Oh but Doc..."It's the cloud" and it lives only to serve us and is all good.  Nothing can go wrong...

It's also nice to finally see "Anonymous" denying being responsible for something.

They could deny doing anything worthwhile with their lives.

Success at last!

Kiddies must play. Too bad they're in the wrong league.

I think these companies are waiting to be hacked before doing anything to protect people dumb enough to hand out their credit info to them.

Aww crud, didnt log out of team account, sorry.

mephistopheles

too bad companies dont seem to want to have real people to take orders, etc.  Everything has to be automated....

I see this hacking attacks as highly beneficial. If a group of script kiddies are talented enough to steal this information, what's your opinion on other countries' cyber-warfare divisions? These attacks are usually written in a "childish hackers out for lulz" style, yet I read them more in a "someone pulled away Oz's Curtain" manner. I feel bad for the people who's information was stolen, but why wasn't it properly protected?

And if it is this common for mildly talented hackers to break into such "secure" places, what chance do we have when the real talent rolls in to attempt to shut down our infrastructure?

A question I've asked many times.

The attacks might seem beneficial, but I have few doubts this info was sold. That takes it from 'beneficial' to malevolent.

They might be more 'beneficial' if these people (I use the word loosely) got jobs with their talents, salaries and paid taxes. I'd also see it as more 'beneficial' were they to supply their findings to the companies involved without lifting info to help these companies improve their security.

#Occupy Jail

Check this out Doc.

Old news, Sinperium... We're lucky they didn't bring it downon top of us. I reported it, or cited it in an older article.

Anyay, that was done by the Chinese Army. Congress was in an uproar about it, but did they do anything? As usual, no.

It points out the vulnerabilities we have that our leaders just don't want to discuss.

The navy will be hard hit by budget cuts in the economy and one of the ways they want to economize is mix high performance combat drones in with the manned squadrons of on board aircraft. Then you flip the news on and see Iran parading a similar undamaged one about and bragging they hacked it and landed it.

Our forces are completely reliant on continuous electronic telemetry.  We assume a large part of our bombs can be smaller with lower yield warheads because we can use GPSs to guide them.  Russia was working on anti-GPS weapons over 20 years ago.

We rely on satellite surveillance of the battlefield but both China and Russia have blinded, disabled and downed satellites--both over 20 years ago.

Our carriers are protected by a layered defense based on the weapons of over 20 years ago--but the latest Chinese missile can completely circumvent their defenses in the manner with which it attacks.

We rely on 'stealth" for everything but the Australians found how to see through stealth--again over 20 years ago--and the Russians took the idea, taught it to the Serbians and they downed a stealth fighter.  Beyond that, current computing power when exported to the battlefield in the form of computerized radar interpretation can render stealth operations almost completely useless.

Our two front line aircraft--both a bomber and our newest fighter--cost astronomical sums of money (so that we no longer build more) and both have major issues with their ability to perform combat operations if they get...rained on.

Our tanks are competent but again are not being upgraded to deal with newly developed and more cheaply available anti-armor weapons.  They are also woefully deficient in brigade leel and down countermeasures for a variety of threats--relying on support by the air force and joint operations to protect them--the guys with the planes that can't get wet.

Our newest scheduled advanced fighter is almost a no-go before it even makes it into production and has a slew of liabilities.

Our best and only afforable ground attack aircraft is working with 1980's technology.

We've decided stealth and missiles trump guns and maneuverability and speed in air combat so we have let Russia develop the most maneuverable air combat platforms in the world--all armed with guns--while finding in training exercises that we may quite possibly be annihilated in the air during the first few weeks of combat.

We have used Vietnam-era (and shortly after) surpluses of bombing ordinance  to supplement our past decade plus of combat operations and have only a trickle of newer weapons to slowly replace them.

We are eliminating the majority of our heavy industrial manufacturing and relying on the labor, facilities and raw materials to be sold to us by China and a few other nations.

Our largest weakness, oil, is sold to us by countries with far better relations and more in common with Russia and China--our largest competitors in that market.

We are about to cull our military forces again after having already implemented budget cuts and we have no viable future plans on how to build them up again.

Everything we have is done on the assumption that there will be no more possibility of a "big war".  that we will face smaller, regional threats that can be managed from afar.  The hacking of Stratfor (a private company)and also of government departments by the dozens shows that we assume a lot in this nation.

How does this effect 'the rest of the world"?  the US has been--like it or not--the linchpin that has kept big threats from developing.  We haven't had incidents of a dictator start a world war or a large power sweep into dozens of countries to take them over because that would require taking on the US.

You have several Middle Eastern nations now actively working to develop nuclear weapons to deal with their "Israel problem" and you have an emergent China that sees not being in control and in power over other nations as a threat to its national security (with Russia in that same boat).

Throw in a bunch of student protestors who topple governments but have no idea how to replace them, nut-jobs like the former Korean leader and all sorts of potential conflicts--China contesting with Japan over the Sea of Japan.  Clashes by China with Vietnam and Cambodia, a stated intent by China to "reunify" Taiwan--with out without their consent, Russia's constant willingness to invade and assassinate and corrupt neighboring countries and a teetering global economic system with a chance of economic disaster throughout Europe and...well--the world isn't as idyllic as everyone wants to pretend it is.

Fail to learn the lessons of the past and you're guaranteed to take them over again.

These things should be wake up calls to leaders and business.

Um....

Pretty-well ALL the 'major' wars have occurred since the US existed.

Deterrent?

Hardly.

Co-escalator of the Cold War?

Yes.

Technology evolves. {Not mentality  }.

You'd have to classify wars a bit differently due to that, I believe. The Romans had super technology in their day, but no "real time" communications with "HQ" in Rome... boats or pony express, so wars were rather limited in global scope, but every bit as destructive where they did occur...

About the cold war, I'd have to agree... but I'm sure you'd admit the other 'co-escalator' was a truly hateful, dehumanizing, dictatorial and oppressive system and both had just finished a war with a truly implacable, evil enemy.

Trust wasn't big on anyone's list. The Sovs had reason to fear, as did we. Unfortunately, no one could get beyond the fear until "baby steps" were invented. It should also be said that the baby steps seem to be going backwards, as no one seems interested in promoting trust anywhere in the world.

Beg pardon, but where the frak did you pull that natter from? Among other things, long before the U.S. became a superpower, we fought the world's first industrialized war amongst ourselves.

I'm no correctness fanatic, but I am a staunch critic of the Cold War and our current state of amorphous, undeclared, pro-profiteering pseudo-war. That means that I'm pretty familiar with the rhetoric from 'my side,' both bad and good. I'd like to know about anyone claiming that "before the US was a superpower, we all had peace." People like that need education and/or mockery.

Jafo's remarks in reply 12 don't fit your remarks at all. His age is irrelevant and your attempt to plaster him with what sounds like made-up charges from a crap talk radio show is ludicrous.