantrum?
Don't like the discourse? Perhaps you could improve it? From what I've seen so far, you have added exactly zero to the quality of discourse.
I suggest you just browse at 2+ and leave it at that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @11:30PM (2 children)
WTF is wrong with you dude?
You stated a premise, I responded to the premise.
'You' were never invoked.
And the only one here having a tantrum is you.
By far.
(Score: 4, Touché) by art guerrilla on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:29AM (1 child)
unsure which a non cow is which, but if the same:
1. 'WTF' is shorthand for coarse discourse, should such lowlifes who use it be banned to keep SN pure and unadulterated ? ? ?
2. is censorship for the sake of neatness a good quality or a bad quality, discuss among yourselves...
3. YOUR words -though void of the four letter variety- are offensive to me (yet i not only allow them, but defend your right to say them); who 'wins' that censorship contest ? ? ?
who is the arbiter ? ? ?'
when one side allows all speech, and one allows only approved speech; who is more free ? ? ?
freedom means the freedom to fuck up, so buck up, and suck it up, buttercup...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @02:27AM
Your response is a shallow misdirection.
The question is, what do you value more?
Wallowing around in the mud, constantly having the same arguments about self-evident truths and never getting beyond them because freedom.
Or building on an accepted baseline of common ground so as to get to a deeper understanding of issues.
Like I said originally, the smart people who want insightful discussion will go elsewhere when they realize how non-productive the first option is.
You can call them snowflakes to make yourself feel better. But in the end the smart people will still leave and all you'll be left with is the mud and the pigs.
What is the point of 'free speech' anyway if the only ideas heard are the lowest common denominator? Is eternal september really your highest aspiration?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @01:43AM (2 children)
And calling them 'nut jobs' makes you feel better? Or are you unwilling to even hear what they have to say?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:08AM
I've heard what they had to say. Repeatedly. It is morally, legally, and in many cases scientifically insane. Hence why I call them "nut jobs."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @09:16AM
And calling them 'nut jobs' makes you feel better? Or are you unwilling to even hear what they have to say?
Yes, and Yes, both enthusiastically! I just love watching them squirm when they realize you think that they are quite insane. Had this happen with a right-wing "student" (he really was much too smart to be at University) who asked what I thought of D'inesh D'Souza (this before the felony conviction), and he looked either shocked or discovered when I immediately replied, "Right-wing hack." The Nut-job's response was, "Aren't you even going to consider D'Souza's arguments?" I said: "There is no point, really. D'inesh has been a bad boy since his undergraduate days, he really has nothing to add to any real discussion of issues, he argues in bad faith, and to even listen to what he says is to give him credibility he does not deserve." How stupid do right-wing nut-jobs have to be to think that the rest of the world is not on to them, and that the only reason their positions are not prevailing is because no one gives them a platform from which to spread the good news? Answer: pretty stupid. Their "ideas" do not fail because no one listens to them; no one listens to them because their ideas are idiotic.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:19PM (1 child)
> but the fact is that alt-righters (and those with somewhat similar worldviews) went to the new system where they wouldn't feel quite as silenced / censored / abused.
To me, this looks like an attempt to re-write SN history. The reason I came to SN was "fuck beta" after the green site went out of their way to ignore users of all stripes and handed-ness.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04 2017, @09:45PM
Sure, "fuck beta" was about the selling out and screwing up the look and feel of the site. Probably why this community has lasted, it wasn't ONLY a flight from censorship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:26AM
Because he runs the site.