Re:First post
by
partyguerrilla
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
So now that the asshole of the internet is down, perhaps we can all piece together whatever is left of our lives and move out of the basement.
Re:First post
by
identity0
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Awesome, I really have been here for more than 10 years, and I got the first post for the first time!
Ah, I remember the days before 4chan, when Slashdot was the place antisocial youths spent their free trolltime and things such as Goatse and First Post spam caused the changes like the moderation system that make Slashdot what it is today...
I'm out, all I have is this shrubbery. In fact, I'm coming to terms with the fact that I may, in fact, be a shrubber - given how often I find myself be-shrubbed.
But my mom's basement is dark and cozy and I feel safe down here. No one bothers me in the basement. My games and porn are down here too. Why would I want to leave?
When it stepped in and established the Social Security system to provide some financial security to our parents and grand parents and great grandparents so they did not starve to death out in the cold. Kind of like a reaction to a sever economic depression. You would think we would learn from history.
As they tell us the only problem with Social Security is that it is not privatized, that means that none of them are making a dime off that business. They see a gold mine and they are after it like flies to fat. (flies actually prefer fat to honey).
When the government stepped in and protected children wanting to go to public school from harm in the deep south, where lynching had been common practice.
During any national disaster when they step up with help and aid.
When our country was attacked, protecting.
When our poor and old need medical care. Rather than letting them die like stray dogs, because they have no money. In the anti-government world, people only have dignity if they have money, people are only valuable if they have the cash. The rest can eat dog food.
I think they call that compasionate conservatism, or enlighted self interest. Well as usual they get it have right, and its the later half alway. The first half is the marketing spin to make you think they have a heart.
Wait, where do I upload the reaction image on this thing?
Re:First post
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
posting in epic thread!!! XD
Re:First post
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"So now that the asshole of the internet is down..."
I hate to be the bearer of this kind of bad news, but I don't know if you've noticed: in the human body an asshole does a very important job. REALLY important. Were it to cease functioning, the repercussions on the rest of the system would be... something for which a phrase like "catastrophic and messy" doesn't really capture the full impact (har har) of the situation. If 4chan is down, it is a *serious* problem for the internet.
Ah, wait, as someone else pointed out, Facebook is still up. So, as the old saying goes, the Internet will route around the problem, and Facebook may be that route. Just, uh, don't read the technical details of the solution in that link unless you have a strong stomach. It works, but it isn't pretty.
You have to pay to get rid of the banners? First I've heard.
-- Bryan
Re:First post
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I'm relatively certain now that most people with 3-digit user IDs have a script set up to scan all of the posts by people with 4-digit user IDs just waiting to pounce...
I've vaguely lurked for about 6 years. If I'd known UID's were considered important I would probably have registered a bit earlier rather than waiting for last week.
The only reason I actually registered was to fiddle with the hidden/abbreviated/full slider.
-- "It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes."
Douglas Adams
Re:First post
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have this checkbox labeled “Ads Disabled – Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!”
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:First post
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was surprised to see that, for all its posturing, slashdot really does hold one thing sacred: its "bad muthafucka" image of itself. slashdot really believes that it's frightening, that it's tougher than a Ford Chevy, that it's badass masculinity personified, in a sense.
Um... wha? Wait... this is the "news for nerds" board, right? (checks heading up at the top of the page) . . . yeah . ..
Ok, you need to do a bit more search and replace on that thing... let's try this:
I was surprised to see that, for all its posturing, slashdot really does hold one thing sacred: its "socially inept nerd" image of itself. slashdot really believes that it's clueless about women, that it's geekier than a Chevy Volt, that it's tech nerdity personified, in a sense.
See? That works a bit better. You'll have to work on the rest of it yourself, but hopefully now you've got a good base to work from. Remember that to properly troll a board, you must understand the board, and troll with the flow - otherwise you'll just get laughed at.
I'm glad so many people decided to reply to my post! I haven't used slashdot in almost 4 years on even a semi-regular basis, yet my fucking inbox is full of little shitheads like you claiming I'm self-important for seeing a thread of interest and making a joke.
Calm down man. Little shitheads? I don't think anyone thought you felt self-important until you claimed to be persecuted for it. And I have no idea why you picked such a harmless musing to reply to. Being so sensitive, perhaps you should just go back to not posting.
I like them staying in the basement. When the basement shuts down, they all come into the living room and touch all our stuff. With sticky hands. When is that basement gonna be fixed?
my fucking inbox is full of little shitheads like you claiming I'm self-important for seeing a thread of interest and making a joke
Have you found the one about your joke being moderated up to +5 Funny yet?
P.S. Messages I get from Slashdot go to a special folder so they don’t fill up my Inbox. It wasn’t hard to set up the filter. You could try it. (And most of my/messages are set to “Web” anyway, so I don’t get an e-mail at all.)
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Well, I thought it was humorous enough to actually log in and to tell you so.
+1 for making me chuckle, then an additional +1 for not being self-important and adding to the overall quality of things, unlike your inbox-shitheads
/me logs out
And they earned those social security checks by sending money to the government to save and grow for them. Not unlike what the private sector does with annuities and what companies less and less so are doing with pensions. It is a government run pension plan with much less overhead (translated: someone isn't getting very rich from skimming off other peoples money).
As to your comment asking for accurate statistics, followed by "I see an awful lot of people living VERY well, collecting social security checks and dying with lots of money".
I'm not seeing the statistics here. And it does not matter if you have money outside SS. If you payed in you get out. Kind of nice and equal like (as Sarah would probably say).
And yes people die. As a matter of fact there are no reliable statistics that show the anyone does not die. But my comment was about people, homeless people, starving people, and the death from the neglect of society to at least prevent that shameless sort of death. What was it a famous person said about what you do the the least of my people...
When it stepped in and established the Social Security system to provide some financial security to our parents and grand parents and great grandparents so they did not starve to death out in the cold. Kind of like a reaction to a sever economic depression. You would think we would learn from history.
Even if true (which it isn't), this is a pretty classic example of the broken window fallacy.
I would say this is the broken record fallacy actually. The government stepped/s when it is appropriate. Especially in large catastrophies where the size of the problem can not be handled by the local or state where that is happening. Or in the States case, where the local government can't handle it, or in the case of the individual the local steps in where the individual can't handle it and it is seen that action is in the best interests of us people. Often times a particular lunatic fringe calls "Government" the federal government, but that is only one layer on top of at least a local, township, county, state hierarchy of exactly the same thing 'Goverment'
When the government stepped in and protected children wanting to go to public school from harm in the deep south, where lynching had been common practice.
I don't have a big problem with this, but the same government codified these practices of slavery and discrimination to begin with. Am I a hero if I set my neighbors house on fire then put the fire out?
I was not the same government. You know that right. All of the people (Government is people after all as well as laws and regulations) that were around when slavery was first set up in this country were long dead when the the Civil Right movement was able, with the help of the majority concensus to change the practices and laws of some of the States that still wanted to have White Supremacy as a legitemate moral accepted practiced philosophy in parts of the country. What had happened was that the different people that made up the differnt Government said that was wrong and finally acted on that conviction.
The strength of our system is that our Government, yours and mine, are made up of us and changes every few years.
During any national disaster when they step up with help and aid.
Again, broken window fallacy even if one accepts your claim that the gov't actually helps in these scenarios (which it probably does in a lot of cases). Also this doesn't get into the opportunity cost of what could have been done in the absence of gov't involvement. And then you have examples like hurricane Katrina, which are clear examples of where the gov't does lots and lots of harm in an already bad situation.
I would say the broken record fallacy. It has been made clear that almost no one is going to step up to fix a large disaster quickly, without the money to get the job done. That is one of the things that the government has is the budget and mission to step in during a disaster. What company would plan on what to do during an flood or an earthquake, develop plans, stockpile supplies, etc. Not one republican unless he works for Haliburton and has a no bid contract from a Bush/Chaney who both own interests in the company.
The opportunity cost can be measured in lives lost, property distroyed, the lack of economic activity during the disaster. Your suggestion that if the government was not there, something wonderful would have happened I think is not thinking it through.
When our country was attacked, protecting.
Are you referring to 9/11 and the resulting "protective" actions such TSA, Patriot Act and Iraq/Afghan wars? I hope not, because these are things that do a really good job of degrading the quality of life of the average american through immediate effect and tax burden. And of course, 9/11 occurred as the inevitable result of US gov't interference in the politics/economics of the
You mean the space station guys nuke their food in microwaves, just like I do? How depressing. All that technology and they can't even let the guys grill some chicken.
You mean the space station guys nuke their food in microwaves, just like I do? How depressing. All that technology and they can't even let the guys grill some chicken.
Have you ever tried using a charcoal grill in zero gravity? It's almost not worth it...
Comparing 4Chan favorably to sewers is a fallacy. Sewers are actually useful. And they have less crap in them.
-- Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Re:Oblig
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4chan does have some good boards, it's really only/b/ that's an irredeemably terrible cesspool which nobody should visit ever. The popular theory is that moot only keeps it open to keep most of the idiot teenagers and awful people safely contained in one place.
Why not? What crime has been committed by looking at 4chan.com from the privacy of your home? The concept is as ridiculous as saying I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana or walk around naked*. My actions harm no one but myself.
* *Only control freaks (or christians) would disagree. Which is why in Virginia a man was arrested for being naked in his own home. Dumbass anti-freedom politicians.
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I believe his arrest might also have had something to do with his walking around naked in front of a window in full view of a bus stop full of kids? Just a guess that had something to do with it so you might want to provide that bit of context...
-- Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Aldenissin
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Wait commodore64, I am a Christian, and I don't think a person should not have the freedom to smoke cannabis or be naked in his own home. Remember, many people call themselves something they are not with the intention of poisoning the well.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Aldenissin
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Negative, the woman "cut through" onto his property and saw he was naked inside of his own home. It makes as much sense as the guy who fell through the skylight while he was robbing someone and fell onto the knives upside down on the knife block, sued, and won. I couldn't find a similar story that I believe is different but one woman actually trespassed onto the guys property peeking into his window and had to stand on her tippy toes or get right up to the window to see him, and he was arrested as well. How can someone committing a crime cause someone else to commit a crime? Even if it could, it should be null and the original crime should take precedence and be the focus, for if it had not happened then there wouldn't have been a second.. right?
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Stenchwarrior
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Aldenissin, I would venture to say that you are an anomaly in the Christian world. I hate religious conversation because it's generally a waste of time but, unfortunately, there is a reason people generalize about Christians being against everything related to freedom and choice. Most of your people take the bible literally instead of the guide that it was meant to be.
Which is exactly why the mere possession of any information should not be a crime.
It's far too easy in the digital era to "possess" information that could land you in the hot seat. You want to shut down child pornography? Cut down the producers of it. Not in your country? Get international laws. Can't get the U.N. to have some teeth? Time for a new U.N.
It's plainly ridiculous to continue to criminalize the possession of information. The bits aren't hurting anyone.
So you're saying it's OK to generalize because you, without presenting any evidence, claim that your assertion is true? Textbook definition of begging the question.
Marriage is, and always has been, a civil/religious union between a man and a woman (polygamists aside, that’s not necessarily saying a man couldn’t be married multiple times but each “marriage” is still between a man and a woman). I am not in favour of changing the definition of a word that has existed for centuries.
I am, however, in favour of discarding the concept of “marriage” altogether from the legal standpoint. It doesn’t belong there to begin with. Knock off the “civil” part of the union entirely: The civil union should be exactly that, a civil union. It should mean “two people living together for economic and civil reasons”. Not “two people living together for religious reasons and having sex”... how the fuck is that relevant, in a civil sense? And then we could start issuing civil unions for sensible situations like an adult child living with an aging parent, etc. which would presumably not involve sexual relations at all but would have obvious benefits in an economic sense.
If a church wants to give two people a piece of paper that says they’re “married”, that should have no legal weight, and if the church says that they can’t have the paper that should equally have no legal weight. And then nobody really has to even care what the church says anyway.
It’s the only remotely sane approach. The only people unhappy are the ones who still want to control everyone else, and at least we can all agree that they’re idiots.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You, sir, are a saint, to offer your eyebrows to a stranger like that.
Take the Bible literally? You mean like believing that there have been many tribes since recorded history began, and will be many tribes until the end? Or did you mean interpreting the words literally?
At least in the U.S. most content fundies basically boil the Book down to "We will, We will rock you." They are simply noisier than the others... which the Book suggests we should allow them to be. Look up flagellation.
Two different things, the form and the content, you know?
The word "marriage" was invented by the Latins circa 1000 BC and defined to include any kind of coupling whether male-female or same-sex.
No, it comes from the Latin (Latin is the language, Romans were the people) word "maritaticum" which merely means "to give in marriage" or "to wed". To find more insight, I researched "marry" and found that it comes from "maritare", which was used to mean "provided with a young woman". So, I guess gay marriage is OK as long as it's two lesbians-- since we're appealing to the Latins^H^H^H^H^H^HRomans authority.
Let's just remove all government authority to "license" marriage. Then we can see what everyone on both sides of the debate REALLY want.
Sure they can. My girlfriend was married to a guy for 14 years before she met me. ^.~ (turned out he was actually a she, and was into guys, though, lol....) Her kids have no problem calling me Mom, either.... Oh the joys of kow-towing to the religious moral authority, and the pain it causes in peoples' lives... my partner and her ex are both much happier now.
A relokgious perdson deserves about as much respect as a member of the KKK.
I do feel the need to point out, though, that this statement is wrong, and probably somewhat offensive. There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to adhere to a faith, or to a religion, as long as you recognize that as a choice. And yes, I do feel that there's a distinction to be made between a Faith and a Religion. The question isn't so much what you believe, it's how you apply those beliefs, and how you treat others. A huge number of people experience a deeply spiritual and religious life without ever foisting those beliefs on those around them. As far as I'm concerned, there is exactly one rule that actually matters: do no harm. As long as you follow that rule, you have a right to believe whatever sits well with your conscience.
(and I should point out that I consider evangelism to be doing harm... if Yahweh wants to send me the word, there's a perfectly good bush in the back yard for him to set on fire... though I'm equally bothered by evangelical atheists, too. Live and let live, yeah?)
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The U.N. has teeth. The U.N. when dealing with the U.S. has no teeth.
Try flatulation.. It's a bunch of smelly hot air emitted by people who are full of shit.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
mcvos
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Aldenissin, I would venture to say that you are an anomaly in the Christian world.
He might be an anomaly among American Christians (many of them give me the impression of reading a completely different bible than I do), but I suspect even there he's not alone. In Europe, there are definitely many Christians who have no problem with people being naked in their own home (or even outside of it), or smoking marijuana. It's possible many are somewhat uncomfortable with it, but that doesn't mean they want to prohibit it.
Then again, I live in a country where marijuana is practically legal, despite a conservative Christian party having been permanently in power for over a century (with the exception of 8 years during the '90s).
The majority of Christians ARE control freaks. That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed).
Note that you are only talking about some Christians here. Many Christians do not fit your description.
Fair comment. I live in the Bible-Belt of the U.S. so my view is probably somewhat skewed. Here, any supposed "Christian" only gets to be a card-carrying member if they hate gays, blacks and anyone even slightly left.
Here, any supposed "Christian" only gets to be a card-carrying member if they hate gays, blacks and anyone even slightly left.
That's a pretty severe case of "reading a completely different bible than I do". My bible is all about loving people, including any sinners and enemies. It says stuff like: "Judge not, lest you be judged." And it's pretty radical left with all its giving to those less well-off, sharing with the community (some early churches were pretty communist in that regard), rich people having a pretty hard time getting into heaven, and overthrowing the order of those days. As for hating blacks, I have honestly no idea how anyone who does that can still call himself a Christian.
Christians are Christianity's biggest enemies. It's like Gandhi said: "If only Christians would follow the teachings of Christ, Christianity would be irresistible." (I'm paraphrasing really; can't remember the exact quote.)
As for hating blacks, I have honestly no idea how anyone who does that can still call himself a Christian.
That’s pretty easily explained.
Christians tend to believe that the church is supposed to be doing community stuff like helping the poor (refer: early churches, communist, what you said before).
Therefore, Christians also tend to believe that the government should be, generally, more or less staying out if the way, and letting them give their money to charities they personally want to support.
Therefore, Christians hate poor people because they don’t favour expensive government programs to assist poor people (along with the huge overhead costs associated with any government program).
Therefore, Christians hate black people because a lot of black people are poor.
(I said it was easily explained, not that it made sense.)
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Latin is also the name of the PEOPLE who lived in central Italy. So you corrected me, but I was not wrong when I said "A word invented by the Latins". I was 100% correct. That was the name of the region and the people who lived there.
Also the claim "marriage" is a Christian word is bullshit. Christianity didn't even exist when the word was invented by non-christian PAGAN speakers who worshipped dozens of gods.
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The way I've heard it, the FBI, et al pretty much assume that any non-sicko is going to want to report it right away, and provide a number of means by which you can do that. Of course, some people are terrified of reporting it because they don't want to be suspected of *looking* for that kind of shit, but the reporting forms do give you plenty of room to explain exactly what happened. (And they ask you to do as much). NOT reporting it is suspicious.
A few months ago, someone at a very popular (non-creepy) comedy site linked to a video on another site I had never heard of. The vid was legit, but the rest of the site had some images that raised some mental red flags. It turned out to be a highly-trafficked site legendary for letting people upload whatever, and enforces its TOS... whenever it gets around to it.
I left right away and reported the shit out of it to the Cyber Tip Line.
I never heard anything back, and the site is apparently still up. Google tells me quite a few people have reported it before, and after me. But Google also tells me that some kid downloaded a single file from Limewire when he was 19. He thought he was in the clear, until the police came after him a YEAR LATER for that one specific incident. I believe he got 20 years. The cops told him he should have reported it right away.
That's fucking terrifying.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The thing is if you follow the bible to the word you dont let live. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1451183
But I guess you put up the gays because your 'moderate', hypocrite?
In the child porn witch hunt, there's no room for reason. Unlike most laws, the laws against child porn possesion make no allowances for lack of criminal intent. Other content, you're probably OK, as it matters whether you intended to download that content (as it should with any law).
-- Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Commodore, I think you fail to realize that there are two "classes" of "Christians" in the world. There are those for whom it is primarily a political "I'm Christian because my daddy was and his daddy was..." or "I'm better than you" reasons and have no idea what it actually means or what their beliefs actually are based on. These are the sheeple of "Christianity" and are nothing but a political tool. (The same way any idea that gains popularity is used to make sheeple.) Those Christians who actually understand what they believe, why they believe it and where what they believe actually come from are far less like the people you despise.
That said, your examples are not exactly solid. The problem with the whole marriage issue is that the government is involved in something it never should have been. The concept of marriage (not the word, that's a horrible attempt at copping out) has existed long before 1000 BC and IS religiously defined by many religions. That said, I can not go to my church and get a marriage without the government ok'ing it. That itself is wrong in my view. It isn't the governments job to say what is or is not marriage. It is the job of the government to say who can or can't have particular rights and all people should have the same legal rights and protections regardless of sexual orientation. I don't think you will find a Christian that truely understands the foundation of their religion that will disagree with that.
I'm also not sure why you even mentioned abortion as that is a completely different issue from the rest of your argument as the argument is about wether a fetus is a seperate entity and if it is, then laws about it would be to protect a seperate entity. Thats a whole different debate though and has nothing to do with trying to be controlling (atleast not any more than say laws about theft or beating someone to a bloody pulp are controlling.) given the assumption that a fetus is a seperate entity.
100% with you against the idea of state sponsered religion though. It's a horrible idea and always leads to both the perversion of the religion as well as the political system.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to adhere to a faith, or to a religion, as long as you recognize that as a choice.
So, as long as I recognize it as a choice, there is nothing wrong with holding any belief without any empirical evidence whatsoever in support of such a belief? I beg to differ.
-- Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Right.
But you know, this is the USA. The land where Christians, the self-appointed guardians of morality, have horrible moral values that even Satan envies and also the land where the education system is terrible and kids don't even learn common sense.
It's common sense people expect to have privacy on their property. It's common sense they don't expect you to trespass. It's immoral to blame somebody for not expecting you would commit an illegal act. And yet it happens. Christians my ass, I don't know what god they worship in North America but it's not the same one Christians in the rest of the world worship. The US Christian god is probably Satan, and if that god was real I'd put a shotgun to his head. Education my ass. the USA has no education system. It's a system that keeps people stupid while teaching them the minimum skills they need to serve their corporate and political masters.
Then that's different than the one I've heard of. There is most certainly one out there where a guy would stroll around in front of a window while the kids stood at the bus stop. Got a link to the one you're talking about? I'd be interested in the knife on as well. I know that at least one guy has gotten sued in NYC for having an electrified "trap" that caught a persistent burglar. I also know that booby trapping a car to prevent theft will get you into trouble:-(
As for the B&E then sue thing - I personally know of one of those as well. Junkie breaks into cops unlocked house, LARGE dog ignores him until he settles in to wait for the undercover cop to come home, dog mauls junkie. Cop comes home and calls for help, cop gets sued - and loses. Bet that's the last time he does that!
Well said. I've long been of the opinion that it is not religions that cause strife so much as dogma and zealotry. The genocides/xenocides experienced in the 20th century seem to hold that out, as most (all?) off the killings have been perpetuated by dogmatic governments even when such governments are wholly opposed to religions (Stalinist Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia spring to mind).
-- The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, if they ever get popular enough to have billions of followers and billions of dollars/vast global political power, I hope they will turn the other cheek when dealing with you.
and I should point out that I consider evangelism to be doing harm... if Yahweh wants to send me the word, there's a perfectly good bush in the back yard for him to set on fire... though I'm equally bothered by evangelical atheists, too. Live and let live, yeah?
Arguing with others, trying to convince them of your point of view - that seems to be fundamental to the workings of an open society. I'm perfectly ok with someone coming to my door and asking me whether I'd like to talk to them about Yahweh, provided they are willing to accept a "no I'm busy" and don't hassle me once I've indicated that I don't want to talk to them. Also it shouldn't be at a time which is bound to be inconvenient. In turn they ought to accept that I can ring their doorbell and ask them to consider atheism. Like this.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to adhere to a faith, or to a religion, as long as you recognize that as a choice.
While I agree that we shouldn't deny people the right to believe what they like, it would be negligent to ignore the more serious harm that religious belief causes: a willingness to believe in fantasies with no grounding in reality.
However a person lives their life, they will serve as an example to others. If they live their life believing in fantasies and demonstrably false ideas, they cannot help but encourage, or at the least not discourage, such irrational behavior in others. Consequently it's not really possible to avoid "harming" others in this sense.
Such people are also more susceptible to being manipulated and accepting other baseless ideas as true; witness the audience of FOX News.
Thus I think everyone has a responsibility to eliminate their own irrational beliefs.
This is without even considering the probable benefits that would come from more people striving for a completely rational mindset.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Once I got overcharged by the telephone company. It's because of damn Math, right?
Once you wake up you realize puritanism has all to do with control and nothing with religion. It makes easier for the guys in charge to build something against people they don't like. All dictatorships have laws to criminalize as much people as they can.
About your idea of an US Christian state you overlooked the very obscure and scarcely relevant to the faith Matthew 7, 21-23.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
hi welcome to the internet. enjoy your stay
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While carrying a very sticky keyboard, a bottomless pit opens up beneath you. Thinking quickly, you throw the keyboard at a convenient surface, keys down, while holding on to the cord. The keyboard adheres to the surface, while you dangle perilously until help arrives.
Alternatively, I could see a sticky keyboard being a necessary inventory item in an adventure game.
What, in what I said, makes you believe that I follow the Bible? I thought it was pretty clear, actually, that I don't follow the Bible... little quotes like
if Yahweh wants to send me the word, there's a perfectly good bush in the back yard for him to set on fire
As far as I'm concerned, there is exactly one rule that actually matters: do no harm. As long as you follow that rule, you have a right to believe whatever sits well with your conscience.
(and I should point out that I consider evangelism to be doing harm
Therefore, Christians also tend to believe that the government should be, generally, more or less staying out if the way, and letting them give their money to charities they personally want to support.
...which is used in the most unChristian manner to only give charity to people who are 'good people', which usually means 'people like us' and 'people we know' and 'member of the church fallen on hard times'.
Despite the fact that is explicitly discouraged by the Bible...re 'Good Samaritan'. You are not told to help people like, it's sorta presumed you'll help those people. You're told to help those weird people, over there, with the odd religious beliefs (Samaritans, people forget, were 'heretical' Jews.) that you'd never choose to associate with.
I forget who it was, a sci-fi writer, who said no one understands that parable, because the only 'Samaritan' that people know of is the 'good' one. Today (he wrote in the 70s), the Samaritan should be a poor black man. Today, it should probably be a gay vegan Wicca or something. Who is your neighbor, the religious leader who left you on the side of the road, of the gay vegan Wicca who took you home and gave you a soyburger?
Christians who actually understand the Bible should be very happy the government is willing to give charity based on actual need over an entire nation, that they don't actually have to locate the most needy.
Whatever you did unto the least of you, you did to me. The US is giving Jesus food stamps, right now.
Read the actual text, and stop making up gibberish claiming that Jesus wouldn't like the government providing for the poor.
And, um, if you want 'huge overhead'...please actually look at the money you donate to a church. Even the most honest and ethical church gives less to actually help people than, oh, Medicaid.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You can't propose a solution that has no chance in hell of ever actually happening in any manner, and declaring victory. The solution you propose cannot, ever, under any circumstances, happen. The US government is not going to stop recognizing the existence of marriage. No US state is going to stop granting marriage licenses.
It's like saying 'The way to win World War 2 is for the all Nazis to decide to lay down their arms'.
So, with that utterly absurd and unlikely 'solution' removed as an option, now what is your solution?
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Laws about 'possession' are inherently absurd. Laws about information possession are even more absurd.
The only laws about possession should be for stuff that is nearly impossible to acquire accidentally and have nearly no legitimate uses without causing hard to others.
Stuff like plutonium, basically. Or pipe bombs, or biological weapons.
Everything else we really should wait until you use it, and make that illegal.
Which, yes, would make both drugs and child porn 'legal', although I suggest we regulate the distribution of both those. In the case of the latter, no distribution at all would be legal, obviously. Whereas with drugs, well, I'd like to see those regulated like alcohol, but whatever.
'Possession' is a crazy crime, conceptually. Crimes are supposed to be actions.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Atheism is equally indefensible to Theism. The idea of a creator God is a question that, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven.
In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism. An agnostic wouldn't waste his time trying to prove to the religious that they're believing in a fantasy, because the acknowledge the possibility that the "fantasy" could be reality.
As I said previously, there's two conditions to the practice of your faith (or lack thereof) that matter to me: 1, that you're not harming anybody, and 2, that you recognize that you've made a conscious choice to believe something you can't prove.
I went further as to define evangelism as harmful, and on that point, you've failed both of my conditions. I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm not hurting you, I'm not foisting my beliefs on you, so what business do you have trying to foist yours on me? (for the record, I don't really care if Yahweh exists or not, because he doesn't play into the practice of my faith, which is much more earth-based, and focused on the interconnectedness of everything in the natural world. any gods, plural, that do exist are neither infallible nor omnipotent, and can only exert power over you if you let them. I also don't subscribe to a creation myth, preferring a cyclical universe)
You can’t throw up your hands and declare defeat and expect anything to ever change. There was a point in time at which the idea of African-Americans ever getting the right to vote sounded just as absurd as what I proposed.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is the idea of "doing harm" is subjective. You proclaim evangelism to be harmful. By many other people's standards, Christian and non-Christian alike, it is not. By many fundamentalists' standpoint gay relationships are doing harm. What results is the following: "As far as I'm concerned, there is exactly one rule that actually matters: do no harm according to my personal definition of harm." Great. We're back where we started.
-- Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
Read the actual text, and stop making up gibberish claiming that Jesus wouldn't like the government providing for the poor.
I have read it. And there were plenty of places where Jesus said to give to the poor, but I can’t think of any where he said to take other people’s money (without their consent) in order to give it to the poor. In fact he had some rather scathing words for the disciple who suggested that a certain (so he thought) particularly egregious waste should have instead been donated to the poor.
And, um, if you want 'huge overhead'...please actually look at the money you donate to a church. Even the most honest and ethical church gives less to actually help people than, oh, Medicaid.
Snopes’ review lists several charities whose efficiency ratings are between 80%-90%.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
just fyi, it's not amusing to read a 20+ lines post about sexuality and perceived sexuality with no explicit clue about author's gender.
people, get a grip: you're writing behind an asexual psudonim in some fucking seriously sexually confused times.
Can I just confirm that absolutely none of us wanted the woman that used to stare surprised out of her open bedroom window at the top-deck of double-decker full of gesticulating schoolboys as she sat up naked at 8am every morning arrested.
There is nothing to defend about atheism. An absence of belief does not need defending.
2, that you recognize that you've made a conscious choice to believe something you can't prove.
You're a bona fide fuckwit. Atheists can't make a conscious choice to believe (whether they can prove it or not) because by definition they don't believe. Which part of "do not believe" are you trying to convince us is a conscious choice that should be acknowledged?
Yes, I am insulting you. No, I don't care what you do or don't believe in, it's your choice. So stop telling atheists that they have to defend a conscious chocie that they pretty clearly haven't made.
Actually, I'd argue that the XKCD comic proves realityimpaired's point. For most of the comic, the message is to just ignore the Young Earth Creationist and let him be with his beliefs. It is only when it is shown that he might impose those beliefs on others ("But he's a US Senator!") that the message changes.
Rules for behavior tend to change when a person acquires power over others. If I believe that the world is 6,000 years old (I don't, but let's say I did for the sake of argument), it wouldn't matter at all to you. You could go about your entire life not being impacted in the least (beyond, perhaps stumbling across an online comment or two of mine). If I was a Senator, though, I could influence science funding based on my notion that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the Great Flood a few thousand years back. This could, in turn, lead to negative impacts in many people's lives.
Senators should ideally put their religious views aside when making decisions that affect others not of the same faith. Of course, that's not realistic. Still, I'm of the opinion that ideals are what you should strive towards while realizing you may never reach them. If government officials merely considered what people with different religious beliefs (including no religious beliefs at all) might want, it might lead to better policy.
-- My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
After a number of confusing readings and re-readings, I’m fairly convinced that realityimpaired is a (really and truly) woman, whose (current) girlfriend (who is also a woman, but a lesbian) was (formerly) married to a (then-straight) guy (i.e. to a man) who later decided he was a (straight) woman (sex-change operation?) who was into (straight) men (albeit straight men who presumably didn’t mind that their partner used to be a man). And realityimpaired’s current girlfriend’s children from her previous marriage (to the guy who had himself changed into a woman) call her Mom.
I’m left (albeit still slightly confused) wondering just how horrible that marriage must have been if both individuals decided afterward that they were into people of their own original gender, and the guy actually got himself changed to a woman.
Marriage is a civil institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it, so it makes no sense at all to create a new institution to do that same thing when we could much more easily do it by merely extending the existing system to gay people.
And it is also a religious institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it.
So which is easier to change, civil institutions or religious ones? Hint: Changing a civil institution just requires a few strokes of the pen.
Furthermore, religion will never give up its claim on “marriage”, and unless you differentiate between them (by calling the civil institution something else) you’ll always have a civil institution and a religious institution that both intersect and share the same name. This is just plain dumb. It’s confusing. It puts them on apparently-equal footing.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
They do have to defend it when they start claiming that people who believe otherwise are irrational, stupid, or otherwise impaired because they clearly can't see the light (referring to Plato's allegory of the cave, and the light of knowledge in this case). Making a claim like that puts them in exactly the same camp as the fundamentalist bible thumpers in my book. If you think that having a theistic outlook on the world is irrational, prove it. Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
Except, of course, that you aren't the GP. You're not "joelpt", and you didn't make the assertion that anybody who has religious belief is partaking in an irrational fairytale, and is harming those around them by having those beliefs.
So either step back, and realize that I'm not talking about you, or step up, and prove it. And if you do choose the latter, then try to do it without resorting to dogmatic declarations or arguments based on "you can't prove it either", because you'd just be proving my point, which is that you can't prove that there isn't a god. You can't prove that there is one, either. Live and let live, and if somebody chooses to believe otherwise, respect that it's a choice and leave them be. I respect your right to believe what you choose to believe, but that respect goes right out the window the moment you start trying to shove those beliefs down my throat.
Her kids have no problem calling me Mom, either....
That's not an explicit clue about my gender? o.O
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
obviously you do care, or you wouldn't have posted. Pretending that you have nothing to defend and then using insults to defend it makes you look like an idiot. Believing that you have the answer to the great mysteries of life, when you obviously don't, makes you the bona fide fuckwit.
Except, of course, that you aren't the GP. You're not "joelpt", and you didn't make the assertion that anybody who has religious belief is partaking in an irrational fairytale, and is harming those around them by having those beliefs.
Hey, irrational fairytales are not inherently harmful to innocent bystanders. Of course, brainwashing young children by indoctrinating them through use of those irrational fairytales is unconscionable, but making it illegal is problematic and unenforceable.
You do incidentally have a slight confusion about the nature of proof. I do not have to prove that you are irrational; you have to prove you are rational. Prove that a god exists.
The problem espoused by the xkcd comic isn't that said senator has silly beliefs, but that he chooses to put those beliefs to law rather than pursue the interests of his state; which is his job.
I believe there is (or was) a brand of Christianity in South Africa which favoured Apartheid. This fits with the desires of their white membership. Its pretty much the same everywhere else. Moderate people have moderate churches.
I see a lot more examples of people with unsupportable beliefs "doing harm" (i.e. imposing those beliefs on others) than not. It doesn't take a Senator to do so. I'm not supposed to care that Mormon's believe that Joseph Smith talked to God and wrote it down on plates of gold? OK, but thanks in part to them, my neighbors and friends here in California still don't have the same rights I do.
It's all well and good to say "believe whatever you want, just do no harm." But that's not how it works in practice.
Considering that I'm a stated agnostic on the subject, it really is too much to ask. As I said, while I acknowledge the possibility, I don't really care if god exists or not, it doesn't apply to the practice of my beliefs.:)
There is, in my mind, a difference between acknowledging the possibility that there's a god, and stating outright that there isn't one. Stating outright that there can't be one is, to me, dogma that's just as bad as the religious people stating that there must be one, and a point that needs to be proven. In other words, stating outright that there is no god whatsoever is very different from stating that there could be one, there probably isn't, and it doesn't really matter one way or the other. One of those, being a categorical statement regarding the facts of the matter, does require proof, even though it's a statement of a negative.:)
You've identified the key issue that Christianity will need to overcome if it is to survive the next 100 years or so:
The modern church is decidedly anti-Christian.
They dig way too deep into the Old Testament to find passages that support their prejudices and preach far more hate than Christ would ever tolerate. Have you seen the mega-churches with the Starbucks inside? Christ would positively kick ass were he to walk into one of those, and yet they flourish.
There are religious people and non-religious people. There are assholes and non-assholes. In the resulting venn diagram, you've already identified your self positively as non-religious and provided indirect evidence as to the other dimension. Ah, I'm playing with you; in truth people probably don't easily fall into neat categories. Or do they? What do you think?
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
As I read it, Christ was supportive of the host government, and encourages us to pay our taxes accordingly. Do note, though, that this is outside of God's tribute, which is considered an additional duty to be paid.
It's all well and good to say "believe whatever you want, just do no harm." But that's not how it works in practice.
The sad irony is that if more people shared my beliefs, then it is exactly how it'd work in practice.
Le sigh. I'd have to violate my own beliefs in order to get things to work the way my beliefs say they should. What a sad sad world we live in, eh? For now, focus on the fight for equal rights. And get prop 8 repealed... DADT is finally gone (welcome to the 21st century, USA! Only 10 years too late! Behind China on human rights, but still ahead of Saudi Arabia and Uganda!). Now for immigration equality, and to get DOMA repealed. Then we can focus on legalizing weed.:)
(and no, I'm not in California. I'm actually not even in the US... I'm in a country which already recognizes gay marriage, and has read into the constitution protections for sexual orientation and gender identity alongside equal rights for different racial and religious backgrounds, and for equal rights between the sexes).
Clone's got it right, and discounting it as impossible is a meta-argument, as he correctly posts adjacent to this one.
However, there exists an equally unpalatable alternative:
Make marriages about offspring, and unions about everything else. Which, by the way, is how the original intent of the laws play out. Otherwise, what's the explanation for the notion of consummation?
So there you have TWO viable alternatives to the current paradigm of combining unions with ritual/religious marriage.
Others have pointed out the first flaw in your position, so I'll take up the second:
You are exemplifying what you claim to oppose.
Pause and reflect on your position for a moment. You're determining that people should not be allowed to believe something that cannot be supported by empirical evidence.
That's religion, as opposed to faith, vis-a-vis the post above yours.
Hey, irrational fairytales are not inherently harmful to innocent bystanders. Of course, brainwashing young children by indoctrinating them through use of those irrational fairytales is unconscionable, but making it illegal is problematic and unenforceable.
Even were these fairytales completely false, they'd still have extensive value as parables. Take, for example, the Tooth Fairy. I don't see you banning her use, presumably because you can see the good relative to the harm. We use magical explanations to help children cope with the loss of teeth, to help them practice good dental hygiene, etc. I don't see you going to war with people putting dollars under people's pillows.
I assume it's because you're not 'atheist'. You're 'antitheist'. You hate the notion of God, separate from fairytales, but unprovability is your one chosen weapon to wield, so you drum on about it...
You do incidentally have a slight confusion about the nature of proof. I do not have to prove that you are irrational; you have to prove you are rational. Prove that a god exists.
Is that really so much to ask?
God and I speak every day. He aids me frequently. He protects my family in times of need, and has done a rather fine job of getting me through life thus far. That's not proof enough for you, and that's just fine. But it's good enough for me, and thanks to the very design of our nation, I'll never have to fear you getting your way in dictating what I am allowed to believe.
Further, 'unprovable' is a depressingly low metric. Prove that love exists. Prove that I exist. You could be trapped on a Romulan Holodeck at this very moment, interfacing with a simulation in the hopes that you will reveal the Federation's defense codes. And you'll NEVER, EVER be able to prove otherwise. Enjoy your status of 'unprovable' existence.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"A relokgious perdson deserves about as much respect as a member of the KKK." If you truly believe that, I don't think you get out of your house much--I'm not sure how you'd make it in the real world, hating everyone and all. Honestly, one of the major problems with religion is the hate towards other faiths, disrespecting people because they are religious just adds to that.
So your theory is that we should wait 100 years for marriage to...become more and more unpopular, until the government will stop doing them? (You know, like how black people got the vote.)
I'm sure you're trying to argue we're closed...but we're not. If gay marriage is equal rights for blacks, we're in 1962, where societal pressure is building.
But if no marriage is equal rights, we're in fricking 1840. Society does not disapprove of government issued marriages. Society does not even vaguely disapprove of them. Hell, 1840 is way too close. You're, like, pre-enlightenment.
And yes, if we hypothetically, over hundreds of years, destroyed the institute of marriage, the government would get out of marriage licenses. Good job there. Pardon me if that actually sounds worse, societally speaking, than any of the imaginary bad things that would happen if gay marriage was legal.
Some of us think stable marriages and families are an important part of society, and because there's absolutely no sane reason to have sexist rules in marriage law that anyone can think of, people of either gender should be able to marry people of any other gender.
Right now, that is, as opposed to the smoking post-apocalyptic wasteland where no one cares about marriage and all people grow up in single-parent homes that lurch from community to community without anyone actually bothering to improve a place they'll be out of in a year.
Perhaps by then we'll be growing everyone in jars, and it's goddamn Brave New World. Excuse me if I want to resolve the issue now, not after centuries of trying to convince people the government-licensed marriage is a bad thing.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The majority of Christians ARE control freaks. That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so (just as they'd like to see abortion outlawed).
Note that you are only talking about some Christians here. Many Christians do not fit your description.
Indeed. I suspect Christ would favor gay marriage, at least outside of the church. Or for certain he'd preach that we accept and love them no matter whether or not they were gay. The church takes the pre-Christian position of shunning them by preference, I'd say. Not by any actual doctrine that ought to be in current use.
However, on abortion, I'm confident that Christ would oppose it. He stressed generosity to those in need, and would have been against the killing of the unborn. The pro-choice folks always focus on the rights of the mother, but I think Christ would favor the rights of the child-to-be.
And it is also a religious institution and there is a large amount of inertia behind it.
But that is entirely irrelevant. Nobody really gives a crap about making churches perform gay marriages if they don't want to. That is the only possible way that could be relevant. All the decent people want to do is tell them to go fuck themselves when they try and fuck things up for the decent folk as is their wont. So, no changes from the religious nutters are required to make it work.
So which is easier to change, civil institutions or religious ones? Hint: Changing a civil institution just requires a few strokes of the pen.
Again, irrelevant. All you have to change is the civil institution, since the only meaningful part of the marriage is the civil part. Other than that it's just religious nonsense and completely irrelevant to the law.
Furthermore, religion will never give up its claim on "marriage",
Nobody cares if religious nutters won't give up their claim on marriage. It's a false claim and utter crap, so they have no claim. Again it comes back to *your* point. They can be ignored since they have no legal standing whatsoever to impose their delusional religious hatred of fine and decent folk.
and unless you differentiate between them (by calling the civil institution something else) you'll always have a civil institution and a religious institution that both intersect and share the same name.
It's only one institution. A civil one. That's the only thing which is relevant in law and hence the only thing which is in any way relevant to the government.
It's confusing.
It's not confusing. That's an idiotic point. No offence intended, but you really should be ashamed of yourself for hitting submit on something that stupid. We currently have both civil marriages as my wife and I had and religious marriages. The religious marriage currently requires crossing over to the civil side...marriage license etc. The civil side has no such requirements. We didn't have to ask any church for permission to marry. Nor would we have. So, it's the exact same system we already have and therefore less confusing that completely changing everything to cater to the hatred of ignorant bigots. Your "point" should be taken out back and shot.
It puts them on apparently-equal footing.
Now that's the meat of the matter. This is, of course, true. It's also, of course, exactly the desired outcome. Equality under the law. It's the entire basis of a free society. It's also the religious nutters' main issue with the whole idea. How fucking *dare* I expect gays to be treated equally. Hopefully you're just as confused on this as you were on the last point and not actually trying to push their crap.
Proving my existence is the same as proving your own, so welcome to my status of 'unprovable'. Lovely here, isn't it.
I'm not antitheist, and I'm not anti-fairy story. I like the tooth fairy, particular the importance to her of giving the right change.
I also notice that children are taught that Santa Claus is a myth at around the age of 4-8. Why only Santa and not other mythological beings? At least be fucking consistent.
(The views stated in this article about women are clearly not my own, and if you think they are, you aren't paying attention.)
Which, by the way, is how the original intent of the laws play out.
Not exactly.
The original intent of the marriage law is to formally declare ownership of a offspring production machine, along with penalties for men who would attempt to use that machine to cuckold the man by having it produce offspring that were not his.
Asserting it was originally about offspring is like asserting that a car title is about transporting people. Car titles do not transport people. They are use to prove ownership, and keep other people from using, and recover when lost, your property, which is used to transport people.
The original purpose of women, not 'marriage', is for offspring. The purpose of marriage just is a way to keep track of who owns what women.
Otherwise, what's the explanation for the notion of consummation?
The man formally takes ownership of the offspring production machine when he breaks the seal on it. You know, it's like those safety seals on food? You can only return food if you haven't broken those.
I'm not entirely sure this 'let's go back to original marriage law' is where you want the argument to go at all.
Granted, I'm confused as to what, exactly, you're arguing at all, considering you did call this 'unpalatable'. The reason that marriage laws were about one man marrying one woman is the fact they were, instead, originally about one man owning one woman, or even more than one woman. It is rather 'unpalatable' to point that out the entire basis of marriage is 'ownership'.
It's also unpalatable to point in this 'historical' environments, that, often, men could 'own' other men or even young boys in exactly the same manner, and no one cared what women did when alone together, and often the only women with rights were the one who managed to avoid getting married.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
As I read it, Christ was supportive of the host government, and encourages us to pay our taxes accordingly.
And the Roman government were invaders. The idea he'd have a problem with a democratic government having taxes is insane.
Do note, though, that this is outside of God's tribute, which is considered an additional duty to be paid.
I think that's one of those things that aged poorly. Roman taxes all went to Rome, and they only way they helped Jews was to fend off (other) invaders. Rome did not run social programs.
Every Jewish citizen was expected to pay the temple, which ran the social programs, and functionally were the government in that regard. They could even make laws and arrest people for not following them...if they ordered you to give X% of your grain to the poor, you had to do it.
Remember, Jesus himself was arrested under Jewish, not Rome law. Two legal systems. The temple was essentially the state government. People seem to entirely miss the idea that when Jesus said to pay tithe, he was saying it in what was partially a theocracy, to pay a tithe to the government.
A lot of problems with people reading the Bible is failing to understand the context. Don't ask 'What did God ask those people to do?', as 'What was the effect of what God asked them to do?'
We have an obligation to pay for stuff like roads and stuff, which Jesus's day, and our day, was the government, and we have an obligation to pay for stuff like social programs for the poor, which in Jesus's day was the temple, and in our day is the government.
And, as I pointed out, in Jesus's day, the religious leader helped people based on all sorts of criteria, working on minute interpretations of The Law as to who deserved how much, and Jesus, essentially, shot that idea dead, by pointing out you should love (and help) everyone, period. They'd let people starve because they weren't Jewish, and some of our churches will do the same because they aren't Christian, whereas the government, and Jesus, wouldn't.
Like I said, Christians should be grateful they live in a country that is officially secular, that, in theory, loves all citizens equally, so that they don't fall into the trap of just helping Christians.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
You're focusing on superficials. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Starbucks. What's wrong is the Mega-Church building itself.
Actually, even the Mega-Church building would be reasonable if it were being put to some ends beyond the furtherance of centralized power. (Well, some ends, not just any old ends.)
What's wrong with the Mega-Churches is the exact same thing that's wrong with the Mega-Corporations. They no longer serve their original purpose, but are instead mere vehicles for the creation of centralized power. (In the case of the church, this was very intentionally crafted into the structure of it by Emperor Constantine, or perhaps his advisers. Creators of that eminently Christian slogan "In hoc signo vincis.")
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You appear to be confusing the meanings of several of the words you are using. Religious agnosticism you seem to have mostly correct, it is an epistemological view that it's impossible to prove that a diety(or dieties) exist. This is entirely compatable with either atheism or theism, it's not a point on a spectrum. See agnostic theists such as Kierkegaard.
Atheism is a simple word, the a- prefix means not. The word means not theist... that's all. You appear to be attacking a strawman definition of atheism that involves "stating outright that there isn't one". This belief is held by a small subset but far from all atheists.
It is not at all surprising that there is a negative reaction to this sort of strawman characterization of a large group based on the beliefs of a small subset. If you were to say that all Christians believe that the earth is 6000 years old you might expect a similar negative response to that mis-characterization of a large group based on the beliefs of a small subset.
No, I'm not. I'm taking the position that imposing one's beliefs on others when those beliefs have no scientific, empirical, or provable basis, is wrong. Imposing a belief, such as a belief in the Theory of Evolution, which can be be supported by facts, tests, etc., is not wrong.
If more people "believed" in evolution, the world would be a better place. If more people believed in creationism (or ID), the world would be a worse place, because in practice, people's beliefs tend to affect how those people interact in meaningful ways with their neighbors (e.g. by voting on school board members).
You're determining that people should not be allowed to believe something that cannot be supported by empirical evidence.
Well, I'm actually in agreement with the GP I originally responded to. I don't really care if those beliefs aren't acted on vis-a-vis the rest of the world. But, as I've said, that's rarely, if ever, the case. If someone is going to tell me "Don't do X" or "Do Y" then they better have a good, rational argument for making such law, and relying on an invisible feller's proclamations from a burning bush doesn't cut it.
There's a significant difference between saying a drug should be illegal because of various costs it imposes on society (e.g. deaths, health care costs, unemployment, etc.) and saying the drug should be illegal because God said so.
That's religion, as opposed to faith, vis-a-vis the post above yours.
Are you saying that the "religion" of the Scientific Method is akin to the religion of Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, etc.)? If so, I disagree. Science doesn't start off assuming to know the Truth. It builds up to it. And academic blacklisting and political squabbles notwithstanding, the correct idea wins in the end. On the other hand, the various religions of the world all contain a variety of memes which are pretty ridiculous.
And there were plenty of places where Jesus said to give to the poor, but I can’t think of any where he said to take other people’s money (without their consent) in order to give it to the poor.
No, because he knew that was already happening
The state of Israel was a theocracy. (A theocracy operating under Rome control, which was, strangely, a different theocracy, but a theocracy non-the-less.) The government were the people you were supposed to give tithes to. The government and the temple were the same.
The government/temple, if you did not give them tithes, could do all sorts of things to you.
Strangely, this evil organization that took money from people to redistribute as charity, that evil communist organization...Jesus required people to give them that money.
Weird, huh? Almost as if he had no problem with it.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If I'm recalling my history correctly, in Rome c. 0 C.E. the only form of marriage that had any legal standing was a contract. Only parties with significant property holdings bothered with it. It generally worked fairly well.
Personally, I'm in favor of marriage. But it needs to be looked at as a civil contract with a standard format (subject to amendments, essentially prenuptial agreements). And I see no reason why any two sentient and consenting entities shouldn't be allowed to marry if they choose. I'd even allow multi-party marriages, but that, or course, would require a custom contract.
For that matter, if two such entities choose to co-habit without such an agreement, that's ok with me too. But it might well be to the disadvantage of one party or the other...or even both.
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
No one sees 'any reason' that couldn't happen. I have no objection to such a situation either.
The problem is that won't happen, and hence is actually a solution for the fact that gay people cannot get married.
I mean, we could reduce the amount of oil this country uses by 50% if everyone would agree to swap houses with someone closer to where they work. But that is not an actual workable solution, because such a hypothetical thing will never happen.
I'm tired of people coming up with stupid glib answers like that. That does not help to actually solve anything at all. States are not going to stop marrying people. Marriage will not stop having additional rights that can't be gained through contract law.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I do consider promulgating beliefs without evidence that I will accept to encourage others into actions that I feel will harm others to be, itself, harmful.
It's ok for me to feel this way, because I'm not a lawmaker. If I were...I'd have to consider my own beliefs dangerous. Not, however, necessarily as dangerous that those of the other legislators around.
I consider ALL centralized authority to be an evil. This extends to authoritative nameservers. We need to create workable mesh networks to take the place of the current web structure. We probably need multiple networks of trust. I wouldn't trust RMS to pronounce on quantum theory, and I wouldn't trust Hawking to design philosophies of trust. Trusted parties need to be categorized as to where they are to be trusted. And we also need degrees of trust. An all or nothing system isn't going to be the answer.
This means that in my beliefs, whenever someone is acting to centralize power, they are, inherently, doing evil. This is true despite what they intend to accomplish by the centralized power they obtain. Abd the minimum amount of evil that they are doing is directly proportional to the degree to which they centralize power. A good kind will be succeeded by a bad king, but the power once gathered will not be dispersed by it's holder.
OTOH, it's worth noticing that for some purposes we don't seem to have any alternative but the centralization of power. This remains an evil, which acts continuously to counterbalance any good that is done through the exercise of that power. (And to amplify any evil.)
So... mesh networks are a partial answer, but what about power generation? Water distribution? Etc. For some purposes it doesn't look like an answer is currently conceivable. Dense populations seem to impose constraints that require the centralization of control over resources. But we still need to find ways away from this. (Note, however, that need does not imply capability. And, like good, evil comes in degrees.)
But to me the spreading of false information is an evil. The spreading of seductive information that cannot be shown to be true is also an evil, and perhaps a worse one. (But consider the difference between British and American libel law. Things aren't all that clear.)
--
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Haven't you heard? You don't have a right to be naked in your home. You don't have a right not to be naked to airport goons either... It is for your own safety!! Both!
marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic
I have no problem at all with the majority of atheists, just as I have no problem at all with the majority of people who adhere to a religious belief. I do, however, have a problem with atheists who make it a personal crusade to get rid of all religion.
I also notice that children are taught that Santa Claus is a myth at around the age of 4-8. Why only Santa and not other mythological beings? At least be fucking consistent.
Actually, we disagree. If a true Christian organization felt it's people needed coffee, they'd provide it to any and all who asked for it. There would be no store involved.
The fact that it exists as a profit entity is not as much a superficial as it is a symptom.
Mod parent up. You can't love someone and hate them at the same time. I would rather not see other men naked, but if I have to go onto his property to do it, then I am the one crossing the line. As long as it doesn't effect me, a person should be free to do as they wish. Anything else is slavery, no matter how minor.
As for cannabis, I have smoked booku as a teen. I don't condone it, and I see it as a medicine. Similar in (some) ways to drinking in the Bible, which states it should be left to those that are weak and depressed basically. Also, the lies and history of it are far more important than demonizing(?) something non-lethal (as far as overdosing, you can't claim that with Tylenol, sugar or even water!) and criminalizing around half of society for the sake of big business. When you consider these things and the fact we have discovered this summer that their are millions of cannabanoid receptors in the body, I think a logically thinking Christian ( or anyone for that matter) would be for decriminalization.
We think we know so much, and yet we just discovered evidence this week that the huge carnivore "Neanderthals" may be a myth, and that there is strong evidence they had cooked (and ate) their vegetables.
Personally, I seek the truth, and I recognize that the enemy (satan) is cunning. Why wouldn't he go after catholic priests and Southern Baptist ministers? Does that mean Christianity doesn't work? No it means the well has been poisoned. Anyone who doesn't care to consider that is either wanting to not admit GOD exists, or hasn't been able to wade through the evil and hate that bombards us everyday to get to the truth yet. Seek, and you shall find.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
If more people "believed" in evolution, the world would be a better place. If more people believed in creationism (or ID), the world would be a worse place, because in practice, people's beliefs tend to affect how those people interact in meaningful ways with their neighbors (e.g. by voting on school board members).
Please cite the scientific study you have done to support this belief-based conclusion.
There's a significant difference between saying a drug should be illegal because of various costs it imposes on society (e.g. deaths, health care costs, unemployment, etc.) and saying the drug should be illegal because God said so.
You do realize that Christianity makes no such claims, yes? The church certainly does, but even PAT ROBERTS argued for the legalization of pot just the other day.
It is easy to attack something as nuanced as an entire religion, but I'm confident that you can do better if you try.
Science doesn't start off assuming to know the Truth. It builds up to it. And academic blacklisting and political squabbles notwithstanding, the correct idea wins in the end.
That's certainly an unfair standard. Science has not only claimed the mantle of truth, but events like climategate have proven that the 'squabbles' actually suppress it. Diligently, actively suppress the truth of the data in order to further an agenda. Did you see the study put out by NASA that demonstrated that we simply cannot kill ourselves with carbon? That was science, too, but even here on science-loving slashdot it was shouted down as heresy. What about the study on studies that proved many if not all were deeply flawed, and were simply pushed towards publication rather than any actual diligent scientific effort?
I'll grant that not every scientist worships at this altar, but many if not most do. Certainly the ones dictating the consensus do. What was once the underdog is now becoming the church-dejour, and it is a sad, sad thing.
DavidTC, I grew up poor, and yet also for a few years had a rich stepdad. And when I say poor, I mean like selling drugs at 14 just to eat. Not like the poor here in the area where I now reside and in most places.
I come from Louisiana originally, and welfare is used to get votes. The same politicians promise education and never deliver. Welfare is designed in it's current state to never teach the poor how to fish, just to give it to them. That is NOT something Jesus would want and is truly an injustice.
One should not be down with submitting to any authority other than GOD. In this country many things are already at "Police State" stage. The government should fear the people, not the people fear the government.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
I read it as if you partake of Caesar and bind yourself to his money, then yes render what is his to him. Sometimes you have no choice, and then as it is written, obey every law of the land, yes every last one. (Obviously not if against one of GOD's commands, but that should go without saying... right?)
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Please cite the scientific study you have done to support this belief-based conclusion.
It's based on a myriad of anecdotal evidence. It's not based on faith. Is my positional assailable? Sure. But it's more defensible than that of a Creationist.
You do realize that Christianity makes no such claims, yes?
OK. Abortion then. It was an example. Plenty of Christians argue for prohibition (or against gay marriage, or for Creationism or prayer in schools, or for government funded welfare, or for/against gun rights, etc.) citing moral/religious grounds. See: Temperance Movement. Again, my issue isn't with the belief in God, but with the repercussions in the real world of people holding such a belief, and the baggage that comes with it.
but events like climategate have proven that the 'squabbles' actually suppress it.
I don't want to get sidetracked by this, but I fail to see how the actions of a handful of scientists "prove" that Truth is suppressed by the community at large.
I'll grant that not every scientist worships at this altar, but many if not most do. Certainly the ones dictating the consensus do.
What's your source for "most scientists worship at this altar"? Science is not perfect - it's done by people after all. Mistakes are made, and biases color the results. But overall, it does a much better job at revealing Truth than religion or Faith does.
Do you think we learned more about the universe since the Age of Enlightenment, or is all the time of history before then?
You can't get around without traveling on paved roads in the city. During those days there was no such thing. At most, bricked roads. I am not sure who paid for "dirt" roads to be cleared, but I am sure much of it was like a right of way today, it is the concern of who wants it.
Today our roads are paid for from gas taxes, since they are designed for use by vehicles...
What does the country being secular have to do with loving citizen's equally again? Because from where I am standing, my government very much doesn't love me in practice. From where I am standing, we have freedom of religion, but it is undeniable the Christian faith carved much of the ideals and foundational premises of rights and freedoms this country has, even though it is done everyday. (hurts the head when you think about it...)
Sure, having the church not running the government was an attempt at keeping a repeat of church corruption by "politicians", but it was simply for the freedom of religion, not so that the church (or religion) was not at all allowed to be involved in the community, aka the state.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Fair comment. I live in the Bible-Belt of the U.S. so my view is probably somewhat skewed. Here, any supposed "Christian" only gets to be a card-carrying member if they hate gays, blacks and anyone even slightly left.
So in the bible belt guys have to dress to the right?
-- Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
The idea was to give tithes to those for the sake of building up the church. No capital, little production. Of course he knew much of it would be wasted, but that doesn't mean we can use that as an excuse not to do the right thing.
He also got angry and overturned the tables used for ripping off people buying sacrifices for the altar being sold at the temple. Please don't try to portray it as Jesus wanted people to be slaves (even monetarily) to the church. He did it because it would help build it up and help allow people be more free, not to bind them down. Only by sowing the seeds do you get the harvest.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Actually, no. Agnosticism is irrational as it implicitly gives god the same possibility for existing as for not existing. Atheism (weak) acknowledges the possibility, but adopts the simpler solution until evidence indicates a god entity is even a possibility.
-- If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Do you think we learned more about the universe since the Age of Enlightenment, or is all the time of history before then?
This is rather my concern. During a short period where scientific thought was free to operate, as the underdog if you will, we thrived. That age has passed, and we're now transitioning into a new dark age.
I have read it. And there were plenty of places where Jesus said to give to the poor, but I can’t think of any where he said to take other people’s money (without their consent) in order to give it to the poor.
You're making a mockery of it. Of course you shouldn't take other people's money. Why are you even suggesting that that is what this could be about? But Jesus did say that you should pay your taxes. And he also said that you should give everything you own (rather than a mere 10%) away to others. And not just your friends, or to people like you, but to complete strangers.
They dig way too deep into the Old Testament to find passages that support their prejudices and preach far more hate than Christ would ever tolerate. Have you seen the mega-churches with the Starbucks inside? Christ would positively kick ass were he to walk into one of those, and yet they flourish.
I essentially agree, but would also like to point out that this isn't all churches you're talking about. There are also a lot of churches do the right thing, or at least do a decent job of trying. That preach love instead of bigotry and commercialism.
However, on abortion, I'm confident that Christ would oppose it. He stressed generosity to those in need, and would have been against the killing of the unborn. The pro-choice folks always focus on the rights of the mother, but I think Christ would favor the rights of the child-to-be.
Possibly. Or he might balance the needs of the mother and the needs of the unborn child. You know that there is balance possible in the abortion debate, don't you?
During the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, the fetus is little more than a clump of cells, and absolutely anything can abort the pregnancy. A miscarriage is very likely in those first weeks. After 30 weeks, on the other hand, the baby can survive a premature birth. In fact, I think it's at about 26 weeks now, which makes me a bit uncomfortable about the 24-week limit for abortion in my country. I'd prefer moving the limit back to 17 weeks, but for now at least, there are medical reasons to have it at 24 weeks. (Some birth defects can't be detected until 20. weeks with current technology, but that technology might improve.)
Atheism is equally indefensible to Theism. The idea of a creator God is a question that, by definition, can neither be proven nor disproven.
Bullshit.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.
Many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism.
A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all.
The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
I don't give a shit what you believe. I'm not hurting you, I'm not foisting my beliefs on you, so what business do you have trying to foist yours on me?
Believe whatever you want to, but don't claim that it is a rational belief unless you can back it up.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The U.N. has teeth. The U.N. when dealing with the U.S. has no teeth.
My gut reaction to that comment is "change that." My mental reaction is "as it should be." I think the problem is in the stating of the mission, and the fact that we, the human race, have not yet attempted to spread our borders far enough to necessitate the U.N.
All the actors committed to not slaughtering the masses still have to live with the byproducts of their actions.
They should change 'U.N.' to 'U.P.' right now and make it known that anyone joining their ranks has to pass the National Socialism Test - because that's what you need when heading off into space in a tin-can;)
Remember when we were back in A.. Wait a second. Who is Kornbluth?
The entire point of his post is that he doesn't believe he has "the answer to the great mysteries of life", and shouldn't have to defend not having it.
If you think that having a theistic outlook on the world is irrational, prove it. Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
See my other post to you. It is irrational to believe in god without evidence supporting it's existence.
You cannot provide evidence of something that has no clear non-vague description, let alone something which is claimed to be infinite as many do of their gods.
Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
I don't have to, all I have to do is show you it is irrational to believe in something without evidence, the burdon of evidence is on the one making the assertion, which the one claiming there is a god is doing.
try to do it without resorting to dogmatic declarations or arguments based on "you can't prove it either", because you'd just be proving my point, which is that you can't prove that there isn't a god. You can't prove that there is one, either.
The belief of anything without supporting evidence is to embrace madness.
I could not prove that the entirety of this existence is not just merely in my head and I am in fact the only mind that exists. Does that mean I should treat the idea seriously? hell no.
You know, I could probably be considered a militant atheist. In that I really hate people being irrational and illogical while claiming otherwise. I point this out to people and yes it pisses them off, but they usually wind up better for it.
That I am a militant atheist still does not mean I would make an assertion that there is no god (whatever god is anyway) only that there is no evidence to support it(and there can never be because of the nature of the claims).
It makes no sense to me to throw out the ideas of reason and evidence for one topic such as religion. Belief without supporting evidence is faith. Faith is the enemy of reason.
People can still have their religions, but it is when they claim that such a belief is rational or that they have supporting evidence is when I point out to them that they are wrong.
But very few people would willingly let themselves be subject to religion knowing that though.
You could be trapped on a Romulan Holodeck at this very moment, interfacing with a simulation in the hopes that you will reveal the Federation's defense codes. And you'll NEVER, EVER be able to prove otherwise. Enjoy your status of 'unprovable' existence.
And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.
You are welcome to believe what you wish, but belief in god _is_ irrational. I said this to someone else before so I may aswell reiterate.
The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages.
People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.
Believing in something without supporting evidence is to embrace madness.
Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.
We should think of ideological positions as a network. There's a node called "Christianity", which is strongly connected to a node called "opposition to abortion" - somewhat less strongly connected the other way. "Opposition to abortion" is also weakly connected to a node called "Social conservatism". "Social conservatism" has a strong link to "Christianity", and a somewhat weaker link going the other way (more people are Christians because they are social conservatives than the other way around). "Social conservatism" has a link to "xenophobia", which has links to "anti-islam sentiments" and "opposition to foreign intoxicants" etc. etc. Too big to list it all - and I don't pretend I'm the one who gets to map it out authoritatively.
So, each person has a couple of basic positions, which he drops a couple of points in. They flow around in the network until it stabilizes. Now even if Christianity has only a weak direct link to "opposition to foreign intoxicants", people who put a high initial value in "Christianity" are probably going to have a few points flow there.
-- xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
And, um, if you want 'huge overhead'...please actually look at the money you donate to a church. Even the most honest and ethical church gives less to actually help people than, oh, Medicaid.
Snopes’ review lists several charities whose efficiency ratings are between 80%-90%.
In Calculus, there's functionally no difference between 0.999999999... and 1.0. In probability theory, however, there's an enormous difference between the two numbers. In probability, 0 and 1 are certainties, and anything between them is a likelihood. When you're discussing the existence of God, you're talking about likelihoods.
And when you think about it in those terms, I think you'll find we're both on the same side here. I have issues with anybody who pegs the probability of God's existence at 0, and I have issues with anybody who pegs it at 1. Anybody who pegs it somewhere in between is in a much better position, in my mind, because they acknowledge the possibility that they could be wrong.
We could argue about the evidence or lack thereof until we're blue in the face. It wouldn't mean a whit in the end, because most of the evidence that gets provided by a believer wouldn't be accepted by a non-believer. It's evidence to those who choose to believe it's evidence. It's also a red herring.... what's important to me is that tiny bit of scepticism that's implied when you say the probability is 0.00000000000001 instead of saying that it's 0. That tiny bit of scepticism implies that you recognize that you're not in full possession of the facts, and that you could be wrong.
And that tiny bit of scepticism usually translates into a degree of sympathy for people on the opposite end of the spectrum. Not the ones who proclaim it's 1 and go out into the world to spread the word and enlighten the heathens (they're just annoying), but the ones who say it's 0.99999999, and generally go about their daily business without interfering in yours. Going back to my original post here, that's all that matters to me: you have the right to believe whatever the hell you want to believe, as long as you're not hurting anybody, and you leave other people alone to their beliefs.
Disagree. The majority of Christians ARE control freaks. That's why a gay man or woman cannot get married - because Christians refuse to let them have the freedom to do so, or let the government pass same-sex marriage licenses, in order to suppress what they consider "filthy heathen sinners". And don't come-up with some bullshit about how marriage is religious. The word "marriage" was invented by the Latins circa 1000 BC and defined to include any kind of coupling, whether male-female or same-sex.
There's a reason the Founders did not want an official state religion. They didn't want to be suppressed by moral dictatorship. The history of the Catholic and Church of England are just as bloody and despotic as the history of Nazi Germany. Whither goes religious persons also goes DEATH and tyranny. Just look at modern-day Iran or Arabia.
A religious person deserves about as much respect as a member of the KKK... even if he himself has not done anything wrong, he is supporting an organization with a long history of Hate and suppression (sometimes even murder).
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Why not? What crime has been committed by looking at 4chan.com from the privacy of your home? The concept is as ridiculous as saying I should not be allowed to smoke marijuana or walk around naked*. My actions harm no one but myself.
* *Only control freaks (or religious nuts) would disagree. Which is why in Virginia a man was arrested for being naked in his own home. Dumbass anti-freedom politicians
Yeah it's bad to generalize. Like the KKK - sure 99% of them are haters, but there's still that 1% that ain't bad so to say "KKK member suck" is just uncalled for. Same applies to members of the Church of "burn gays burn!". 1% of them are a-okay.
POINT: You are judged by the assholes you associate with; don't cry foul if you associate with a Church that has a history of hate, inquisition, imprisonment of scientists like Galileo, and so on.
>>>Christ was supportive of the host government, and encourages us to pay our taxes accordingly.
By that logic the Nazi soldiers that attempted to overthrow Hitler were sinners, because they ignored Jesus' word. Jesus said pay taxes, but never said you should bow to a tyrant that is suppressing people, or steal money from your neighbors' wallets to go buy yourself a new car (cash for clunkers).
Only because many people die before they reach the Age to accept medicaid (or social security). So basically they've paid-in tens-of-thousands of dollars, and got nothing in return. If they were accounted for, the Medicaid's efficiency would be just 60%.
It puts them on apparently-equal footing.... main issue with the whole idea. How fucking *dare* I expect gays to be treated equally
No, you completely missed that point. The point was that using the same exact word puts the civil and religious sides of the coin on apparently-equal footing. Since, clearly, you can’t even come up with a different word for it when the civil sense is meant, apart from the same word that the religious folks have been using for the past several centuries.
I don’t care if the law puts gay marriage on the same level as straight marriage. But some churches sure as hell never will, and as long as that’s the case (and as long as the law is still co-opting the word they’re using for it, which is immeasurably stupid) there will be no end of strife.
Tell me: What’s so fucking important about the word “marriage” that gay people need to use it to feel like they have equality? The only reason for it is to force churches to recognize legitimacy where they don’t want to and never will, and that’s completely idiotic because their opinion shouldn’t matter to anyone but themselves anyway. So why are they trying to force the issue? I thought they wanted to live and let live? Give them equal standing w.r.t. the law, but call it something else regardless of whether it’s a gay or straight union.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I'm tired of people coming up with stupid glib answers like that. That does not help to actually solve anything at all. States are not going to stop marrying people.
What the hell makes you so sure of this? Congress can pass laws telling the states what to do.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
A religious person deserves about as much respect as a member of the KKK... even if he himself has not done anything wrong, he is supporting an organization with a long history of Hate and suppression (sometimes even murder).
Just so we're clear, judging from the rest of the post that final line is referencing just Christians? Otherwise you're condemning people for the simple act of philosophizing about the universe. You don't need to belong to an organization to be religious after all.
-- "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
This comes down to a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works. Models are created where testing can be done whose results can support or detract the model. If results indicate the model is flawed in some aspect a new model is created that tries to take into account why those specific results differed from the old model.
Science never claims to know every aspect of any given thing, it is objective and presents our current knowledge based from what we have observed as evidence so far. As we learn more our models change, this is learning and progress. Unlike faith science takes interesting observations to yield more understanding of the way things function. If something is wrong it can be proven wrong.
Saying that god exists is like saying we're all really in the matrix right now. There is no supporting evidence, just like any other out there untestable idiotic idea. To give it any credence at all is to invite delusion.
What you really want, is for people to be open to new evidence that goes contradictory to what people already believe (that there is a god) but we have already established that no supporting evidence is even possible for god because of the nature of the assertion.
To say that you are open to evidence there is a god does not mean you give it any probablility at all (0) until such time as evidence is provided.
Saying 'well there COULD be a god' without evidence is a cop out. Even the slightest belief without evidence is a farce to science in general.
That tiny bit of scepticism implies that you recognize that you're not in full possession of the facts, and that you could be wrong.
Those who follow reason and evidence _are_ skeptical of everything, that is how we got into this 'there is no reason to believe in god' business initially anyway. Part of being skeptical is not entertaining ideas seriously that have no evidence. Absolutely anything COULD be wrong even against all evidence for it for things that do have evidence, doesn't mean we will entertain the idea it is false until such evidence appears.
And are you willing to give that thought as much credit as you do to the existence of god? I thought not.
I absolutely do give that much thought to the existence of God. Daily. Some people are non-thinking sheep, but not all.
The problem here is that you seem to have come ready to defend your religion by attacking mine, and are making assumptions along the way. I wonder constantly if what I'm feeling is genuine, for a multitude of reasons. A Christian doubts whether the impulses he feels are his, or the work of God, or the temptations of Satan - regularly. To assert that such a person has never considered that God actually doesn't exist means you genuinely have no idea who or what you're talking about. The hand of God is subtle, otherwise there'd be no exercise of free will, and what then would be the point of life?
People who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. It is therefore up to them to provide supporting evidence for this assertion.
Here's my evidence: I pray and things happen.
I realize that you're ready to attack that assertion, but unfortunately you don't have anything better than this to rebut it. He's real. Is he some bearded white dude in the sky? Probably not. But there's no doubt that I am interfacing with some power far greater than myself. None. Why? Because I practice it regularly. I feel it as surely as I feel the cold air when I step outside in the morning. The fact that you do not recognize that same feeling fills me with sadness, but I do respect your choice. And I believe that God does as well.
Such as believing you are in a romulan holodeck would be, as is believing in god.
It is either madness, if it is false, or enlightenment if it is true. In either case.
"In Calculus, there's functionally no difference between 0.999999999... and 1.0. In probability theory, however, there's an enormous difference between the two numbers."
There's functionally no difference because there is no difference, and not just in calculus. What number lies between.9... and 1?
Perhaps "..." doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean "and a lot of these but eventually stopping".
Everyone's a sinner, but not every mistake is a sin.
Christ was indeed a rebel, no doubt. But in the end, he submitted himself to be crucified at the hands of the Romans. If he were the Rambo type, I suppose he'd have busted out a jaw-bone and killed them all.
I'd guess the final test would be:
Does love include armed rebellion? Can you love someone while you're murdering them?
Probably not.
I do find it amusing that you'd have trouble picturing Christ as turning the other cheek, even to the Nazis.
Your evidence is subject to the logical fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" otherwise known as correlation does not imply causation a link between these event and god is implied but not shown.
No matter what 'evidence' you come up with, you will have a very hard time proving it has a link to god.
However, in both cases, why do you even care?
I care when people present ideas as rational when they are not, you are welcome to believe whatever you wish so long as it is accepted that there is no rational basis for the faith. When people imply that there is reason and evidence behind it is when I pipe up because it is an insult to people who do apply reason and demand evidence from things to be able to believe them.
If you'd like to scientifically measure my connection to God, then I suggest you bring along better science. Just because you lack the skill to measure it doesn't make it invalid. Science is a work in progress, or at least it was until we decided to make it into a new religion.
you are welcome to believe whatever you wish so long as it is accepted that there is no rational basis for the faith
Were you to put my hand into flame would it be irrational for me to withdraw it in pain? Because I'd find it equally irrational to deny myself belief in this thing that I can emphatically feel within my life just because you insist that I do so. Don't you think that I realize that I'm on slashdot here? I'm literally wading deep into the nerdy lion's den of antitheists. Why would I do that if I were not somehow compelled?
Just because you lack the skill to measure it doesn't make it invalid.
Because of the vague nature of the claims it could _never_ be measured.
Science is a work in progress, or at least it was until we decided to make it into a new religion.
It is a work in progress, it is not a religion, it relies on reason and evidence. Until you can provide supporting evidence (in substance or in thought) that there is a god, it is assumed false, just like every other thing we don't have evidence to support. There is no reason to believe in god without evidence just as there is no reason to believe in the tooth fairy without evidence.
Faith (belief without evidence) is the enemy of reason. Funnily enough we use reason in science.
Were you to put my hand into flame would it be irrational for me to withdraw it in pain?
No, you are stopping yourself from harm.. this has what to do with believing things without evidence? You have evidence that hands in fire directly correlates to pain and hurt. There is still no evidence of this god person/thing.
Because I'd find it equally irrational to deny myself belief in this thing that I can emphatically feel within my life just because you insist that I do so.
Oh I never said stop believing, I simply said that the belief is irrational, people are allowed to be irrational if they want, it's their choice.
An Atheist is a person who acknowledges the possibility of a god, but requires evidence before committing.
No, that’s an agnostic.
Definition of ATHEIST : one who believes that there is no deity
Definition of AGNOSTIC : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Please don't try to portray it as Jesus wanted people to be slaves (even monetarily) to the church.
I really wouldn't get into whether or not Jesus 'wanted people to be slaves', considering he had no problem with, you know, actual slaveowners.
He also got angry and overturned the tables used for ripping off people buying sacrifices for the altar being sold at the temple.
Yes, but those weren't operated by the temple. Those were just hucksters taking advantage of people who'd come long distances to pay their respects at the temple, and didn't have the right sacrifice or symbolic coinage. They were the modern equivalent of ticket scalpers.
A problem with them does not indicate a problem with the temple or the government. (Admittedly, they were being operated on temple grounds, but it's not like there were modern police forces and trespassing laws. This was the 'you can set up a booth on any area of public space and sell stuff from it' mentality, which still exists in the lot of countries.)
He did it because it would help build it up and help allow people be more free, not to bind them down. Only by sowing the seeds do you get the harvest.
Are you objecting to what I said, or not? Because I agree with that.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Because of the vague nature of the claims it could _never_ be measured.
Oh, no, it can. You could map the corresponding brain waves today, I'm certain. All magic is potentially real. Just as the cave man thought fire was a gift from the gods, just as Galileo had no concept of atoms - we just need to perfect our understanding of what we experience.
To stand atop a pinnacle and proclaim that we know all there is to know is folly. Any true scientist should never, ever allow that to come to pass. I realize that it empowers the antitheist to attack a powerfully established body that has a track record of doing great harm. I get it. I really do. But turning science into a religion by representing that it can prove that God does not exist is the ultimate hubris.
Until you can provide supporting evidence (in substance or in thought) that there is a god, it is assumed false, just like every other thing we don't have evidence to support.
Cram your fingers a little deeper in your ears. I think you might still be able to make out what I'm saying. Close your eyes so you can't read my lips, because here it comes again:
I'm feeling something. You can deny it if you wish, but you have no grounds to do so. The end.
Funnily enough we use reason in science.
Imagine my going to a doctor and saying "it hurts when I do this" and the doctor says "no it doesn't, that's impossible". That's you.
You have evidence that hands in fire directly correlates to pain and hurt. There is still no evidence of this god person/thing.
You're dismissing my testimony out of hand. Therefore, I'm not at all certain why you're continuing to talk to me about my experiences. You're telling me that I have not experienced what I do know that I have experienced. And you're attempting to do so with authority. It's insane.
If you'd like to measure God's impact on my brain, I'd encourage you to do so. You'll find it, if you're brave enough to conduct the study. Something tells me, though, that the greater body of the religion of science will decry it as heresy. It's real none-the-less.
Isn't it odd that the religious become the Illuminati? The scientists dictate what one is allowed to feel, what one is permitted to believe, and persecute those who dissent? How far the mighty have fallen, and how much the children resemble their fathers, eh?
Child porn is not used to commit harm, like plutonium would probably be. Child porn is evidence of already committed harm.
Outlawing the possession of evidence of a crime is so nonsensical as to be actually harmful to investigating crimes.
I mean, if I was on some of the...um...less legal torrent sites, and instead of showing naked adults, they started showing naked children, what would I do?
Well, in a universe where we had sane laws, I might report it.
In this universe, I'm clearing my cache and history, closing my browser, and wiping my hard drive's free space. Because I am, in actual fact, in violation of the law until I do that. And I certainly won't report it, as I am not omnipotent and have no idea if I missed something and are still in violation of the law. Hell, even if I was no longer in possession, telling the police would be a confession I was in possession.
The law literally says 'If you have evidence of child abuse, you are committing a felony until it is destroyed.'. That is the actual law.
It is really insane that people think this somehow protects children.
In fact, I'm really surprised when I hear that 'someone was turned in when a computer shop discovered child porn on his computer'. I just want to ask the TV 'So you're saying that the computer shop was in possession of child porn and told the police that? Real real smart. Good thing the police like you and didn't charge you with that felony.'
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yes, but those weren't operated by the temple. Those were just hucksters taking advantage of people who'd come long distances
You’re incorrect. Or, at the very least, the activity was condoned by the Temple and the priests actively helped it to take place (and probably profited tidily from it too).
There was a big racket going on where people couldn’t use Roman currency to pay their Temple tax (because the priests had decided it was “unclean”, which wasn’t written anywhere in the Jewish law – though much Jewish law wasn’t written, of course, since the priests had the authority to enforce whatever they decided).
As a result, the people had to go to money-changers who exchanged their money for Temple money at extortionate margins of profit for themselves. Whether or not this was explicitly operated by the Temple, it was certainly condoned and the priests and money-changers were all in on it together.
Similarly you couldn’t offer just any-old-animal, it had to be certified and approved by the priests, who were in cahoots with the people selling “certified” sacrifice animals. So if you brought your own animal, perfectly in-line with the standards set forth in the law, most likely the priests would still manage to find something wrong with it. And who wants to bring an animal some hundred miles or so anyway? So the people selling animals had a similar racket going where they could charge exorbitant prices and get away with it, all condoned by and coordinated with the Temple itself.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
If that were your point, you expressed yourself poorly. In the post you reference, your sentence "In other words, if you want to be rational about it, then the only defensible position is agnosticism, not atheism." is an absurd false dichotomy - agnosticism is a epistemological position, while atheism is a position of personal belief. The two are orthogonal and compatible with one another. I believe that theism is irrational, so the binary alternative of atheism (I feel I must remind you that the word simply means "not theism") is the rational choice.
Moving on, and using your definition atheists who are "marked by militant or crusading zeal", most such atheists still do not fit your strawman that all of them are positive atheists. I'm not even sure that there's a correlation between zeal and positive versus negative atheism. For an example of a prominent atheist who might fit your zeal definition, Richard Dawkins does not hold a positive atheism belief- see his book "The God Delusion." Ascribing religious beliefs to a person that they do not hold is typically offensive to anyone, not just atheists. This makes particularly offensive your use of the particular strawman you're attempting to portray a diverse group as consisting entirely of.
I think you misunderstand what he says, as is often the case since you are going in with a negative view. Where do you get he had "no problem" with slave-owners? Perhaps your idea of slave and his differ?
Whether they were "operated by the temple" or not matters not. If it was wrong, as it obviously was by his reaction, the priests should have done something (anything?) about it. Similar to how event hosts (stadiums, etc.) do something about scalpers and hucksters. If they did nothing, they would in effect be condoning it since it is happening on the grounds of said event.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
God came to me in a dream last night. He told me that not all abortions are created equal, people are stupid for trying to codify into law what is and is not an "acceptable" abortion, and the only ones who should be involved in any given abortion decision are Himself, the mother, her doctor, and if the mother so desires, the father as well.
-- "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I would say it more accurate that I am an anomaly in the world, period. It seemed to me all the rich people went to the big church when I was a kid just to make an appearance - it put me off from going to a church for years.
But things are rarely truly as they seem. Many of those same rich people probably think they mean well, and didn't realize they were lost.
I take the Bible literally. That shouldn't scare you. That is the only way one should take it. However, context is important. Some people think that just because it is in the Bible, it is condoned by GOD. For example, there is murder (Cane and Able), but that doesn't mean it is righteous.
You have to want to see the truth, in order to understand the Bible. Many people just want to read some words and receive conformation they are "good people". But we aren't, we are all sinners. That doesn't stop them from twisting words to suit their interests, instead of GOD's - whether they claim to be believers or not.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Anyone who wished to tell you not to stereotype are just trying to tear down your defenses and brainwash you. Perhaps they are just spreading the brainwashing they themselves received, but that is what it is.
Does that mean you shouldn't judge an individual on their own merits? Of course not!
The KKK was started (as most groups) with what they believed to be good intentions. However, after learning some of the history that you will not see on T.V. or in school, from family members who have since left the organization, I am aware that poisoning the well is precisely what happened. This KKK is where I actually learned that it happens.
I am not defending the KKK, just that they were not intending to be as evil as they in effect became or are portrayed. What is scary, is that now our government is being so brazen as to be open about what they are doing... I first read this on Slashdot but I can't seem to locate the article. This may be about a different Czar as I read it they wanted to infiltrate grassroots organizations. But anyhow - http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
I think the media is used as a tool to confuse and divide. The truth is, many Americans are much more moderate than the Boob Tube would lead one to believe. I don't care if they are an old white lady from Louisiana, or a drug dealing gangsta on the run from the California law - most agree with and understand the truth and commons sense when discussed alone and away from the crowd.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
He said obey the laws of the land, each and every one. (Of course not the ones that go against GOD's commands.. ) That doesn't mean they were just laws... just that one should obey those laws - Why do you think such a thing would be commanded?
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Oh, and rendering what is Caeser's to him is not the same thing as supporting him. It does mean (among other things) if you partake of what is Caeser's, then prepare to play by his rules.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
We are supposed to respect the sabbath and not work. Others serving us tea, coffee and cookies to make a living is not respecting it just because "we" are not working.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Oh, no, it can. You could map the corresponding brain waves today, I'm certain.
Again, how does having your brain waves be different prove god? Hell people hear voices in their heads all the time and as a general rule we consider it mental illness.
Remember god by most definitions is supernatural and infinite, you cannot provide evidence of something that is infinite or supernatural, the claim itself of god is illogical.
To stand atop a pinnacle and proclaim that we know all there is to know is folly. Any true scientist should never, ever allow that to come to pass.
I never did that, where did I do that pray tell?
I am saying you cannot provide evidence of claims that are illogical and/or vague, How can you provide evidence for/against anything when you don't even _know_ what that thing is in clear non-vague terms.
Essentially god is an intellectual cop-out, instead of figuring out how things work it is far easier to just go 'that is the way god intended' or god did x/y/z when in fact other things did it
You're dismissing my testimony out of hand. Therefore, I'm not at all certain why you're continuing to talk to me about my experiences.
I am saying that your feelings do not amount to objective evidence. If it were it could be easily repeated by anyone.
If you'd like to measure God's impact on my brain, I'd encourage you to do so. You'll find it, if you're brave enough to conduct the study.
Placebos make people feel better too, yet do not do what is described of them. Your belief changes the way you think, congratulations, doesn't provide evidence your belief has any substance.
Isn't it odd that the religious become the Illuminati? The scientists dictate what one is allowed to feel, what one is permitted to believe, and persecute those who dissent?
Bullshit, people are entitled to feel what they want and think what they want, but when they claim what they believe is rational when they are being irrational it helps to point out their logical flaws.
Also, you mistake this as persecution. If a child said 2+2=5, would I be persecuting them for correcting them? You say belief in god can be rational, I am merely pointing out the flaws with that logic.
You seem to have many fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and reason, and seem to have taken what I have said personally. If anything it's better if you have these things pointed out and accept them and still have faith in your religion regardless. Nobody can argue with you when you know there is no objective evidence to support god and still believe anyway.
Basically, claims without supporting evidence (god) piss people off, especially those of the very picky logical type that tend to take up science.
The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder.", not "Thou shalt not kill."
Armed rebellion and taking on evil like the Nazi's is not exactly the same thing. True, taking on the Nazi's was an armed rebellion, but not the same thing as Martin Luther King Jr. rallying people together with guns. One was based on defense against genocide of millions of others as well possible death to self, the other on rebelling against unjust authority.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
You are doing it wrong. You just confused probably +95% of anyone who tried to read that. It doesn't have to be that complicated. You probably confuse yourself and don't even realize it.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
But turning science into a religion by representing that it can prove that God does not exist is the ultimate hubris.
Of course you can't prove god does not exist (never said you could), just as you can't prove god does exist, because the claims itself are that illogical and vague.
Christians are against changing the meaning of a word and devaluing what it means. A bond between a man and a woman.
It matters little when the word we use today was invented, the concept was introduced with Adam and Eve. That is what it is, like a rose is a rose. I'd get upset if you called it stinkbush, as it would cause confusion for no good reason.
The reason why they didn't want a state religion was for freedom of religion, not so that religion would not have any influence of the state. That idea is preposterous. Just look at the wording of many of the documents used by the founding fathers. Unfortunately that idea is spread around by those who are evil with the intent to confuse.
Not sure what relokgious is, but judging by "perdson" I would say you were letting your frustration get in the way of you saying someone who is religious is not deserving of respect. The thing is, we all deserve respect, yes even a KKK member. How else will you ever get him to respect you? Love is the only power that can conquer hate my friend.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
I think his theory is based on the observation that once the law got involved, it was then opened to attempts to be twisted and distorted into something it isn't, confusing people and having fruitless discussion that really shouldn't command time as it is ludicrous when you think about it.
Maybe you are right, it will never change. That doesn't mean he is wrong, and that is not the way it should be. Always stick to your principals, or you are apt to fall for anything.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Placebos make people feel better too, yet do not do what is described of them. Your belief changes the way you think, congratulations, doesn't provide evidence your belief has any substance.
This is that unfair standard that I was referring to earlier.
If my belief makes me feel better, how can it have no substance? For if it were truly false, and imagined from whole cloth, would I not need to be lying to you about my perceptions? Even at this minute level I can demonstrate how my belief is a benefit to me, and therefore my belief itself exists. Since you have no grounds on which to question my sanity and I can point to discernible benefit, which of us is on more solid ground, exactly? You could try and make claims as to the source of this benefit. Perhaps it is self-fulfilling. Perhaps it is cosmic Karma. Perhaps something else entirely. But you're not doing that. You're flat out claiming that it does not exist. That's not science, that's religion.
You seem to have many fundamental flaws in your understanding of science and reason, and seem to have taken what I have said personally.
People tend to do that under ad hominem attacks. You've taken to insulting me subtly rather than to address even a single point I've raised. Perhaps this is by design, or perhaps you simply cannot understand me.
The burning bush was presented to a man who was a believer. You are not a believer. In other words, would you even know GOD if you saw him? The Bible teaches we know GOD through the things that are unseen, i.e. invisible. If you rely on your eyes alone, you will never find him.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
The interest of his state is the truth. Perhaps he knows more than you do if he believes the earth is 6,0000 years old? No, he is only a senator, it isn't possible. Mountains prove everything. If someone has an STD it proves they had sex, there is no other possibility like they were born with it.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Hey BobMcD - can you email me at my throw-away email and then reply here please? I will respond from my personal. I really appreciate how you (actually) think, and you may be interested in a project I am working on.
junk(dot)jason(AT)gmail.com
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Action or inaction, either is a choice. So is believing and not believing. I don't know or agnosticism is reserving judgment until you receive more facts. All are a choice. Athiests on the other hand want others to believe that there is no way possible that something (i.e. GOD) could exist, without having been to every corner of the universe. That idea is as sound as the Sun revolving around the Earth.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
I don't understand this question in the context of your post and link. But to answer it, no, I recognize that our sensing devices (biological or technological) can give us input which our brains misinterpret.
What Penn is saying is that, from the moral point of view of a theist who believes in eternal life or damnation, evangelism is imperative. He doesn't respect the non-evangelist because they don't fully embrace their belief system. He still thinks their belief system is nutty. Basically what he's saying is that the non-evangelist is a hypocrite. And I'm not sure how that acts as a counterpoint to what I said. My position is that the evangelist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
The funny thing about computers is, never say never. Anything built has a fault or weakness. But you first would have to have an open mind to ever escape your prison. I think being caught up in the world's lies and confusion is similar to a Romulan Holodeck actually. (Similar to how the Matrix was an interpretation of the Bible.) Even if I am still inside, I know I will be leaving eventually.
Thanks for the new word by the way - Antitheist. It is always good to be clear and precise.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Sorry, but that is as absurd as balancing the rights of the victim against the innocent. If it meant a guilty man had to walk, let him before you incarcerate an innocent man. That is why we have due-process.
My rights end, where yours begin. We all have a right to life, and choosing to take one's (the unborn) is like choosing to take an innocent man's away just to punish the guilty. Is it bad the guilty walks? Sure, but it is a graver tragedy that the innocent perish.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Christians don't want marriage being turned into something it is not. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with not wanted something to be perverted into something it isn't. That is a strong word, but fits the definition.
You confuse religious with GOD fearing. I can religiously read Slashdot. I can religiously spread hate under the guise of GOD. That doesn't mean I spread truth.
One can be religiously athiest, but would you be here saying "Whither goes atheist persons also goes death and tyranny."? Just because someone claims to believe in a GOD doesn't mean they wouldn't do the same sort of things without claiming to believe in GOD. History proves that.
Backwards thinking is the product of confusion and lies from Satan. Seek the truth and you will find it. Or, believe what you see and read with scant and incomplete evidence and little real thought to the validity of things of this world.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Firstly, no, states have always been in charge of marriage, so the Federal government banning it would be a massive power grab.
Second, the Supreme Court has actually recognized marriage as a fundamental right, and it's unlikely they'd let the Federal government take it away.
Thirdly, states would just rename it something else and keep issuing licenses to exactly the same people they issued licenses to before, and no one else.
If you're about to say 'there could be a law about that'...there actually is a law about that. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender without an 'exceedingly persuasive justification'.
Without said justification, it is illegal to, for example, ban a man from doing something a women can do...like marry a man. Marriage laws that do not allow same sex marriage are already illegal, and have been so since the 'Intermediate scrutiny' test required for discrimination based on sex set in 1976. It's just that no one noticed this until recently.
Erasing all the laws about marriage and attempting to make the states start over would just piss everyone off, quite possibly not legally work, and certainly wouldn't require the states to start letting people write contracts that allow people to visit them in hospitals as 'family'.
The entire idea is preposterous from start to end.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I tried to find the one about the woman trespassing with the purpose of seeing him naked, and I am pretty sure I read it on Slashdot as well as somewhere else. But I often can't find articles I am looking for on Slashdot...
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Eric Williamson was making coffee in his kitchen Monday morning and didn’t thing anything of the fact that he was nude since he was alone in the house... But a woman and her 7-year-old son happened to be strolling through his front yard and saw the 29-year-old having breakfast in the buff through his window
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Originally it was reported that the incident took place on Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 at FIVE THIRTY in the morning, and the guy appeared first through the window in the front door and then in a front window, and the woman was cutting through his front yard (i.e. trespassing).
In updates to the story, apparently the woman had changed her story... now it apparently happened at EIGHT THIRTY, she WASN’T trespassing in his yard, and he was standing OUTSIDE in his carport.
With respects to the time it occurred: He claimed it was dark. Sunrise for Arlington, VA (~6 mi. from Springfield, where this occurred) was at 7:22 AM on 10/19/2009. If he’s telling the truth about it being dark, there is no way it could have possibly happened at 8:30 in the morning.
From the updated news report by Fox 5 News, a police spokesperson said: “Because this was being spun into a national story, and the idea you can't be naked in your own house – we wanted to come forward and say in this case our officers believed there was probable cause the law had been violated”. I wonder why? Could it possibly have been because the woman who reported the incident turned out to be “a respected member of the community, and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer”?
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
We are supposed to respect the sabbath and not work. Others serving us tea, coffee and cookies to make a living is not respecting it just because "we" are not working.
But the sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday. Besides, the coffee is served by volunteers. The vicar gets paid, though. So that might be an issue if you want to go overboard on this.
If my belief makes me feel better, how can it have no substance?
Are you trying to say your personal feelings are objective evidence?
You could try and make claims as to the source of this benefit. Perhaps it is self-fulfilling. Perhaps it is cosmic Karma. Perhaps something else entirely. But you're not doing that. You're flat out claiming that it does not exist. That's not science, that's religion..
Again, you are putting words in my mouth as you have done prior and I still don't appreciate it and dislike having to refute things I never actually said.
I never said that having beliefs without evidence (faith) could not wind up helping people psychologically (people lie to themselves all the time to their benefit), only that it is irrational.
You've taken to insulting me subtly rather than to address even a single point I've raised.
This is because I don't bother to reply to points you bring up that I have not raised, how i supposedly somewhere said that it can be proven god doesn't exist (when I said that it can't be) and other such things.
It is difficult to talk with someone when they completely don't understand what you are talking about and put words in your mouth that have very different meanings to what you are actually saying.
Look at what I have said again, and you will see most of what you are talking about is making assumptions that I am saying things I am not.
Something I wrote earlier for someone else that you may like (or dislike).
This comes down to a lack of understanding of how science fundamentally works. Models are created where testing can be done whose results can support or detract the model. If results indicate the model is flawed in some aspect a new model is created that tries to take into account why those specific results differed from the old model.
Science never claims to know every aspect of any given thing, it is objective and presents our current knowledge based from what we have observed as evidence so far. As we learn more our models change, this is learning and progress. Unlike faith science takes interesting observations to yield more understanding of the way things function. If something is wrong it can be proven wrong.
Saying that god exists is like saying we're all really in the matrix right now. There is no supporting evidence, just like any other out there untestable idiotic idea. To give it any credence at all is to invite delusion.
What you really want, is for people to be open to new evidence that goes contradictory to what people already believe (that there is a god) but we have already established that no supporting evidence is even possible for god because of the nature of the assertion.
To say that you are open to evidence there is a god does not mean you give it any probablility at all (0) until such time as evidence is provided.
Saying 'well there COULD be a god' without evidence is a cop out. Even the slightest belief without evidence is a farce to science in general.
That tiny bit of scepticism implies that you recognize that you're not in full possession of the facts, and that you could be wrong.
Those who follow reason and evidence _are_ skeptical of everything, that is how we got into this 'there is no reason to believe in god' business initially anyway. Part of being skeptical is not entertaining ideas seriously that have no evidence. Absolutely anything COULD be wrong even against all evidence for it for things that do have evidence, doesn't mean we will entertain the idea it is false until such evidence appears.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In other words, if I put in $100k and got back $200k worth of services, it'd be 200% efficient?
I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. But given your lack of understanding of how health insurance is supposed to operate, it doesn't surprise me.
It doesn't matter that some people who put in never take back out. What matters is what happens to what is taken in. If 90%-95% of that goes back out to the people, even if not the same people, it is 90%-95% efficient.
How is it absurd? Saying that people have a right to live doesn't help much when the discussion is about what a person is. Is a clump of cells of questionable viability already a person? I'd say not. A fetus that's practically ready to be born? I'd say it is.
So the limit for abortion should lie somewhere in between those two. But banning abortions before the 12th week is just silly. Just like abortions after week 26 (for anything other than really strong medical reasons) would be inhuman.
-- xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The point was that using the same exact word puts the civil and religious sides of the coin on apparently-equal footing.
No, it doesn't. A religious marriage is *right now today* utterly meaningless under the law. Only the civil institution of marriage has any meaning whatsoever under the law.
Since, clearly, you can't even come up with a different word for it when the civil sense is meant, apart from the same word that the religious folks have been using for the past several centuries.
Why would I come up for a different word? If anybody has a right to the word it's the civil folks not the religious ones. It's been used in the civil sense since long before these hate-mongers' religion was even invented. That's what you fail to get and they lie about routinely. Anyhow, you're completely failing to even make a point with any of this. We *already* have two institutions, but only the civil one matters at all, so adding gays into that is far and away the easiest way and the fairest way with no downside whatsoever.
I don't care if the law puts gay marriage on the same level as straight marriage. But some churches sure as hell never will, and as long as that's the case (and as long as the law is still co-opting the word they're using for it, which is immeasurably stupid) there will be no end of strife.
Strife created entirely by the religious nutters based solely upon their vile ignorant hatred which as you yourself pointed out has no basis in the law. So let those whiny little hate-mongering bitches whine all they like, but they have fuck all right to do anything about it except to whine.
Tell me: What's so fucking important about the word "marriage" that gay people need to use it to feel like they have equality?
Because that's the word which describes that sort of relationship, duh. They absolutely do *have* to use it to have equality. Your arguments were shot to shit when the racist scum tried using them to keep blacks out of schools. You put yourself in very disgusting company when you do that. Why should decent hard-working Americans need to scrabble for second class status when they have an absolute right to first class status? Why would you recommend that to appease nazi scum? Sorry, Sparky, but I don't believe in negotiating with terrorists.
The only reason for it is to force churches to recognize legitimacy
Wow, now out of a lot of stupid and deeply ignorant things you've said, this is far and away the most stupid and ignorant. Churches will be 100% absolutely unaffected by this and there is no fucking possible way that they could be. It's called the first amendment. You might want to try reading it and learn a little bit about the laws of the country you live in. The government will be forced to recognize the legitimacy as it should, but your idiotic assertion that not only is it the evil gays out to hurt the poor bigots, but that that is all they are after when it's blatantly fucking obvious to all of the sane people that that can not possibly happen. Yeah, I'm getting a serious racist/bigot vibe off of you. You're arguing their line to the fucking letter, Adolph.
I've read a lot of comments about how it's "dangerous" to report this sort of thing. I'm gonna need to see some proof of that. A news story would be helpful.
The law contains a safe harbor provision. "Promptly reporting in good faith to law enforcement" is an affirmative defense. I seem to recall from the recent Wikipedia admin drama that there is another statute somewhere stating that it is illegal NOT to report it as well.
If someone can link to an article describing someone being arrested for reporting something, please post it. According to the Cyber Tip line, their site alone has received over 835,000 reports of illegal porn. I highly doubt those people are going to prison for it. If they were, nobody would report it.
Re:Aw thanks...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What's so fucking important about the word "marriage" that gay people need to use it to feel like they have equality?
Because that's the word which describes that sort of relationship, duh.
No, that's the word which describes the relationship between a man and a woman. Nice try.
Churches will be 100% absolutely unaffected by this and there is no fucking possible way that they could be.
Other than the fact that the ONLY reason that gays want "marriage" licenses is so that they can wave it in front of churches saying "neener neener, you said we couldn't have it but we did anyway!" This is obvious from the fact that any PERFECTLY good solution that doesn't involve calling it "marriage" gets IMMEDIATELY shot down by those such as yourself.
Yeah, I'm getting a serious racist/bigot vibe off of you.
And I'm getting a serious anti-Christian bigot vibe from you.
You're arguing their line to the fucking letter, Adolph.
Godwin's law is fulfilled. This argument is over. You lose.
Yes, that's the one I recall - woman walking her kid to the bus stop yes? Dark outside, light inside? If so he was lit up like a Christmas tree to anyone outside. Appeared in a window of his door and front window... Hrm!
Now the time discrepancy is interesting. If she cannot recall the time exactly then obviously she didn't call right then and there. He seems to know where he was when he was naked, perhaps not a stretch. I have been known to walk around naked in my place too - but not in front of windows in bright light when it's dark out!
anyway, the truth is likely somewhere in between and a matter of perception. He thinks it was no big deal he was in his home, his neighbors on the other hand who can possibly see right in might think it's awful. Was it intentional? Only he knows for sure but obviously he wasn't keeping his windows covered very well. I wonder how the case turned out?
Oh and no it doesn't surprise me that somehow a police officer's wife is somehow more credible. If I see one more "thin blue line" sticker on a car I'm going to puke.
A theist believes in the existence of god. An atheist is a person who is not a theist. Therefore, an atheist does not believe in the existence of god. An atheist doesn't have to believe in the non-existence of god.
Agnostic however, is spot on. It literally means "not one who knows".
The fact of the matter was that she was apparently trespassing.
Oh and no it doesn't surprise me that somehow a police officer's wife is somehow more credible.
It’s not about her credibility. It’s about the credibility of the department when the public gets outraged over something stupid like this. Suddenly they’re rushing to cover their asses. If it were just a nobody, they’d have admitted it was stupid and the matter would have been dropped. But since it was a cop’s wife, they had to justify it.
Plus her story starts changing to make it sound more reasonable, which isn’t good for her credibility either... but that’s unrelated to her being a cop’s wife.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
An atheist is a person who is not a theist. Therefore, an atheist does not believe in the existence of god. An atheist doesn't have to believe in the non-existence of god.
If you think that having a theistic outlook on the world is irrational, prove it. Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be gods in the universe.
OK, I'll give it a shot.
I originally wrote this for a slightly different audience so please forgive any digressions.
I work strictly from definitions here, because you can be sure something that you reason about from your own definitions is correct. Whether those definitions also accurately describe what they are commonly understood to mean is something we can discuss.
Truth: something which follows from its assumptions (definitions).
"Henry VIII reigned for 57 years" is an empirical belief, and cannot ever be known to be true or false.
"If Henry VIII ever reigned, then he must have reigned for some time" is a valid truth, since it follows from the used definitions that it cannot be other than true.
"I see that black rock there" cannot definitely prove that the black rock was indeed there; it only proves that you saw a black rock there. You cannot prove that you experience anything to any other person, but it is undoubtedly true that you are experiencing what you are experiencing.
Truth itself is a definition. It is the word or concept we use to refer to that which follows from other definitions we have made.
Cause: something which has an effect, and "creates" that effect.
Necessary cause:
a cause which is necessary for an effect to arise; without the cause, the effect would not occur.
Your having a heart is a necessary cause for your continued survival. If you remove the heart, the continued survival does not occur; therefore it is a necessary cause.
Me not killing you is a necessary cause for your continued survival.
(These may not be literally necessarily true, but you get the idea)
Sufficient cause:
a cause which can create an effect, but is not the only possible cause which could do so.
Me buying a burrito at Taco Bell is a sufficient cause for them making money today.
