- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Suspected Weekend Hacker Attack on Ubuntu
Click here for more information. |
|
|
Comments (61)
Unsubstantiated rumour
Wow, you guys are posting unsubstantiated rumours from blog posts now? The data centre that Canonical's servers are hosted in is temporarily down due to a primary and backup power outage. I've noted this on the linked blog -- might be worth changing the title and content here, too.
Please note the comment left on the blog:
"Please don't spread unsubstantiated crap. The datacentre that Canonical's servers are hosted in has been crippled by a primary and backup power outage. Please change the title and content of your post. (posted by Jeff Waugh.)"
I'd say this blogger is just wildly speculating.
It would probably be a good idea for the editors to note that the blog is reporting speculation that has been shown to be wrong.
I'd say this blogger is just wildly speculating.
It would probably be a good idea for the editors to note that the blog is reporting speculation that has been shown to be wrong.
Wow. Sorry for this. Please retract. Was just trying to understand why only:
* us.archive.ubuntu.com was down last night * why its IP address last night translated to Agronne National Laboratories
* us.archive.ubuntu.com was down last night * why its IP address last night translated to Agronne National Laboratories
Thanks for the clarification Jeff.
Doesn't really matter does it?
Afterall, "Suspected" means unsubstantiated...if you suspect someone of doing something, you have no proof.
Why don't you guys get some thicker skin and just not respond to it? Makes me laugh how when someone puts anything negative in print toward ubuntu people rally to its cause and don't even read the articles in question.
Afterall, "Suspected" means unsubstantiated...if you suspect someone of doing something, you have no proof.
Why don't you guys get some thicker skin and just not respond to it? Makes me laugh how when someone puts anything negative in print toward ubuntu people rally to its cause and don't even read the articles in question.
Personally I prefer real information to unsubstanitated bullcrap.
To a large extent, this is my fault. I lost power last night, and this morning found our queues nearly empty of any serious news, and wanted to post a few stories before going to another engagement. I did not take the time to vet the blog post. I will give more thought to this kind of thing in the future.
Hey guys, take it easy. If I could delete this post, I would. I was just trying to put 2 and 2 together. Anyone still yet know why the address to us.archive.ubuntu.com, when run through 'apt-get update', spits out an IP address that, when run through whois, referred to Argonne National Laboratories? So, the power outage is one thing, but then why ubuntu's loosely affiliated forums *as well as* the ubuntu site? Why not just soley ubuntu's site? And why the DNS hiccup with Argonne? What else was I supposed to think?
So, according to one of the Canonical hotshots, it was all power related and nothing more. Let's bury this. Anyone got a chisel so that I can take this story out of this website, and perhaps some pliers to pull the nails out my back??
Next time, I'll be more careful. Gosh, gee, I would post it in a forum as a query. Oh, no, that website was down.
So, according to one of the Canonical hotshots, it was all power related and nothing more. Let's bury this. Anyone got a chisel so that I can take this story out of this website, and perhaps some pliers to pull the nails out my back??
Next time, I'll be more careful. Gosh, gee, I would post it in a forum as a query. Oh, no, that website was down.
ROFL... Now about those alien spaceships...
I don't know about the DNS. Maybe it's a side effect of the outtage. I'm not sure what happens if DNS fails in a horrible way. Ubuntuforums is easy. Somewhere around the start of Hoary IIRC ubuntuforums.org moved to the canonical servers. Do a DNS lookup and you'll see.
I know that when power goes down on my netblock, I forward NO WHERE. So this guy has a good point. It should have just popped up as no connection available.
Instead, it forwards to somewhere. That's suspicious to say the least...that requires a DNS record to be altered.
Instead, it forwards to somewhere. That's suspicious to say the least...that requires a DNS record to be altered.
> Instead, it forwards to somewhere. That's suspicious to say the least...that requires a DNS record to be altered.
Or a backup DNS server that's not been set up right.
Or a backup DNS server that's not been set up right.
ha ha! who needs backups?!? Ubuntu doesn't! ha ha !
Power Outages
25 earlier comments in the full thread.
O.k., I hate to break it to y'all, but global warming is Dave's fault. If it weren't for him, y'all wouldn't be blowing all this hot air about global warming. :-D
...ducking and running (very fast)
...ducking and running (very fast)
Rev -
No need to duck and run.
Not because there is not danger, but because our behemoth earth-shaking SUVs will find you whereever you may run.
So...
You might as well relax, have a cup of iced tea, and wait to be crushed.
No need to duck and run.
Not because there is not danger, but because our behemoth earth-shaking SUVs will find you whereever you may run.
So...
You might as well relax, have a cup of iced tea, and wait to be crushed.
Where I live is mostly desert. Once upon a time it was lush semi-tropical forest. Lush semi-tropical forest seems like a nice thing to have.
> You might as well relax, have a cup of iced tea, and wait to be crushed.
That is, if you don't get tipped over by some little Honda. ;-)
That is, if you don't get tipped over by some little Honda. ;-)
dinotrac:
The $4000 is a one-time thing; thereafter, depreciation expense is allowed under the normal schedule, with the value of the asset first reduced by that $4000, of course. The accelerated depreciation for those luxury SUVs allowed a first-year write-off of more than the cost of many cars. A business would have to be putting an incredible number of miles per year on a vehicle to warrant buying a fuel efficient vehicle, even at today's gas prices, versus the gigantic subsidy of those luxury guzzlers.
It was done under the guise of helping the poor farmer, naturally. I just haven't seen that many farmers roaming around in Lincoln Navigators.
>"Tax incentives and public service ads do not equal conservation. People and businesses cutting back on their use of energy and going about their lives in more efficient ways does."
The power to tax is the power to destroy. I'm sure you've heard that before. A tax policy that provides a 75% price subsidy on some of the worst gas guzzlers on the highways certainly has the power to affect people and businesses' "use of energy". Pretending otherwise is just foolish.
The $4000 is a one-time thing; thereafter, depreciation expense is allowed under the normal schedule, with the value of the asset first reduced by that $4000, of course. The accelerated depreciation for those luxury SUVs allowed a first-year write-off of more than the cost of many cars. A business would have to be putting an incredible number of miles per year on a vehicle to warrant buying a fuel efficient vehicle, even at today's gas prices, versus the gigantic subsidy of those luxury guzzlers.
It was done under the guise of helping the poor farmer, naturally. I just haven't seen that many farmers roaming around in Lincoln Navigators.
>"Tax incentives and public service ads do not equal conservation. People and businesses cutting back on their use of energy and going about their lives in more efficient ways does."
The power to tax is the power to destroy. I'm sure you've heard that before. A tax policy that provides a 75% price subsidy on some of the worst gas guzzlers on the highways certainly has the power to affect people and businesses' "use of energy". Pretending otherwise is just foolish.
> Where I live is mostly desert. Once upon a time it was lush semi-tropical forest. Lush semi-tropical forest seems like a nice thing to have.
Where I live is currently hardwood forest. In geologic time it's been everything from buried under hundreds of feet of ice to a subtropical swamp.
The last major story I heard about global warming said that global temperatures were at their highest point in the last 400 years. That sound serious, until you realize that the industrial revolution hadn't started yet in 1606, and that the CO2 emissions everyone is complaining about weren't there yet. So, what was causing the global warming then?
Yes, global temperatures are rising. Yes, CO2 levels are probably contributing to that rise (probably, not definitely). The exact percentages are anybody's guess. Should we try to cut down on CO2 emissions? Sure. And we will. Doing so will take time, and will involve messy political negotiations, but it will be done, just as it was with the chloroflourocarbons. In the worst case, even if it isn't, the oil won't last forever, and when it's gone, the CO2 emissions will go with it. In the meantime, the climate will change, just as it's done throughout the history of the planet. We, and the rest of the planet, will adapt.
Where I live is currently hardwood forest. In geologic time it's been everything from buried under hundreds of feet of ice to a subtropical swamp.
The last major story I heard about global warming said that global temperatures were at their highest point in the last 400 years. That sound serious, until you realize that the industrial revolution hadn't started yet in 1606, and that the CO2 emissions everyone is complaining about weren't there yet. So, what was causing the global warming then?
Yes, global temperatures are rising. Yes, CO2 levels are probably contributing to that rise (probably, not definitely). The exact percentages are anybody's guess. Should we try to cut down on CO2 emissions? Sure. And we will. Doing so will take time, and will involve messy political negotiations, but it will be done, just as it was with the chloroflourocarbons. In the worst case, even if it isn't, the oil won't last forever, and when it's gone, the CO2 emissions will go with it. In the meantime, the climate will change, just as it's done throughout the history of the planet. We, and the rest of the planet, will adapt.
> We, and the rest of the planet, will adapt.
I'd say that, we 'may' adapt, the rest of the planet will, is far closer to fact. Remember the dinosaurs :).
I'd say that, we 'may' adapt, the rest of the planet will, is far closer to fact. Remember the dinosaurs :).
grouch -
Let's try this again...
1. Top of the line vs. bottom of the line....
I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. That is comparing a direct tax savings vs. an income reduction. If you're actually talking about depreciation acceleration, it's even a bit trickier. Accelerated depreciation means that you get tax savings in one year, but you lose tax savings in subsequent years.
