Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | Omavel's commentslogin

Paywall. No, thanks


Lmao. You're mixing things up. They stopped working with Russian bloggers, not with a hostile authoritarian country (Russia).


Bloggers are easy target. So let's ban them!


Indeed. Its easy for left-wing populists to target bloggers' income than to actually cease business dealings with Russia. Europe continues trading with Russia, and the United States still buys LNG from Putins friends through intermediaries like Gunvor/Chesapeake. Yet, those influenced by populist rhetoric firmly believe that these sanction/limitations are effective against a hostile authoritarian country.


You have choice not to use them, init?


Writing your own cryptoprotocol has nothing in common with infosec certification...


Paywall and tons of ads? Thanks no


Many disadvantages comparing with realtime messaging


For a service delivering a file or a list of names? Compared to a blocked and non-functioning bot?

Anyway, emails these days are nearly instantaneous too, not that much slower than, say, WhatsApp


Piracy is fringement.


bio-terrorism is not effective.


What's "effective" mean in this context? The anthrax letters in the US in 2001 certainly dominated news cycles.


And killed very few people. That's what we call terrorism (lots of news coverage for very few deaths) - it's not effective in doing anything but news cycles.


>it's not effective in doing anything but news cycles.

That's literally the desired effect. What you're thiking of is war.


I was referring to the original comment above:

> It sounds like you could infect thousands/millions

Its not the right way to infect millions of people. It does not scale. Therefore not effective.


> it's not effective in doing anything but news cycles.

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" is a definition of terrorism. Death count is irrelevant (outside of spreading fear itself). Zero deaths in a terrorist attack could still be a very effective attack. Spreading something that causes a hideous disease in a city and causing mass hysteria could be an excellent terrorist tactic. Likely better than a bomb that kills a few people.


"Terror" is the point of "terrorism". It's in the word.


Point of terrorism is achieving a political change through terror. Terror is not the end in itself.

From this point of view, mailing of anthrax in 2001 was very inefficient.


We need to expand the set of possible actors and goals. The anthrax campaign happened immediately after 9/11. The result of the campaign was the end of effective political opposition to the massive expansion of military and "secret" aspects of the USA government made possible by 9/11. Cui bono? Certainly not the several implausible patsies the authorities immediately had lined up to blame.

Numerous USA calamities make a lot more sense when we study them with an eye toward who benefits rather than who is blamed.


What made 9/11 such a successful terrorist attack was that it made the US live in fear. That is a change (and it hasn't changed back). Terror (fear) is a perfectly fine end in itself for terrorism.

The anthrax mailing caused changes and fear in US society with very little work. That sounds like a very efficient terrorist attack IMO.


Terror only propagates through mass media. Mass media is the issue.


Given that an attack of this sort would be propagated through mass media, then the claim that the attack would be ineffective is wrong.


ineffective to kill millions which was the initial claim.


5 envelopes, 5 dead, 17 more infected.


The most effective bioterror attack in the USA was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_atta... and it killed zero people, affecting 751 people in total. Bioterror is expensive and difficult.

For prions specifically, the main "problem" (which is a good thing overall for us) is that they're naked proteins, and they denature relatively quickly when outside of a protective environment. Spray them onto crops? Crops and soil are covered in small bugs and microbes which break down anything too long, including proteins and carbohydrate chains. No, in order to have prions in the food supply, you need something like cannabalistic cow-raising practices or other ways of recycling prions in a wet+hot safe environment.


> For prions specifically, the main "problem" (which is a good thing overall for us) is that they're naked proteins, and they denature relatively quickly when outside of a protective environment.

How does this jive with the seemingly extreme difficulty of effective sterilization of prion-contaminated objects?

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/32/9/1348/291736


>affecting 751 people in total.

That is not how terror is defined though. The amount affected by terrorism is the amount of people that get terrorised by the act, not the amount that gets sick, dies or know someone who did. Using your definition 9/11 only affected aprox. 10.000 people but in reality if cased mass hysteria and fear in the US (and elsewhere) that is still there today.


Can’t you just spray them into a hamburger meat grinder at a meat packing plant to protect the prions in beef? But it’d be a pretty ineffective terror attack if it takes 10 years for people to show symptoms… though that could also mean that attack was already made 5 years ago and we just don’t know yet.


So you just inject them into the food supply?


Terrorism that is effective is usually called warfare, genocide or something else.



ft? Paid resource? There is dislike button?


Once a certain threshold is reached, your account can flag posts. However, for things like FT you can use archive.is to view it past the paywall [0].

At the moment your karma is -2, I'd perhaps recommend you try to make insightful posts that add to the conversation.

[0] https://archive.is/yauDm


There is no alternative for animal testing.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: