Are you not reading the posts? half the people here are talking about relaying mail via another server, aka 'smarthosting'.
No one really uses the term 'smarthost' anymore, because there's not a distinction from 'mail relay' anymore. It used to be a way to distinguish from using an 'open relay', but those don't really exist anymore, and no one would configure a server to send mail through them!
No one is, however, talking about sendmail, because we are, in fact, a population of techies, and no one comes anywhere near that if they don't have to.
And, incidentally, you've confused sendmail with other mail server. In other mail servers, you just have to edit a config file and restart the server.
In sendmail, you have to edit a macro file, run a command to make a new sendmail.cf, and restart the server, because sendmail's config is too complicated for mere mortals to comprehend and must be generated by another program using a macro file to define things.
I got sick and tied of having to deal with support problems where someone was in a hotel or using public wifi or just switched ISP or their ISP got with 1998 and suddenly 'I can't send email.' because their ISP was blocking email.
And it's always an emergency. Always. I had to drag myself out of bed, look at the setup, and say 'Use port 587, you idiot, like it says on the support, I don't care what the default is in your client', and go back to sleep.
I got sick and tired of that, emailed everyone, set a deadline, and turned off fucking port 25 for submissions, and dealt with all the support issues at once with a form letter explaining what was wrong.
And now that never happen again. They cannot set up their email wrong. When they set up their email, they must use 587 or 465 (For Outlook stupidity) or it doesn't work to start with.
And I don't think anyone has a problem with Christopher Tolkien having a copyright on his dad's stuff Christopher released, especially considering he had to do a hell of a lot of editing and whatnot.
The clock on unreleased works doesn't actually start ticking until released, anyway. Of course Christopher is entitled to that copyright, even if he did nothing. Copyright is incentive to publish works, he published a work that wasn't published, we aren't here to run around judging how much work it took, he gets a copyright.
The problem is twofold:
a) With copyright's irrational 'X years after death', this will result in a lot of stupidity. If Chris lives another 30 years, the copyright for LoTR will expire 70 years before the copyright on the Silmarillion, published only 20 years later, does.
Copyright needs to be for a set amount of time, period, and have nothing to do with how long anyone lives. That idea is just crazy. If we want to 'help their children', well, first off, 'children' do not need support for 75 years, and secondly, that's accomplished simply by having copyright be inheritable. I'd even be fine without taxing it. (Which we don't.)
And can I point out the inherent insanity of 'helping' orphaned dependents by having the clock start ticking on copyright's expiration? Even if the clock takes near-forever to run out, that really doesn't make sense in any logical manner.
b) Copyright is way too long to start with. Lord of the Rings should be public domain now. Hell, the Beatles should be. The Silmarillion should be bumping up against expiration if not already expired. 40 years is more than long enough to incentive people to make stuff.
Which is still no big deal for most people. If you have £350,000 only the £25,000 excess gets taxed. So if that's split between two children they get a £170,000 inheritance instead of £175,000.
While you are right int hat they aren't taxed for the amount under that part, you're still wrong.
Here is how to state it: 'So if that's split between two children they get a £170,000 inheritance without taxes on it, and get the additional £5000 after taxes of 40%, which means £3000 after taxes.'
We have to be very careful about how we say that...I don't know about the UK, but lying about how tax rates work is a favorite hobby of the right over here, where apparently if you make slightly over $250,000 a year you get taxes to pennilessness.
You...um...just said exactly what I said, except you left out the interesting part.
The interesting part is, while male abusers are about two and a half times as likely to be homosexual as the population would dictate, female abusers are six times as likely to be homosexual as the population would dictate.
And I don't even slightly understand where you got '0 lesbians'. The linked article very clearly says, and this was actually quote: 'Both lone female and lone male perpetrators abused more girls (62%, 76%, respectively) than boys.'
Or, to remove male perpetrators: lone female perpetrators abused more girls (62%) than boys.
If there are 166 to 200 female victims, then there somewhere between 100 and 134 lesbians. (Erm, using your math, which is comparing victims and perpetrators for some reason, despite the fact abusers usually abuse more than one person.) More of them are homosexual than not.
Of course, this is mixing two classes of things, assault on underaged teenagers and assaults on pre-pubescent kids, which have very different sorts of perpetrators.
ciabs, you are retarded, and I suspect your problem is that you think I responded to you in my original post.
I did not. I responded to a post that said 'It's very simple. Once you discover an exploit in someones code, you can choose to either inform them so they can fix it (White Hat) or withhold the discovery for personal gain (Black Hat).'
That was the post. You, in response to that, told a stupid little story about getting root. Likewise, I responded to that with a clarification of the terms.
You took my response to the original post and hallucinated I responded to you, and, because you have some sort of brain trouble and cannot quote, you did not even manage to make your misunderstanding clear.
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say that 'attacks == oops I have root'.
Someone who accidentally has root is not an attacker or a hacker in any sense.
If, after accidentally getting root, and being unable to get the server owner to do anything about it, he replaced the original web page with one explaining how the server was insecure, he'd be a 'gray hat hacker'.
Although, strictly speaking, if he ends up 'exploiting' a security flaw entirely by accident, he isn't really a 'hacker' at all, anymore than he'd be a safecracker because he noticed a safe is unlocked. He's just a 'gray hat person'.
This is because they are goddamn stupid morons. I don't know why we have to pretend that their worry makes any sense.
If all terrorists need is a signal, there are dozens of ways to set that up without bothering with news media.
Stick a specific post on a well-read bboard or something. In fact, have a dozen places that such a thing gets posted.
Or, better, post on usenet...it's utterly impossible to monitor people who read a specific post, as it's on a thousand different servers, and people usually download entire groups at once. I can just imagine how that works: 'Well, we caught one guy, and he says he was instructed to search everyday his usenet client for the string '39457295' in alt.tv.lost, and read codewords in that post as a trigger. We better...uh...check the thousands of servers that carry them for the IPs of tens thousands of people who download that group, and then look up their IPs.' Yeah, that sounds like a workable plan to find the other terrorists.
And this is _without_ any specialized software that can decode messages hidden in files.
Or just run a fricking classified ad, like spies used to do decades ago. (Although pretty soon 'buying a newspaper' will be suspicious in and of itself.)
At some point, we really need to start back up on the whole eugenics thing. People who think 'Recording a message that is blatantly from terrorists is a good way to pass messages _to_ terrorists', as opposed to the literally millions of other ways to get messages to sleeper agents, none of which require them carefully watching obviously terrorist-produced video (Which is somewhat suspicious)...well, they need to be castrated and thus removed from the gene pool. (Or, alternately, if we could somehow figure out how to get them to be, or at least mate with, terrorists...)
HBGary are not 'mercenaries', they are 'weapon suppliers'.
Mercenaries are 'people paid to fight a war who are not in the armed services'. That's all that means.
Some of the DoD contractors are, indeed, mercenaries, although they really dislike being called that, thanks to our quite legitimate dislike of mercenaries.
white hat - attacks with permission(Or attacks own computer.), informs target/manufacturers afterward of security holes and how to fix, if they see a way gray hat - attacks without permission, informs target of hole and how to fix afterward. Often, these are hackers who noticed a security flaw by accident in someone else's system and were unable to get them to fix it, so does this to force them to, often by causing them public embarrassment but little or no damage. black hat - attacks without permission for some other purpose, not only does not inform target of how to how to fix, but often does not want target to know they were compromised.
And this is definitely black hat stuff this article is talking about.
If you take pictures (or video), you do not need other people's permission who appear in that.
You need permission if you use it for specific purposes, like advertising, but a demo of your musical performance is not 'advertising'.
Perhaps more importantly, this doesn't have anything to do with child porn. For all we know, he parked illegally at the school, that doesn't mean he should be charged with vehicular homicide.
I think the "official" rate is about 500 per year for the United States for stranger kidnappings whether or not sexual abuse occurs.
Yeah, and that's really microscopic. For comparison, 300 kids drown in pools each year, and that's just kids under five.
And I'd bet money that at least 50% of those 500 are for 'Build a family' kidnappings, which is mostly with babies and very young children, by crazy adults who want to have 'children'. (Admittedly, this isn't _much_ better for parents to think about, I guess.)
And another 10% or so for traditional ransom-based kidnapping. (Which kids have a somewhat greater chance of living through than adults.)
Parents, if your kid is out playing in the front yard and a seedy looking van pulls up, your kid is much more likely to be injured by the driver accidentally swerving into your yard and running him over than being kidnapped by him.
I don't have it in front of me but I recently saw a statistic that said about 1/3 of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by children and teenagers.
I suspect than even more child abuse of the non-sexual nature is perpetrated by children and teenagers, too, we just call it 'bullying'.
I suspect sexual abuse is just an outgrowth of that. Once children have mentally entered a place where you can do anything to weaker children, getting them to do something sexual is a very small step.
48.2% male and 51.1% female? Some 'undecided's in there?;)
Actually pulling that up to 100%, we get 48.55% and 51.45%. Which is actually incredibly close to the population ratio, which is 48.7% male and 51.3% female.
Yay for society able to overcome its inherent sexism and abusing the genders equally? Probably not much of a 'yay' there.
However, yes, both genders target females more than males for actual sexual abuse.
That's actually a pretty interesting fact to point out the next time that try to explain homophobia because 'most abusers are gay men'. Well, no, most are straight men, although roughly two and a half times more of them are 'gay' when compared to the standard '10%' that you'd expect statistically.
But if that is 'gay', then logic dictates that something sixty percent of female abusers are 'gay', which is crazy off the charts.
Which rather demonstrates, as people have pointed out, that sexual orientation isn't really related to this at all. Or, rather, their sexual orientation is defined as 'broken'.
The US has laws that make other criminal acts worse based on specific intent.
If you don't break those laws, which are all felonies to start with, no one gives a flying fuck what you said.
If you do break those laws, like if you assault people, yes, it matters why you did it. That has actually always mattered under the law. It's called intent.
Remember, folks: Everyone who whines about the 'hate crimes laws' in the US wants to commit felonies against people, and they are worried they will get an extra year or two because they often say racist or sexist things, but they insist they're targeting people to commit felonies against randomly.
Sure, they're going to beat up that black guy, and just the other day were talking about how black people should go back to Africa, but they beat him up because just didn't like his hat...they beat up a white guy last week for the same reason, so an extra year or two is totally unfair.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you go off on this tangent when I never said anything about the Dems banning guns
Um, yes you did. I quote you:
No, because I refuse to associate with a party that holds core beliefs with which I largely disagree; I'm generally pro-life, pro-gun ownership and gun rights, and the list goes on.
That was in response to me saying 'Call yourself a Democrat', so the 'party' there is the Democrats.
In other words, you just very explicitly said that you hold the position 'pro-gun ownership and gun rights', and that was a belief the Democrats didn't hold.
Which, as I pointed out, they do, or at least they hold a position of apathy towards gun ownership.
The Arizona shooter could have easily used 8 or 10 round magazines, taped together, and flipped them when he ran out.
If you think that, you missed the part of the story where he was actually stopped when he tried to load another clip. He was stopped when he run out of bullets in his clip and tried to get another one.
And, yes, clip. 'Clip' is a synonym for 'magazine'. I quote the NRA: 'Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for "detachable magazine." For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military. '
If you think this is the opposite of what I said early, you've managed to get my point exactly backwards. My point is that words change. The meaning of 'clip' now includes 'magazines'. Meanwhile, the meaning of 'fiscal conservative' now includes 'bailing out banks' and 'passing Medicare part D' and 'giant tax cuts with tiny spending decreases'. In other words, the phrase has suffered a total meltdown and has no meaning anymore.
You're a guy trying to argue that 'nice' means 'precise'. Well, it did, sure. Not anymore.
The Fort Hood shooter had multiple firearms during his shooting--which would also circumvent any capacity limits.
He didn't use the other firearm. He only used the FN Five-seven, because he never actually ran out of ammo in front of people. He had a bunch of 20 and 30 bullet clips in his pockets, but he was strolling from room to room as people ran and hid, so had breaks where he could exchange clips. (I have no idea if restricting the size of his clips would have helped, because I don't know if he ever got to the point where he shot more than ten times at once, but, as he had another gun anyway, probably it wouldn't help even if he did.)
Whereas the Arizona shooter suddenly attacked an entire crowd of people who didn't have time to go anywhere before he ran out of bullets, so they lunged at him when they realized he'd stopped shooting. And, yes, he was rather incompetent, he didn't even know he was out until he actually ran out, and then fumbled to get another clip.
If you want to claim that limiting clip size wouldn't help, that is not actually an argument I was making in the first place. I was pointing out that was all some Democrats were trying to do, and didn't actually manage to even get that off the ground. They are not attacking gun rights at all, even when handed a perfect opening to do so.
Thanks to how extremely brittle tungsten alloys are, they can't actually mix it into the gold, because that would hilariously have corners chip off and whatnot, which would be a rather large giveaway. So they have to wrap tungsten in a shell of gold.
Technically, you still can discover this with weighing the bars, but almost no one weighs the bars.
I'm waiting for them to put a bit of depleted uranium in the tungsten, to fix the weight.
Actually, they were using Solomn's gold to cover up fake theft.