Me kicking my monitor in is a sufficient cause for it to stop working right.
God: the creator of all things.
Totality:
everything without exception. Any thing you might conceive of as being outside of the Totality, is by this definition a part of the Totality.
Thing: some object that can be distinguished from the Totality.
That which can be distinguished from what is not that thing.
That which has a boundary of some sort delineating it from the Totality.
Finite: not the Totality; bounded. Any thing, as defined, meets this definition of finite.
Infinite: Utterly without boundaries. No thing can be infinite by definition. By this definition, the Totality is infinite -- utterly without boundaries.
A finite thing X must have one necessary cause, that cause being that which is not it: not-X.
This is because if you remove not-X, then X itself disappears. X relies on not-X to give it boundary and definition. Removing not-X removes that boundary and definition. Therefore not-X is a necessary cause for X.
Therefore, any given thing is caused.
Therefore, all things are caused, and are also finite.
It is interesting to observe that any time we conceive of X, we also have implicitly conceived of what is not X. We draw up a boundary between X and not-X. This conceiving could therefore be called a necessary cause of X's existence.
If we conceive of God as an entity of some type, with some attributes, then God is a thing. He has a defined boundary between what is him and what is not him.
Therefore, if God is a thing, he is finite.
Therefore, if God is a finite thing, he has a cause.
Being thusly caused, then by definition, this finite God cannot be the creator of all things, since he himself has a necessary cause (at least, "not-God").
In all honesty, I replied without checking and just assumed. I am surprised, but I still don't think it matters. The etymology of the word is not necessarily the best indication of current meaning
As it stands, I go by my previous comments. Atheists(weak) have a skeptics view of god, which is consistent with the scientific approach.
Agnosticism takes a fence sitting approach, which is BS. You may as well take an agnostic approach to Sagan's Dragon. Why? Why not assume it doesn't exist until there is some reason to consider it even might?
http://bit.ly/gxQTit is a fairly concise view I found interesting, and sums it up nicely.
As for the current meanings of the word, the wiki page on atheism explains the meanings of weak and hard atheism quite well, with weak atheism being what you are describing.
P.S. Kudos on the anti APK work
-- If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
1st of all I wasn't siding with them somehow making her out to be more credible. Lookup thin blue line and perhaps that will be clearer.
2nd of all - was she trespassing? Where does it say that? Is walking in front of the home at the sidewalk trespassing? Window in front was indeed apparently across the street from a bus stop. If what he says is true and it was dark then umm he was lit up like a Christmas tree to those outdoors - surely you have seen this before? Friends say he was drunk, nah he says he was drunk the night before. Hellooo? Maybe still a little drunk or maybe just hung over not thinking? Do you see no concern about a guy spotlighting himself naked in front of a school bus stop at all? No potential for issue here?
In any case clearly not as cut and dry as some dude was in his house naked and arrested for it and she did not stand on tippy toe in his backyard for a peek. The truth is somewhere in between...
I would say quite the opposite. Its the American religious right that are the anomaly.
If you look around the world the countries the countries with the highest standards of personal freedom (especially freedom of speech and worship) are disproportionately those which are either Christian or used to be Christian.
It is also noticeable that the decline in personal freedom in the west has followed the decline in Christianity. The UK used to be Christian and have very good personal freedom. It is now largely agnostic and atheist and has much lower levels of personal freedom.
It is very obvious from your post that you are looking at a very non-representative sample. Most Christians are not biblical literalists, only US type fundamentalists. Most Christians are in fact Catholics and Catholic biblical literalists are very rare.
By that logic the Nazi soldiers that attempted to overthrow Hitler were sinners, because they ignored Jesus' word. Jesus said pay taxes, but never said you should bow to a tyrant that is suppressing people,
Not bowing to a tyrant doesn't automatically mean you need to kill him. Jesus had no problem disobeying harmful rules of his society. He healed people on the sabbath, prepared food, etc. But his resistance is more one of Gandhi-style resistance. He wanted to do what's right, and show others his example, and not let the rules of society stop him from doing what's right. He didn't attempt to overthrow the Romans, or even the Jewish theocracy.
Lookup thin blue line and perhaps that will be clearer.
I know what thin blue line means, but I’ve not seen the sticker you’re referring to so I don’t know whether the sticker is advocating or opposing the concept.
2nd of all - was she trespassing? Where does it say that?
WTOP: “it was 8:40 a.m. when she was walking her son to school along a path between houses.” The Week: “a woman cutting through his yard with her son saw Williamson drinking coffee, naked, in his kitchen” MyFoxDC, after his acquittal: “One of those women was taking a shortcut with her daughter through Williamson's yard”
What’s more, that report by MyFoxDC tells that in the trial, the information came to light that though the woman and police claimed she was ~25 feet from the door when she saw him, defense claims to have proven that she was more than 3 times that distance, 83 feet from the door.
Additionally, “By the time the jury found him not guilty, six months had passed and Williamson had been laid off, lost visitation rights with his young daughter and racked up $15,000 in legal bills.” One would hope that they made right, but that’s an awful lot of grief over drummed-up charges.
And perhaps most worrisome: “police testified that a broken window pane in Williamson's door gave them cause to enter. Williamson and his attorney say nothing was broken.” – as is all-too-typical, police fabricated cause to perform an illegal search without warrant. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from this sort of behavior: They’re never punished for it if the jury decides the search was illegal, but if they can convince the jury to allow the evidence, they benefit.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Agnosticism is a bit more rounded out than you make it appear to be. It’s more than just fence-sitting, it’s the position that since nobody has proven that God exists or doesn’t exist, that fact alone is sufficient to prove that if he does exist, he’s irrelevant (if he were relevant, one ought to be able to prove he does exist) and if he doesn’t exist of course he’s irrelevant anyway.
So if you took the agnostic approach to Sagan’s Dragon, or anything else, unless it can be proven to exist it shouldn’t make any difference to you. Or, to borrow an analogy I saw someone use (can’t remember who) if you claim that invisible pink elephants live in your garage, that claim is adequate to prove that invisible pink elephants actually live in your garage: as long as those invisible pink elephants stay invisible and don’t affect anything in any real sense. If you define them in such a way that they’re completely irrelevant, it really doesn’t matter anymore whether you believe in them or not.
In other words, atheists believe God doesn’t exist, while agnostics simply believe God isn’t relevant (regardless of him existing or not). Functionally, they both act like God more or less doesn’t exist; the primary difference tends to be that atheists tend to be more evangelical about it, whereas agnostics tend to really not care what someone else believes as long as they’re not pushing it on people.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I have always wondered if that was true about Saturday... heard contradictions, etc.
I am not familiar with the term vicar, but a quick lookup and I have to say I have an issue with anyone getting paid and others not. People in the church should get paid for teaching and things related to commencing that imho. But hey, I know they do things differently over there in England.
Here, we have a Wed. night dinner for $4, but that goes to the church itself and not directly to the Pastor.
I dislike so many words in the English language, or maybe a little more precisely how we've been conditioned to misuse them; most often negatively. For me, things are rarely overboard, at least as people use the the word. If that is the rule, that is the rule, for example. Do not bend the rule. If the rule is bad, then change it. When you blur the line in the sand, after awhile there is no longer a line. Hence, I don't see how you can literally go overboard with a rule. Fail to recognize it is a failure, sure. But then call it that.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Language is confusing, I’ll grant you that. Several prefixes can mean multiple things, even contradictory things (for instance, in- may mean “not”, as in “indiscreet”, or it may mean “extremely”, as in “inflammable” – two entirely opposite meanings).
The prefix a- generally means “not” or “without”, but it can also mean “against” in a sense. And to fully confuse the issue, it can also mean to indicate that something is in the particular state indicated (i.e. aglow), or even the stronger concept that it is completely/fully so (i.e. abashed).
The word “atheist” means “not a theist” but in the sense that it is opposed to theism.
The word “agnostic” is formed from the same prefix (a-) with the word derived from the Greek “gnosis”, i.e. knowledge/enlightenment. And in the same sense that atheist meant “against theism”, agnostic means “against knowledge”: the belief that nobody has adequate knowledge or enlightenment to determine conclusively either one way or the other whether God exists.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I won't be surprised when drivers of vehicles with it on start to be targeted (with violence?) and others put it on their vehicle who are not in law enforcement. I thought this was a local thing when someone pointed it out to me. A quick Google shows it is national. There are so many words I can describe for this concept, but I am not even gonna try to begin.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
The police are setup with a backwards business model anyhow. Reward for collars only sets up a need for more crime, instead of reward for crime to collar ratio and reduction of overall crime.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
No, you said a problem with them (hucksters) does not indicate a problem with the priests. That would contradict what you said about making your point stronger?
You also didn't address where slavery was condoned...
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone. You've been trolling others here repeatedly, under the registered username of clone52431 (1805862) and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well. Time to put the shoe on the other foot now, yours.
I don't understand this question in the context of your post and link. But to answer it, no, I recognize that our sensing devices (biological or technological) can give us input which our brains misinterpret.
It was a reference to the comic, that the mountains prove what they imply that it does. And you are right, we misinterpret input and in the name of science make (often) wild claims. Same thing with "religion". Hopefully we all seek the truth enough that we don't make judgment without all the facts, or we reserve some judgment for when we make the mistake of doing so.
What Penn is saying is that, from the moral point of view of a theist who believes in eternal life or damnation, evangelism is imperative. He doesn't respect the non-evangelist because they don't fully embrace their belief system. He still thinks their belief system is nutty. Basically what he's saying is that the non-evangelist is a hypocrite. And I'm not sure how that acts as a counterpoint to what I said. My position is that the evangelist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
He never said the good man's belief system was nutty.
My position is that the atheist who effects real change in the world can (and usually does) do harm by infringing on others' rights.
I've never known a true Christian evangelist to infringe on anyone intentionally. (i.e. mistakenly enter somewhere prohibited, or something) Perhaps I should also mention I make the distinction between evangelizing and bigotedly pressing your ideas (not GOD's words), similar to how even atheists often do.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
So, do you believe that GOD sent some non-Christian agents to stop the Nazi's, or that obeying Christian's were also used to forcefully prevent global genocide?
I ask because this was debated with a friend of mine recently.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
I don't see Christianity as an organization. To me it is just something you are, specifically a believer that Christ is our savior. I think that implies many other things for that to be true though, not just mouthing the words.
And you are right; a thief is a thief, it doesn't mean he is in a thieves guild.
-- Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
You have a strange definition of efficiency. In my universe it's [money used on medical stuff by medicaid]/[money given to medicaid]. Doesn't matter if there is any relationship between the person giving and the person recieving. Or charities would be awfully close to 0%.
Look, I'm not going to say that it didn't suck and I never got to see the follow-ups on this, I appreciate you digging them up.
Depending upon where he lived folks cutting between houses to get to a bus stop isn't unreasonable. I live in the area and while not familiar with that specific neighborhood I am familiar with how homes are built around here in swaths and it doesn't surprise me that someone was cutting through the yard like that - there was probably even a worn path! Figuring out where they were actually walking should have been easy, they probably did it every single morning along with other children.
In the end justice was served, the guy was acquitted as he should have been. Frankly it should never have gotten to court and some prude woman shouldn't have called a cop, if her husband had had a clue he would have stopped her. I agree that they likely trumped up things to get into the home - honestly I wonder why they felt a need to search in the first place. I believe that they should be punished however as someone who has caught a cop dead to rights LYING in court I know better. Cops LIE and I've caught them at it twice inside of a courthouse, they really don't like it. If you've got the misconception that I lead the police cheer squad then you've never seen me post before:-)
As I said the truth is in-between. The woman did indeed see him, probably spotlighted by the dark outside and the bright inside. She was an idiot for making a big deal out of it and he wasn't too bright for having an uncovered window. Not too bright but not doing something criminally wrong - there's a difference.
In the end the guy got screwed and hopefully the police ended up looking damned foolish. Sadly the end result wasn't publicized nearly as much as the initial arrest. Case in point, I believe the arrest made Slashdot, the clearing of this guy did not! I think that sucks.
As for Thin Blue Line. http://www.amazon.com/Thin-Police-Sheriff-Decal-Sticker/dp/B003GD4FP4 This is a sticker that is displayed by family and by officers on their cars. It tells police officers that the person in the car is a "member of the club". I'm actually pretty surprised to find it available on Amazon as that wasn't the case when I first learned about it and explains the explosion of the damned things I see EVERYWHERE. As explained to me by a police officer's wife - if she is pulled over and can somehow let the officer know that she really is a member of the "club" she will likely be let go. Considering it worked twice for speeding tickets I'm aware of I believe her. She would simply keep her husband's business card with her license so that the officer would see it. It helped that she knew many of the people her officer worked with too and they recognized her car. I went ballistic when she told me about it and every time I see one of these - at least a few times a day when I drive - it irritates me. When she got her's she had to get it via her husband from work, looks like they have gotten more popular. Gee, wonder why? Between seeing police officers lie in court, fabricate evidence, lie to me on the street, not know the law, joke about targeting specific groups of people for fun, and this kind of crap I think it's safe to say that I am quite wary of anything having to do with the police. My respect for them is badly tarnished.
P.S. Having to SHOW an officer how to lift a print off of my car after it had been broken into was also award winning! Grrr....
Yeah but lets flip it. Lets say the cops only get rewarded for a bust that goes all the way through to prosecution. Think it's bad now when you call them after a vehicle break-in? They won't want to touch petty crime with low return rates at all if we flip it. Like they do anything now....
Want better police? Weed out the bullies, pay them better, educate them, hire more of them, get them off of traffic patrol (!!!), get them out of the cars and among the public. Those are suggestions off the top of my head It would be nice if the police weren't seen as a source of revenue for the county...
I have always wondered if that was true about Saturday... heard contradictions, etc.
Sabbath has always been Saturday, and it's pretty well documented as such. Christians just don't keep the sabbath (though there are exceptions), though many consider the Sunday some sort of replacement. Exactly how strictly it's observed can vary wildly. I have no problem going to a supermarket on Sunday.
I am not familiar with the term vicar, but a quick lookup and I have to say I have an issue with anyone getting paid and others not.
Vicar is what Google Translate suggested as the English translation for the Dutch word "dominee", but I'm just as fine with "preacher" or "reverend" or what have you. I don't grok the subtleties of any of those terms, I'm afraid. In any case, I'm talking about the guy (or girl) who generally leads the sermon, as well as taking care of the spiritual health of the members of the congregation. He doesn't just talk a bit on Sunday, it's a full-time job. Pouring coffee isn't. And neither are the dozens of other odd-jobs that somebody needs to do. What's so bad about volunteer work? And what's so bad about making sure the full-timers get some food on the table. (In my church professional musicians also get a bit (not much though). And amateur musicians don't. Nobody has a problem with that. Because for some people it's a (small part of a) job, for others it's a hobby.
People in the church should get paid for teaching and things related to commencing that imho.
If you pay everybody for every little thing that needs to be done, they'd have to institute mandatory (and pretty steep) membership fees. All churches I know of run on donations, and give much of that to various charities. Church is not a for-profit venture. Most people are happy to chip in simply as members of a community.
Open Source projects would die pretty quickly if everybody has to get paid for every line of code. It's a community thing.
If that is the rule, that is the rule, for example. Do not bend the rule. If the rule is bad, then change it. When you blur the line in the sand, after awhile there is no longer a line. Hence, I don't see how you can literally go overboard with a rule. Fail to recognize it is a failure, sure. But then call it that.
The rule in this case is generally interpreted as not working your ass off 7 days a week, but taking some time to relax and reflect regularly. Christianity is not a religion with hard, unbendable carved-in-stone rules. It's all about interpretation and how it works for you. The New Testament is actually pretty clear on that.
You realize that 'an affirmative defense' actually needs for you to be charged with possessing child porn, and go to court, and have a lawyer competently present that argument, right?
Affirmative defenses don't make things 'stuff you can't be arrested for', they make things 'if you can prove this in court, you're innocent'. Do not ignore the 'if you can prove this in court'.
The question isn't what normally happens, the question is what the police can choose to do.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Agnosticism may be more than just fence sitting, or it may have intended to have been, but these days when someone claims to be an agnostic they are either fence sitting or equivalent to a weak atheist.
I ask again, what is the point of being agnostic over weak atheism? Weak atheism is most in line with the scientific method, taking a skeptical approach.
Agnosticism is more than that, either implicitly speculating on the likelihood of gods existence, the relevance of gods existence, or both.
The problem with the pink elephant example is that while it may be irrelevant, we actually hamper education and knowledge by giving any credence whatsoever to ridiculous constructs. Why should god be any different until there is a reason for him to be?
Also, at the end there you fell into the trap of saying "Atheist believe". Atheists don't believe anything. That's what makes them atheists. Or, it should be.
-- If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
this all goes back to a situation/lawsuit 20 or more years ago. The situation was this: A man owned a house, but did not live in it. Since it was standing empty, but had some furnishings, people would break in and use/steal/otherwise mess up his property. He tried a number of things: lock changes, boards, etc. but the house was in a rural area and no one ever saw anything.
In desperation he (i forget whether he included a warning on the door for this last part) rigged up a shotgun on just above the floor in the front hallway aimed at the front door and triggered with a string from the door. Sure enough some damn fool broke in yet again and got shotgun pellets in his calves and ankles. owwey owwey
The property owner was sued and lost because he used excessive force to protect his property while his life and health were not at risk (at the same time risking the life and health of the criminal). Since that time there has been a reduction in the old "man's home is his castle" defense with different judges and different jurisdictions falling on different sides of the question.
Just last fall was the case of a man's car being bugged by a GPS device in his driveway (his personal property) by the FBI because of comments made by people who visited his Facebook page and had questionable political views (relating to Islam, US government and terrorism as this person and the commenters were all of middle-eastern extraction). The judge in the case ruled that the driveway was "public space." Ugly, folks, quite ugly.
-- Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
Anonymous Coward
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
Re:I wonder...
by
MonChrMe
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Speculation in a comments thread elsewhere that someone put 4chans IP address in the IRC server Anonops were using, calling it Bank of America.
It would be very amusing if 4Chan had managed to DDoS themselves.:)
That said, they've got so many enemies it's impossible to say.
4chan might be down forever.
by
partyguerrilla
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And nothing of value was lost.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Eudial
·
· Score: 2
Nothing was lost? The porn! MY PRECIOUS DEVIANT PORN! Oh how I miss thee, German* midget wrapped in a latex catsuit fighting off naked clowns with an oversized Q-tip!
* How do I know she was German? Well, the only people who create weird shit like that are the Japanese and the Germans. And she wasn't Japanese.
-- GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Turn-X+Alphonse
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
4chan is a fine site if you're on the right boards./m/ is probably the best Japanese robots resource on the Internet,/tg/ is an excellent resource for DMs to discuss their latest campaigns and have made enough contributions to various games that some of it has even leaked into official canon (Warhammer 40,000 for example).
While I agree -most- of 4chan is a shit hole, don't discount that it's many small communities under one banner. Everyone outside of/b/ hates/b/, people just think/b/ is 4chan, which is like saying the BNP is Britian.
-- I like muppets.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
BLKMGK
·
· Score: 2
I'd mod you but I've already posted:-( I knew that 4chan had some interesting boards that weren't full of crap but wasn't aware of the Robotics area. The Goonies in Eve have certainly proven to be entertaining:-)
-- Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
koinu
·
· Score: 0
German* midget wrapped in a latex catsuit fighting off naked clowns with an oversized Q-tip!
Moar of this one above, with pics and timestamps plz! Slashdot is the new/d/ as long as 4chan's down.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
kko
·
· Score: 1
You forgot/k/ (although you have to mentally filter out the wannabes).
-- No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
NoSleepDemon
·
· Score: 1
You say this, and although it is mostly true, there are aspects to 4chan other than horse porn and pedobear. For example, yesterday I went to get bindings for the snowboard my wife bought me for christmas, and before I left I asked anon on/sp/ (sport) for some advice on bindings and snowboarding. I got a decent number of replies and even a badly drawn but helpful MSPaint diagram on how to learn turns. So it's not quite *all* rubbish. The advantage of asking 4chan over other boards being that you are guaranteed a reply in about 1 minute or none at all.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
partyguerrilla
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention the infinite amount of computers/g/ has helped newbies build over the years. And how they've helped people get acquainted with the wonders of gentoo linux.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
discord5
·
· Score: 1
I knew that 4chan had some interesting boards that weren't full of crap but wasn't aware of the Robotics area.
Well, if you want to call anime robots "robotics"... I mean, Japan has a lot of nice robotics stuff going on, but Evangelion and Gundam are still fiction.
The Goonies in Eve have certainly proven to be entertaining:-)
Coincidentally, the geeks of/v/ (the videogame board on 4chan) have a couple of corps up and running in Eve as well, but have so far failed to wreak any real havoc due to bad organization and a relatively short attention span. Also, due to the nature of 4chan the group has far less cohesion than the goons. I believe that the lack of pools that can be closed in Eve is probably a significant barrier of entry for most of 4chans denizens.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well,/sci/ is definitely not a good science board. Sad but true.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Ziekheid
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Partly true. Eventhough I visit lots of other boards and some days really hate/b/ you just gotta love it sometimes./b/ actually is 4chan for a large part, it's the reason this article even gets posted.
As for being down, I was on there just before it went down and the mods were fucking up/b/ again by adding cotton eye joe music to the page and randomizing the colours making it hard to even view the page and about 10 minutes later the whole site was down.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
pclminion
·
· Score: 1
So, you are pro anonymous vigilante open DDoS war on the Internet, I take it? You don't mind seeing this kind of shit happen?
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
DurendalMac
·
· Score: 1
I'd like to interject for a moment...
/g/ is/b/ with a tech bent. There are still a monstrous load of trolls and more people seem interested in either giving people garbage computer builds as a joke or touting their own asperger's-induced, perceived self-superiority than helping anyone. 4chan has some better boards, but/g/ isn't one of them. Outside of the hardcore anime boards, it probably has the highest number of asperger's cases on 4chan, and not in a good way. We're talking about asspies bitching over minutia.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Windwraith
·
· Score: 1
Indeed, I am a/m/ regular, that's like a gentleman's club in comparison to the rest of the site./b/ is a craphole and only enjoyed by regulars there, IMO. Would be better if it was more comedy and less grotesque imagery or such.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A few months ago I asked/g/ a question and they started posting some anime child porn shit. Fuck that board, I'll never go back.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
MostAwesomeDude
·
· Score: 1
At the same time,/v/ is no longer about video games,/mu/ is useless for talking about real music, etc. The best board is easily/po/.
It's certainly a better place than DA for artists, but that's not saying much.
-- ~ C.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Cotton eye Joe? Dear god why.. You might as well pee on the third rail. Well at least i know why 4chan is down now.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Coren22
·
· Score: 1
I was kind of wondering what the Goons had to do with 4chan, but nice to know that/v/ has corps in Eve. At this point Goons are pretty much a non issue though, so not terribly concerned about them.
-- APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
U mad, though?
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
/b/ might not be all of it, but it's the best of it - BNP is the opposite of that. Hate of niggers notwithstanding.
Re:4chan might be down forever.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The shit of animated-porn children? Sacre bleu! Coprophiliacs!
Gov. black ops
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I would not be surprised.
Call for /b/lackup
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re:I know who's to blame
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
You jest, but it probably is. Word on the ghost boards is that moot put "Cotton Eye Joe" to play in the background to irritate/b/ and was generally acting a fag, so/b/tards (read:facebookfags who don't know that this is commonplace) fired up LOIC and fired at 4chan.org. Fucking idiots, shitting where they sleep.
Re:I know who's to blame
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
If they don’t know how to use AdBlock Plus, I don’t have much sympathy for them.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:I know who's to blame
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
This is why that board is absolute shit now. There used to be a time where we would love that song coming on, flashing yellow backgrounds, entire frontpage pinned, happy times. Now it is filled with actual kids from Myspace, Gaia, Bebo, Facebook and other homes of normal people that plague the site.
Sad times. Oh well, the other boards are still fairly good. Sad part is things like this happen because/b/ is part of 4chan. He should remove it from the site and put it under its own domain (IP AND server) for good. The rest of 4chan is actually quite decent. Even/v/ with the almost constant trolling, you get quite a few decent game threads most of the time, from Killing Floor to Minecraft.
Re:I know who's to blame
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No, it was OP, since he's a fag.
Re:I know who's to blame
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The trolls were bottled up in there fighting other trolls, now those trolls have no where to live, they'll be looking for new boards to cause havoc on, we are all doomed, doomed I tell you!
-- -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Re:YOU FOOLS!!!
by
dkleinsc
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The best known is "never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against 4chan when LOL's are on the line!"
-- I am officially gone from/. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Just like what happened when segfault.org went down - all the "Nude And Petrified" and "hot grits" crap started there, and when the parasites killed their host on segfault, they came to slashdot.
"Oops, our bad. Has nothing to do with your recent attempt on us, promise." - Amazon.com
-- There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
Re:I can see it now
by
SatanicPuppy
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Anonymous v. Cloud...
Round Three...
FIGHT!
-- ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Re:I can see it now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Funny
The result: Anonymous gets smeared into the shithole they emerged from by the mighty smile power of the cloud. They run home to mommy with broken masks in hand asking for another month's WoW subscription to make them less sad.
Re:I can see it now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Anonymous is a, well, anonymous, decentralized and disorganized group, and thus cannot be "defeated" Amazon is just too big to be taken down by such a group
Re:I can see it now
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What an epic battle though. It's like Rocky vs. Rocky.
Why is that ironic? Slashdot had anonymous contributors a decade before 4chan came about.
Re:Who submitted the story?
by
Chapter80
·
· Score: 2
"An anonymous reader writes"... Pure gold. I love the irony.
Why is that ironic? Slashdot had anonymous contributors a decade before 4chan came about.
Because Anonymous is the name of the group that is DDOSing sites. Get it?
Maybe not ironic. Maybe just funny. Or maybe not even that funny.
Re:Who submitted the story?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
He said it was ironic, not derivative.
As apprehended....
by
mseeger
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
One reason i thought those actions against Mastercard etc. to be stupid was, that it established DDOS as method of protest. I am afraid, we will see more of this in the future. In my textbook, DDOS is neiter a legal nor a legitimate form of protest but a criminal act. It doesn't matter wether the target is Wikileaks, Mastercard or 4chan.
Denial of Service has been a favored tactic used against the KKK and other undesirable groups for years. Why can't the same tactic be used against hate-filled corporations? To say "no you can't use the same tactics WE use" is as hypocritical as when cops say "you can't videotape us" while they erect video-cams everywhere.
-- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
While one may wish DDOS was illegal, the question is how do you word the laws?
Does going to a website accidentally count? Does following a/. link count? What about hitting refresh? What if your cat sleeps on refresh? Perhaps you have a misbehaving script. Or maybe your using ping to test your internet connection.
And the real legal question: how does one tell the difference between a DDOS and any of the above? Or should we just criminalize everything related to computers and the internet and be done with it?
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The people in it were unrelated until they all decided to send you mail.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Civil disobedience does nothing if it's not illegal. Every protest Gandhi did was illegal too. Can't play by the Man's rules if you want to beat him.;)
Good question, but probably depends on the laws in the country. If the prosecutor can proove that it was coordinated (e.g. someone called for or coordinated it) and it results in a postal service breakdown, the chances are in favor for a criminal offense. In reality this "attack" would already fail due to the costs and the manual labor by the attackers involved.
But in case of DDOS attack on a web site, the laws are quite clear on that issue. Several people already went to jail for that. And deserved to do so IMHO.
Both cases have nothing to do with each other. If a comparison was intended by your question, it is deeply flawed.
If the prosecutor can proove that it was coordinated (e.g. someone called for or coordinated it) and it results in a postal service breakdown, the chances are in favor for a criminal offense.
The frequently-used tactic of deliberately flooding congresscritters with explicitly intentioned postcards, letters, faxes and phone calls disagrees with you. Usually form letters, so theoretically sending a single petition signed by as many people would be just as effective, right?
If a comparison was intended by your question, it is deeply flawed.
How so? Apart from the minor detail that a legal distinction has been made where no real distinction exists, I mean.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
It's harassment if their intent is to cause nuisance. Asking them to stop helps prove your case, but it's not required for a crime or tort to have been committed against you.
I also would speak up against DDOS versus the KKK. The reason is, that the end doesn't justify the means. While you may get away with (due to public sympathy or the large number of acomplices), you are setting a bad precedent and moving onto a slippery slope. Being part of public outrage and being right may be two very different things.
CU, Martin
P.S. Concerning the videotaping of cops, i am 100% on your side. It has to be legal and if there were federal laws against it here in my country, i would fight those laws. Luckily it is currently moving the other direction: the cops in the capital must wear unique identifiers starting January 1st even if they are in full riot gear.
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
And the real legal question: how does one tell the difference between a DDOS and any of the above?
There are orders of magnitude difference in volume. If one person has a cat sleeping on refresh, that's a load that any of these heavy duty websites could trivially support. And they could temporarily block the client too. I imagine there's also coordination of thousands of machines and other indications that this is not an accident.
It's harassment if their intent is to cause nuisance.
Like sending a few million form letters, faxes, postcards, e-mails, and phone calls to a congressperson in the month before a vote?
Sure, you think you’re making a political statement, but he thinks it’s a nuisance. He’d greatly prefer you send a single giant petition with a few million signatures so that it could be much more easily ignored.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I will note that sending *letters* to congresscritters is largely useless these days due to how mail is handled for them. If it's a container (envelopes included) it's handled offsite with a significant delay.
Fax, website contact forms, email, and postcards are the connection methods of choice these days.
How so? Apart from the minor detail that a legal distinction has been made where no real distinction exists, I mean.
Flooding someone with snailmail does not prevent them from receiving more (even if it does make them harder). And it certainly does not prevent them from SENDING mail, while a DDOS affects the target from sending information out. A DDOS is more like dumping a truckload of mail across someone's front door, so they can't even leave the house, or more aptly like redialing someone's phone so they can't call out (which is illegal in some places).
-- .sig withheld by request
Re:As apprehended....
by
Pharmboy
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
That is also illegal, rightfully so, if you are blocking access to a business. That should be common knowledge. The SCOTUS already made that clear, that you can talk to people going in and out of the business, but you can't stop them from exercising their rights. An abortion clinic was the case the SCOTUS decided it on, but it applies to any business or organization.
-- Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:As apprehended....
by
rickb928
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I keep trying to find a villain in all this, are the banks evil for cutting off Wikileaks from their funding, is Wikileaks evil for indiscriminately publishing sensitive info, is 4chan evil for hammering those who tried to thwart Wikileaks, is Switzerland evil for jailing Julian on what are suspiciously convenient charges?
Then I remember. If Julian worked for the Washington Post, he would be a hero of the Left, and we would have seen cables from the Bush and Reagan administrations published daily for weeks amid cheers and applause from their loyal readership.
But Julian doesn't work for anybody. He's alone. Except for those who mistrust their government no matter the political affiliation currently holding sway.
Yep, Wikileaks would be heroic if they had a sponsor. All they have is us. And 4chan. The truth is most always inconvenient to the powerful.
-- deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So the DDoSers aren't hiding their identity and expect to get caught in making their point? What's the equivalent of the riot police the can immediately incarcerate them or move them away to somewhere less disruptive? And who issues permits for a legal DDoS?
Before the Internet, if you wanted to truly annoy someone, you didn't stop at signing them up for every stupid mail-order catalog available, no matter the content. You didn't even stop at signing them up for every credit card offer available.
You subscribed them to every magazine you possibly could. Every one. Then you wrote, in their name, complaint letters to whatever corporations, politicians, etc you had the time to. Ah, carbon paper and Mag Card typewriters. Damn, good times.
-- deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Denial of Service has been a favored tactic used against the KKK and other undesirable groups for years.
And it's wrong in those situations, too.
Why can't the same tactic be used against hate-filled corporations?
Why should it be used at all? What does it actually accomplish?
To say "no you can't use the same tactics WE use" is as hypocritical [...]
mseeger didn't say anything like this, so I'm not quite sure to whom you think you're responding. And be careful with those straw men; they're a fire hazard.
-- People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
No, not necessarily. Sending a political statement to a congressperson arguably serves a legitimate purpose besides nuisance. I didn't assume that the "you" in the question was a public figure whom civilians might sincerely need to contact in an attempt to participate in the political process.
The frequently-used tactic of deliberately flooding congresscritters with explicitly intentioned postcards, letters, faxes and phone calls disagrees with you. Usually form letters, so theoretically sending a single petition signed by as many people would be just as effective, right?
While this may be annoying, it doesn't effectly breaks the postal service (neither for that congressman nor the congress) down.
If a comparison was intended by your question, it is deeply flawed.
How so? Apart from the minor detail that a legal distinction has been made where no real distinction exists, I mean.
Apart that the legal distinction is not a minor detail, there are real world differences as well: an email is no postcard or letter. I can easily send 1 million emails, but i could not send 1 million letters. If i tried (here in germany), it would require me to spend 550K Euros (>700K$). So, if i did it anyway, i would also pay for the postal service (which would love that business) to sort out the mess i created. Furthermore by sending someone a million letters, i would at max flood his mailbox. He could still send emails, write letters or place phone calls. A DDOS attack can prevent that. DDOS attacks are meant to do economic damage. Juries and Judges are not so stupid, not to notice it.
CU, Martin
Re:As apprehended....
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I didn't assume that the "you" in the question was a public figure whom civilians might sincerely need to contact in an attempt to participate in the political process.
Corporations are also accountable to the public. They have large PR departments, mailing addresses, and people whose job is to read the mail that people send them (and even reply to some of it), determine and make recommendations of what actions would be most beneficial to their public image, and ideally let the company know quickly if something it did pissed a bunch of people off so that it can decide whether or not it wants to adjust its actions.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
It is completely different. If i stage a protest in front of Mastercard, i spend my tíme, expose myself to wind and weather and am acting as an identifieable person. If i get too rowdy, the cops come and take me away. With DDOS i just start a software and go visit a party. If protest in fron of a bank, the business of the bank is slightly impeded. Any judge/jury has to balance my rights of freedom of speech against the damage i do to them. With a DDOS the balance completely tilts....
Apart that the legal distinction is not a minor detail
Legal distinctions that don’t exist in real life are examples of bad laws. Bad laws should be protested, repealed, and potentially broken if all else fails.
there are real world differences as well: an email is no postcard or letter. I can easily send 1 million emails, but i could not send 1 million letters.
Doing the same old thing on a computer makes it easier and more efficient. It does not, however, make “doing the same old thing on a computer” copyrightable, patentable, or illegal.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Yeah what about the workers who go on strike. Clearly they shouldnt be allowed to sit at the entrance and stop everyone from going in by giving them all a 5 minute lecture or controlling the flow of business in and out.
-- 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Re:As apprehended....
by
Dragonslicer
·
· Score: 1
The frequently-used tactic of deliberately flooding congresscritters with explicitly intentioned postcards, letters, faxes and phone calls disagrees with you.
