Post: #26

(12-19-2014 06:48 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Google was hacked during Bush and had its intellectual property and algorithms stolen by the Chinese.

Russian carders using Zeus and other financial Trojan Horse attacks have cost the US banking industry billions directly with credit card fraud and break ins.

US drones and air force unmanned units were hit with viruses and malware, Chinese in origin, and it would cost a billion dollars to clean them out, but last time I checked we still haven't.

The Russians attacked the white house servers directly.

I could go on and on. The problem of cyber security is at what point do you respond with force or sanctions without destabilizing the world in the process? Cyber warfare is the newest front of the modern day battlefield. Old tactics from physical fronts don't necessarily translate to the cyber front. No one has a great strategy right now in the white hat and CIO circles on how to address this issue.

In lots of ways this has happened in the past, when you compare it to the old Age of Sail days when pirates would loot and plunder and go hide out in ports sympathetic to them. That's why the Russians and Chinese laugh when we ask for hackers to be extradited. Pirates carried on like this for a very very long time. From the early 1500s until the late 1780s or so. The British Empire and the Spanish lost millions in trade over pirates. Until territory in the new world got settled and the main powers were in place, only then did pirate coves get busted up and most pirates were hung.

Obama and Bush administrations have the same problems. They do not understand technology at all and that there is a big lack of security professionals willing to work in the government that have all the skills they need. Private sector always pays more.

Sony and Toyota both took shortcuts on quality in the name of greed. Toyota skimped on the brakes and thousands of American people died over that. I personally had one of those Camry that failed and I got into a crash. Sony was lazy at first and had servers accepting payments that had not been patched in over 7 months. After they brought in help, it took years to upgrade their systems and secure it because they were so neglectful for years. Think about this, they only found out because a hacker bragged about it. After this passwords were hacked at least 3 more times. It would take an hour to post all the shit they have done in the last 5 years. Some technology magazines have made case studies on how to secure a company using Sony.

Sony has more money than many top companies worldwide but their culture prevents them from giving a fuck. Japan does not force them to do better. The US doesn't have laws for security compliance either. As long as shit makes money they don't give a fuck.

Movies get cancelled all the time. To them it's a small drop in a bucket. They don't need revenge on anyone. The other movies will pick up the slack. Obama vowing revenge is just stupid empty suit saber rattling. 6 months from now he wouldn't have done shit.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the CIA can do cyber-warfare too:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

The Norks will get payback in kind, if there's anything in their country worth hacking or degrading through electronic means.

Sony has a terrible record for IT security. Only a couple of years ago their entire Playstation Network worldwide was down for a month after it got hacked and millions of credit card numbers were stolen.

You'd think they would have learned.

Post: #27

Say what you will about Obama, but it least he didn't hire a gay prostitute (Jeff Gannon) to serve as a bogus White House correspondent-like Bush did. He was hired to lob softball questions to W.

Post: #28

(12-19-2014 06:59 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

Quote:"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

Quote:But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

Post: #29

How should one respond to a cyber attack? Obviously you want to increase your IT security; but do you retaliate with a bigger attack of your own?

Post: #30

(12-19-2014 09:29 PM)Old Fritz Wrote:  How should one respond to a cyber attack? Obviously you want to increase your IT security; but do you retaliate with a bigger attack of your own?

A corporation cannot go on the offensive because that would break the law, compliance, etc.. They can only defend by using IPS or Fireye and Palo Alto security appliances.

The US govt only attacks others based on interests and approvals are needed before that. It usually won't do that unless a great deal of money is involved in some way or a very key objective is met. (ie Stuxnet and Israel destroying Iranian centrifuges)

Post: #31

(12-19-2014 08:09 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 06:59 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

Quote:"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

Quote:But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

If the pres is going to pussyfoot around and mention it as you pointed out he should take a stand instead of just pandering around. That's all that guy ever does.

He's the "leader" of the "free" world.

Post: #32

(12-20-2014 03:31 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 08:09 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 06:59 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

Quote:"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

Quote:But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

If the pres is going to pussyfoot around and mention it as you pointed out he should take a stand instead of just pandering around. That's all that guy ever does.

He's the "leader" of the "free" world.

What would "taking a stand" in this situation entail? He has flatly stated that Sony shouldn't have cancelled the film because it sends the wrong signal to hackers. Isn't that taking a stand? After his statement Sony has started saying that it hasn't cancelled the film and they are looking for ways to screen it. What more do you want him to do? And if you say retaliate, how do you know that retaliation is not in the works?

Post: #33

What was his remark in it's entirety?

Post: #34

They look like overweight albino frogs.

Post: #35

(12-20-2014 04:54 PM)Fisto Wrote:  What was his remark in it's entirety?

It's in the earlier post,

Quote:"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

It seems that he is taking a clear stand that he disagrees with the film being pulled. He is disappointed about the bad precedent this sets. But, it's not his decision. In fact his statements have caused Sony to push back and say that they intend to release the film. I am not sure what else you want him to say.

Post: #36

(12-19-2014 04:15 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  How is Obama to blame for that stupid movie getting cancelled?

In fact he chastised Sony for doing just that.
Sony then passed the buck @ the Cinema heads, and then Sony came back to say don't count us out yet.

I will never understand the deliberate misreading of current events to suit an agenda.

WIA

Post: #37

Obama is trying to create a standard US foreign policy in regards to cyber attacks. Currently we don't have much of one. It's very much a work in progress as we go. Not showing cowardice after an attack does make sense to push agenda wise. Getting Japan, an ally of the US on board is the right move. Govt is supposed to set the tone for corporate culture in that regard.

None of us care for Obama, but facts are facts and we have to give credit where credit is due. Like tuthmosis says, the nuance is in the details.

Post: #38

What a sexist pig.

G

Post: #39

(12-19-2014 08:09 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 06:59 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  In my opinion, what a commander-in-chief should have done was found a way to mobilize whatever forces he had to say "This will not go on in our country. We will find a way to show this film."

A corporation decided that it was not in it's best interest to show the film. Your position is that Obama should have intervened and insisted that the company show the film? Really?

This is what he did say.

Quote:"Sony's a corporation. It suffered significant damage, there were threats against its employees," Obama said at his annual year-end news conference from the White House. "I am sympathetic to the concerns that they faced. Having said all that, yes, I think they made a mistake."

He added that he wished "they'd spoken to me first," so he could tell them not to set a bad precedent by caving into hackers' threats.

Sounds pretty reasonable. I don't see him caving in to N Korea anywhere.

Quote:But beyond that, an infrastructure should already be in place to prevent things like this from happening.

So you are advocating that the government own and operate the internet infrastructure? Do you have any idea what having an airtight virtual border would entail in practical terms? I don't think you do. If you leave your front door open and a thief comes in and steals everything in your house, do you blame Obama and the government?

Look, to answer all the questions here: after Sept. 11, the US created a Dept. of Homeland Security in addition to the Defense Dept. We also have the FBI.

There are a lot of people in those offices who are making the big bucks and they're the ones who should have answers to the many questions above. They have knowledge of things non-government people don't. They should be the ones advising the president and meeting with him and Sony.

Virtual border? No it doesn't sound realistic, but you assume with all those people being paid, someone would have come up with something, considering how traumatic Sept. 11 was. They sure seem to be able to crack down on citizens easy enough, so you'd assume they'd be able to track outside threats somehow, with some technology.

All I know is that a country felt comfortable enough threatening us with all that in place. And with all that in place, it doesn't seem like we can do a whole lot -- unless something is in the works we don't know about. But if they felt comfortable enough, we're not sending the right tone out -- and that usually comes from the Oval Office.

Post: #40

So how come Obama isn't getting slammed for sexism?

