[Traveller]

Got a horrible chest cough. Have just had to bail on a night shift, as I'm already run down... so work will be pissed at me now too.

[Traveller]

Briar King, on 16 December 2014 - 09:18 PM, said:

I'm trying to control my few Lucid Dreams but I haven't had any the past few nights to train. I've only been trying this for a mth or less.

I don't need to 'train' as such anymore. If I get woken by something about an hour before I would usually be waking up, and go back to sleep, I usually hit the right level for dreaming. I can wake up within my dream as it were, but once you are aware you are dreaming you are also aware that you are able to wake up - which is annoying if you don't want to!

Although in some dreams that were going bad I've been able to wake myself up to get away.

[QuickTidal]

Aaaaaannd the FBI has officially stated that it was NK behind the attack.

I'm curious what the response will be. This cannot be allowed to stand.

[Andorion]

Another 12 hour day. Plus I think I pulled some back muscles. Hurts like hell.

[Illuyankas]

Honestly compared to the likely reaction of the US to North Korea making a film in which they do exactly what happens in this movie (rather not have my posts checked by the US government by being more explicit), I'm surprised at how much everyone else is surprised by all this.

Also that bit I put in brackets is pretty grim.

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

This cannot be allowed to stand.

Why? I'm confused regarding what authority you think anyone in the US has to prosecute a citizen (or citizens) of a country that does not have any kind of extradition treaty from a different nation?

I'm also confused why you think the US Government (I'm assuming here) should step in to protect a corporation that can't be bothered to protect itself?

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 18 December 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Everybody is pissed as this is quite unprecedented.

Is it? Prepare for Hypocracy.

http://en.wikipedia....%282006_film%29

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

This cannot be allowed to stand.

Why? I'm confused regarding what authority you think anyone in the US has to prosecute a citizen (or citizens) of a country that does not have any kind of extradition treaty from a different nation?

I'm also confused why you think the US Government (I'm assuming here) should step in to protect a corporation that can't be bothered to protect itself?

This says it better than I can probably word it. https://deadline.com...ion-1201329988/

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 December 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Everybody is pissed as this is quite unprecedented.

Is it? Prepare for Hypocracy.

http://en.wikipedia....%282006_film%29

sorry, perhaps I was not clear in my original statement. I meant that terrorists (whoever it actually was) have caused a backing down (with Sony pulling the film) of a piece of fiction and that's unprecedented. All the films that dealt with this stuff previously, Like Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR, got released anyways.

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

This cannot be allowed to stand.

Why? I'm confused regarding what authority you think anyone in the US has to prosecute a citizen (or citizens) of a country that does not have any kind of extradition treaty from a different nation?

I'm also confused why you think the US Government (I'm assuming here) should step in to protect a corporation that can't be bothered to protect itself?

This says it better than I can probably word it. https://deadline.com...ion-1201329988/

None of that answers the question of 'why should a corporation be 'protected' by the US Government, when they can't bother to protect themselves?'

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:38 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 18 December 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

Everybody is pissed as this is quite unprecedented.

Is it? Prepare for Hypocracy.

http://en.wikipedia....%282006_film%29

sorry, perhaps I was not clear in my original statement. I meant that terrorists (whoever it actually was) have caused a backing down (with Sony pulling the film) of a piece of fiction and that's unprecedented. All the films that dealt with this stuff previously, Like Chaplin's THE GREAT DICTATOR, got released anyways.

Did Death of a President? Or did that get blocked everywhere but arthouse movies, by these very same people who are whining about this movie being pulled?

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

This cannot be allowed to stand.

Why? I'm confused regarding what authority you think anyone in the US has to prosecute a citizen (or citizens) of a country that does not have any kind of extradition treaty from a different nation?

I'm also confused why you think the US Government (I'm assuming here) should step in to protect a corporation that can't be bothered to protect itself?

This says it better than I can probably word it. https://deadline.com...ion-1201329988/

None of that answers the question of 'why should a corporation be 'protected' by the US Government, when they can't bother to protect themselves?'

When the terrorists threaten theatres and the people attending screenings of a film...that's a US governemnt issue is it not?

I don't know for sure as I don't live there, but it seems like it is.

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

This cannot be allowed to stand.

Why? I'm confused regarding what authority you think anyone in the US has to prosecute a citizen (or citizens) of a country that does not have any kind of extradition treaty from a different nation?

I'm also confused why you think the US Government (I'm assuming here) should step in to protect a corporation that can't be bothered to protect itself?

This says it better than I can probably word it. https://deadline.com...ion-1201329988/

None of that answers the question of 'why should a corporation be 'protected' by the US Government, when they can't bother to protect themselves?'