Except that the theoretical reason for existence of the congresscritters is to listen to their constituents. Receiving communications from the voters is supposed to be a major part of their job, especially when the communications are sent to their government-owned offices.
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
The reason is, that the end doesn't justify the means.
Yes, it does.
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> is Switzerland evil for jailing Julian
i don't think so...
Re:As apprehended....
by
mseeger
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree with a lot you say, but you cannot make wrong right by doing wrong yourself.
We once hired a former top soccer referee as a guest speaker for an IT conference we organized. At first i was baffled: what could a referee tell us about IT decisions. Then he brought up this: He was a referee in an important match. There was a critical situation (penalty or not) and he decided against it. During the half time break he could see the TV input and learned he had been wrong. During the second half a similar situation appeared, but he thought it to be no penalty. He now could make up his mistake by giving the wrongly denied penalty now. In his speech explained, why this would have been wrong on several levels. In short: He would have rewarded irregular behaviour of the striker (by playing the dying swan) and put pressure on other referees to try also to make up for their mistakes. In the end, the balance would never be perfectly equalised. There would always be more compensation required.
You also need to get a permit for most protest marches like that. Notify the city/municipality of the time and location so that they can set up barricades and redirect traffic. That's to help ensure the safety of the protestors as much as anything else.
Even if you aren't disrupting businesses, you can still go to jail for participating in a protest that doesn't have a permit, though usually they'll just go after the organizers. (and no, I'm not aware of any protest that's been denied a permit... the reason you need a permit is so that security and health&safety can be ready for that many people gathered in the same location together, and has nothing to do with stifling free speech.. the only circumstance I can imagine such a permit being denied would be in countries with real hate-speech laws and enforcement, and would involve neo-nazis or white supremacists, or the like... it would be seriously illegal for a group of neo-nazis to hold a rally in downtown Berlin, for example....)
Re:As apprehended....
by
Dragonslicer
·
· Score: 1
And what, pray tell, is the theoretical reason for the existence of the PR department in a corporation?
To send out press releases that make the corporation look good?
The question of intent also comes into play. If you start a letter-writing campaign to a congressman or even a company's corporate headquarters to raise awareness for an issue, such as a law that should or should not be passed or a safety issue with one of the company's products, you're far less likely to get arrested than if it's clear that your intention was to flood the mailroom so that they couldn't receive any other mail.
Why have so many major sites (such as the credit card companies) been DDOSed successfully recently? Are their admins just incompetent?
The fact the defenses exist doesn't make the attack irrelevant. You argument is analogous to saying, "It's your fault you got shot in the chest--you should have worn a bulletproof vest" or "Who cares if I poison someone--there's an antidote." Moreover, defenses are expensive and the attack forces the target to bear an unreasonable cost (including extra server capacity).
-- .sig withheld by request
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I was imagining something like 5 thousand people walking down the street. It is "blocking businesses" because they take up all the space as they move by. Not that they are singling out one business (as in the abortion clinic situation).
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why have so many major sites (such as the credit card companies) been DDOSed successfully recently? Are their admins just incompetent?
Here, have a cookie.
You argument is analogous to saying, "It's your fault you got shot in the chest--you should have worn a bulletproof vest" or "Who cares if I poison someone--there's an antidote."
No, it’s analogous to saying “Aww, you pissed off a few million people and now your switchboards are jammed with angry phone calls. Cry me a river. That’s just an occupational hazard, in your line of business.”
Moreover, defenses are expensive and the attack forces the target to bear an unreasonable cost (including extra server capacity).
By that same logic they should fire their entire PR department and instead they should lobby the government to try to have laws passed so that if any significant number of people spoke out against them, they could all be prosecuted. PR departments are expensive. Boo hoo.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
You have an odd definition of completely different. There are a couple of little differences you've identified, half of which are wishful thinking (not being identifiable? Seriously?).
I do agree though, protest DDOS should be performed with protestors constantly clicking refresh.
Sounds like the DDOSers aren't hiding their identities particularly well. Probably not as well as someone at a physical protest. And some of them most certainly are getting hauled away by the cops, even though there has been no violence.
Legal protest, hey? That's right, the US has protest zones now hey?
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Agree 99% Only 99 because... Switzerland?! Why Switzerland?
If by some you mean an infinitesimally small percentage, perhaps.
Get a group together of sufficient size and you'll need a permit for it, no matter the reason.
A DDoS may not be physically violent but it is an aggressive use of force, though I don't doubt you've got all the mental gymnastics practiced and all the semantics memorized to "prove" a DDoS is not a form of violence.
Legal distinctions that don't exist in real life are examples of bad laws. Bad laws should be protested, repealed, and potentially broken if all else fails.
Just because you fail to see it, there still may be a distinction in real life anyway. Who decides which laws are "good" and "bad"? You?
Doing the same old thing on a computer makes it easier and more efficient. It does not, however, make "doing the same old thing on a computer" copyrightable, patentable, or illegal.
If i took you your email account and replaced it by pen&paper, you would not only complain about lost efficency. For me at least, it would make certain things completely impossible. Email and mail are completely different things. If i send you a letter, a physical object will be tranported from my to your location. If i send you an email, i use the network to copy digitally stored data so that you may read it. Computer just don't make things easier. They do things in a completely different way. The service email has been artifically made similar to regular mail for human convenience,
Good DDoS protection services exist that can filter out the spam so your server isn't trying to reply to all of it. Your argument is invalid.
In that logic i could say: "kevlar vests exist that can filter out small caliber bullets" so it was the murder victims fault if he/she doesn't have one. It is not my duty to prepare for all kind of attacks. I may choose to do so if it is in my best economic interest. But that doesn't give you the permission to try my defenses.
If i send you an email, i use the network to copy digitally stored data so that you may read it.
Trivial difference. Snail-mail could make a copy at every step of the journey, but that would be less efficient so it doesn’t. E-mail pretty much has to make a copy, but that doesn’t fundamentally make it any different.
In that logic i could say: "kevlar vests exist that can filter out small caliber bullets" so it was the murder victims fault if he/she doesn't have one.
The other guy used the same exact argument. Go back and read my reply to him.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
So you would have no problem with me going into your house without your permission and rummaging around (the means) in order to help stop thefts, murders, assassinations, etc, before they are committed (the ends)?
-- "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I still see a different intent there. If you send a letter to express a grievance, your correspondence has a legitimate purpose. If you send them junk in a deliberate attempt to disrupt them, you're harassing them. DDoS is more analogous to the latter.
Re:As apprehended....
by
mseeger
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If Gandhi would live today, do you think he would DDOS Mastercard? Even if you are angry you should be able to see, that you have thousand of legal actions available that he never had. They are bothersome, yes, and they will soak up your energy & time and you have to leave snail shell of anonymity, but they are available. Painting DDOS in civil disobedience colours is just a sluggards excuse. One thing Gandhi always did, when he was breaking the law: Saying here i am, i did this, come and arrest me (and they often did). If the DDOS'ler would do that too, we could start talking about civil disobedience. Right at the moment, they are just a lynch mob.
If you want to portest: come, do it, bear the consequences. I have quite some repect for Julian Assange (even if i do not agree in a lot of things with him). He knew what he did and what consequences it might bear. Those DDOS mob is just a disgrace to the IT.
As a former soccer referee, I understand that entirely. I didn't get replays of my decisions, but I knew all too often I got it wrong. 'Making it up' was always wrong. As a player before that, I loathed officials that would make up for a call later. Usually, they got it wrong twice anyways, but I wanted the right call the first time. Failing that, I wanted consistency - make the same call again, and we are now on a level playing field.
And that's MY point about Wikileaks. If Julian was working for the established media, he would be ok. He would have been moderated by his editor, and we would have seen him as a journalist.
But we would have gotten only part of the story, the part his editor wanted to publish. Perhaps his editor would be a fair and honest broker, sensitive to the problems of exposing secrets without discretion, but perhaps his editor would be less than impartial, and publish those secrets that made his opposition seem less honorable, while suppressing the secrets that would have diminished his favorites. Of course, Julian has his favorites also.
Is it always wrong to expose governmental secrets? I propose it is not. Discretion is, unfortunately, a difficult thing.
-- deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If we discusss, if Julian Assang is unfairly treated: i think we are in agreement on this point (no, he is not). The question that raised already several discussions on Slashdot: Can a wrong (DDOS on Mastercard) be justified by the treatment of him. My answer was no and that sparked this discussion thread;-).
Snail-mail could make a copy at every step of the journey
You are getting absurd. Snail mail is a transportation of a physical object instead of its content. The few uses i still make of snail mail is exactly because of this difference.
If you consider sending xeroxed love letters, your chances of procreation are severely limited and i shell win this argument biologicaly;-).
My point was that had Julian been part of the established media, he would not have been attacked by both that media and by various governments, and the retaliation of DDOS's against so many entities would not have happened.
But to attack Julian by essentially attempting to deprive him of his freedom and financial support, and of course to censor his outlet, is what started the whole DDOS thing. Misguided as it was, there was a precipitating event. That was my point.
-- deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If Gandhi were alive today, he would DDoS British Salt Manufactures website, so that no one buys salt from them. So you point that DDoS is bad, is still moot.
BTW DDoSers are pretty easy to identify, and the DDoSers know it too. But they also know, they cant arrest all of them (just like the Gandhi's followers knew). And just like Gandhi's followers did not print a list of people that participated in the salt march, Anons did not publish a list of DDoSers. The simply dont have to go on record exposing themselves.
Most people wouldn't mind the police roaming around YOUR house, or MY house, and they will gladly speak up about how "if you have nothing to hide, why would you care?". It is only when the police come and search THEIR house, with no warrant and no cause, that they object. Then they want to jump up and scream and pretend they have always been against it.
Unfortunately, that is the way many people are. When it comes to liberty and security, most people are just hypocrites.
If they use LOIC, the script-kiddies are effectively doing just this. And some have already been arrested, though I don't think this was their intention, just a feature of software (LOIC, in this case) that doesn't provide anonymity.
Uhm. How, exactly, is a DDOS legitimate correspondence? Particularly when we know it was a DDOS and there were tools distributed to participate in it?
Web server communication is request-response. You don't communicate with it, you simply ask it to return a resource and it returns it. You think these people were, what? All trying to mirror Mastercard and PayPal in case somebody was going to retaliate against them? And were going to helpfully "mirror" Amazon but then decided that they were too big to, uh, mirror?
Please. It might not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but we certainly know what their intentions were.
No, it’s analogous to saying “Aww, you pissed off a few million people and now your switchboards are jammed with angry phone calls. Cry me a river. That’s just an occupational hazard, in your line of business.”
A DDOS is not like angry phone calls. Angry phone calls represent people attempting to express an opinion, using their own resources. The resources for a DDOS are typically far beyond the level of individuals' own computers, and involve a botnet or similar distributed collection of machines, many of whose owners are not condoning this use of their resources: the closer telephone analogy would be hacking into an exchange to force all the lines to call the target.
By that same logic they should fire their entire PR department and instead they should lobby the government to try to have laws passed so that if any significant number of people spoke out against them, they could all be prosecuted. PR departments are expensive. Boo hoo.
No, IT security is more like real world security: of course a business running a large website needs it, just like a store needs to spend money to prevent shoplifting. But that does not constitute an argument that it's okay to attack a site. You might as well tell a judge, "Of course I robbed the bank, but they had armed guards, so clearly they were expecting it, which must mean it's okay."
Speech is a fundamentally different category of action. There's a difference between picketing a business to get your message across to potential customers and blockading the door so nobody can get in or out. A DDOS is like the latter; it is not speech but a way of denying others their right to speak.
What about those users of LOIC who understand the technicals behind the system, yet chooses to use it anyway? Because a distributed network of people donating their own connection to obstruct a target is no different from a sit-in or protest, which are both legitimate forms of civil disobedience. "Hiding in the mob" per say, you are still "physically" present on the scene in order to pass a certain message, and could of course be prosecuted. But you rely on the fact that the police/courts/black helicopters would have to come down on tens/hundreds of thousands of people who feel the same way that you do to know it won't happen, in the opposite case of which the enormity of the overreaction would still reach your goal of waking people up to the truth of how far down the rabbit hole we are.
The resources for a DDOS are typically far beyond the level of individuals' own computers, and involve a botnet or similar distributed collection of machines, many of whose owners are not condoning this use of their resources
In that case it would certainly be illegitimate. Hijacking someone else’s computer is never a legitimate action. However you can’t claim that this is always the case, or even “typically”.
The people getting prosecuted for DDoS attacks aren’t some sort of ringleaders who hijacked hundreds of thousands of machines and formed a botnet to do their dirty deeds. The people getting prosecuted are people who downloaded and ran the LOIC on their own personal computer, which is a voluntary act of protest.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you demand the simultaneous blooming of thousands of Gandhis to prompt a social reform to happen, then you are out of luck. A single, righteous Gandhi would get squelched in today's world.
This is best we've got. It is Something, and it is better than nothing.
You're right. I assumed that most DDoS attacks used large botnets, but read this: http://www.monkey.org/~labovit/nanog50.pdf and learned otherwise. It does seem like there just aren't good statistics on what the distribution of such attacks is.
If Gandhi were alive today, he would DDoS British Salt [Manufacturer's] website, so that no one buys salt from them.
I'm fairly sure this is untrue. Gandhi advocated peaceful, non-violent protest. He specifically advocated boycotting the monopolists, not bombing their operations.
As well, the typical 1960s sit-in (ideally) didn't break anything. It just brought eyeballs to look at the venue in an attempt to discredit it. OTOH, DDoS-ing a website is effectively muzzling that site. It's crowd-sourced/flashmob censorship.
Then again, I admit I'm a bit conflicted on this as I'm of the opinion that corps have way overstepped their design boundaries, so attacking a corp. shouldn't be considered to be the same thing as attacking a person. People are persons. Corporations are legal system fictional persons.
Not that I'm advocating violent protest against corps or anything (have I mentioned I'm incorporated?). I'd just prefer the legal system made some sense.
-- "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit..." -- Pink Floyd.
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
One thing Gandhi always did, when he was breaking the law: Saying here i am, i did this, come and arrest me (and they often did).
He was also shot dead for his efforts, along with a few thousand others that fought for Indian independence.
I was hoping to be able to protest crappy government and corporate decisions WITHOUT getting killed.
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Picketers (in the US) cannot prevent anyone from going into a business. They have some limited ability to make it difficult, but if they overstep their rights to demonstrate then an injunction will entirely remove them.
Re:As apprehended....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Picketing is not a crime, it is a right. DDoS never manages to really shut down a site for more than a few hours, so it is very much comparable to a picket line. But when, as in this case, no one steps forward and says, we did this and here's why, it becomes somewhat absurd.
The problem is we don't have articles about DDOS attacks against the KKK. Do you actively research things to speak up against, or do you just comment on the things presented? If so then while you may truly be fair and just at heart, the practical effect is that you are strengthening a less fair and less just position than you may think.
Personally I am much more bothered by real-life free speech that involves megaphones. It seems pretty similar to DDOS attacks in that you are drowning out others' equally legitimate speech. But the times I've been exposed to it, I actually felt injured and really pissed off by it. Not so much when I can't visit 4chan for a little while (and I'm banned anyway atm:).
I do agree though, protest DDOS should be performed with protestors constantly clicking refresh.
Fair enough, if bank employees are personally typing up replies to each web request. But if it's computers vs. computers, why limit one side to manual processes?
is Switzerland evil for jailing Julian on what are suspiciously convenient charges?
Being innocent until proven guilty does not necessitate not being arrested when under suspicion of a crime, whether "suspiciously convenient" or not. I'd be more concerned if they did not arrest him after he was accused and charged.
Hey, at least he was charged, unlike the fellow that provided him the cables.
-- For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
* A picket line outside a business does not affect every other business on the street (a DDoS does affect every other server on the network endpoint. * A picket line outside a business does not completely block access to the business (a DDoS does completely block access to the server) * A picket line outside a business does not cost money beyond that of lost business (a DDoS incurs massive bandwidth, infrastructure, and support cost in addition to that of the lost business) * A picket line that gets out of hand will be promptly cleaned up by law enforcement (a DDoS cannot be cleaned up by law enforcement)
Hence, a DDoS is nothing like a picket line. It's more analogous to a drive by shooting of a business. Ridiculous analogy? So's yours.
-- For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
the typical 1960s sit-in (ideally) didn't break anything. It just brought eyeballs to look at the venue in an attempt to discredit it
It took up valuable space which the company needed to make its bottom line profit. Even if they fired everyone and hired new people off the street, they’d have to get the police to come in and drag out the sit-ins one-by-one for them to have any space to work in.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Its users probably all (well, the dumb ones) got themselves infected with a virus that DDoSed their home turf again. It happens every few months. The main question in my mind is how it spread, this time – reCaptcha cut the head off it last time.
Or maybe it’s just something entirely different this time.
Anyway, returning to the question in my subject, when did it go down? how long has it been down? is it down hard, or is it coming and going?
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:As of when?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>when did it go down? how long has it been down? is it down hard, or is it coming and going?
>go down? how long? down hard? coming and going?
>down long hard coming
Re:As of when?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Its users probably all (well, the dumb ones) got themselves infected with a virus that DDoSed their home turf again. It happens every few months. The main question in my mind is how it spread, this time – reCaptcha cut the head off it last time.
Or maybe it’s just something entirely different this time.
Anyway, returning to the question in my subject, when did it go down? how long has it been down? is it down hard, or is it coming and going?
about 1 am on the 28th, it's completely down and I have not seen any activity since 2 am. First, the page changed to read moot is olev (olev is a user that ruins everyones fun) instead of/b/ and cotton eyed joe played in the background. Funny at first, then highly annoying. I clicked away for two minutes and in that time everything became a series of red and yellow apparently. Then it was down. On the status blog, moot said the site had been ddos'd, we now join the ranks of mastercard, via, etc etc. Lol.
You can but it is not recommended as some mail servers will ignore the mx when finding a cname
Re:Quick, change the DNS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Amazon.com would do well to put a 301 on amazon.com/b/ to go back to... something that won't cause a redirect loop. That'd really torque people. Amazon would still be on the hook for a bunch of 301s, but I think they could handle that.
Re:Quick, change the DNS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That's not just funny, that's fucking funny.
You know it's gonna happen....
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I just can't wait until some anti-Anonymous crusader lays claim to this... and then be promptly DDOSed into oblivion.
I'm worried about what the 4chan community will do when the boards are back up again. They're going to be looking for someone to DDoS into oblivion, if they happen to pick the right person that's just a bonus.
In this world gone mad
by
NuKe_MoNgOoSe
·
· Score: 0
lol you would have to be ballsack crazy to toy with the brigands on 4chan. They will do their best to hunt the culprit down I imagine and likely drag his identity from one end of the internet to the other when they find them.
-- When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
4chan was taken down when a bunch of/b/-tard script kiddies handed over control of their LOIC programs to some Anonymous person on the internet, not realizing that 4chan was the target.
Re:Predicted future news
by
FantasticSpikes
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That's more likely than you might think. It's even happened in then past when a bunch of 4chan users decided to copy, paste and execute some code they found posted on/b/. If they had known how to read said code, they would have realised that they were running a spambot, which served to post the code all over 4chan, while simultaneously DDoSing the site. What was funniest was listening to all of the/b/tards vow revenge against the perpetrators of such a heinous crime.
Re:Predicted future news
by
jovius
·
· Score: 3, Funny
More likely: 4chan tries to commit suicide. Attempt failed.
Re:Predicted future news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4chan is An Hero?
Re:Predicted future news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I have an "OPERATION FAG DESTROYER" poster that I shopped up. It's a call to arms to defend/b/'s reputation and punish a guy who called Anonymous "do-nothing script kiddies." They're instructed to use LOIC -- a script kiddie ddos tool -- and point it towards an IRC server, where a LOIC server node is supposed to instruct the clients on what target to attack. There is no LOIC server node though, and no target either. I just like to watch everyone connect without a second thought. Rarely does anyone point out that we wouldn't be proving anybody wrong, by using LOIC to attack their server.
Re:Predicted future news
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
More likely: 4chan tries to an hero. Attempt failed.
Maybe the football game is playing on 5chan as well?
Fair?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So, slashdot rushes to point a link to the remaining status page, causing yet another DDOS attack...
Umm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm trying to think of one piece of useful information I've ever gotten from 4Chan.. and... I got nothin.
Re:Umm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Well, its a good place to learn something about human anatomy from time to time. And human stupidity. Problem is you frequently never ask for it, or request it. All of a sudden you just get educated.
"Hundreds of Internet activists recently mounted cyberattacks on companies like MasterCard and Amazon because they had ended their affiliation with WikiLeaks. How dangerous could this kind of action be?"
Howard Schmidt: "We've seen over time [street] protests in cities that shut down traffic, and this is not dissimilar in the online world. There may be a disruption for a short period of time, but the bottom line is we continue to work to make sure that the impact is minimal."
Ummm we are not helping
by
StrifeJester
·
· Score: 1
So the first thing I do is say to myself "I gotta see this". Head over to the site to see and sho nuff. All I did was add more traffic to them posting this story helped them out, perhaps that was the plan. Am I the only one that did this and then came to a realization.
Re:Ummm we are not helping
by
tequesta
·
· Score: 1
Was that a question.
Re:Ummm we are not helping
by
xmousex
·
· Score: 1
I haven't come to the realization yet but give it time
F5F5F5F5F5F5
Re:Ummm we are not helping
by
ComputerGeek01
·
· Score: 1
Knowing 4chan, they're prolly doing it themselves.
Re:lol
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Knowing 4chan, they're prolly doing it themselves.
Nice try, ebaumsworld.
Re:lol
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Anonymous != 4chan
Re:lol
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Not with the site down they're not.
CmdrTaco IS A NAZI!!!!!2345
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4chan is just more relevant than what's left of Slashdot and, of course, has more traffic to cope with...
Re:CmdrTaco IS A NAZI!!!!!2345
by
kimvette
·
· Score: 1
Right, and 4chan has long been known known for aggregating interesting news and fostering enlightened discussion.;)
-- The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:CmdrTaco IS A NAZI!!!!!2345
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Right, and 4chan has long been known known for aggregating interesting news and fostering enlightened discussion.;)
For the record, I see quite a bit of news on 4chan quite regularly. Albeit delivered differently. And I've seen several anons carry on a decent discussion while being insightful, and more importantly, civil.
Re:CmdrTaco IS A NAZI!!!!!2345
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For the record, I see quite a bit of news on 4chan quite regularly. Albeit delivered differently.
Granted, you'll have to refer to Google every now and then to verify that, no, in fact, the nukes aren't yet flying over North Korea, and Justin Bieber hasn't been in a fatal car accident. (But that's just part of how it's delivered "differently".)
-- Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The PSG OST was released last night, which basically took over/a/. I guess those interested got their battle music and decided to make use of it.
Did moot unplug the servers?
by
tibman
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
We sure it's been DDOS'd? I checked my logs and moot posted late last night with this picture: http://imgur.com/bY2n4 It looks like he unplugged the 4chan servers?
-- http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Re:Did moot unplug the servers?
by
tibman
·
· Score: 1
Submission: 4chan has been DDOSed by Anonymous Coward
-- My parser is a grammar nazi.
It was the only way to stop the music
by
snowwrestler
·
· Score: 1
Last night/b/ went to light blue text on yellow bg and an endless loop of "Cotton Eye Joe" playing. Today it's been DDOS'd into oblivion. Coincidence? I think not.
-- Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Re:It was the only way to stop the music
by
l0ungeb0y
·
· Score: 1
Truer than you think. I was posting a Go To Bed thread about an hour after the redneck techno and color theme were added. The post never went through because boards.4chan was down
Re:It was the only way to stop the music
by
snowwrestler
·
· Score: 1
Although maybe it had more to do with OLEV than the colors and music...:-)
-- Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Learning about rebellion
by
h00manist
·
· Score: 1
Well I respect anyone's aspiration to a better society, to organize and rebel. We do have too passive citizens. Learning to organize is critical. Whatever the actual ideas motivtating it, organizing involves the same basic skills. I would suggest 4chan, or anyone, study better methods, better organizing. You can join Indymedia/IMC, full of great people, read up on the US vietnam antiwar organizers, the US african american equal rights organizers. If into Wikileaks, join and help Wikileaks. If you want to learn real, hard core organizing and social ideas and skills, join a real social-revolution organizing group, like anarchists, socialists, or humanists. Go help Critical Mass. If you just want to have some fun, but organize, do a Flash Mob. Always look for the organizers, and offer real hard core help, do the real hard work, and you'll learn. Don't just hang around, you will learn nothing. http://critical-mass.info/ http://www.wikileaksforum.net/ http://www.indymedia.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob
4chan has to learn more. Their old tactics were for Scientology, a rather weak, fang-less, unpopular group of weirdoes. Not for dealing with corporate and government groups, which have support of networks within government, lawyers, detectives, spies, police, FBI, etc.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Because remember, anyone who "rebels" against anything is, of course, absolutely in the right. Doesn't matter what it is — since disagreeing is cool and popular, being a rebel is right and just. This includes the means by which the "rebellion" happens and its ultimate results. Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule!
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
Nadaka
·
· Score: 3, Informative
What makes you think Scientology is weak and fang-less? They kill people. They broke into a federal agency and stole documents without repercussion. They blackmailed the IRS into granting them a tax exemption.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
brit74
·
· Score: 2
They broke into a federal agency and stole documents without repercussion.
If you're talking about Operation Snow White, a bunch of scientologists went to jail for that. L. Ron Hubbard, himself, went into hiding the rest of his life to avoid getting caught by the US government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
They blackmailed the IRS into granting them a tax exemption.
Do you mean they classified themselves as a religion to get tax exemption status?
They kill people.
Okay.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
Score+Whore
·
· Score: 1
If you want to do the "real, hard work" then maybe you should start considering something that is actually constructive rather than destructive and/or redistributive. Interactions don't have to be zero sum, it's vastly better to create value and quality of life than to tear down someone in order to lift yourself up. But I suspect your goals aren't to actually make the world sustainably better for everyone, but rather to bypass the need to for a planning horizon longer than two weeks and having to sacrifice today in order to have a better tomorrow. I'm sure you tell yourself it's all about addressing some injustice, while you ignore the fact that it's purely a figment of your imagination.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
Requiem18th
·
· Score: 1
Well rebelling by protesting is overall good. Protesting has the effect of rising awareness of an issue to people in the mainstream. It's purpose is not to DoS a business but to bring the issue to the more passive sectors of the population.
In this way, I can't see what's wrong with protests. Even in the case of protests I don't agree with like abortion bans and civil rights, it is useful to know there is a sector of the population that is so backwards.
It also provides a way to confront these people and poke holes in their logic.
-- But... the future refused to change.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
h00manist
·
· Score: 1
What makes you think Scientology is weak and fang-less? They kill people. They broke into a federal agency and stole documents without repercussion. They blackmailed the IRS into granting them a tax exemption.
Compare the help and favors Scientology will get from various government agencies if they ask for something, with the help VISA will get. Compare what some angry Scientology executives can actually do to you personally, versus what VISA can get the FBI to do.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't think you understand what 4chan is really about.
Hint: it's not helping their fellow man.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
Nadaka
·
· Score: 1
When the FBI shuts down a mob family or the CIA shuts down a spy ring, they typically do not feel satisfied that several mobsters/spies end up in jail. Their goal is to remove the organization. Scientology infiltrated,attacked and sabotaged the US government on an unprecedented scale. Scientology still exists and is stronger than ever.
Its not that they classified themselves as a religion to get a tax break on their racket, its that they got the IRS to accept it though blackmail.
Re:Learning about rebellion
by
Nadaka
·
· Score: 1
I am pretty sure that auditing process R2-45 disagrees with you.
You mean....pissing in an ocean of piss actually accomplishes something?
What really happened...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Some clever person spammed the boards with d0z.me links. And it wasn't me! *shifty eyes*
Hmm... What does this remind me of?
by
ryzvonusef
·
· Score: 1
*a silvery eruption interrupts the Slashdot rave, a robotic voice speaks*
"4chan has been DDoSed, moot is ded, they are coming"
-- I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Re:Hmm... What does this remind me of?
by
GameboyRMH
·
· Score: 1
Which cyberpunk movie/book/anime episode are you making reference to? I have a feeling it could be Tron Legacy, I haven't seen it yet, and you really have to know all the details to be able to tell these scenes apart.
-- "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Hmm... What does this remind me of?
by
ryzvonusef
·
· Score: 1
Is it just me, or did everyone else notice a dramatic drop in spam? Seriously, from 100-200 messages per inbox to about 10... I bet the/b/tards don't even know their boxes are sending out spam with their ddos app....
How would you like your clone served? ExtraCrispy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 you getting absolutely smoked, badly. That's what you get for trolling others and saying your code worked, when the person you trolled had to show you how to correct your mistakes in your pseudocode bullshit you tried to fool others with there. That's pitiful clone, it really is. You got your butt handed to you before by that same ac apk on hosts files and you ran there too. Get over it, you suck at computing clone. You're a noob, a rookie, at most. This is why nobody has ever said your work in computing was any good: You've showed us all there you blew it trying to take on someone who has done well in commercial code products even. The worst part is, you tried trolling him posting as ac, and you forgot to keep hitting your submit as anonymous that time. Bad job clone. I'd give up computing were I you. You suck. Badly.
Clone the troll gets caught and BURNED for it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 you're getting absolutely smoked, badly, clone. That's what you get for trolling others and saying your code worked, when the person you trolled had to show you how to correct your mistakes in your pseudocode bullshit you tried to fool others with there. That's pitiful clone, it really is. You got your butt handed to you before by that same ac apk on hosts files and you ran there too. Get over it, you suck at computing clone. You're a noob, a rookie, at most. This is why nobody has ever said your work in computing was any good: You've showed us all there you blew it trying to take on someone who has done well in commercial code products even. The worst part is, you tried trolling him posting as ac, and you forgot to keep hitting your submit as anonymous that time. Bad job clone. I'd give up computing were I you. You suck. Badly. You FAIL!
Re:Clone the troll gets caught and BURNED for it?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
[Sorry, everybody. This is just getting far too damned irritating to ignore.]
... you're getting absolutely smoked...
A psychopathic stalker, pasting and re-pasting your childish rant over and over, shitting your crap all over/. You don't think this makes you look FAR more stupid than your target? You're deluded.
Bugs Bunny: "What an imBECil! What a ultra-maroon!"
Get a life, ultra-troll. Damn, this is childish and boring behaviour.
clone the troll served up "extra crispy", lmao
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 you're getting absolutely smoked, badly, clone. That's what you get for trolling others and saying your code worked, when the person you trolled had to show you how to correct your mistakes in your pseudocode bullshit you tried to fool others with there. That's pitiful clone, it really is. You got your butt handed to you before by that same ac apk on hosts files and you ran there too. Get over it, you suck at computing clone. You're a noob, a rookie, at most. This is why nobody has ever said your work in computing was any good: You've showed us all there you blew it trying to take on someone who has done well in commercial code products even. The worst part is, you tried trolling him posting as ac, and you forgot to keep hitting your submit as anonymous that time. Bad job clone. I'd give up computing were I you. You suck. Badly. You FAIL!
Re:clone the troll served up "extra crispy", lmao
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hey... other than making yourself look like a moron (which can't really hurt anything, I guess), what do you think you are accomplishing here?
Re:clone the troll served up "extra crispy", lmao
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Alexander Peter Kowalski is a fraud and a malware author.
Re:clone the troll served up "extra crispy", lmao
by
Pence128
·
· Score: 1
Ahem: u maaaaaaaa-aaaad.
-- 404: sig not found.
Hear this sound?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This is me playing the world's tiniest violin.
HOSTS files are superior to AdBlock &/or DNS a
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This one's JUST FOR YOU, clone (disprove every single one of its points, as,b>you failed badly here before on this very same note -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946 AND, for your trolling me as AC here today http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34687498 , and YOU FAILED LARGE on your end clone, with a bogus script that didn't work and I had to correct it for you here today after you worked DAYS on it no less, & I had to tell you how/where/when/why it failed, which you corrected for, lol, per MY suggestions no less), so here we go:
---
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).
2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
live by the sword, die by the sword
by
jsepeta
·
· Score: 1
now they'll need to go dark and develop other tools / weapons to use against our government.
-- Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Re:HOSTS files are superior to AdBlock &/or DN
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
Really, APK? Really?!
You can’t even use the hosts file to achieve the desired results in this particular case, because the obnoxious music is hosted on the same website as the rest of the page.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I was at the grocery store earlier wondering why there were smelly, dirty teenagers sitting here and there on the floor of the place, all of them rocking back and forth holding various items whose names began with B. Most of them were just muttering the word "faggots" over and over again, but there were two or three who were talking to the pictures on product boxes saying things like "tits or gee tee eff oh" and "winrar." Exactly seven of them were masturbating openly. The rest were being discreet, I'm sure.
Now I know.
We are everywhere -- except um... 4chan... (today)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Poetic Justice?
Re:HOSTS files are superior to AdBlock &/or DN
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow that is one serious case of assburgers you got there APK, maybe you should try an MMO such as SL or a time-guzzling game like Noctis to occupy yourself, I think you'd find it more enjoyable. It's quite sad to watch you ramble on in great detail about using HOSTS files to do things that should be handled by DNS or browser script blocking.
- clone52431
clone52431 looks ridiculous yet again (3x today)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212 see that, learn to read clone instead of skimming. Your stupidity in trolling others backfired on your stupid lame ass, again. He covered adblock being useful as an added layer of security and showed a quote of his words saying exactly that. He also showed many points on how adblock alone isn't enough. For example, adblock was even detected and blocked for at arstechnica (which went over like a "lead balloon"), so, so much for adblock alone and your weak crap due to skimming on your part that I replied to. I'm in this thread already, but I do not feel like getting a troll like you on my case, even though you're easy to get the best of, as shown in the url above.
I have a confession to make
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
I am a 28 year old male, whom is still girlfriend free, if you ladies are interested. Throughout my whole life, I was bullied and teased for my weight and my strange demeanor. In my quest for a boyfriend-free girl, it appears to be futile in that even when I was advertising myself as a caring, nice man, women flocked to the more masculine types. Sorry, I got carried away, I'm just in an emotional dilemma, for I was raped by not just one black man, but seven. Yes, seven, seven of which raped me with much bestial fervor. I was in west Philadelphia at the time, at my childhood playground, playing a game of auto-basketball by myself as I usually would every Sunday. Night was coming, and I practiced frivolously to improve my basketball prowess. As I made my last free throw shot, several of those hooligans entered the court; I was not aware of the events that would proceed. They said to me, if I can recall it accurately, "YO WHITE BOY, YOU GONNA GET RAPED!!!!" I was startled, yet steadfast. I had rights to this public domain, and no African American was going to keep me from exercising that right!!!! However, I would find that my rights were not the only things violated, but also my body; my forbearance was my demise. I would not appease to the minorities demands, and, as if time stood still, the buckle holding my suspenders was unhooked. I buffered to the door, simultaneously calling for help, but only to be replied with a miserly old woman's heckling. Why was I chosen by fate, no, by God to be the victim of such a crime? I looked into her callous eyes, which taunted me. Suddenly, four words escaped from her lips, "You gonna get raped..." The shadow she casts bore remarkable similarities to the devil, then I looked at the reflection in her spectacles. I saw the sweat running down my face, my bloodshot eyes filled with tears, the seven beast subjugating me, my fate. My cries of help were only meant with the heckling of that wretched geezer, who's visage resembles that of Madea, and the breathing of the seven. They took off my suspenders, tore through my limited edition Capt. Kirk replica uniform, and bounded me with rope. They raped me and my dignity that day, and I'll never forget the heckling of that wretched witch and those barbarians. One horrible rape and my mother got scared. Now I live my aunt and uncle in Bel-Air.