Post: #41

It seems I'm wrong about him in this instance.

Just seeing this by the way.

Post: #42

(12-21-2014 02:15 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  So how come Obama isn't getting slammed for sexism?

Because men have let this stupid shit slide for too long. Too many times on RVF we have discussed what happens if you give women too much slack. Give em an inch they will take that mile in a heartbeat. Same shit applies to white knights and manginas, because they are emulating effeminate behavior. In this case he either wants pussy or votes from women, or maybe both. Let him do it. Other blue pill men of all age groups need a system shock of some kind. They need to keep seeing that the Democrat party hates men. Not just white men, all men. Their army of women that mooch off social programs and fucked up alimony laws can be their downfall if these men would just wake the fuck up. There are plenty of conservative minded women to help tip the balance of power.

I'm not advocating Republican party, not yet at least, but if these idiotic liberals are to start loosing their grip on this society, it is going to be up to the men to decide this and stop being liberal and supporting these idiots.

Women in the US during these times will be regarded as having the highest amount of power any society of women has ever had. Even though Historians make rules about saying things like this, there is more than enough evidence to make this argument. I am confident about saying that now. If men want to live better they need to stop kissing women's asses and take them off the pedestal.

Post: #43

So, he is basically the beta-orbiter and chief of the USA?

I have said it before and will say it again. Women now control elections. At the national level they collectively have more than 50% of the ballot, I think in the last presidential election it was 58%. At the local level it can easily be in the 70% or higher depending on the location.

Also, women know that husbands and fathers of girls are going to act differently than fathers of boys. I have seen some relate this to conspiracy theories and the PTB but I think it is a bit more unconscious and evolutionarily generated. I doubt, as with many things, that individual women are even aware of it.

IF you want to know who will win the next election, and to what degree they will pander to women and make men's lives worse, just look at which candidates, male or female, have daughters instead of sons.

Post: #44

(12-22-2014 03:07 AM)Troll King Wrote:  So, he is basically the beta-orbiter and chief of the USA?

I have said it before and will say it again. Women now control elections. At the national level they collectively have more than 50% of the ballot, I think in the last presidential election it was 58%. At the local level it can easily be in the 70% or higher depending on the location.

Also, women know that husbands and fathers of girls are going to act differently than fathers of boys. I have seen some relate this to conspiracy theories and the PTB but I think it is a bit more unconscious and evolutionarily generated. I doubt, as with many things, that individual women are even aware of it.

IF you want to know who will win the next election, and to what degree they will pander to women and make men's lives worse, just look at which candidates, male or female, have daughters instead of sons.

I think is different for women with daughters, Palin was a woman running for vice president with 3 daughters and become the most hated woman in politics by the media and women in general.

Post: #45

(12-22-2014 04:07 AM)Soberane Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 03:07 AM)Troll King Wrote:  So, he is basically the beta-orbiter and chief of the USA?

I have said it before and will say it again. Women now control elections. At the national level they collectively have more than 50% of the ballot, I think in the last presidential election it was 58%. At the local level it can easily be in the 70% or higher depending on the location.

Also, women know that husbands and fathers of girls are going to act differently than fathers of boys. I have seen some relate this to conspiracy theories and the PTB but I think it is a bit more unconscious and evolutionarily generated. I doubt, as with many things, that individual women are even aware of it.

IF you want to know who will win the next election, and to what degree they will pander to women and make men's lives worse, just look at which candidates, male or female, have daughters instead of sons.

I think is different for women with daughters, Palin was a woman running for vice president with 3 daughters and become the most hated woman in politics by the media and women in general.

True. True.

That was something that really opened my eyes. I was pretty shocked, and I think a lot of people on the left were too, at how fast and viciously leftist women tore her down.

