4 ms·

What is there to challenge? You ask that with a straight face? How much time do you have? Entire departments, even inside of the NSA, have nothing to do with

What is there to challenge? You ask that with a straight face? How much time do you have? Entire departments, even inside of the NSA, have nothing to do with the current controversy. Yes, and? Most people don't have AIDS, it's still recommended to use condoms when having sex with strangers. Since in this case there is no way to test them, it's better to be safe than sorry. Since that they're unable to be tested is by choice and design, it sucks for them. You can call that bigotry, I'm calling it putting the foot down. Collateral damage, if you will. And hey, we're not talking about invading a country and killing a hundred thousand people in the pursuit of who-the-fuck-knows, but rather about people not being invited to a conference in the pursuit of we-know-exactly-what. This, my friend, is progress. Entire departments, even inside of the NSA, have nothing to do with the current controversy. And it is important for them to stay up-to-date on the latest and greatest cyberattacks that go on in the country. So maybe they can sign up to a newsletter or something? Or watch the lectures on youtube? What in God's name would require them to physically be there? Every single last human being on the other hand, is at the wrong end of this gun. And we really really need that gun to be destroyed. To this end, symbolic actions are taken, as in this case (because I don't for a second believe this seriously would change or damage fuck all, to not get invited to a conference, but it certainly ought to make the conference a more enjoyable one), and people get to feel who they're associated with, and why that it matters. If one hand doesn't know what the other is doing, then that's real tragic, you know? I mean, as long as we're talking needs, let's talk needs, instead of just dismissing the one side of the equation, and blowing the other out of proportion. They need to go to defcon or they can't do their job, huh. Poor people trying to "secure networks". Not against snoops, of course... or do you mean rather like securing middle east oil, huh? Some are trying to end the bleeding away of life and money, to end the drying up of liberty -- and anyone who's not on board with that can take their pathetic priorities and play in traffic, as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather try to find someone better for their spouse and kids, than accept the need to "feed the family" as an excuse for any old thing. That stuff has played out once and for all. And if they ARE concerned about the very same things, than why wouldn't they agree that it's worth a little inconvenience for them personally, to make a statement that kinda matters? You don't clearly don't know how the Federal Government is setup. Yup, I clearly don't not know that indeed. But even if I didn't know, there's something to be said for smart guesses, and not falling for those who play for time or act stupid.

sigzero 13y ago
> What in God's name would require them to physically be there? Why does anyone go there physically by your standards? That is a dumb question.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  You taking it out of context doesn't mean it's a dumb question in context, and I don't see where my standards enter into it either: What in God's name would require them to physically be there in order to stay "up to date on the latest and greatest in cyberattacks"? To me that's a question about the physical world more than what people ought to be or do. It's a honest question, too. So if you or anyone can: tell me, I'm all ears. In absence of that, I'll just have to assume I refuted a silly statement with a perfectly valid question.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    You are welcome to congratulate yourself on your own delusions of your debate methodology. But you've already proven to me that you're willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. You are unable to see "Feds" as anything different than an homogenous collective beast, ala the Borg. You think they all think the same, you think they are all equal. You think they're all part of some collective conspiracy out to get you. At which point, why should I bother debating with you? Arguing against bigots never produces results. At bare minimum, you need to prove to me that your brain can handle the fact that not every person inside of an ill-defined group is identical. Why do federal infosec security members want to go to Defcon? The same reason as any other defensive infosec professional. To learn how to defend against the latest and greatest attacks. Whether or not they are "feds" doesn't change their mission. Until you can understand this point, you're welcome to pretend that you've refuted my point. But I'll be blunt in my thoughts about you.

sigzero 13y ago

> What in God's name would require them to physically be there? Why does anyone go there physically by your standards? That is a dumb question.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
You taking it out of context doesn't mean it's a dumb question in context, and I don't see where my standards enter into it either: What in God's name would require them to physically be there in order to stay "up to date on the latest and greatest in cyberattacks"? To me that's a question about the physical world more than what people ought to be or do. It's a honest question, too. So if you or anyone can: tell me, I'm all ears. In absence of that, I'll just have to assume I refuted a silly statement with a perfectly valid question.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  You are welcome to congratulate yourself on your own delusions of your debate methodology. But you've already proven to me that you're willing to throw out the baby with the bath water. You are unable to see "Feds" as anything different than an homogenous collective beast, ala the Borg. You think they all think the same, you think they are all equal. You think they're all part of some collective conspiracy out to get you. At which point, why should I bother debating with you? Arguing against bigots never produces results. At bare minimum, you need to prove to me that your brain can handle the fact that not every person inside of an ill-defined group is identical. Why do federal infosec security members want to go to Defcon? The same reason as any other defensive infosec professional. To learn how to defend against the latest and greatest attacks. Whether or not they are "feds" doesn't change their mission. Until you can understand this point, you're welcome to pretend that you've refuted my point. But I'll be blunt in my thoughts about you.