When the terrorists threaten theatres and the people attending screenings of a film...that's a US governemnt issue is it not?

I don't know for sure as I don't live there, but it seems like it is.

Was there an actual realistic threat? Or are they going to release plain text emails and social security numbers, which they couldn't have gotten if Sony had any kind of security, and if they were following the Sarbanes Oxley requirements? Sony keeps credit card numbers in plain fucking text.

I have no respect for Sony's security, and the decision of Sony and these Movie groups to not show the movie is the wrong one.

None the less, what rights or responsibilities does the US government have to protect Sony from their own idiotic security policies?

edit: Especially when many of the chickenhawks calling for a response buried the movie I mentioned above and prevented it from any kind of widespread release. Such a bastion of Freedom of Expression, right?

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 19 December 2014 - 06:52 PM

[QuickTidal]

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Was there an actual realistic threat? Or are they going to release plain text emails and social security numbers, which they couldn't have gotten if Sony had any kind of security, and if they were following the Sarbanes Oxley requirements? Sony keeps credit card numbers in plain fucking text.

I have no respect for Sony's security, and the decision of Sony and these Movie groups to not show the movie is the wrong one.

None the less, what rights or responsibilities does the US government have to protect Sony from their own idiotic security policies?

Yes, that's why it's just a threat. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm not defending Sony here or their security at all. I'm saying that what has arisen FROM the Sony hack are hackers (wherever they are from) demanding things and getting them. Those demands were attached to a real world physical threats. And in that vein I assumed (from what I've read) that the government gets involved due to that aspect?

Like I said, I don't live there so I have no idea if that's the case. It just seems like it was from the reports I was reading. If that's not the case I'll take it back.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 19 December 2014 - 06:58 PM

[Obdigore]

QuickTidal, on 19 December 2014 - 06:58 PM, said:

Obdigore, on 19 December 2014 - 06:51 PM, said:

Was there an actual realistic threat? Or are they going to release plain text emails and social security numbers, which they couldn't have gotten if Sony had any kind of security, and if they were following the Sarbanes Oxley requirements? Sony keeps credit card numbers in plain fucking text.

I have no respect for Sony's security, and the decision of Sony and these Movie groups to not show the movie is the wrong one.

None the less, what rights or responsibilities does the US government have to protect Sony from their own idiotic security policies?

Yes, that's why it's just a threat. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.

I'm not defending Sony here or their security at all. I'm saying that what has arisen FROM the Sony hack are hackers (wherever they are from) demanding things and getting them. Those demands were attached to a real world physical threats. And in that vein I assumed (from what I've read) that the government gets involved due to that aspect?

Like I said, I don't live there so I have no idea if that's the case. It just seems like it was from the reports I was reading. If that's not the case I'll take it back.

What actual physical threats? I haven't seen any. Just vague 'you will be sorry'. AKA, we can't do anything to you so we are going to threaten you and hope you don't show it.

For a threat to be taken seriously in this country (because they happen all the time), it has to be realistic and the people behind the threat have to be capable of carrying it out to the extend that the person/people being threatened believe it.

I was planning to go see this movie opening weekend. Not because I have any real desire to see the movie, but to show my support to Sony and the Theaters that were going to show it despite all this bullshit. Guess that isn't happening now.

But, through all this, the US can't say 'Don't threaten hollywood for releasing this movie' because they did the same fucking thing with 'Death of a President' from 2006. Many of the same people commenting now said that movie should be banned.

It is utter horseshit all around. Everyone EXCEPT the White House have been absolute idiots in this. The US Government shouldn't respond beyond stating that Sony clearly wasn't following US Law regarding how personally identifying information needs to be kept, and that this is what happens when Corporations don't pay for actual information security, just the illusion thereof.

[QuickTidal]

Okay.

[worry]

Uh huh. He's just trying to deflect his new nickname, Spoilsport Sony.

[Gnaw]

Dad rides the lawnmower out to the burn pile. His comment upon seeing me throwing a couple hundred books on it:
"Don't light this tonight. 'We' need to start it of a morning so 'we' can keep an eye on it through the day."

So he's perfectly ok with me burning all my books. I'm just doing it wrong. Anyone have a brick wall I can bang my head against for a while?

That was in my iCloud Notes. Happened last year. But still burns bums me.

[Gust Hubb]

what books?

[Gnaw]

Gust Hubb, on 20 December 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

what books?

Mostly paperback fiction. Some hardcover non fiction.

I went digital and that stuff didn't sell at a garage sale. My dad was bitching about the boxes "cluttering up" the 3 walled shed. A shed which was half empty, he didn't use, but the open side is visible from the road. In other words he made me mad and I did something mildly stupid.