I don't know where her kids play in this role but I have suspected for a long time that many of the reasons leftist women went after her so viciously is because she mirrored them in a lot of ways and also because she rivaled them in other ways. I never thought she was hot but to be honest she is far better looking than any leftist female politician than I have seen. That would be true with most leftist women in general I think.

As it is though, her being a woman I bet she would have done worse against men than our mangina VP Biden has.

Post: #46

Obama is the most feminist major presidential candidate by miles. This is just par for the course. And when either Hillary or Elizabeth Warren win in 2016, the same shit will continue, and it will keep getting worse and worse for men in the USA.

Post: #47

(12-22-2014 05:10 AM)Troll King Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:07 AM)Soberane Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 03:07 AM)Troll King Wrote:  So, he is basically the beta-orbiter and chief of the USA?

I have said it before and will say it again. Women now control elections. At the national level they collectively have more than 50% of the ballot, I think in the last presidential election it was 58%. At the local level it can easily be in the 70% or higher depending on the location.

Also, women know that husbands and fathers of girls are going to act differently than fathers of boys. I have seen some relate this to conspiracy theories and the PTB but I think it is a bit more unconscious and evolutionarily generated. I doubt, as with many things, that individual women are even aware of it.

IF you want to know who will win the next election, and to what degree they will pander to women and make men's lives worse, just look at which candidates, male or female, have daughters instead of sons.

I think is different for women with daughters, Palin was a woman running for vice president with 3 daughters and become the most hated woman in politics by the media and women in general.

True. True.

That was something that really opened my eyes. I was pretty shocked, and I think a lot of people on the left were too, at how fast and viciously leftist women tore her down.

I don't know where her kids play in this role but I have suspected for a long time that many of the reasons leftist women went after her so viciously is because she mirrored them in a lot of ways and also because she rivaled them in other ways. I never thought she was hot but to be honest she is far better looking than any leftist female politician than I have seen. That would be true with most leftist women in general I think.

As it is though, her being a woman I bet she would have done worse against men than our mangina VP Biden has.

When women see men with daughters they know they can pander and incite to his white knight instinct, he can't say may things for fear to being labeled women hater and how he hates his own daughters, women like Palin or Ann coulter are hard place in the same category, even when they are labeled as women haters the narrative fall apart because is coming from a woman, that is why many Republicans are now letting the Republican women be the one that talks for them, it makes them look weak a bit, but is a smart move in politics, notice how Fox news has replaced the men with women all over their broadcasting.

Quote: I never thought she was hot but to be honest she is far better looking than any leftist female politician than I have seen. That would be true with most leftist women in general I think.

Palin is not bad looking for a woman her age that has popped out 5 kids, don't let herself go fat and don't shop her hair.


On average, conservative women are better looking than liberals, is a well know phenomenon

Post: #48

Would smash every one of them repeatedly.

Bet they make breakfast as well.

Post: #49

(12-22-2014 10:40 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  0201989547294800_5660509256885389601_n_crop.jpg[/img]

Would smash every one of them repeatedly.

Bet they make breakfast as well.

I have to thanks Fox News for he amazing display of legs and mini skirts.



This one has Literally her ass out, her cheeks are siting on that sofa





You can see in the video below how she pull her skirt up to show more legs

Quote:Co-anchor Brian Kilmeade asked Earhardt if she ever wore pantsuits herself, and she said she had, but, "Here at Fox, we like to be feminine. So we don't wear the pants." Kilmeade wanted to make sure he wasn't misunderstood, though — he is firmly against pantsuits. "If I was to run for office, I'd run on the pro-skirt platform," he said

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03...89695.html

Fox News has a different contract for women, a dress code for its females anchors, they must wear mini skirt, also, smile constantly and never interrupt the males anchors and stop talking if the male anchor starts to talk while she is talking.

It is funny to watch many of the shows they have, is like a frat house for men where women are the toys to play around.




The females anchors get called out by big producers if they don't smile to often or don't sit feminine enough.

Post: #50

Short haired women are not welcome at Fox News.

I like that