eric_arrr

Business Town's take on this point is as colorful as it is succinct: http://welcometobusinesstown.tumblr.com/post/115950267726/bu...

Fellow obscure BBS software author here.

Mine was Apocalypse / ApX (a hack of Havok, which was a hack of something else, which was a hack of Emulex/2, which I think was a hack of Forum?), around '92.

I, too, remember recruiting ACiD guys to help out with the menu art.

Ah, memories.

I've got your prospectus right here: http://rameznaam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Welcome-to-t...

I kept thinking Seveneves would adapt wonderfully as a three-season television series, with one season for each part of the book.

Oh, those season finales!

Since you're a REAMDE fan, I'll let you in on a secret:

The character of Peter is largely based on 3ric Johanson, who just happens to have been in the news this week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11703350

The silver one was presumed his, but not confirmed as such.

But Bill being Bill, he might be collecting them. :)

Bill might well drive a Model X and any number of other cars -- his daily was an armored mid-90's Lexus LS for many years -- but if there's a Porsche 959 parked at the south Kirkland Burgermaster, the odds are overwhelming that it belongs to Bill.

This because only 345 Porsche 959's were ever built, and none were eligible for import into the US. That is, until Bill made himself instrumental in the passage of the show and display importation exemption* so that he could buy one.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_or_Display

A couple of fun things hidden (or not exactly) in this video:

There's no missing a couple of Neal's swordfighting buddies at 1:07.

Wondering where the camera stand is? Look for its reflection in the window behind Bill at 1:52.

What car did Bill drive to the meet-up? Probably not the Model X. My money is on the Porsche 959 shown at 2:17.

(It's also a safe bet that the meet-up actually began at the Burgermaster, since that's in Bill's neighborhood. That way Bill only has to make one round-trip to Seattle instead of two.)

I'm totally failing to get the joke with the shovels and pickaxes at the corner of Boyer & Howe at 2:40. (Surely not a macabre gag as they cross towards Lakeview cemetery...)

And of course the gaggle of kids in Madison Park at 2:54 are observing the moon through a telescope.

Wrong -- we could move the earth closer to the sun. Or make the sun burn hotter. Either way, totally possible.

/s ;)

What's puzzling here is that Wright proceeds with his charades as though he somehow knows the real Satoshi will not emerge to call him out on it. (There is some precedent for this: a long-dormant account controlled by the real Satoshi stirred to disclaim the identity of Dorian Nakamoto in 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/06/bitcoin-c...)

If Satoshi disclaimed the identity of D. Nakamoto in 2014, why wouldn't he disclaim the identity of Craig Wright today?

I do not believe, for an instant, that Wright is Satoshi. But given the history, it seems plausible that Wright might have once been in the know as to Satoshi's true identity. Should he know the real Satoshi(s) to now be absent, it would likely embolden him to undertake this scam...

Here is everything you ever wanted to know about the law as it applies to material omissions from search warrants:

https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/tra...

Yes, there is. See Franks v. Delaware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_v._Delaware

The instant case is one of material omission rather than false statement, but there is a substantial amount of case law recognizing that material omissions should be treated the same as false statements.

To my own slight surprise, as I began reading the article, I realized: I know Mike. Didn't know he was into hunting scammers, though.

It's easier to find him than you think, if you know how to access ordinary public records. But if any scammers were to threaten Mike with retaliation, he'd probably say, "come at me, bro."

I have to say, in spite of having a lot of respect for Mike, his willingness to expose himself legally is, as we say in the industry, some serious cowboy bullshit.

I'm not sure where I appeared to contradict myself in my earlier posts, so I'm unsure how to clarify this for you. Best I can do is this:

Here is a link to a variation of the "image" file which is the subject of this post: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/131649/squirrel.html

I have embedded harmless (-- honest! --) script in the file to demonstrate that your browser will execute the script in the context of the site where the file is hosted.

So, click the link. (Again I promise that no harm will come to your computer.) Now imagine that dl.dropbox.com is, instead, some hypothetical site where users are expected to upload images, but not HTML documents containing arbitrary script, and the security implications should be fairly obvious.

Andy, you're very confused.

Yeah, what jack-r-abbit said: the point is you've got malicious script embedded in a page from somebody else's web site, so you have access to cookies and can inspect and/or manipulate the user's session arbitrarily.

You can also use this trick to launch cross-site script attacks against sites that allow you to upload images.

Step 1: upload the "image" to the site. Let the site do whatever it does to ensure it has received a valid image. Nine validators out of ten will happily accept the file; the case that is likeliest to shoot you down is if the site modifies the image by cropping, resizing, or watermarking it.

Step 2: point your victim back to the uploaded "image" as though it's actually a page, and presto!, it's a page -- a page with malicious javascript in it.

Step 3: profit!