2. Was the so-called loophole designed to help businesses that buy trucks?
Are you really just showing Puritan prudishness because the law doesn't require people to buy stripped-down bare-bones trucks? If I understood the article correctly, their example was a $47,000 truck, but the tax break only applied to the first $32,000.
Is it your belief that working trucks cannot cost $32,000? Believe me, they can.
How would you write the law so businesses could buy the trucks they need without allowing them to buy Range Rovers and Navigators? How would you tell a politician to sell support of that law to voters?
"Yes dear constituents, I hear you. You want farmers and small business people to get tax breaks for their business vehicles. We'll do that!! But we'll make them suffer for it, yessirree, Bob! No air-conditioning for those devils!! No CD-players. Nope, not a one! Better not have power windows, reclining seats, or leather! We'll get 'em. So long as I'm in office, farmers and business people will suffer."
And we must not know the same farmers. I agree that most of the farmers I know don't have Navigators. Some mighty nice extended cab pick'em up trucks, though. Mighty nice.
Let's try this again...
1. Top of the line vs. bottom of the line....
I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. That is comparing a direct tax savings vs. an income reduction. If you're actually talking about depreciation acceleration, it's even a bit trickier. Accelerated depreciation means that you get tax savings in one year, but you lose tax savings in subsequent years.
2. Was the so-called loophole designed to help businesses that buy trucks?
Are you really just showing Puritan prudishness because the law doesn't require people to buy stripped-down bare-bones trucks? If I understood the article correctly, their example was a $47,000 truck, but the tax break only applied to the first $32,000.
Is it your belief that working trucks cannot cost $32,000? Believe me, they can.
How would you write the law so businesses could buy the trucks they need without allowing them to buy Range Rovers and Navigators? How would you tell a politician to sell support of that law to voters?
"Yes dear constituents, I hear you. You want farmers and small business people to get tax breaks for their business vehicles. We'll do that!! But we'll make them suffer for it, yessirree, Bob! No air-conditioning for those devils!! No CD-players. Nope, not a one! Better not have power windows, reclining seats, or leather! We'll get 'em. So long as I'm in office, farmers and business people will suffer."
And we must not know the same farmers. I agree that most of the farmers I know don't have Navigators. Some mighty nice extended cab pick'em up trucks, though. Mighty nice.
Maybe the Rev should work on it this way: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2281620,00.html
Just call it evil...
Just call it evil...
jimf -
You are a very, very bad man!!!!!!!
You are a very, very bad man!!!!!!!
Sorry dino, I don't even think that's funny.
The Church of England has taken the position that “Indiscriminate use of the earth’s resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.”
Frankly, I think that isn't too far off the mark.
The Church of England has taken the position that “Indiscriminate use of the earth’s resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.”
Frankly, I think that isn't too far off the mark.
Industry has gotten the efficiency bug. Many industrial giants are far more energy efficient than they used to be. Some of the efforts would surprise you...
I recently found myself with way too much time on my hands and in the environment of a chatty third shift nurse. She was captivating to both look upon and listen to. With a cockney Brit accent, lush red hair and a hint of bad-girl within her demeanor, it was not an entirely unpleasant experience. I now fully understand the "nurse in white" fantasy still used in prOn clips...ahem, I hear they still use the gimmick anyway.
Until this topic found its way into the wee hour conversations. Once the genie was released from it's captivity, she railed against all things US. She bragged about seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" 4 times, and claimed that the United States gluttony for oil was the root problem for every problem under the sub-heading. SUV's, tanning salons, new highway projects...all were lined up and riddled with verbal bullets by this lass from Soho.
That is until I made a simple and obvious observation.
"Did you know that two existing coal-fired energy plants in China produce more fluorocarbons in a 90 day period than every US SUV left to idle for a solid year?"
She didn't hesitate for a micro-second.
"Well if the US didn't trade with them like drunken sailors in a whore house, they wouldn't have that opportunity now would they?"
Thank heaven for self-regulated morphine drips.
I recently found myself with way too much time on my hands and in the environment of a chatty third shift nurse. She was captivating to both look upon and listen to. With a cockney Brit accent, lush red hair and a hint of bad-girl within her demeanor, it was not an entirely unpleasant experience. I now fully understand the "nurse in white" fantasy still used in prOn clips...ahem, I hear they still use the gimmick anyway.
Until this topic found its way into the wee hour conversations. Once the genie was released from it's captivity, she railed against all things US. She bragged about seeing "An Inconvenient Truth" 4 times, and claimed that the United States gluttony for oil was the root problem for every problem under the sub-heading. SUV's, tanning salons, new highway projects...all were lined up and riddled with verbal bullets by this lass from Soho.
