• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • That’s not a good parallel, it’s the politically ‘motivated’ part he’s referring to. If someone is being prosecuted because they’re running for office, and you have a legitimate argument that if they had chosen not to run for office the charges would have been dropped, it’s legitimate to say it’s politically motivated.

    On the other hand, if your crime was literally campaign finance crimes and voter manipulation, there’s a reasonable argument that ‘politically motivated’ isn’t necessarily a bad thing here. If you did a political crime, and seem likely to continue to be politically motivated to commit more crimes, it kind of makes sense that prosecuting you with a tiny bit of political intent isn’t totally unreasonable.





  • A benign scan could just be looking for an ftp server to connect to or a repeater or relay server of some sort. There are plenty of open services people make available for free and the fact that you would consider it an attack it doesn’t make it one.

    At minimum you could be alerted to look for someone attempting to connect to your ftp server with a single basic anonymous authentication vs someone flooding that port with known malicious software attacks, and block the latter across your entire network and effectively ignore the former. Really it seems like you’re advertising your lack of imagination in this context than a legitimate lack of possible uses for spoofing open ports.





  • At a guess, you might tell the difference between some benign scan and an attempt to actually take advantage of the port, perhaps to use as a trigger to automatically ban an ip address? or a way to divert malicious resources to an easy looking target so they are less available in other areas?

    The difference between someone scanning for open ports and someone attacking a port they find open seems significant enough to at least track and watch for patterns… Whether that’s useful for the majority of users or not is rarely why a feature is implemented.


  • Let’s just hope that the votes he was pulling away from Trump were just because they needed somewhere to go and it was ‘Not Trump’ first, ‘Not Biden’ second, and ‘Not Democrat’ third.

    Harris at least fits the first two qualifications, which is what Trump’s campaign has been about for 3 years…‘Biden Bad’… Unfortunately for his campaign, he’s not the only one running who isn’t Biden and he’s doing a shit job of convincing people otherwise since he has spent practically 0 time signing any blame to someone as inconsequential as a Vice President at any point in any of those the years.

    And why would he… doesn’t make sense to dillute the blame when he knows there was no way Biden would ever willingly give up the chance to keep the power of the presidency in favor of anyone else… He certainly couldn’t imagine doing that himself.



  • not to justify bad behavior, but your points are rather off base. Thinking you’re superior to something doesn’t mean you hate it…One might consider themselves superior to plants and not hate them. One might consider Ford superior to Chevy and not hate Chevy. A woman can be misogynistic and consider males superior without hating females. Just because the 2 other points often come along for the ride doesn’t mean they are part of the definition and shouldn’t be asked.





  • Thing is, they don’t have to believe it to feel justified in saying it. Just like some cultures accept/encourage otherwise negative behavior like cheating or lying as long as it’s at the expense of the ‘enemy’ (unlike some cultures who would consider those acts dishonorable in themselves), Republicans are easily at that point in their culture where as long as it somehow owns (or just bothers or creates extra work for) liberals, and internally they can wink wink, nudge nudge each other and be on the inside of the joke, it’s perfectly fine to say one thing and think another.

    The problem is that they aren’t particularly good at it, so there isn’t really a solid line and, find themselves on both sides of the lines as far as being the insiders and also the mark, they don’t fully know how to function. Just watch the lower level people in interviews…they have no idea what the end game plan is, just some talking points, so when you ask them about two counter-intuitive assertions, they just fall back to pouting and anger. It’s really no difference for the top-level players like Trump and Guiliani. They just know that the lies work, and some people are letting them get away with them, and everyone else can’t keep up with the speed with which it’s spewing from their collective mouths, so they follow that prayer, the say it, they know they have to say it half convincingly, and in the process, end up believing in some of it, laughing about most of it, and generally confused about which half is which.