Is this the part where I'm supposed to care?
by
gearloos
·
· Score: 1
Is this the part where I'm supposed to care? I guess I missed my cue.
-- "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners"
"They both work great until you start opening Windows"
It's back up...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...And nothing of value was gained.
All of 4chan is a shithole, except /new/.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All the boards take turns insulting other boards in "raids" to spread annoying memes that interrupt all discussion. In reality, 4chan is just a large sequence of planned interruptions in itself. Even 4chan is an interruption of your life just going there./new/ on the other hand is a bulletin board where people can post News that they themselves experiences, thus making it more useful than the other boards. In effect, all the other boards try to post current material in/new/ while keeping their own boards in the "antique" side of memory lane for them to remember what they once posted in/new/.
They should just rename 4chan boards to prefix "new" onto every other board name, and then we can settle the entire dispute so/new/ can publish Real news and better than Slashdot rather than News of the other boards.
4chan is back on line
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
4chan is back on line
Re:4chan is back on line
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
no it is not you INSENSITIVE (*&^)%$%^&*! i want my/s/ back NOW!
Because, y'know, this doesn't totally happen every other month.
forgive english, i am Russia.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
forgive english, i am Russia.
i come to study Mechanical Engineering at American university. i am here little time and i am very hard stress. i am gay also and this very difficult for me, i am very religion person. i never act to be gay with other men before. but after i am in america 6 weeks i am my friend together he is gay also. He was show me American video game and then we are kiss.
We sex together. I never before now am tell my mother about gay because i am very shame. As i fuck this American boy it is very good to me but also i am feel so guilty. I feel extreme guilty as I begin orgasm. I feel so guilty that I pick up my telephone and call Mother in Russia. I awaken her. It too late for stopping so I am cumming sex. I am very upset and guilty and crying, so I yell her, "I AM CUM FROM SEX" (in Russia). She say what? I say "I AM CUM FROM SEX" and she say you boy, do not marry American girl, and I say "NO I AM CUM FROM SEX WITH MAN, I AM IN ASS, I CUM IN ASS" and my mother very angry me. She not get scared though.
I hang up phone and am very embarrass. My friend also he is very embarrass. I am guilt and feel very stupid. I wonder, why do I gay with man? But I continue because when it spurt it feel very good in American ass.
troll detected
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you should not make a habit of telling people to look up words as it makes you sound like a condescending jerk
I post without my karma bonus for a reason. I know I don't belong at +2 to start. That being said, the mindlessness gets to me and some days I do want to be a jerk.
A post that includes something like this is trash:
I hate religious conversation because it's generally a waste of time but, unfortunately, there is a reason people generalize about Christians being against everything related to freedom and choice.
It does not bother me that it gets modded up, but don't people see this bias is being applied to all of humanity by all sides. Bring up any topic - Islam, Evolution, Global Warming - and otherwise well spoken people start talking like they couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.
The mods are d3d. Where is the modern movement for intelligent deconstruction? The above is +5 funny. I'm tired of playing sonar in this pond.
WAPR
According to the referenced status page
by
xenobyte
·
· Score: 1
4chan wasn't down due to DDoS but due to scheduled updates... Go figure...
The update apparently included one of moot's usual shenanigans - adding obnoxious music to/b/ and messing with the stylesheet... Well, actually he replaced a Christmas theme (with an obnoxious Christmas song) with a very yellow theme and Rednex "Cotton Eye Joe" as obnoxious soundtrack...
Always fun to see all the n00bs whining about how to turn off the music...;)
-- "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
-- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
A sewer takes shit away for processing, and performs a valuable function.
4chan produces useless shit non-stop - it is more analogous to a bunch of assholes with diarrhea. When 4chan is working, the sewers of the internet are likelier to be overloaded than when it is down. I agree that curing the diarrhea would be preferable to plugging the assholes, but either way, the rest of the world would simply see and applaud the reduction in shit.
-- Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
See metrix007 run away
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re:See metrix007 run away
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Slashdot Trolls (Homo Sapiens Asshatus) are an offshoot species that came into existence seemingly for the sole purpose of serving as proof of concept of "John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory." The Conspiracy Sciences Agency of Omicron Perseii 8 has speculated that John Gabriel himself is responsible for the formation of these pests. This is generally disregarded, as other researches discount this theory outright with the scientific argument: "duh."
Slashdot trolls are formed when a human of sub-normal intelligence and insufficient parental supervision is given access to a large audience and the cover of anonymity. The atavism is generally immediate, and brings with it a number of physiological changes: thickening of the cranium, increased adrenal output, a 90% decrease in cerebral activity, and Tourette's syndrome in 99% of cases. The most common and clear marking of the slashdot troll, however, is the marked molecular change in the victim's pheromones. This results in an ever-present, overpowering stench, often described as smelling like bovine excrement.
Most baffling, however, is the inexplicable aura of anti-Cluons the Slashdot troll emits. This field renders the victim completely resistant to all known cures for stupidity in the galaxy, save for death by blunt force trauma. It has the added function of attracting weak-minded and gullible individuals into entering debates on various subjects with the troll. Since these "discussions" are incapable of being rational or intelligent, due to the Universal Conceptual Value Metric ("The value of any discussion can be found by multiplying the IQs of the participants") they simply provide the troll the negative attention it requires to survive.
These individuals are referred to as "Troll-feeders," though they are known to be called much worse when they actively engage the troll in conversation. "Troll Feeding" is currently a 3rd degree misdemeanor on 7 planets, a second-degree felony on 21 planets, non-actionable on 3 planets, and a capital offense on every civilized planet, save for Vega 2. On Vega 2, troll feeders are locked up along with the trolls for life without parole.
As of this writing, the Civil Rights movement on Vega 2 is currently protesting, seeking a death sentence in the name of mercy.
clone how come you couldn't disprove this?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone? You sure talk big, but when it came down to it and the chips were on the table, you shut up and ran like the trolling beyotch you are.
clone runs away and FAILS?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you.
Re:clone52431 gets "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES"?
by
DavidTC
·
· Score: 1
Shut the hell up, idiot.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:clone52431 gets "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Meme wheel says: U mad.
clone52431 gets "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you!
clone52431 embarassingly gets shot down in flames?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone.
clone52431 gets embarassingly shot down in flames?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone!
Agreed, 110% (w/ exception like yours)... apk
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"While I agree -most- of 4chan is a shit hole, don't discount that it's many small communities under one banner. Everyone outside of/b/ hates/b/, people just think/b/ is 4chan, which is like saying the BNP is Britian" - by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Tuesday December 28, @10:05AM (#34686226)
Per my subject-line above - agreed, 110%. Why? You said it better than I could. That doesn't go for every single person there either, just the majority. I know for a fact they come in here to harangue others, & hassle them (trolling's what it's called here, used to be referred to as hijacking), etc./et al.
I did, however, meet 1 person there who goes by Harm Sorensen (or, was it Sorenson?), who actually knew his computing pretty well I have to say, I was impressed actually.
For a bit, during technical discussions & testing, I even made friends w/ he for a bit I felt.
(During researching HOSTS files 0, vs. 0.0.0.0 vs. 127.0.0.1 in their loadspeed & more (diskcaching takes over for DNS client caching, making the latter UTTERLY useless really, & it's limited in size too, bad design - no forward thinking!))
No... it's not like he was my buddy, but we shared a lot of good information & testing. Was actually, fun... & I proved my point, as I did to Foredecker (an MS mgr. of Microsoft's "Windows Client Performance Division", who posts here now & then, who had to admit the same as Harm S. did -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918 which was MY point, to a tee!)
So, I can't say the whole damn place is for shit though. That'd be TOO general for my tastes, & I see you think the same. Only being fair.
APK
P.S.=> Had to say it, even though practically EVERYONE KNOWS those guys are usually up to some bullshit as I noted above in they trolling others, & I know 1st hand, which gives them a bad rep above all else (I know, they hassled me here once, & it ended up with egg on their faces, as far as technical matters were concerned, see above (then came their "re-trolling" here, 'ad hominem attacks' & all, as usual, to no avail))... but, they're not ALL bad. No sites' like that (not that I know of @ least, & I've been out here online for 18 yrs. or more)... apk
Ladies & Gentlemen: We have a show prepared 4U
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
For your viewing pleasure, ladies and gentlemen - We have prepared in an exhibit for you:
"cloneus adhominus erectus" (LMAO - "the crowd goes wild")
Don't worry folks - you are safe behind the dotted-lines of the impenetrable cage of his own words quoted:
---
"cloneus adhominus erectus":
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well.
clone gets embarassingly "shot down in flames"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) also.
clone got embarassingly "shot down in flames"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) too.
clone got embarassingly "shot down in flames"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well too. LMAO!
clone got embarassingly "shot down in flames"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) also.
Re:You've "burnt yourself" yet again clone
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
So you replied to my post (advocating people learning how to the use of AdBlock Plus) by agreeing with me (“It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock”) and you think this is some big victory for you? Calling me right?
Maybe you are the one guilty of “skimming” (and stalking, certainly, which I’ve told you to stop at least several times previously and you’re treading on legal thin ice and you know it).
I never said in that post that the HOSTS file isn’t “superior to AdBlock &/or DNS”.
Nor did I say in that post that anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
Your post was nothing more than an off-topic attempt to hijack the discussion and shrilly scream your personal theme music, which is about as worthwhile and entertaining as a vuvuzela.
But now I will say them:
AdBlock is vastly superior to hosts file blocking and anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
clone gets embarassingly "shot down in flames"?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone. You've been trolling others here repeatedly, under the registered username of clone52431 (1805862) and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well. Time to put the shoe on the other foot now, yours!
Well, well: CLONE FINALLY REPLIES 2 days later?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"So you replied to my post (advocating people learning how to the use of AdBlock Plus) by agreeing with me (“It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock”) and you think this is some big victory for you? Calling me right?" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:23AM (#34711658)
No, I am saying adblock &/or dns alone, are NOT enough, & this link shows how/why/when/where:
You're welcome to dispute & disprove ANY of its points, good luck, you'll NEED it (flocks of trolls like yourself, under your other alternate registered account here even of clone53421 (1310749) have tried, & repeatedly failed!)
---
"AdBlock is vastly superior to hosts file blocking and anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:23AM (#34711658)
LMAO - you mean like when, for example:
1.) Arstechnica detected for their users using ADBLOCK & BLOCKED THEM OUT?
(They couldn't do that to a hosts file user!)
---
2.) You mean like how Adblock doesn't let you gain speed & avoid DNS servers (& their bugs/tracking too) for more speed??
---
3.) You mean like how Adblock only covers browsers, but not external email programs like Outlook Express/Full Outlook & many others like them???
You mean even MORE, like what's in this list below in my P.S.????
(Yea, right...)
APK
P.S.=> For your reference, once more (good luck disproving its points):
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
Now?
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
3.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1-2 browser family, but not all (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders
7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scri
Re:Well, well: CLONE FINALLY REPLIES 2 days later?
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family
The IETab Firefox addon allows viewing pages that only work in Internet Explorer, WITH adblock functionality, so your claim was false to begin with. But I only use one browser family anyway.
2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc.
You’re repeating yourself. That was the same as your first point, which I already disproved and discredited.
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
URLs open Firefox, and if your external e-mail reader is configured to load stuff from the web you’re “doing it wrong”. Point invalid.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will
On the rare occasion that this should be the case. Let me think... never. I’ve never suffered from this.
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs
But you’ll still get tracked when you run your APKBullShit(TM)HostsFileUpdaterAssUglyCruncher2011-ASCII-art-WHOOPDEFUCKINGDOO. ZOMG whatever will you do.
I’m bored, I’m stopping now. Bye APK.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:Well, well: CLONE FINALLY REPLIES 2 days later?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I don't have a life.
APK
Why'd you run away here, metrix007? LMAO!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Did your stupidity do you in again? See the URL below:
Poor showing clone, lmao (you FAIL, as usual)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"I’m bored, I’m stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Translated from "troll speak":
"I can't disprove your points APK, I tried, & failed, like I usually do - even under my other alternate registered user account of clone53421(1310749) as I tried & failed on here, before..." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
---
"The IETab Firefox addon allows viewing pages that only work in Internet Explorer, WITH adblock functionality, so your claim was false to begin with. But I only use one browser family anyway." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
It won't do it natively (firefox won't), but adblock FAILED AT ARSTECHNICA (didn't you read that, or did you skim & screwup as you did here earlier -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212 where you said this:
"You can't even use the hosts file to achieve the desired results in this particular case, because the obnoxious music is hosted on the same website as the rest of the page." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Tuesday December 28, @12:58PM (#34688830)
Man:
You really, *REALLY* need to work on reading, instead of skimming... I stated this, verbatim, this in that very same post you're avoiding:
"Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"...." - APK/myself
Man - LMAO: YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT!
---
"You’re repeating yourself. That was the same as your first point, which I already disproved and discredited." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Ahem: BULLSHIT - is there an adblock for ANDROID, for example?
(Not afaik, unless you can tell me different... but host files work on ANDROID even, just fine!)
Of course, adblock IS ALSO VERY DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE, just like how ARSTECHNICA BLOCKED THEIR USERS OF ADBLOCK & GOT BURNED FOR IT!
(LOL, that "went over like a 'lead balloon'")
---
"URLs open Firefox, and if your external e-mail reader is configured to load stuff from the web you’re “doing it wrong”. Point invalid." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Adblock will work for FF's built in mail client, it's part of FireFox... but again: What about other email programs like FULL OUTLOOK or even outlook express (or other 3rd party separate email programs)?
Nope, ADBLOCK FAILS!
---
"On the rare occasion that this should be the case. Let me think... never. I’ve never suffered from this." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Don't TRY to *think*: It's DEFINITELY NOT your "strong suit", as evidenced by your "giving up" so quickly... makes sense though!
I've just got more "know-how" in computing than YOU ever will, & I've thought that list of 20++ points of mine out, thoroughly, & tested it vs. trolls like yourself... I've won, everytime, because not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU, has disproven any of the points in my HOSTS file pros list!
Period!
---
"But you’ll still get tracked when you run your APKBullShit(TM)HostsFileUpdaterAssUglyCruncher2011-ASCII-art-WHOOPDEFUCKINGDOO. ZOMG whatever will you do." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Re:Poor showing clone, lmao (you FAIL, as usual)
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
adblock FAILED AT ARSTECHNICA
No, I think you mean that ArsTechnica FAILED AT BLOCKING adblock, because people forced them to stop. And that’s not even to say that the correct set of filters wouldn’t have blocked their ads without them being able to detect it, anyway.
I stated this, verbatim, this in that very same post you're avoiding:
You agreed with me, you stated I was right, and then you spouted a line of diarrhea about hosts.
Ahem: BULLSHIT - is there an adblock for ANDROID, for example?
I've won, everytime, because not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU, has disproven any of the points in my HOSTS file pros list!
In APK trollspeak, disproven = not disproven and never = everytime. Same old same old, APK.
you FAIL, clone, badly
I fail at forcing you to act halfway intelligent, LOL, but then of course that’s impossible since you’re such a complete moron.
Anyway, anyone with half a whit of sense already knows who the “winner” and “loser” here is, troll. It’s been nice pwning you.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Posting as AC now, clone52431? LMAO!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Wow that is one serious case of assburgers you got there APK, maybe you should try an MMO such as SL or a time-guzzling game like Noctis to occupy yourself, I think you'd find it more enjoyable. It's quite sad to watch you ramble on in great detail about using HOSTS files to do things that should be handled by DNS or browser script blocking.
- clone52431" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 28, @01:52PM (#34689576)
Too bad you already "shot yourself down in flames" in your replies here:
---
1.) 2 days ago -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212 , first
2.) Then again, later, here today -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711770
3.) Lastly, again here today -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34712078
---
You've already shown your incompetence, especially in that LAST URL above, where you said this:
"I’m bored, I’m stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
You tried to disprove 4 things of 20, & failed on them as well? LMAO!
(There's still 16 other points I made in favor of hosts files that you can try disprove still... of course, you'll fail as always - it's just "tradition" for you, lol...)
APK
P.S.=> That's what you get for trolling others clone, especially under your multiple registered user accounts here of clone52431 &/or clone53421... apk
Re:Posting as AC now, clone52431? LMAO!
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
That wasn’t me. You’re just so much fun to troll that other people want to get in on the act.
Why the hell would I post AC and then sign my post? That’s completely retarded (oh wait... you ALWAYS post AC and sign your post... well, except when you post AC and DON’T sign your posts – guess that just proves yet again that you’re completely retarded).
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
clone the troll gives up? LMAO... apk
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"I'm bored, I'm stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Translated from "troll speak":
"I can't disprove your points APK, I tried, & failed, like I usually do - even under my other alternate registered user account of clone53421(1310749) as I tried & failed on here, before..." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Heh - clone can't even KEEP HIS WORD, but that's ok: I just get to "shoot him done more", point-by-quoted-point, as is my style!
---
"No, I think you mean that ArsTechnica FAILED AT BLOCKING adblock, because people forced them to stop. And that's not even to say that the correct set of filters wouldn't have blocked their ads without them being able to detect it, anyway." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
LMAO - how pitiful: IT PROVES THAT ADBLOCK IS BLOCKABLE, BECAUSE IT IS DETECTABLE! Period.
(You can't DO THAT, to HOSTS files (they don't operate @ the ring3/rpl3/usermode level in a browser is why - they operate @ the ring 0/rpl0/kernel mode level of operation AS A FILTER THE IP STACK USES, is why!)
Adblock IS CLEARLY INFERIOR on THAT ALONE... & of course, there's 20 more points you were unable to TOUCH even, in favor of HOSTS files over Adblock (& even DNS servers)...
---
"You agreed with me" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
LMAO - wrong: Learn to read - I put out how/when/where/why HOSTS are superior to Adblock (especially adblock alone)... & you?
YOU RAN FROM DISPROVING ALL OF THE POINTS I PUT UP IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES, period!
(Or you said you were leaving, but I've seen that before outta you - that's ok, like I said: I love trashing you, what with your AC replies here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34712410 thinking I wouldn't see it, like the deceitful multiple account using troll you are, posting here as clone52431 (1805862) & in other posts, as clone53421 (1310749) as you do!)
That's WHY folks here call you "CLONE THE CLOWN", due to your multiple reg'd account usage here - because you apply "makeup", via your alternate registered user accounts here, like that fools anyone (not).
---
"dumbass." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
I only ASKED YOU if there was an adblock for ANDROID... I never said there wasn't one, & who's the "dumbass" now, alternate account using troll?? Not I.
Please - LEARN TO READ PROPERLY!
(Above all else - In your trying to put words in my mouth I NEVER SAID? Poor "tactic" on your part! Tossing names to do it also, like the ad hominem attacking troll you are?? Yet another FAIL on your end... name tossing only shows your frustration at losing here, & it does, everytime you resort to it, and you KNOW it! So does everyone else here reading...)
---
"I fail at forcing you to act halfway intelligent, LOL, but then of course that's impossible since you're such a complete moron." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
More effete adhominem attacks & "name tossing"? It appears that's the "best you've got" isn't it, troll??
LMAO - there's still 20 points in favor of HOSTS files I put up you can't touch/disprove, period... lmao!
(I love watching you SHUT YOUR MOUTH or RUN from that list of mine, everytime! It's just "too, Too, TOO EASY", just 2ez!)
---
"Anyway, anyone with half a whit of sense already knows
Re:clone the troll gives up? LMAO... apk
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
ADBLOCK IS BLOCKABLE, BECAUSE IT IS DETECTABLE! Period.
(You can't DO THAT, to HOSTS files
Sure you could, if you wanted to.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:clone the troll gives up? LMAO... apk
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
P.S.=>
P.S. WHAT? We're dying to know! Don't leave us hanging here, APK. Or did you give up?
clone, you haven't even disproven 1 of 20 points!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Sure you could, if you wanted to." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:14PM (#34712816)
Answer the question in my subject-line above... I have an IDEA (sort of) how it MIGHT be done, but even then, I don't think it'd work (hosts again, do NOT operate @ the ring3/rpl3/usermode application level...)
Of course, you're still avoiding disproving, OR FAILING IN DISPROVING, every one of my points on HOSTS files in favor of them vs. Adblock &/or DNS servers alone!
(Don't worry, I put them in my p.s. below for you to quote & TRY to do that... you'll fail, you have already on 4 points in my list already earlier in your replies here, lmao!)
("Gee - I wonder why that is?" (not, lol)).
I am putting up my list in favor of HOSTS files, again, for your reference, in my P.S. below (good luck, you'll NEED it, because there is no way in hell you can disprove every point in it (you haven't even managed to do 1 yet successully, lol, & you agreed that HOSTS can work vs. DNS Block lists, and even DNS request logs tracking already!))
Ah man - as per usual: just "too, Too, TOO EASY"...
APK
P.S.=>
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
Now?
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
3.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1-2 browser family, but not all (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders
7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
Re:clone, you haven't even disproven 1 of 20 point
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
clone, you haven't even disproven 1 of 20 points!
I disproved 5 of them and got bored. But here, I’ll cherry-pick one more.
HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
By FAR? A few milliseconds is BY FAR? And the OS has its own DNS cache locally (completely separate from the hosts file), so after doing the first lookup it won’t have to make this HORRIBLY “slow” several-millisecond roundtrip inquiry back to the DNS server again for quite some time.
In short, if the DNS queries are taking a noticeably long time, something is screwed up somewhere. It should never be a problem.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
You're not fooling anyone, clone... apk
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"That wasn’t me" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:16PM (#34712844)
Who was it then, clone? After all, you tried that when you posted as AC for 70 posts, trying to duplicate my APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++, & FAILING, here:
Where You posted as AC the whole time, lurking around "undercover" (lol), & then "suddenly outta the blue, 70 posts deep or more in a thread"? Ah... clone appears!
LOL, more like you hit "post as anonymous coward" & screwed up... well, "cat's outta the bag" now, isn't it, on HOW YOU OPERATE ONLINE?
Yes, it is.
(WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, clone? Not only do you do THAT, but you also use multiple registered accounts here of clone52431 (1805862) AND clone53421 (1310749) too & we ALL know it, now!)
APK
Re:You're not fooling anyone, clone... apk
by
clone52431
·
· Score: 1
That wasn’t me either.
-- Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:clone, you haven't even disproven 1 of 20 point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"I disproved 5 of them and got bored. But here, I’ll cherry-pick one more" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:27PM (#34712964)
No you didn't... which ones & how so?
Do them again then!
(& I'll just tear you apart in front of everyone here once more on them... TOO easily!)
LMAO - You're just as "successful" below, now, as you were earlier (NOT!):
---
"By FAR? A few milliseconds is BY FAR?" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:27PM (#34712964)
Faster, is FASTER... period!
(That's only 1 way that HOSTS files can speed you up, faster than ADBLOCK CAN... period!)
Nice to see you admit it, finally!
Plus, You've already admitted HOSTS work, where adblock won't, if a:
---
1.) DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPENS hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites
2.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites
3.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file!
(Faster too, which you admit above!)
---
That's NOT DISPROVING MY POINTS, clone - you're only AFFIRMING THEM, lol!
Hosts work, & better than adblock alone especially on ALL THE FRONTS MY 20 POINTS IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILE NOTE, to get you to sites not only FASTER, but you get there reliably, & not as "tracked" (via the easiest method there is for that, in DNS request logs - if you don't touch a DNS server? You can't be tracked that way - period!)
LMAO! This really IS, "too, Too, TOO EASY" for me... just 2EZ!
(Especially when already on 2 of your points you have agreed with me, here & on DNSBL, DNS Request logs, & even dns poison redirected dns servers)
APK
P.S.=> Yes - There's still 20 points you haven't been able to get the "better of" clone... why's that? LOL, we know! apk
Ahem: B.S.! apk
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Clone, who are you trying to fool?
NOBODY comes into a post, 70 or more posts deep, suddenly (especially to defend YOU, the multiple account using troll)...
APK
P.S.=> You're also FAILING MISERABLY @ disproving my list of 20 points in favor of HOSTS files... right from here:
Heck - you even AFFIRMED MY POINTS in favor of hosts files already: ---
1.) w/ Adblock being detectable & blocked as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file! - Adblock allows NOTHING like this, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
Heck - you even AFFIRMED MY POINTS in favor of hosts files already INSTEAD OF DISPROVING THEM:
---
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file! - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
---
APK
P.S.=> Just "too, Too, TOO EASY - 2EZ"... lol! apk
Clone, seems you already "gave up" (lie)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
---
After all - that small list above of points you conceded to me & you failed on, & your other results thusfar, from here
They're only making me LOOK GOOD, in that you are helpless vs. them, & that Adblock just doesn't DO AS MUCH FOR USERS AS HOSTS FILES DO... period!
---
Of course, you ALREADY said "YOU GIVE UP" too (another clone lie):
"I'm bored, I'm stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Translated from "troll speak":
"I can't disprove your points APK, I tried, & failed, like I usually do - even under my other alternate registered user account of clone53421(1310749) as I tried & failed on here, before..." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Heh - clone can't even KEEP HIS WORD even, but that's ok!
(I just get to "shoot him done more", point-by-quoted-point, as is my style!)
APK
P.S.=> Just "too, Too, TOO EASY - 2EZ"... lol! apk
Re:HOSTS files are superior to AdBlock &/or DN
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Umm... yeah. Did it take you 4 simultaneous corner 24 hour days and 4 Earth rotations within a single 24 hour rotation of CubedEarth to write that all out?
clone, ac posts & off topic b.s. isn't helping
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
See subject line & realize this:
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, vs. even DNS request logs, they can't track you if you use HOSTS files, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
---
After all - that small ONLY PARTIAL list above of points you conceded to me & you failed on, & your other results thusfar, from here
on downwards in this exchange? They're only making me LOOK GOOD!
(In that you are helpless vs. them, & that Adblock just doesn't DO AS MUCH FOR USERS AS HOSTS FILES DO... period!)
APK
P.S.=> Yes - This is EXACTLY when I know I have gotten the 'best of a troll' - when the use adhominem attacks, which clone's replies under just 1 of his multiple clone accounts here ( ) are full of, & when he has to resort to AC replies as he has now...
Hilarious! Talk about obvious... apk
Way to evade and duck the point, APK
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You said BY FAR. A few milliseconds is not BY FAR. QED. (too, too easy, too!)
And you completely ducked the point about the local DNS cache making hosts NO FASTER AT ALL once the initial DNS lookup is done (which your lame-brained Delphi app does ANYWAY, and it actually takes AN HOUR... when someone else posted a simple shell script that does it in much less time). So in the “bigger picture”, your method is MUCH, MUCH SLOWER (LOL, exactly the opposite of what you claim... AS USUAL (par for the course with YOU!)) => ducking the point = conceded that point (i.e. I was right (AGAIN)). Thank you.
P.S. – See also the other 5 points of yours I disproved (before I got bored of disproving your garbage claims) here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711908 (APK, you fail BADLY... why do you even keep trying?!)
Re:clone, ac posts & off topic b.s. isn't help
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That wasn't me either.
Does it really surprise you that other people are actually coming to see for themselves what your shitstream is all about? You've only been posting links to it in your off-topic replies to ALL MY POSTS. Not that "any publicity is good publicity" - on the contrary, any publicity for YOU is BAD publicity, so you're just shooting yourself in the foot really.
P.S. Maybe it isn't all me! Maybe there's a coordinated effort to post AC replies to your posts! Maybe a bunch of people are in on it together! It's a conspiracy! You like conspiracies, right?!
(I am monitoring this thread, etc.)
You FAIL again, posting as AC even, clone
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"You said BY FAR. A few milliseconds is not BY FAR" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
Well - Faster IS FASTER, period... and adblock can't do that for you also (i.e. - hardcode in your favorite sites so you reach them).
---
Yes, custom HOSTS files work for that, even when:
1.) The DNS server is DOWN
2.) The DNS server is redirect poisoned
3.) The DNS server uses DNSBL (dns block lists)
4.) AND, vs. DNS tracking too (via DNS request logs).
---
There's NO denying it!
Clone, even though you're posting as AC now? You fell FLAT ON YOUR FACE in front of everyone here on those, the only ones you've tried from my total list of 20 points in favor of HOSTS files, period!
---
"And you completely ducked the point about the local DNS cache making hosts NO FASTER AT ALL once the initial DNS lookup is done" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
WTF is THIS about?
I usually recommend TURNING OFF THE LOCAL DNS CLIENT CACHE, in Windows @ least, because it FAILS ON LARGER HOSTS FILES!
(In fact, even mvps.org covers it where you download from them by the way)
So, if/when you turn off the local Windows DNS Client cache service (w/ its limited & fixed size buffer structure)?
The local DISKCACHE takes over, for caching HOSTS file content!
Plus, reading from your local disk, even for the 1st read to HOSTS? 5-7ms!
There's a BIG difference, in speed, here using HOSTS, vs. remote calls to DNS servers!
(DNS servers, that may be redirect poisoned, or downed, or using DNS block lists etc.)
Which remote calls to a DNS server take 30-60ms ROUNDTRIP, MINIMUM, if not MORE, to get a hosts-domain name resolution - to - IPAddress from a remote DNS server!
That's what?
A 6-10 fold order of magnitude or so, better/faster using HOSTS than remote DNS servers?
Simple! DO THE MATH...
However - first, you'd have to understand computing first, which you don't, to KNOW that, lol...
---
"which your lame-brained Delphi app does ANYWAY, and it actually takes AN HOUR... when someone else posted a simple shell script that does it in much less time" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
First: His "Script Kiddie" (yours I should say, lol, since you posted as AC there too clone)? Doesn't work...
Secondly: I had to correct him/you, on EXACTLY where it fails, & he/you did so!
A.) # comments after line items which some HOSTS files makers do, stupidly imo, bloating the file!
B.) trailing blanks (bloat in hosts) at line end in HOSTS files (it happens)
C.) Caps that create repeats in line entries
(& more)!
---
See here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 OR here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34687498
To which YOU tried to make further corrections, & haven't yet covered what I wrote as faults in it still, vs. MY WORK (imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery)...
DUE TO MY FINDING FAULTS IN YOUR WORK? YOU HAD TO ALTER IT, even though you said it ran right! LOL, not!
You've deviated TOTALLY from the original codebase -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34658206
Because you HAD TO, because your code was 1/2 assed & incomplete - which mind you, YOU SAID WORKED ALREADY, & I PROVED IT DOES NOT!
To which you HAD to begin making changes to it yet more, PER MY SUGGESTIONS? Please...
(Your "script kiddie" base is actually MORE like it too, as you are using 8
You've already FAILED 4x now, lol... & more! a
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"any publicity for YOU is BAD publicity, so you're just shooting yourself in the foot really." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:26PM (#3471420
Oh, really? Well:
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME (which you TRIED to "disprove" only to fail miserably or agree with me on):
---
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, vs. even DNS request logs, they can't track you if you use HOSTS files, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
(too easy, I overturned EVERY SINGLE ONE of your "so-called rebuttal points", easily - TOO easily!)
---
After all - that small ONLY PARTIAL list above of points you conceded to me & you failed on, & your other results thusfar!
APK
P.S.=> There's still all 20 points I noted in the URL I posted here originally to go, for you to "disprove" which you have not, per the top of this post alone (and you FAIL, as usual vs. them all) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34688708... apk
Posting as AC now? Clone - You are BUSTED!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"See also the other 5 points of yours I disproved (before I got bored of disproving your garbage claims) here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711908 [slashdot.org] (APK, you fail BADLY... why do you even keep trying?!)" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
You're BUSTED clone...
Hehehe - You said "See also the other 5 points of yours I disproved" & you pointed RIGHT to your clone post -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711908 by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
LMAO!
Talk about stupid... so tell us clone, why the AC post now?
You said I do that?? Well, like you say??? PROVE IT, and funny - I always post as AC, & sign off as APK... you, on the other hand???
BUSTED!
APK
P.S.=> Clone, this is yet another one for my bookmarks/favs, in the TROLLS section! It will be titled "CLONE GETS CAUGHT POSTING AS AC", lol, busted... apk
clone whats this about you having 2 reg'd accts?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re:You're caught posting as AC here clone
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you missed out on our special offer on MogTrolls several years ago, you don't want to miss this one!
Now that Bush is gone, are you itching to satisfy your inner Gitmo Beach Water Torture instincts, but you DON'T want to harm either a human being or an animal? Don't worry, be happy! Now there's KowalskiInABox.
Approved by PETA, the SPCA, and DHS, you too can have hours of fun turning a KowalskiSockPuppet into your very own trained pet. That's KowalskiInABox. Just like a jack-in-the-box, KowalskiInABox will jump at your slightest nudge. He even winds himself up! How's that for convenience?
Consider. The typical Kowalski Sock Puppet is terribly lonely. So starved for any attention that, just like MogTrolls, it only takes a few pokes to get them to perform for you, providing hours of entertaining fun. And you're keeping one more wannabe troll off the streets. It's a win-win-win. It's your civic duty! and it's fun:-)
You can get your KowalskiSockPuppet to follow you all over the place like the pitiful lost puppy^slug that they are. They'll take abuse that would be illegal in all 52 states (yes, I know there are only 50, but we're throwing in an extra two to make KowalskiInABox feel real REAL important).
And for a limited time, if you order a KowalskiInABox, we'll throw in the Petey Kowalski Sock Puppet Random Quote Generator - part of the KowalskiInABox Special Edition game pack. Just look at the latest gems:
"I post from a 400 hz computer"
"it's true because I'm a subscriber to Windows IT Pro"
"I take care of her computer and she only gets two viruses a month"
But wait - theres MORE
Act now, and we'll throw in a Second KowalskiInABox absolutely free. That's right folks! Two for the price of one. Who can resist? Put them together and you'll swear you hear "Dueling Banjos". They may even start squealing like a pig.
Remember how you chuckled about "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the special olympics?" but you felt a bit guilty about making fun of the mentally handicapped? With KowalskiInABox those days are gone. KowalskiInABox is your road to 100% guilt-free guilty pleasure. Even people who would argue about withdrawing sustenance from the brain-dead have no moral qualms about you kicking your pet KowalskiInABox. With an IQ somewhere between a pet rock and freezer-burned ice cream, there are no ethical concerns over KowalskiInABox - even your two-year-old terror can safely vent their temper tantrums.
And that's not all - theres MORE
That's right. With KowalskiInABox, you also get our free guide - "Troll trolling." Written by trolls, for trolls, it's your insiders guide to competitively scoring your KowalskiInABox. Remember, the more of these fails your KowolskiInABox says, the higher your score. Because...
That's not all - theres MORE - you get entry into the "Trolling Petey Sweepstakes and Beerfest"
That's right! When slumming on Craigslist just isn't enough, you can test your troll-bashing skills against other KowolskiInABox owners. Compete head-on for pink slips. Put your KowalskiInABox in a claim race. Try to win the big one with the KowalskiInABox Bullshit Bingo competition - does YOUR KowalskiInABox have what it takes to fill the whole card?
And as a final bonus
You have the option of getting your Kowalski Sock Puppet branded as a KawolskiInABox instead of a KowalskiInABox - because intentionally mis-spelled names drives your KowalskiInABox nutzo!
There's only one way to find out folk. So remember - act now and you get:
Not one, but TWO KowalskiInABox;
KowalskiInABox Special Edition game pack intro
Your exclusive "Troll trolling" guide
Entry in the "Trolling Petey Sweepstakes and
classic metrix007
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Scientology stronger than ever?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Stronger than ever? Not really. The CoS has been on the decline for a long time. They used to be able to control their own public image more effectively, to keep the truth about them from getting out; they can't really do that anymore.
Replying as AC now that you're caught clone?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It's where clone's busted, OUTRIGHT BUSTED, as posting as AC in reply, for the 1st time (the one I am replying to here now, is the 2nd).
---
Now, wait - it GETS EVEN BETTER!
Here's the REALLY "interesting part" though:
clone also uses 2 registered * clone * accounts here on slashdot as well:
clone53421 (1310749) and clone52431 (1805862)
See how clone used his 53421 clone account to try to 'defend' the 53421 alternate registered one here, below next, and you have some "StRaNgE PhAnTaSiEs" to say the least, from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996:
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
---
LMAO, busted... badly & on ALL accounts noted above... too easy!
APK
Re:Replying as AC now that you're caught clone?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Who gives a fuck? Seriously, you're the only one who cares. Seek help.
I saw an informative image about how to rig a suicide shotgun. IIRC all you need is a shotgun and some string. You should consider it.
Re:clone, ac posts & off topic b.s. isn't help
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
They're only making me LOOK GOOD!
LOL, I'd say you can't possibly actually believe that but you're just about crazy enough that you might.
HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS
You're kidding, right? I have no doubt whatsoever that I could easily roll a system to detect hosts-based blocking. The problem is that it pisses off your users (which ArsTechnica learned the hard way... in fact they were forced to stop detecting/blocking AdBlock!), and it's undoubtedly not going to be failproof (as I'm sure some ArsTechnica users found ways to circumvent it anyway).
Here, I did one just for you:
var i = new Image(); i.src = "http://ads1.msn.com/ads/pronws/CIQ/HMML/0509_Kiev_Toolkit_Email/nb-no/hrDot.jpg"; i.onerror = i.onload = function() {
if (this.width < 1) {
alert("Ask yourself...\n'Do I feel lucky?'\nWELL, DO YA, PUNK?");
location.replace("http://www.google.com/search?q=goatse&btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky");
} else alert("Ad server is not blocked.\nEnjoy your ads, faggot."); }
"Who gives a fuck?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
You do: Look @ your profane response (just because you've been caught practicing your deceits of using multiple registered accounts to "support yourself with", clone -> clone53421 (1310749) = clone52431 (1805862), & this was the "ultimate embarassment" for you:
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
(You have some "StRaNgE PhAnTaSiEs" to say the least, clone - seek professional help!)
---
"Seriously, you're the only one who cares." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
No, the shoe's on the other foot, because you're actually replying... a bit embarassed, are we? Sure you are, due to being caught using not only AC replies as you are doing now, clone, but also because you use 2 diff. accounts here, like some deceitful little jack-ass.
The embarrassment didn't end there for you though, it also was here on a technical level where your skimming and big mouth did you right in, easily:
"Seek help." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
Ahem (LOL): See above, & your own "StRaNgE PhAnTaSiEs" quoted above... & then, tell us that again, ok? LMAO!
---
"I saw an informative image about how to rig a suicide shotgun." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
Gee, I wonder WHY that is on your end? Dying of EMBARASSMENT, are we??
---
"IIRC all you need is a shotgun and some string." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
No, lol, I tend to think it's the other way around here/vice-a-versa.
---
"You should consider it." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
I don't take advice from deceitful cowards. Especially ones that get CAUGHT RED-HANDED AT THEIR DECEITS, as shown above, as you have been.
APK
P.S.=> Thus endeth the lesson... apk
Re:clone, ac posts & off topic b.s. isn't help
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"You're kidding, right? I have no doubt whatsoever that I could easily roll a system to detect hosts-based blocking." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @12:04PM (#34755316)
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
2.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
3.) OR, vs. even DNS request logs, they can't track you if you use HOSTS files, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
4.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
NOW - the ONLY way I can figure out HOW to do that, possibly, would be to use webbugs (email bugs type work on a webpage using images - which of course, after your reading my posts, you are NOW trying, lmao... I still don't know if that'd work or not, it was theorizing on my part only, & still has YET to be proven... & "pseudocode" won't do that for you!).
APK
P.S.=> You TALK a lot, but when it comes RIGHT DOWN TO IT? You don't produce anything - nothing we can actually USE/TRY (just your "pseudocode", lol)... You're just talk, & good at 1 thing:
Getting your behind handed to you, by "yours truly", everytime... too easy! apk
Re:clone, ac posts & off topic b.s. isn't help
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS
You already said that, and I just posted a way to detect and block them, you fucking cunt. By failing to address my point, you have just conceded that HOSTS ARE DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE. QED, bitches.
Let’s recap this. You have conceded to me the following:
and last but not least, HOSTS ARE DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE.
Prove it works then (you're using MY IDEAS)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Let's recap this. You have conceded to me the following: HOSTS files do NOT block by IP address" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @11:20AM (#34765800)
Ahem: First - Can you show us where I ever said they did? No. Juasko did, not I!
Secondly: I also showed you that that's SIMPLE TO GET AROUND, using either router/firewall rules tables (which DO block by IP)&/or software firewall rules tables (to do the same, block an IP address off)
(Are you stupid? You must be... I covered that in DETAIL to both yourself, AND juasko here)
---
"I just posted a way to detect and block them, you fucking cunt." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @11:20AM (#34765800)
Listen pussy: First, You'll have to prove it works, and you're only using MY IDEAS ANYHOW (on webbugs type tech with images, which I noted to you earlier in our other exchange anyways, lol)
Hilarious: You use MY IDEAS, constantly!
Just like how you corrected your "script kiddie code" script per my recommendations (because YOU HAD TO & YOU KNEW I WAS RIGHT!))
LMAO - & your "Script Kiddie Script"? Hey - it's STILL not working right...
E.G.-> You are leaving duplicates like MAD from hosts files like mvps.org's &/or someonewhocares versions, because you're NOT removing trailing blanks that pad spaces between the end of a hosts entry, & the trailing # comments on some lines they do (which is dumb, bloats the file, but I correct for it properly in my application "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++ "... you do not!)
That's only 1 area your script kiddie script failed on... I noted 2 more also!
(E.G.- You don't have a ToUpperCase or ToLowerCase style function either, which if you have Example.com vs. example.com in the hosts file? You'll get duplicates!)
I.E. - Your work (not really yours, you didn't write the *NIX commands you used, & you certainly can't put my other programs into a script either, lol, you're LIMITED!)? Doesn't work, not completely/fully/properly... perhaps juasko will get it working right, since you have not.
End of subject.
---
"By failing to address my point, you have just conceded that HOSTS ARE DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE. QED, bitches." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @11:20AM (#34765800)
I addressed your points (my point really, I was the one that noted using "webbug" type work with images, which is what tracking does) & blew you away... everytime, on every "point" you've made (even when you rip off MY IDEAS, & those? My ideas were only theoretical, but I am NOT SURE THEY WILL WORK EITHER!)
APK
P.S.=> Still, on HOSTS file blocking & YOU RIPPING OFF MY IDEA TO USE A WEBBUG TYPE DETECTION? LOL, ok:
Prove to me MY IDEA, not yours, works...
Go on, make a website, do MY trick/technqie & we'll see if it works (when I have scripting off? LOL, well... we'll see!)... apk
Re:Prove it works then (you're using MY IDEAS)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
YOUR idea? LOL, go masturbate.
You didn’t invent the internet, the webbug, or anything else of value. And you just conceded to me, AGAIN, that the concept would work. And I already posted proof-of-concept code.
Turning scripting off doesn’t work either => <noscript><meta HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" content="0; http://www.google.com/search?q=goatse&btnI=I'm+feeling+lucky"></noscript>
(And if you turn scripting off, the website just doesn’t work => again, you are foiled!)
Proof of WEBBUG concept by myself, first vs. you
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"YOUR idea?" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
Yes, I noted it here, BEFORE YOU DID YOUR "pseudocode" (lol) & yes, using "webbugs" ideas, no less, which IS again, what you're up to, & FAR before you even wrote your "pseudocode", & this is the proof of it:
---
"(My guess is that they used some type of javascript + "webbug" type of tracking, but, that's ONLY a guess on my part!) - by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, @01:20PM (#34536350)
For blocking out HOSTS files (remains to be seen though, but Adblock CAN be blocked thus!)
---
So much for your "idea", chump... you're just "biting off my style" & skills, as per usual (like you did with your script kiddie script, that STILL ISN'T WORKING RIGHT, lol!)
IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: Albeit, ONLY IF THE IMITATION/KNOCK OFF DOES WHAT THE ORIGINAL PRODUCT DOES... your script, even with my help to you, God knows WHY I helped you? Does not!
---
"You didn't invent the internet, the webbug, or anything else of value." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
I never said I did: I only stated, with PROOF no less, that you try to use my ideas, rampantly, only AFTER I STATED THEM! Proof of that? Above...
(It predates anything you've done here, after all!)
---
"And you just conceded to me, AGAIN, that the concept would work. And I already posted proof-of-concept code." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
That remains to be seen if it works or not, & yes, it is my CONCEPT!
(After all/again - See above, I posted the idea on HOW TO DO IT in conversations with you, prior to your "pseudocode" being posted!)
You must like looking stupid or to be made out as a liar...
---
"LOL, go masturbate." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
No thank you: I prefer "live entertainment", unlike yourself, obviously (lmao!)
APK
P.S.=> Ah, yes, as per my usual, dispatching trolls? I just GOTTA say it: "too, Too, TOO EASY", just '2EZ'... as always! The more you talk, the more you get "shot down"... are you a masochist or something? apk
Re:Proof of WEBBUG concept by myself, first vs. yo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
FAR before you even wrote your "pseudocode"
That wasn't pseudocode, it was a fully-functional.js file.
My guess is that they used some type of javascript + "webbug" type of tracking, but, that's ONLY a guess on my part!
You don't even know for sure? What are you, fucking stupid? It's bleedingly obvious how to do something like this - unless you're a script kiddie like APK. Oh... never mind, I forgot who I was talking to. Yes, of course you're fucking stupid.
you try to use my ideas
Pretty sure you were copying ArsTechnica's idea, tard. And you don't even know for sure how they did it, you're just making a "guess". And if it was your idea, why the fuck did you go making ignorant statements like "hosts blocking is not detectable"? Oh, that's right - it wasn't your idea, and you didn't have a fucking clue that hosts blocking IS detectable.
For blocking out HOSTS files (remains to be seen though, but Adblock CAN be blocked thus!)
The.js code posted above works. Try it.
No thank you: I prefer "live entertainment"
Don't forget to pay her first. And with the sluts you can afford, I'd suggest that you double up on the condoms. Not just for your protection, either... they probably can't afford birth control to ensure your genetic material gets Darwin'd. And coat hangers are dangerous.
LOL, I was right (I had your script tech right)...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Again, my proof of what I said in my subject-line above:
---
"(My guess is that they used some type of javascript + "webbug" type of tracking, but, that's ONLY a guess on my part!) - by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, @01:20PM (#34536350)
For blocking out HOSTS files users (remains to be seen though, but Adblock CAN be blocked thus!)
---
There you go! I was right, & before YOU TOO, as usual... see?
I had the idea, on how to do the code for said script that ARSTECHNICA BUSHWHACKED THEIR OWN USERS WITH NO LESS, down right... & you?
You stole the idea from my writings here, clearly, during your earlier stalking of myself here all week - where you also FAILED HUGELY on a "script kiddie" script trying to again, DUPLICATE MY WORK & STEAL MY IDEAS too...
Too bad for you, but:
"IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: But only when the imitation(s) can do what the original(s) can/could", & "your work" (not yours, you didn't write ping, mv, sed, sort, wget, & more *NIX commands you used)? FAILED THERE TOO, lmao!
---
"That wasn't pseudocode, it was a fully-functional.js file." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
Then, by golly: LET'S TEST IT!
Let's see if it can:
---
1.) Threaten a hosts file user...
or
2.) Even detect for HOSTS file usage
---
(I'll be turning off javascript, so, lol, I don't see how you could affect me OR even detect for the usage of a HOSTS file, even with MY IDEA of using webbugs & javascript).
After all, in the posts you've replied to here, vainly, losing @ every turn on your part?
I said for you to make a site, I will see if you can "get me", & detect for a HOSTS file... I can promise you 1 thing, for sure:
YOU'RE NO THREAT!
---
"You don't even know for sure?" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
LMAO, I do NOW, & IT WAS EXACTLY AS I STATED IT WAS, & I SAID IT BEFORE YOU EVER WROTE YOUR "SCRIPT KIDDIE SCRIPT" (your 1st one? LOL, didn't work out so well trying to duplicate my "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++" either - IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY (but, then again - the imitation has to do what the original does, & yours? DOES NOT!)
---
"What are you, fucking stupid? It's bleedingly obvious how to do something like this - unless you're a script kiddie like APK. Oh... never mind, I forgot who I was talking to. Yes, of course you're fucking stupid." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
LOL, sure sure... you're the one with EGG ON YOUR FACE!
That script? LOL, works just as I said it would (& before you ever came up with it, proving all you do is steal things I said earlier while you stalk me)!
Yes, because I did indeed do as I said, & stated earlier: That I had this thing's "mechanics" down well enough to state it, but I try NOT to "speak in absolutes" as you have... because you are the one with egg on your face here for that very thing (enough to make a good omelet, lol)...
---
"Pretty sure you were copying ArsTechnica's idea, tard." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
No you are, trying to re-write THEIR script (LOL, with MY IDEAS ON HOW ITS DONE RIGHT IN YOUR CODE & I CLEARLY OUTLINED THE MECHANICS YOU USED WAY BEFORE YOU DID HERE THIS WEEK!)
You stalked me all week, fell on your FACE with Shell Script vs. my "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++" onc
clone whats this about felonious activity online?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128) on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
clone care to tell us all about this?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128) on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
clone, care to tell everyone here about this?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128) on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - You are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
clone care to tell us what THIS is about?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128) on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
Care to tell us about THIS, clone?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128) on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128) on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
---
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
Slashdot Mirror
First post for first time in 10 years
Don't worry they will be slashdotted too.
And nothing of value was lost...
Ugh...no one told me 4chan is NSFW.
Loading...
LOL!
Quis ddos ipsos ddos'ers?
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
And nothing of value was lost.
I would not be surprised.
oops, too late
DDoS bringing your site down?
BLAST IT WITH PISS!!!!
I know who's to blame. Its those anonymous types again!
The trolls were bottled up in there fighting other trolls, now those trolls have no where to live, they'll be looking for new boards to cause havoc on, we are all doomed, doomed I tell you!
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
"Oops, our bad. Has nothing to do with your recent attempt on us, promise." - Amazon.com
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
I thought they would have the foresight to host their pages on Amazon Web Services
"An anonymous reader writes" ... Pure gold. I love the irony.
One reason i thought those actions against Mastercard etc. to be stupid was, that it established DDOS as method of protest. I am afraid, we will see more of this in the future. In my textbook, DDOS is neiter a legal nor a legitimate form of protest but a criminal act. It doesn't matter wether the target is Wikileaks, Mastercard or 4chan.
CU, Martin
Its users probably all (well, the dumb ones) got themselves infected with a virus that DDoSed their home turf again. It happens every few months. The main question in my mind is how it spread, this time – reCaptcha cut the head off it last time.
Or maybe it’s just something entirely different this time.
Anyway, returning to the question in my subject, when did it go down? how long has it been down? is it down hard, or is it coming and going?
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I have the impression that this story might have a follow up somehow ....
Set the www.4chan.org A record to point to amazon.com .. That will teach them !
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I just can't wait until some anti-Anonymous crusader lays claim to this... and then be promptly DDOSed into oblivion.
lol you would have to be ballsack crazy to toy with the brigands on 4chan. They will do their best to hunt the culprit down I imagine and likely drag his identity from one end of the internet to the other when they find them.
When you dislike the human race as much as I do, Karma:Bad is inevitable lol.
Frosty piss
4chan was taken down when a bunch of /b/-tard script kiddies handed over control of their LOIC programs to some Anonymous person on the internet, not realizing that 4chan was the target.
Maybe the football game is playing on 5chan as well?
So, slashdot rushes to point a link to the remaining status page, causing yet another DDOS attack...
I'm trying to think of one piece of useful information I've ever gotten from 4Chan.. and... I got nothin.
Seriously, wutt ? :)
The above post is not funny at all. It's insightful.
/b/tards with even more free time on their hands? Not a pretty picture.
When is 4chan up again?
Come on people click the link. The internet its main supply of childporn will be down for some more time.
... it is also slashdotted!
Cool!
It was the snow, opperation frosty vengence backfired on them!!!
it was done for the lols
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
"DDOS is neiter a legal nor a legitimate form of protest but a criminal act."
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/21/interview-with-cyber-security-czar-howard-schmidt.html
"Hundreds of Internet activists recently mounted cyberattacks on companies like MasterCard and Amazon because they had ended their affiliation with WikiLeaks. How dangerous could this kind of action be?"
Howard Schmidt: "We've seen over time [street] protests in cities that shut down traffic, and this is not dissimilar in the online world. There may be a disruption for a short period of time, but the bottom line is we continue to work to make sure that the impact is minimal."
???
*snicker*giggle*
So the first thing I do is say to myself "I gotta see this". Head over to the site to see and sho nuff. All I did was add more traffic to them posting this story helped them out, perhaps that was the plan. Am I the only one that did this and then came to a realization.
Mod Parent UP!!!
Pack up guys, we're moving to 711chan.
Knowing 4chan, they're prolly doing it themselves.
4chan is just more relevant than what's left of Slashdot and, of course, has more traffic to cope with...
It seems Boxxy is behing the attack. http://i.imgur.com/9GXO5.jpg
Karma's a bitch
ITT: Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls trolling troll
We accidentally our own image board. Is this bad?
Lie down with dogs.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
The PSG OST was released last night, which basically took over /a/. I guess those interested got their battle music and decided to make use of it.
We sure it's been DDOS'd? I checked my logs and moot posted late last night with this picture:
http://imgur.com/bY2n4
It looks like he unplugged the 4chan servers?
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
It's is holy DDoS attack because of 4chan "rate my dick" cancer and yet is driven by anonymous and m00t himself.
would anyone possibly want to ddos 4chan?
My parser is a grammar nazi.
Last night /b/ went to light blue text on yellow bg and an endless loop of "Cotton Eye Joe" playing. Today it's been DDOS'd into oblivion. Coincidence? I think not.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Well I respect anyone's aspiration to a better society, to organize and rebel. We do have too passive citizens. Learning to organize is critical. Whatever the actual ideas motivtating it, organizing involves the same basic skills.
I would suggest 4chan, or anyone, study better methods, better organizing. You can join Indymedia/IMC, full of great people, read up on the US vietnam antiwar organizers, the US african american equal rights organizers. If into Wikileaks, join and help Wikileaks. If you want to learn real, hard core organizing and social ideas and skills, join a real social-revolution organizing group, like anarchists, socialists, or humanists. Go help Critical Mass. If you just want to have some fun, but organize, do a Flash Mob. Always look for the organizers, and offer real hard core help, do the real hard work, and you'll learn. Don't just hang around, you will learn nothing.
http://critical-mass.info/
http://www.wikileaksforum.net/
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob
4chan has to learn more. Their old tactics were for Scientology, a rather weak, fang-less, unpopular group of weirdoes. Not for dealing with corporate and government groups, which have support of networks within government, lawyers, detectives, spies, police, FBI, etc.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
You mean....pissing in an ocean of piss actually accomplishes something?
Some clever person spammed the boards with d0z.me links. And it wasn't me! *shifty eyes*
*a silvery eruption interrupts the Slashdot rave, a robotic voice speaks*
"4chan has been DDoSed, moot is ded, they are coming"
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
im glad that racist site is down. i hope it stays down forever. racist garbage!
PUDDI puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi puddi
4chan is ddosed every few months by various people. How is this newsworthy?
The amount of awesome in this thread is almost too much to handle. I demand screenshots.
And the obligatory picture.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
That's what I call poetic justice!
Is it just me, or did everyone else notice a dramatic drop in spam? Seriously, from 100-200 messages per inbox to about 10... I bet the /b/tards don't even know their boxes are sending out spam with their ddos app....
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 you getting absolutely smoked, badly. That's what you get for trolling others and saying your code worked, when the person you trolled had to show you how to correct your mistakes in your pseudocode bullshit you tried to fool others with there. That's pitiful clone, it really is. You got your butt handed to you before by that same ac apk on hosts files and you ran there too. Get over it, you suck at computing clone. You're a noob, a rookie, at most. This is why nobody has ever said your work in computing was any good: You've showed us all there you blew it trying to take on someone who has done well in commercial code products even. The worst part is, you tried trolling him posting as ac, and you forgot to keep hitting your submit as anonymous that time. Bad job clone. I'd give up computing were I you. You suck. Badly.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 you're getting absolutely smoked, badly, clone. That's what you get for trolling others and saying your code worked, when the person you trolled had to show you how to correct your mistakes in your pseudocode bullshit you tried to fool others with there. That's pitiful clone, it really is. You got your butt handed to you before by that same ac apk on hosts files and you ran there too. Get over it, you suck at computing clone. You're a noob, a rookie, at most. This is why nobody has ever said your work in computing was any good: You've showed us all there you blew it trying to take on someone who has done well in commercial code products even. The worst part is, you tried trolling him posting as ac, and you forgot to keep hitting your submit as anonymous that time. Bad job clone. I'd give up computing were I you. You suck. Badly. You FAIL!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 you're getting absolutely smoked, badly, clone. That's what you get for trolling others and saying your code worked, when the person you trolled had to show you how to correct your mistakes in your pseudocode bullshit you tried to fool others with there. That's pitiful clone, it really is. You got your butt handed to you before by that same ac apk on hosts files and you ran there too. Get over it, you suck at computing clone. You're a noob, a rookie, at most. This is why nobody has ever said your work in computing was any good: You've showed us all there you blew it trying to take on someone who has done well in commercial code products even. The worst part is, you tried trolling him posting as ac, and you forgot to keep hitting your submit as anonymous that time. Bad job clone. I'd give up computing were I you. You suck. Badly. You FAIL!
This is me playing the world's tiniest violin.
This one's JUST FOR YOU, clone (disprove every single one of its points, as ,b>you failed badly here before on this very same note -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946 AND, for your trolling me as AC here today http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34687498 , and YOU FAILED LARGE on your end clone, with a bogus script that didn't work and I had to correct it for you here today after you worked DAYS on it no less, & I had to tell you how/where/when/why it failed, which you corrected for, lol, per MY suggestions no less), so here we go:
---
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).
2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders
7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org/
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://news.netcraft.com/
http://www.shadowserver.org/
REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/reliable sources):
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
now they'll need to go dark and develop other tools / weapons to use against our government.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Really, APK? Really?!
You can’t even use the hosts file to achieve the desired results in this particular case, because the obnoxious music is hosted on the same website as the rest of the page.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
I was at the grocery store earlier wondering why there were smelly, dirty teenagers sitting here and there on the floor of the place, all of them rocking back and forth holding various items whose names began with B. Most of them were just muttering the word "faggots" over and over again, but there were two or three who were talking to the pictures on product boxes saying things like "tits or gee tee eff oh" and "winrar." Exactly seven of them were masturbating openly. The rest were being discreet, I'm sure. Now I know.
An "anonymous" reader writes
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
This should start getting fun now.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Poetic Justice?
Wow that is one serious case of assburgers you got there APK, maybe you should try an MMO such as SL or a time-guzzling game like Noctis to occupy yourself, I think you'd find it more enjoyable. It's quite sad to watch you ramble on in great detail about using HOSTS files to do things that should be handled by DNS or browser script blocking.
- clone52431
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212 see that, learn to read clone instead of skimming. Your stupidity in trolling others backfired on your stupid lame ass, again. He covered adblock being useful as an added layer of security and showed a quote of his words saying exactly that. He also showed many points on how adblock alone isn't enough. For example, adblock was even detected and blocked for at arstechnica (which went over like a "lead balloon"), so, so much for adblock alone and your weak crap due to skimming on your part that I replied to. I'm in this thread already, but I do not feel like getting a troll like you on my case, even though you're easy to get the best of, as shown in the url above.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Guess anonymous got a bit of a taste of their own medicine. GG whoever is doing it.
yes, we all love boxxy.
now post something /.ers will appreciate, like GNAA bullshit or something.
I am a 28 year old male, whom is still girlfriend free, if you ladies are interested. Throughout my whole life, I was bullied and teased for my weight and my strange demeanor. In my quest for a boyfriend-free girl, it appears to be futile in that even when I was advertising myself as a caring, nice man, women flocked to the more masculine types. Sorry, I got carried away, I'm just in an emotional dilemma, for I was raped by not just one black man, but seven. Yes, seven, seven of which raped me with much bestial fervor. I was in west Philadelphia at the time, at my childhood playground, playing a game of auto-basketball by myself as I usually would every Sunday. Night was coming, and I practiced frivolously to improve my basketball prowess. As I made my last free throw shot, several of those hooligans entered the court; I was not aware of the events that would proceed. They said to me, if I can recall it accurately, "YO WHITE BOY, YOU GONNA GET RAPED!!!!" I was startled, yet steadfast. I had rights to this public domain, and no African American was going to keep me from exercising that right!!!! However, I would find that my rights were not the only things violated, but also my body; my forbearance was my demise. I would not appease to the minorities demands, and, as if time stood still, the buckle holding my suspenders was unhooked. I buffered to the door, simultaneously calling for help, but only to be replied with a miserly old woman's heckling. Why was I chosen by fate, no, by God to be the victim of such a crime? I looked into her callous eyes, which taunted me. Suddenly, four words escaped from her lips, "You gonna get raped..." The shadow she casts bore remarkable similarities to the devil, then I looked at the reflection in her spectacles. I saw the sweat running down my face, my bloodshot eyes filled with tears, the seven beast subjugating me, my fate. My cries of help were only meant with the heckling of that wretched geezer, who's visage resembles that of Madea, and the breathing of the seven. They took off my suspenders, tore through my limited edition Capt. Kirk replica uniform, and bounded me with rope. They raped me and my dignity that day, and I'll never forget the heckling of that wretched witch and those barbarians. One horrible rape and my mother got scared. Now I live my aunt and uncle in Bel-Air.
Is this the part where I'm supposed to care? I guess I missed my cue.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
...And nothing of value was gained.
All the boards take turns insulting other boards in "raids" to spread annoying memes that interrupt all discussion. In reality, 4chan is just a large sequence of planned interruptions in itself. Even 4chan is an interruption of your life just going there. /new/ on the other hand is a bulletin board where people can post News that they themselves experiences, thus making it more useful than the other boards. In effect, all the other boards try to post current material in /new/ while keeping their own boards in the "antique" side of memory lane for them to remember what they once posted in /new/.
They should just rename 4chan boards to prefix "new" onto every other board name, and then we can settle the entire dispute so /new/ can publish Real news and better than Slashdot rather than News of the other boards.
4chan is back on line
I'd imagine DDOSing 4chan is similiar to poking a sleeping bear with a sharp stick.
Be seeing you...
this shit happens. sit back and watch the fireworks i guess.
...We heard you liked DDoS attacks, so we went and DDoS'd the message board you used for coordinating DDoS attacks!
(I can't fap to this).
-Signed, Anonymous (Coward)
with reasonable speed. And downforeveryoneorjustme just switched from "it's down" to "it's up" seconds ago.
Because, y'know, this doesn't totally happen every other month.
forgive english, i am Russia.
i come to study Mechanical Engineering at American university. i am here little time and i am very hard stress. i am gay also and this very difficult for me, i am very religion person. i never act to be gay with other men before. but after i am in america 6 weeks i am my friend together he is gay also. He was show me American video game and then we are kiss.
We sex together. I never before now am tell my mother about gay because i am very shame. As i fuck this American boy it is very good to me but also i am feel so guilty. I feel extreme guilty as I begin orgasm. I feel so guilty that I pick up my telephone and call Mother in Russia. I awaken her. It too late for stopping so I am cumming sex. I am very upset and guilty and crying, so I yell her, "I AM CUM FROM SEX" (in Russia). She say what? I say "I AM CUM FROM SEX" and she say you boy, do not marry American girl, and I say "NO I AM CUM FROM SEX WITH MAN, I AM IN ASS, I CUM IN ASS" and my mother very angry me. She not get scared though.
I hang up phone and am very embarrass. My friend also he is very embarrass. I am guilt and feel very stupid. I wonder, why do I gay with man? But I continue because when it spurt it feel very good in American ass.
you should not make a habit of telling people to look up words as it makes you sound like a condescending jerk
4chan wasn't down due to DDoS but due to scheduled updates... Go figure...
The update apparently included one of moot's usual shenanigans - adding obnoxious music to /b/ and messing with the stylesheet... Well, actually he replaced a Christmas theme (with an obnoxious Christmas song) with a very yellow theme and Rednex "Cotton Eye Joe" as obnoxious soundtrack...
Always fun to see all the n00bs whining about how to turn off the music... ;)
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
And nothing of value was lost...
Nobody values sewers until they stop working.
A sewer takes shit away for processing, and performs a valuable function.
4chan produces useless shit non-stop - it is more analogous to a bunch of assholes with diarrhea. When 4chan is working, the sewers of the internet are likelier to be overloaded than when it is down. I agree that curing the diarrhea would be preferable to plugging the assholes, but either way, the rest of the world would simply see and applaud the reduction in shit.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1925236&cid=34675566
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
?
Well??
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
Well??
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone? You sure talk big, but when it came down to it and the chips were on the table, you shut up and ran like the trolling beyotch you are.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone??
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone????
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone?????
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone??????
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1755714&cid=33353946
How come you couldn't disprove the points in favor of hosts files there, clone????????
Did your stupidity do you in again? See the URL below:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1925236&cid=34675566
Absolutely.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you!
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone!
"While I agree -most- of 4chan is a shit hole, don't discount that it's many small communities under one banner. Everyone outside of /b/ hates /b/, people just think /b/ is 4chan, which is like saying the BNP is Britian" - by Turn-X Alphonse (789240) on Tuesday December 28, @10:05AM (#34686226)
Per my subject-line above - agreed, 110%. Why? You said it better than I could. That doesn't go for every single person there either, just the majority. I know for a fact they come in here to harangue others, & hassle them (trolling's what it's called here, used to be referred to as hijacking), etc./et al.
I did, however, meet 1 person there who goes by Harm Sorensen (or, was it Sorenson?), who actually knew his computing pretty well I have to say, I was impressed actually.
For a bit, during technical discussions & testing, I even made friends w/ he for a bit I felt.
(During researching HOSTS files 0, vs. 0.0.0.0 vs. 127.0.0.1 in their loadspeed & more (diskcaching takes over for DNS client caching, making the latter UTTERLY useless really, & it's limited in size too, bad design - no forward thinking!))
No... it's not like he was my buddy, but we shared a lot of good information & testing. Was actually, fun... & I proved my point, as I did to Foredecker (an MS mgr. of Microsoft's "Windows Client Performance Division", who posts here now & then, who had to admit the same as Harm S. did -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918 which was MY point, to a tee!)
So, I can't say the whole damn place is for shit though. That'd be TOO general for my tastes, & I see you think the same. Only being fair.
APK
P.S.=> Had to say it, even though practically EVERYONE KNOWS those guys are usually up to some bullshit as I noted above in they trolling others, & I know 1st hand, which gives them a bad rep above all else (I know, they hassled me here once, & it ended up with egg on their faces, as far as technical matters were concerned, see above (then came their "re-trolling" here, 'ad hominem attacks' & all, as usual, to no avail))... but, they're not ALL bad. No sites' like that (not that I know of @ least, & I've been out here online for 18 yrs. or more)... apk
For your viewing pleasure, ladies and gentlemen - We have prepared in an exhibit for you:
"cloneus adhominus erectus" (LMAO - "the crowd goes wild")
Don't worry folks - you are safe behind the dotted-lines of the impenetrable cage of his own words quoted:
---
"cloneus adhominus erectus":
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
---
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996
ROTFLMAO!
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) also.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) too.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well too. LMAO!
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone, for your trolling others here repeatedly, and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) also.
So you replied to my post (advocating people learning how to the use of AdBlock Plus) by agreeing with me (“It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock”) and you think this is some big victory for you? Calling me right?
Maybe you are the one guilty of “skimming” (and stalking, certainly, which I’ve told you to stop at least several times previously and you’re treading on legal thin ice and you know it).
I never said in that post that the HOSTS file isn’t “superior to AdBlock &/or DNS”.
Nor did I say in that post that anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
Your post was nothing more than an off-topic attempt to hijack the discussion and shrilly scream your personal theme music, which is about as worthwhile and entertaining as a vuvuzela.
But now I will say them:
AdBlock is vastly superior to hosts file blocking and anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
Hmmmm? Did Your big mouth and skimming get you into a jam again?? Absolutely. You tried taking on your betters, and your skimming and your stupidity did you in, promptly. How embarassing for you clone. It was totally hilarious watching you run away! There will be NO burying this clone. You've been trolling others here repeatedly, under the registered username of clone52431 (1805862) and under your other registered username here too of clone53421 (1310749) as well. Time to put the shoe on the other foot now, yours!
"So you replied to my post (advocating people learning how to the use of AdBlock Plus) by agreeing with me (“It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock”) and you think this is some big victory for you? Calling me right?" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:23AM (#34711658)
No, I am saying adblock &/or dns alone, are NOT enough, & this link shows how/why/when/where:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34688708
You're welcome to dispute & disprove ANY of its points, good luck, you'll NEED it (flocks of trolls like yourself, under your other alternate registered account here even of clone53421 (1310749) have tried, & repeatedly failed!)
---
"AdBlock is vastly superior to hosts file blocking and anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:23AM (#34711658)
LMAO - you mean like when, for example:
1.) Arstechnica detected for their users using ADBLOCK & BLOCKED THEM OUT?
(They couldn't do that to a hosts file user!)
---
2.) You mean like how Adblock doesn't let you gain speed & avoid DNS servers (& their bugs/tracking too) for more speed??
---
3.) You mean like how Adblock only covers browsers, but not external email programs like Outlook Express/Full Outlook & many others like them???
You mean even MORE, like what's in this list below in my P.S.????
(Yea, right...)
APK
P.S.=> For your reference, once more (good luck disproving its points):
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
Now?
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
3.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1-2 browser family, but not all (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders
7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scri
Did your stupidity do you in again? See the URL below:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1925236&cid=34675566
"P.S. Kudos on the anti APK work" - by metrix007 (200091) on Wednesday December 29, @08:45PM (#34706174)
You mean the SAME "APK WORK" that made you EAT YOUR WORDS, here?
Why'd you run away here, metrix007:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1925236&cid=34675566
Did your stupidity and trolling do you in again?
"I’m bored, I’m stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Translated from "troll speak":
"I can't disprove your points APK, I tried, & failed, like I usually do - even under my other alternate registered user account of clone53421(1310749) as I tried & failed on here, before..." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
---
"The IETab Firefox addon allows viewing pages that only work in Internet Explorer, WITH adblock functionality, so your claim was false to begin with. But I only use one browser family anyway." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
It won't do it natively (firefox won't), but adblock FAILED AT ARSTECHNICA (didn't you read that, or did you skim & screwup as you did here earlier -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212 where you said this:
"You can't even use the hosts file to achieve the desired results in this particular case, because the obnoxious music is hosted on the same website as the rest of the page." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Tuesday December 28, @12:58PM (#34688830)
Man:
You really, *REALLY* need to work on reading, instead of skimming... I stated this, verbatim, this in that very same post you're avoiding:
"Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock, &/or NoScript (especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"...." - APK/myself
Man - LMAO: YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THAT RIGHT!
---
"You’re repeating yourself. That was the same as your first point, which I already disproved and discredited." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Ahem: BULLSHIT - is there an adblock for ANDROID, for example?
(Not afaik, unless you can tell me different... but host files work on ANDROID even, just fine!)
Of course, adblock IS ALSO VERY DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE, just like how ARSTECHNICA BLOCKED THEIR USERS OF ADBLOCK & GOT BURNED FOR IT!
(LOL, that "went over like a 'lead balloon'")
---
"URLs open Firefox, and if your external e-mail reader is configured to load stuff from the web you’re “doing it wrong”. Point invalid." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Adblock will work for FF's built in mail client, it's part of FireFox... but again: What about other email programs like FULL OUTLOOK or even outlook express (or other 3rd party separate email programs)?
Nope, ADBLOCK FAILS!
---
"On the rare occasion that this should be the case. Let me think... never. I’ve never suffered from this." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Don't TRY to *think*: It's DEFINITELY NOT your "strong suit", as evidenced by your "giving up" so quickly... makes sense though!
I've just got more "know-how" in computing than YOU ever will, & I've thought that list of 20++ points of mine out, thoroughly, & tested it vs. trolls like yourself... I've won, everytime, because not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU, has disproven any of the points in my HOSTS file pros list!
Period!
---
"But you’ll still get tracked when you run your APKBullShit(TM)HostsFileUpdaterAssUglyCruncher2011-ASCII-art-WHOOPDEFUCKINGDOO. ZOMG whatever will you do." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
"Wow that is one serious case of assburgers you got there APK, maybe you should try an MMO such as SL or a time-guzzling game like Noctis to occupy yourself, I think you'd find it more enjoyable. It's quite sad to watch you ramble on in great detail about using HOSTS files to do things that should be handled by DNS or browser script blocking.
- clone52431" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 28, @01:52PM (#34689576)
Too bad you already "shot yourself down in flames" in your replies here:
---
1.) 2 days ago -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212 , first
2.) Then again, later, here today -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711770
3.) Lastly, again here today -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34712078
---
You've already shown your incompetence, especially in that LAST URL above, where you said this:
"I’m bored, I’m stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
You tried to disprove 4 things of 20, & failed on them as well? LMAO!
(There's still 16 other points I made in favor of hosts files that you can try disprove still... of course, you'll fail as always - it's just "tradition" for you, lol...)
APK
P.S.=> That's what you get for trolling others clone, especially under your multiple registered user accounts here of clone52431 &/or clone53421... apk
"I'm bored, I'm stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Translated from "troll speak":
"I can't disprove your points APK, I tried, & failed, like I usually do - even under my other alternate registered user account of clone53421(1310749) as I tried & failed on here, before..." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Heh - clone can't even KEEP HIS WORD, but that's ok: I just get to "shoot him done more", point-by-quoted-point, as is my style!
---
"No, I think you mean that ArsTechnica FAILED AT BLOCKING adblock, because people forced them to stop. And that's not even to say that the correct set of filters wouldn't have blocked their ads without them being able to detect it, anyway." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
LMAO - how pitiful: IT PROVES THAT ADBLOCK IS BLOCKABLE, BECAUSE IT IS DETECTABLE! Period.
(You can't DO THAT, to HOSTS files (they don't operate @ the ring3/rpl3/usermode level in a browser is why - they operate @ the ring 0/rpl0/kernel mode level of operation AS A FILTER THE IP STACK USES, is why!)
Adblock IS CLEARLY INFERIOR on THAT ALONE... & of course, there's 20 more points you were unable to TOUCH even, in favor of HOSTS files over Adblock (& even DNS servers)...
---
"You agreed with me" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
LMAO - wrong: Learn to read - I put out how/when/where/why HOSTS are superior to Adblock (especially adblock alone)... & you?
YOU RAN FROM DISPROVING ALL OF THE POINTS I PUT UP IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILES, period!
(Or you said you were leaving, but I've seen that before outta you - that's ok, like I said: I love trashing you, what with your AC replies here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34712410 thinking I wouldn't see it, like the deceitful multiple account using troll you are, posting here as clone52431 (1805862) & in other posts, as clone53421 (1310749) as you do!)
That's WHY folks here call you "CLONE THE CLOWN", due to your multiple reg'd account usage here - because you apply "makeup", via your alternate registered user accounts here, like that fools anyone (not).
---
"dumbass." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
I only ASKED YOU if there was an adblock for ANDROID... I never said there wasn't one, & who's the "dumbass" now, alternate account using troll?? Not I.
Please - LEARN TO READ PROPERLY!
(Above all else - In your trying to put words in my mouth I NEVER SAID? Poor "tactic" on your part! Tossing names to do it also, like the ad hominem attacking troll you are?? Yet another FAIL on your end... name tossing only shows your frustration at losing here, & it does, everytime you resort to it, and you KNOW it! So does everyone else here reading...)
---
"I fail at forcing you to act halfway intelligent, LOL, but then of course that's impossible since you're such a complete moron." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @12:45PM (#34712534)
More effete adhominem attacks & "name tossing"? It appears that's the "best you've got" isn't it, troll??
LMAO - there's still 20 points in favor of HOSTS files I put up you can't touch/disprove, period... lmao!
(I love watching you SHUT YOUR MOUTH or RUN from that list of mine, everytime! It's just "too, Too, TOO EASY", just 2ez!)
---
"Anyway, anyone with half a whit of sense already knows
"Sure you could, if you wanted to." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:14PM (#34712816)
Answer the question in my subject-line above... I have an IDEA (sort of) how it MIGHT be done, but even then, I don't think it'd work (hosts again, do NOT operate @ the ring3/rpl3/usermode application level...)
Of course, you're still avoiding disproving, OR FAILING IN DISPROVING, every one of my points on HOSTS files in favor of them vs. Adblock &/or DNS servers alone!
(Don't worry, I put them in my p.s. below for you to quote & TRY to do that... you'll fail, you have already on 4 points in my list already earlier in your replies here, lmao!)
("Gee - I wonder why that is?" (not, lol)).
I am putting up my list in favor of HOSTS files, again, for your reference, in my P.S. below (good luck, you'll NEED it, because there is no way in hell you can disprove every point in it (you haven't even managed to do 1 yet successully, lol, & you agreed that HOSTS can work vs. DNS Block lists, and even DNS request logs tracking already!))
Ah man - as per usual: just "too, Too, TOO EASY"...
APK
P.S.=>
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
Now?
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
3.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1-2 browser family, but not all (Disclaimer: Opera now has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc.).
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders
7.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:
GOOD INFORMATION ON MALWARE BEHAVIOR LISTING BOTNET C&C SERVERS + MORE (AS WELL AS REMOVAL LISTS FOR HOSTS):
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
http://www.stopbadware.org
http://blog.fireeye.com/
http://mtc.sri.com/
http://news.netcraft.com
http://www.shadowserver.org/
REGULARLY UPDATED HOSTS FILES SITES (reputable/relia
clone, you haven't even disproven 1 of 20 points!
I disproved 5 of them and got bored. But here, I’ll cherry-pick one more.
HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).
By FAR? A few milliseconds is BY FAR? And the OS has its own DNS cache locally (completely separate from the hosts file), so after doing the first lookup it won’t have to make this HORRIBLY “slow” several-millisecond roundtrip inquiry back to the DNS server again for quite some time.
In short, if the DNS queries are taking a noticeably long time, something is screwed up somewhere. It should never be a problem.
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
"That wasn’t me" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:16PM (#34712844)
Who was it then, clone? After all, you tried that when you posted as AC for 70 posts, trying to duplicate my APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++, & FAILING, here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34686090
Where You posted as AC the whole time, lurking around "undercover" (lol), & then "suddenly outta the blue, 70 posts deep or more in a thread"? Ah... clone appears!
LOL, more like you hit "post as anonymous coward" & screwed up... well, "cat's outta the bag" now, isn't it, on HOW YOU OPERATE ONLINE?
Yes, it is.
(WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, clone? Not only do you do THAT, but you also use multiple registered accounts here of clone52431 (1805862) AND clone53421 (1310749) too & we ALL know it, now!)
APK
"I disproved 5 of them and got bored. But here, I’ll cherry-pick one more" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:27PM (#34712964)
No you didn't... which ones & how so?
Do them again then!
(& I'll just tear you apart in front of everyone here once more on them... TOO easily!)
LMAO - You're just as "successful" below, now, as you were earlier (NOT!):
---
"By FAR? A few milliseconds is BY FAR?" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @01:27PM (#34712964)
Faster, is FASTER... period!
(That's only 1 way that HOSTS files can speed you up, faster than ADBLOCK CAN... period!)
Nice to see you admit it, finally!
Plus, You've already admitted HOSTS work, where adblock won't, if a:
---
1.) DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPENS hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites
2.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites
3.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file!
(Faster too, which you admit above!)
---
That's NOT DISPROVING MY POINTS, clone - you're only AFFIRMING THEM, lol!
Hosts work, & better than adblock alone especially on ALL THE FRONTS MY 20 POINTS IN FAVOR OF HOSTS FILE NOTE, to get you to sites not only FASTER, but you get there reliably, & not as "tracked" (via the easiest method there is for that, in DNS request logs - if you don't touch a DNS server? You can't be tracked that way - period!)
LMAO! This really IS, "too, Too, TOO EASY" for me... just 2EZ!
(Especially when already on 2 of your points you have agreed with me, here & on DNSBL, DNS Request logs, & even dns poison redirected dns servers)
APK
P.S.=> Yes - There's still 20 points you haven't been able to get the "better of" clone... why's that? LOL, we know! apk
Clone, who are you trying to fool?
NOBODY comes into a post, 70 or more posts deep, suddenly (especially to defend YOU, the multiple account using troll)...
APK
P.S.=> You're also FAILING MISERABLY @ disproving my list of 20 points in favor of HOSTS files... right from here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
On down! Too easy...
Heck - you even AFFIRMED MY POINTS in favor of hosts files already:
---
1.) w/ Adblock being detectable & blocked as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file! - Adblock allows NOTHING like this, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
apk
You're also FAILING MISERABLY @ disproving my list of 20 points in favor of HOSTS files... right from here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
On down! Too easy...
---
Heck - you even AFFIRMED MY POINTS in favor of hosts files already INSTEAD OF DISPROVING THEM:
---
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file! - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
---
APK
P.S.=> Just "too, Too, TOO EASY - 2EZ"... lol! apk
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, even DNS request logs can't track you, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
---
After all - that small list above of points you conceded to me & you failed on, & your other results thusfar, from here
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34688708
on downwards in this exchange?
They're only making me LOOK GOOD, in that you are helpless vs. them, & that Adblock just doesn't DO AS MUCH FOR USERS AS HOSTS FILES DO... period!
---
Of course, you ALREADY said "YOU GIVE UP" too (another clone lie):
"I'm bored, I'm stopping now. Bye APK." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Translated from "troll speak":
"I can't disprove your points APK, I tried, & failed, like I usually do - even under my other alternate registered user account of clone53421(1310749) as I tried & failed on here, before..." - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)" - by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
Heh - clone can't even KEEP HIS WORD even, but that's ok!
(I just get to "shoot him done more", point-by-quoted-point, as is my style!)
APK
P.S.=> Just "too, Too, TOO EASY - 2EZ"... lol! apk
Umm... yeah.
Did it take you 4 simultaneous corner 24 hour days and 4 Earth rotations within a single 24 hour rotation of CubedEarth to write that all out?
See subject line & realize this:
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, vs. even DNS request logs, they can't track you if you use HOSTS files, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
---
After all - that small ONLY PARTIAL list above of points you conceded to me & you failed on, & your other results thusfar, from here
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34688708
on downwards in this exchange? They're only making me LOOK GOOD!
(In that you are helpless vs. them, & that Adblock just doesn't DO AS MUCH FOR USERS AS HOSTS FILES DO... period!)
APK
P.S.=> Yes - This is EXACTLY when I know I have gotten the 'best of a troll' - when the use adhominem attacks, which clone's replies under just 1 of his multiple clone accounts here ( ) are full of, & when he has to resort to AC replies as he has now...
Hilarious! Talk about obvious... apk
You said BY FAR. A few milliseconds is not BY FAR. QED. (too, too easy, too!)
And you completely ducked the point about the local DNS cache making hosts NO FASTER AT ALL once the initial DNS lookup is done (which your lame-brained Delphi app does ANYWAY, and it actually takes AN HOUR ... when someone else posted a simple shell script that does it in much less time). So in the “bigger picture”, your method is MUCH, MUCH SLOWER (LOL, exactly the opposite of what you claim ... AS USUAL (par for the course with YOU!)) => ducking the point = conceded that point (i.e. I was right (AGAIN)). Thank you.
P.S. – See also the other 5 points of yours I disproved (before I got bored of disproving your garbage claims) here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711908 (APK, you fail BADLY... why do you even keep trying?!)
That wasn't me either.
Does it really surprise you that other people are actually coming to see for themselves what your shitstream is all about? You've only been posting links to it in your off-topic replies to ALL MY POSTS. Not that "any publicity is good publicity" - on the contrary, any publicity for YOU is BAD publicity, so you're just shooting yourself in the foot really.
P.S. Maybe it isn't all me! Maybe there's a coordinated effort to post AC replies to your posts! Maybe a bunch of people are in on it together! It's a conspiracy! You like conspiracies, right?!
(I am monitoring this thread, etc.)
"You said BY FAR. A few milliseconds is not BY FAR" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
Well - Faster IS FASTER, period... and adblock can't do that for you also (i.e. - hardcode in your favorite sites so you reach them).
---
Yes, custom HOSTS files work for that, even when:
1.) The DNS server is DOWN
2.) The DNS server is redirect poisoned
3.) The DNS server uses DNSBL (dns block lists)
4.) AND, vs. DNS tracking too (via DNS request logs).
---
There's NO denying it!
Clone, even though you're posting as AC now? You fell FLAT ON YOUR FACE in front of everyone here on those, the only ones you've tried from my total list of 20 points in favor of HOSTS files, period!
---
"And you completely ducked the point about the local DNS cache making hosts NO FASTER AT ALL once the initial DNS lookup is done" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
WTF is THIS about?
I usually recommend TURNING OFF THE LOCAL DNS CLIENT CACHE, in Windows @ least, because it FAILS ON LARGER HOSTS FILES!
(In fact, even mvps.org covers it where you download from them by the way)
So, if/when you turn off the local Windows DNS Client cache service (w/ its limited & fixed size buffer structure)?
The local DISKCACHE takes over, for caching HOSTS file content!
Plus, reading from your local disk, even for the 1st read to HOSTS? 5-7ms!
There's a BIG difference, in speed, here using HOSTS, vs. remote calls to DNS servers!
(DNS servers, that may be redirect poisoned, or downed, or using DNS block lists etc.)
Which remote calls to a DNS server take 30-60ms ROUNDTRIP, MINIMUM, if not MORE, to get a hosts-domain name resolution - to - IPAddress from a remote DNS server!
That's what?
A 6-10 fold order of magnitude or so, better/faster using HOSTS than remote DNS servers?
Simple! DO THE MATH...
However - first, you'd have to understand computing first, which you don't, to KNOW that, lol...
---
"which your lame-brained Delphi app does ANYWAY, and it actually takes AN HOUR ... when someone else posted a simple shell script that does it in much less time" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
First: His "Script Kiddie" (yours I should say, lol, since you posted as AC there too clone)? Doesn't work...
Secondly: I had to correct him/you, on EXACTLY where it fails, & he/you did so!
E.G.-> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34687498
LOL, only to fail yet again!
Your script kiddie script still doesn't cover:
---
A.) # comments after line items which some HOSTS files makers do, stupidly imo, bloating the file!
B.) trailing blanks (bloat in hosts) at line end in HOSTS files (it happens)
C.) Caps that create repeats in line entries
(& more)!
---
See here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34684420 OR here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34687498
To which YOU tried to make further corrections, & haven't yet covered what I wrote as faults in it still, vs. MY WORK (imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery)...
DUE TO MY FINDING FAULTS IN YOUR WORK? YOU HAD TO ALTER IT, even though you said it ran right! LOL, not!
You've deviated TOTALLY from the original codebase -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34658206
Because you HAD TO, because your code was 1/2 assed & incomplete - which mind you, YOU SAID WORKED ALREADY, & I PROVED IT DOES NOT!
To which you HAD to begin making changes to it yet more, PER MY SUGGESTIONS? Please...
(Your "script kiddie" base is actually MORE like it too, as you are using 8
"any publicity for YOU is BAD publicity, so you're just shooting yourself in the foot really." - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:26PM (#3471420
Oh, really? Well:
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME (which you TRIED to "disprove" only to fail miserably or agree with me on):
---
1.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
2.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
3.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
4.) OR, vs. even DNS request logs, they can't track you if you use HOSTS files, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
(too easy, I overturned EVERY SINGLE ONE of your "so-called rebuttal points", easily - TOO easily!)
---
After all - that small ONLY PARTIAL list above of points you conceded to me & you failed on, & your other results thusfar!
APK
P.S.=> There's still all 20 points I noted in the URL I posted here originally to go, for you to "disprove" which you have not, per the top of this post alone (and you FAIL, as usual vs. them all) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34688708 ... apk
"See also the other 5 points of yours I disproved (before I got bored of disproving your garbage claims) here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711908 [slashdot.org] (APK, you fail BADLY... why do you even keep trying?!)" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 30, @03:20PM (#34714142)
You're BUSTED clone...
Hehehe - You said "See also the other 5 points of yours I disproved" & you pointed RIGHT to your clone post -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34711908 by clone52431 (1805862) on Thursday December 30, @11:45AM (#34711908)
LMAO!
Talk about stupid... so tell us clone, why the AC post now?
You said I do that?? Well, like you say??? PROVE IT, and funny - I always post as AC, & sign off as APK... you, on the other hand???
BUSTED!
APK
P.S.=> Clone, this is yet another one for my bookmarks/favs, in the TROLLS section! It will be titled "CLONE GETS CAUGHT POSTING AS AC", lol, busted... apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34718828 and from you posts history I see there are actually 2 clones here yours clone52431 (1805862) and yours clone53421 (1310749). Smells of dishonest trollery to me.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34718828 and from you posts history I see there are actually 2 clones here yours clone52431 (1805862) and yours clone53421 (1310749). Smells of dishonest trollery to me.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1925236&cid=34675566
LMAO!
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1925236&cid=34675566
Stronger than ever? Not really. The CoS has been on the decline for a long time. They used to be able to control their own public image more effectively, to keep the truth about them from getting out; they can't really do that anymore.
Hilarious, see subject line above, & this post:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34719816
First... lmao!
It's where clone's busted, OUTRIGHT BUSTED, as posting as AC in reply, for the 1st time (the one I am replying to here now, is the 2nd).
---
Now, wait - it GETS EVEN BETTER!
Here's the REALLY "interesting part" though:
clone also uses 2 registered * clone * accounts here on slashdot as well:
clone53421 (1310749) and clone52431 (1805862)
See how clone used his 53421 clone account to try to 'defend' the 53421 alternate registered one here, below next, and you have some "StRaNgE PhAnTaSiEs" to say the least, from http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996:
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
---
LMAO, busted... badly & on ALL accounts noted above... too easy!
APK
They're only making me LOOK GOOD!
LOL, I'd say you can't possibly actually believe that but you're just about crazy enough that you might.
HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS
You're kidding, right? I have no doubt whatsoever that I could easily roll a system to detect hosts-based blocking. The problem is that it pisses off your users (which ArsTechnica learned the hard way... in fact they were forced to stop detecting/blocking AdBlock!), and it's undoubtedly not going to be failproof (as I'm sure some ArsTechnica users found ways to circumvent it anyway).
Here, I did one just for you:
"Who gives a fuck?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
You do: Look @ your profane response (just because you've been caught practicing your deceits of using multiple registered accounts to "support yourself with", clone -> clone53421 (1310749) = clone52431 (1805862), & this was the "ultimate embarassment" for you:
---
"Mmm, yeah, niggard me harder, you filthy nigger you!" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Wednesday December 29, @03:40PM (#34702996) Journal
FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1928730&cid=34702996
---
(You have some "StRaNgE PhAnTaSiEs" to say the least, clone - seek professional help!)
---
"Seriously, you're the only one who cares." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
No, the shoe's on the other foot, because you're actually replying... a bit embarassed, are we? Sure you are, due to being caught using not only AC replies as you are doing now, clone, but also because you use 2 diff. accounts here, like some deceitful little jack-ass.
The embarrassment didn't end there for you though, it also was here on a technical level where your skimming and big mouth did you right in, easily:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34689212
---
"Seek help." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
Ahem (LOL): See above, & your own "StRaNgE PhAnTaSiEs" quoted above... & then, tell us that again, ok? LMAO!
---
"I saw an informative image about how to rig a suicide shotgun." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
Gee, I wonder WHY that is on your end? Dying of EMBARASSMENT, are we??
---
"IIRC all you need is a shotgun and some string." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
No, lol, I tend to think it's the other way around here/vice-a-versa.
---
"You should consider it." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @09:33AM (#34753596)
I don't take advice from deceitful cowards. Especially ones that get CAUGHT RED-HANDED AT THEIR DECEITS, as shown above, as you have been.
APK
P.S.=> Thus endeth the lesson... apk
"You're kidding, right? I have no doubt whatsoever that I could easily roll a system to detect hosts-based blocking." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 04, @12:04PM (#34755316)
You've ALREADY CONCEDED THESE POINTS TO ME:
1.) WHEN DOWNED or DNS POISONED/REDIRECTED SERVER HAPPEN hosts work for you getting you to your fav. sites, Adblock won't!
2.) OR, if DNSBL is used, hosts get you to your fav. sites - Adblock again, won't!!
3.) OR, vs. even DNS request logs, they can't track you if you use HOSTS files, & you still get to your fav. sites you "hardcode" in a HOSTS file - Adblock allows NOTHING like this either, & it doesn't speed you up to your fav. sites either, like HOSTS can, & do!
4.) Adblock's detectable & blockable, as ARSTECHNICA did to their users (HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS)
NOW - the ONLY way I can figure out HOW to do that, possibly, would be to use webbugs (email bugs type work on a webpage using images - which of course, after your reading my posts, you are NOW trying, lmao... I still don't know if that'd work or not, it was theorizing on my part only, & still has YET to be proven... & "pseudocode" won't do that for you!).
APK
P.S.=> You TALK a lot, but when it comes RIGHT DOWN TO IT? You don't produce anything - nothing we can actually USE/TRY (just your "pseudocode", lol)... You're just talk, & good at 1 thing:
Getting your behind handed to you, by "yours truly", everytime... too easy! apk
HOSTS ARE NOT DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE THUS
You already said that, and I just posted a way to detect and block them, you fucking cunt. By failing to address my point, you have just conceded that HOSTS ARE DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE. QED, bitches.
Let’s recap this. You have conceded to me the following:
HOSTS files do NOT block by IP address
you don't know of ANY way to do an entry in HOSTS files (that actually works)
and last but not least, HOSTS ARE DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE.
"Let's recap this. You have conceded to me the following: HOSTS files do NOT block by IP address" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @11:20AM (#34765800)
Ahem: First - Can you show us where I ever said they did? No. Juasko did, not I!
Secondly: I also showed you that that's SIMPLE TO GET AROUND, using either router/firewall rules tables (which DO block by IP)&/or software firewall rules tables (to do the same, block an IP address off)
(Are you stupid? You must be... I covered that in DETAIL to both yourself, AND juasko here)
---
"I just posted a way to detect and block them, you fucking cunt." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @11:20AM (#34765800)
Listen pussy: First, You'll have to prove it works, and you're only using MY IDEAS ANYHOW (on webbugs type tech with images, which I noted to you earlier in our other exchange anyways, lol)
Hilarious: You use MY IDEAS, constantly!
Just like how you corrected your "script kiddie code" script per my recommendations (because YOU HAD TO & YOU KNEW I WAS RIGHT!))
LMAO - & your "Script Kiddie Script"? Hey - it's STILL not working right...
E.G.-> You are leaving duplicates like MAD from hosts files like mvps.org's &/or someonewhocares versions, because you're NOT removing trailing blanks that pad spaces between the end of a hosts entry, & the trailing # comments on some lines they do (which is dumb, bloats the file, but I correct for it properly in my application "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++
"... you do not!)
That's only 1 area your script kiddie script failed on... I noted 2 more also!
(E.G.- You don't have a ToUpperCase or ToLowerCase style function either, which if you have Example.com vs. example.com in the hosts file? You'll get duplicates!)
I.E. - Your work (not really yours, you didn't write the *NIX commands you used, & you certainly can't put my other programs into a script either, lol, you're LIMITED!)? Doesn't work, not completely/fully/properly... perhaps juasko will get it working right, since you have not.
End of subject.
---
"By failing to address my point, you have just conceded that HOSTS ARE DETECTABLE & BLOCKABLE. QED, bitches." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @11:20AM (#34765800)
I addressed your points (my point really, I was the one that noted using "webbug" type work with images, which is what tracking does) & blew you away... everytime, on every "point" you've made (even when you rip off MY IDEAS, & those? My ideas were only theoretical, but I am NOT SURE THEY WILL WORK EITHER!)
APK
P.S.=> Still, on HOSTS file blocking & YOU RIPPING OFF MY IDEA TO USE A WEBBUG TYPE DETECTION? LOL, ok:
Prove to me MY IDEA, not yours, works...
Go on, make a website, do MY trick/technqie & we'll see if it works (when I have scripting off? LOL, well... we'll see!)... apk
"YOUR idea?" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
Yes, I noted it here, BEFORE YOU DID YOUR "pseudocode" (lol) & yes, using "webbugs" ideas, no less, which IS again, what you're up to, & FAR before you even wrote your "pseudocode", & this is the proof of it:
---
"(My guess is that they used some type of javascript + "webbug" type of tracking, but, that's ONLY a guess on my part!) - by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, @01:20PM (#34536350)
PROOF OF MY IDEA CONCEPT ON WEBBUGS USAGE FIRST, FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34536350
For blocking out HOSTS files (remains to be seen though, but Adblock CAN be blocked thus!)
---
So much for your "idea", chump... you're just "biting off my style" & skills, as per usual (like you did with your script kiddie script, that STILL ISN'T WORKING RIGHT, lol!)
IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: Albeit, ONLY IF THE IMITATION/KNOCK OFF DOES WHAT THE ORIGINAL PRODUCT DOES... your script, even with my help to you, God knows WHY I helped you? Does not!
---
"You didn't invent the internet, the webbug, or anything else of value." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
I never said I did: I only stated, with PROOF no less, that you try to use my ideas, rampantly, only AFTER I STATED THEM! Proof of that? Above...
(It predates anything you've done here, after all!)
---
"And you just conceded to me, AGAIN, that the concept would work. And I already posted proof-of-concept code." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
That remains to be seen if it works or not, & yes, it is my CONCEPT!
(After all/again - See above, I posted the idea on HOW TO DO IT in conversations with you, prior to your "pseudocode" being posted!)
You must like looking stupid or to be made out as a liar...
---
"LOL, go masturbate." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @12:29PM (#34766656)
No thank you: I prefer "live entertainment", unlike yourself, obviously (lmao!)
APK
P.S.=> Ah, yes, as per my usual, dispatching trolls? I just GOTTA say it: "too, Too, TOO EASY", just '2EZ'... as always! The more you talk, the more you get "shot down"... are you a masochist or something? apk
FAR before you even wrote your "pseudocode"
That wasn't pseudocode, it was a fully-functional .js file.
My guess is that they used some type of javascript + "webbug" type of tracking, but, that's ONLY a guess on my part!
You don't even know for sure? What are you, fucking stupid? It's bleedingly obvious how to do something like this - unless you're a script kiddie like APK. Oh... never mind, I forgot who I was talking to. Yes, of course you're fucking stupid.
you try to use my ideas
Pretty sure you were copying ArsTechnica's idea, tard. And you don't even know for sure how they did it, you're just making a "guess". And if it was your idea, why the fuck did you go making ignorant statements like "hosts blocking is not detectable"? Oh, that's right - it wasn't your idea, and you didn't have a fucking clue that hosts blocking IS detectable.
For blocking out HOSTS files (remains to be seen though, but Adblock CAN be blocked thus!)
The .js code posted above works. Try it.
No thank you: I prefer "live entertainment"
Don't forget to pay her first. And with the sluts you can afford, I'd suggest that you double up on the condoms. Not just for your protection, either... they probably can't afford birth control to ensure your genetic material gets Darwin'd. And coat hangers are dangerous.
Again, my proof of what I said in my subject-line above:
---
"(My guess is that they used some type of javascript + "webbug" type of tracking, but, that's ONLY a guess on my part!) - by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, @01:20PM (#34536350)
PROOF OF MY IDEA CONCEPT ON WEBBUGS USAGE FIRST, FROM -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34536350
For blocking out HOSTS files users (remains to be seen though, but Adblock CAN be blocked thus!)
---
There you go! I was right, & before YOU TOO, as usual... see?
I had the idea, on how to do the code for said script that ARSTECHNICA BUSHWHACKED THEIR OWN USERS WITH NO LESS, down right... & you?
You stole the idea from my writings here, clearly, during your earlier stalking of myself here all week - where you also FAILED HUGELY on a "script kiddie" script trying to again, DUPLICATE MY WORK & STEAL MY IDEAS too...
Too bad for you, but:
"IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY: But only when the imitation(s) can do what the original(s) can/could", & "your work" (not yours, you didn't write ping, mv, sed, sort, wget, & more *NIX commands you used)? FAILED THERE TOO, lmao!
---
"That wasn't pseudocode, it was a fully-functional .js file." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
Then, by golly: LET'S TEST IT!
Let's see if it can:
---
1.) Threaten a hosts file user...
or
2.) Even detect for HOSTS file usage
---
(I'll be turning off javascript, so, lol, I don't see how you could affect me OR even detect for the usage of a HOSTS file, even with MY IDEA of using webbugs & javascript).
After all, in the posts you've replied to here, vainly, losing @ every turn on your part?
I said for you to make a site, I will see if you can "get me", & detect for a HOSTS file... I can promise you 1 thing, for sure:
YOU'RE NO THREAT!
---
"You don't even know for sure?" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
LMAO, I do NOW, & IT WAS EXACTLY AS I STATED IT WAS, & I SAID IT BEFORE YOU EVER WROTE YOUR "SCRIPT KIDDIE SCRIPT" (your 1st one? LOL, didn't work out so well trying to duplicate my "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++" either - IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY (but, then again - the imitation has to do what the original does, & yours? DOES NOT!)
---
"What are you, fucking stupid? It's bleedingly obvious how to do something like this - unless you're a script kiddie like APK. Oh... never mind, I forgot who I was talking to. Yes, of course you're fucking stupid." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
LOL, sure sure... you're the one with EGG ON YOUR FACE!
That script? LOL, works just as I said it would (& before you ever came up with it, proving all you do is steal things I said earlier while you stalk me)!
Yes, because I did indeed do as I said, & stated earlier: That I had this thing's "mechanics" down well enough to state it, but I try NOT to "speak in absolutes" as you have... because you are the one with egg on your face here for that very thing (enough to make a good omelet, lol)...
---
"Pretty sure you were copying ArsTechnica's idea, tard." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05, @03:43PM (#34769270)
No you are, trying to re-write THEIR script (LOL, with MY IDEAS ON HOW ITS DONE RIGHT IN YOUR CODE & I CLEARLY OUTLINED THE MECHANICS YOU USED WAY BEFORE YOU DID HERE THIS WEEK!)
You stalked me all week, fell on your FACE with Shell Script vs. my "APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++" onc
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34773824
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128)
on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34773824 [slashdot.org]
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128)
on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34773824 [slashdot.org]
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128)
on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - You are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34773824 [slashdot.org]
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128)
on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34773824 [slashdot.org]
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128)
on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK
Read what MichaelKristopeit331 (1966802) wrote about you here, clone:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1929880&cid=34773824 [slashdot.org]
---
"i have on multiple occasions formally accused you of federal felony copyright violations and conspiracy to commit murder. you're an ignorant hypocrite. you stole my photographs and redistributed them unaltered with a call for my murder attached.
you are most certainly a felon. JUSTICE IS COMING. your ".40" that you claim you'll be waiting with will not be as effective as it is in your psychotic dreams.
cower some more, feeb.
you're completely pathetic." by MichaelKristopeit347 (1968128)
on Thursday January 06, @01:16AM (#34773824)
---
That was enough for me - you are a sick freak clone... WoW!
APK