That is until I made a simple and obvious observation.
"Did you know that two existing coal-fired energy plants in China produce more fluorocarbons in a 90 day period than every US SUV left to idle for a solid year?"
She didn't hesitate for a micro-second.
"Well if the US didn't trade with them like drunken sailors in a whore house, they wouldn't have that opportunity now would they?"
Thank heaven for self-regulated morphine drips.
dinotrac: >"1. Top of the line vs. bottom of the line....
"I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. That is comparing a direct tax savings vs. an income reduction."
I didn't write the tax code. That $4000 credit is the equivalent of about $8000 to $12000 in deductions, depending on where amongst the tax brackets you or your accountants can get you placed.
So, a business buying a fleet, or an individual buying for business purposes, could get a 1-time $4,000 credit plus subsequent year depreciation expense deductions on the remainder, or take a first-year expense deduction of $24,000 to $32,000 and take subsequent year depreciation expense deductions on the remainder.
Neither your enumeration, nor your highly objectionable accusation of dishonesty on my part, changes those numbers. Congress provided very large monetary incentives to purchase very large, inefficient vehicles during a time when gas prices were going up.
Your "2." comments avoid the issue of tax incentives for gas guzzlers versus efficient vehicles, completely, while posing your own straw-man argument regarding what you imagine or wish that I had said. It's not worth further comment.
My previous comments implying 10 years of a lack of government policy regarding energy efficiency may be wrong. It appears to be 13 years. According to "EPAct 2005",
However, note that it is limited to 2006 and 2007, which is far too short a time period for things like commercial buildings. By contrast, the tax incentives for gas guzzlers lasted 6 years.
"I think it is dishonest to compare a direct credit of $4,000 with the writeoff amount. That is comparing a direct tax savings vs. an income reduction."
I didn't write the tax code. That $4000 credit is the equivalent of about $8000 to $12000 in deductions, depending on where amongst the tax brackets you or your accountants can get you placed.
So, a business buying a fleet, or an individual buying for business purposes, could get a 1-time $4,000 credit plus subsequent year depreciation expense deductions on the remainder, or take a first-year expense deduction of $24,000 to $32,000 and take subsequent year depreciation expense deductions on the remainder.
Neither your enumeration, nor your highly objectionable accusation of dishonesty on my part, changes those numbers. Congress provided very large monetary incentives to purchase very large, inefficient vehicles during a time when gas prices were going up.
Your "2." comments avoid the issue of tax incentives for gas guzzlers versus efficient vehicles, completely, while posing your own straw-man argument regarding what you imagine or wish that I had said. It's not worth further comment.
My previous comments implying 10 years of a lack of government policy regarding energy efficiency may be wrong. It appears to be 13 years. According to "EPAct 2005",
Quoting: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) is the first effort of the United States government to address U.S. energy policy since the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Among many other things, the 1724 page law provides new tax incentives for a number of solar and energy efficiency measures. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/EPact-05.htm
However, note that it is limited to 2006 and 2007, which is far too short a time period for things like commercial buildings. By contrast, the tax incentives for gas guzzlers lasted 6 years.
jimf -
Sorry...misread your intent.
Many Christians of every political strype have become vocal conservationists, seeing it as the logical response to God's command that we be good stewards of the earth.
Sorry...misread your intent.
Many Christians of every political strype have become vocal conservationists, seeing it as the logical response to God's command that we be good stewards of the earth.
> The Church of England has taken the position that “Indiscriminate use of the earth’s resources must be seen as profoundly wrong, just as we now see slavery as wrong.” Frankly, I think that isn't too far off the mark.
The technical term is "stewardship". The guy is absolutely correct. There's more to it than that, but I don't want to get into a religious discussion. :-)
The technical term is "stewardship". The guy is absolutely correct. There's more to it than that, but I don't want to get into a religious discussion. :-)
> but I don't want to get into a religious discussion. :-)
Nor do I (sorry Don) ... Just that I think that the statement by outfits like The Church of England are appropriate. "Stewardship" is not just a Christian, or even a religious concept.
Nor do I (sorry Don) ... Just that I think that the statement by outfits like The Church of England are appropriate. "Stewardship" is not just a Christian, or even a religious concept.
Your right about that, Jim. It's a lot like Free Software philosophy - not specifically religious, but something that generally harmonizes well with religious beliefs.
I wonder if you heard this before (I hope you did):
There's almost CENSORSHIP in the USA when it comes to global warming (yes, the same USA which wants to spread democracy in Iraq. Let me laugh...)
The wave of hurricane's last year may (Katrina being one of them) have been so bad because of global warming, but when someone of NIST was going to tell this on TV, he was phoned by the White House telling him he was not allowed to be on the TV.
Their was also a British researcher, I believe with the UN, wanting to warn about global warming. Something like "Don't worry about US economy being hurt because of Kyoto, because whole USA will turn into a desert and there won't be any economy anymore if global warming goes on like this." ExxonMobil sent a letter to Bush, after which the USA withdrew the support for that person. Now, you are whining about some farmers not getting cars with airconditioning and no subsidy? Those farmers land will change in desert (and hurricane's might become even more powerfull) if they go on with riding in their SUV's. Which is more important?
Also, global warming reports were rewritten by American government to make it all look less worse.
Now, why would this be? Would it be because almost every important US politician gets money from the oil industry (Cheney one million per year anyone)?
Islands are (really) disappearing in the big ocean because of global warming. You may remember the internet extention .tv. It's from some country (island) in the ocean called Tuvalu. Tuvalu is sinking as I'm writing.
I also hope you read about Global Dimming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming After 911, there where a few days without airplanes, and temperatures raised sharply that few days. So, without all those little dust-parts (which kills thousands of people every year BTW), the temperature would raise even more.
No, you just go on worrying about your economy, without thinking half of the economy will be gone if you don't do anything about it right now.
Sorry about this post, but US politicians censoring reality really piss me off. ExxonMobil etc. are a far bigger threat to this world than 1000x MS. Shamed to say, but my father works for Exxon...
BTW oil is over $7 a gallon over here, and we still have airco's and CD players in our cars.
There's almost CENSORSHIP in the USA when it comes to global warming (yes, the same USA which wants to spread democracy in Iraq. Let me laugh...)
The wave of hurricane's last year may (Katrina being one of them) have been so bad because of global warming, but when someone of NIST was going to tell this on TV, he was phoned by the White House telling him he was not allowed to be on the TV.
Their was also a British researcher, I believe with the UN, wanting to warn about global warming. Something like "Don't worry about US economy being hurt because of Kyoto, because whole USA will turn into a desert and there won't be any economy anymore if global warming goes on like this." ExxonMobil sent a letter to Bush, after which the USA withdrew the support for that person. Now, you are whining about some farmers not getting cars with airconditioning and no subsidy? Those farmers land will change in desert (and hurricane's might become even more powerfull) if they go on with riding in their SUV's. Which is more important?
Also, global warming reports were rewritten by American government to make it all look less worse.
Now, why would this be? Would it be because almost every important US politician gets money from the oil industry (Cheney one million per year anyone)?
Islands are (really) disappearing in the big ocean because of global warming. You may remember the internet extention .tv. It's from some country (island) in the ocean called Tuvalu. Tuvalu is sinking as I'm writing.
I also hope you read about Global Dimming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming After 911, there where a few days without airplanes, and temperatures raised sharply that few days. So, without all those little dust-parts (which kills thousands of people every year BTW), the temperature would raise even more.
No, you just go on worrying about your economy, without thinking half of the economy will be gone if you don't do anything about it right now.
Sorry about this post, but US politicians censoring reality really piss me off. ExxonMobil etc. are a far bigger threat to this world than 1000x MS. Shamed to say, but my father works for Exxon...
BTW oil is over $7 a gallon over here, and we still have airco's and CD players in our cars.
this summer has been brutal in the midwest of the United States.
a week ago wednesday we had the weirdest dang storm - it had wind gusts up to 92 miles per hour - my neighbor needs a new garage and there are trees uprooted everywhere. as a result over 700,000 people were without electricity after the storm in the city I live. we got little rain which is what we needed but we had to endure 100 degree temps without air
so I don't know if this was related or not to ubuntu but power outages seem pretty common around north america this summer. the heat has been brutal.
a week ago wednesday we had the weirdest dang storm - it had wind gusts up to 92 miles per hour - my neighbor needs a new garage and there are trees uprooted everywhere. as a result over 700,000 people were without electricity after the storm in the city I live. we got little rain which is what we needed but we had to endure 100 degree temps without air
so I don't know if this was related or not to ubuntu but power outages seem pretty common around north america this summer. the heat has been brutal.
Weird to see the same stuff in America. This july was (will be) the hottest July in this area since at least 1706!
blog all gone bye-bye
Blogger's regret? Whatever, it's just a 404 now.
Hmm, yes. Perhaps it was hacked.
Heh I don't see a point in deleting it. A clarification would do. This is just self-censorship. :|
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post