The bad guy's plan was to get Newton executed for devaluing the currency by planting coins with less than the required amount of gold in the 'randomly selected samples' box, so during the test they'd come up light.
To counter the lack of weight in those coins, they had to put in something that was denser than than normal gold. Enter Solomn's gold, collected as part of some other scheme to gain immortality or something, but used here instead to save Newton's life.
Trying to figure out exactly what was going on in that series was pretty hard, though, so I could be entirely wrong.
Actually, this is exactly the reason that gold stayed as currency for so low. As we know from Archimedes, you can easily calculate the volume of things by displaced water, and gold was, for about 10,000 years of history, the densest material known to mankind (imaginary Solomon gold aside), so it was utterly impossible to forge or water down, and trivially easy to check the purity of with just a tub of water and a scale.
While we have since discovered denser things, gold is still cheaper than them (And a good percentage of them are radioactive!), so it still can't be forged in any useful way.
Indeed, I'm a little baffled by the fact that everyone's talking about the post having the same time as the 911 call.
SO? He didn't get hit during the 911 call. He got hit later. In fact, you usually make the 911 call before ever getting out of your car.
Let's pretend that the call and facebook post did happen at exactly the same time, 7:54:00.
So here's the timeline. All times approximate except 7:54:
7:53 - First car accident, Bea gets in her car.
7:54 - Veloz 911 call, Bea Facebook post
7:55 - Veloz gets out to exchange information with other driver, Bea drives off
7:59 - Bea hits Veloz standing in road talking to other driver.
If Bea updated her status at the same time as the 911 call, then that actually disproves she hit him while doing that, unless the 911 call is something like 'I'm calling to report an accide-AARRRRGH I JUST GOT HIT BY A CAR!!'
She killed someone who was walking around in the road using their cell phone.
We have no idea if the driver was driving while distracted, but we know for a fact the now dead person was walking, distracted, in the road, like an idiot, trying to make a phone call.
Considering she had the accident two blocks from her starting location, yeah, it does matter, especially as the counterclaim is she was sitting in her car waiting for it to warm up, posted on facebook, and then drove off.
I was actually assuming some sort of custom system, and just using 'USB flash' as an explanation. We're talking about the NSA here, at least I was. The NSA can deal with computer chips.
What would be really clever is to have this chip or MicroSD or whatever inside a card reading hardware on the computer that pulls part of the key off the user's ID card, and the microSD or whatever inside just has the rest of the key. And made as one piece of hardware that can be attached to standard computers, in a drive bay or something, and attached to the USB connector on the mother board. (This internal connection keeps the computer from actually having a 'USB port' that someone could copy info to.)
So even if you steal the entire computer you can't get in, because you lack the card, but just in case someone clones the card, and managed to find the (reused) hard drive, they still can't get in, because when you reused the drive you destroyed the microSD other half of the key. And, unlike the passcard, the microSD thing is uncopiable without someone noticing. (Or actually being logged into the computer...but, um, at that point an attacker hardly needs to copy the card.)
When it comes time to reuse the computer, you just pull that thing out out, and take it back to the secure lab, where you can dismantle it to remove the micoSD card at your leisure, and the techs can do whatever they want with the rest of the computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you not reading the posts? half the people here are talking about relaying mail via another server, aka 'smarthosting'.
No one really uses the term 'smarthost' anymore, because there's not a distinction from 'mail relay' anymore. It used to be a way to distinguish from using an 'open relay', but those don't really exist anymore, and no one would configure a server to send mail through them!
No one is, however, talking about sendmail, because we are, in fact, a population of techies, and no one comes anywhere near that if they don't have to.
And, incidentally, you've confused sendmail with other mail server. In other mail servers, you just have to edit a config file and restart the server.
In sendmail, you have to edit a macro file, run a command to make a new sendmail.cf, and restart the server, because sendmail's config is too complicated for mere mortals to comprehend and must be generated by another program using a macro file to define things.
Not mine.
I got sick and tied of having to deal with support problems where someone was in a hotel or using public wifi or just switched ISP or their ISP got with 1998 and suddenly 'I can't send email.' because their ISP was blocking email.
And it's always an emergency. Always. I had to drag myself out of bed, look at the setup, and say 'Use port 587, you idiot, like it says on the support, I don't care what the default is in your client', and go back to sleep. I got sick and tired of that, emailed everyone, set a deadline, and turned off fucking port 25 for submissions, and dealt with all the support issues at once with a form letter explaining what was wrong.
And now that never happen again. They cannot set up their email wrong. When they set up their email, they must use 587 or 465 (For Outlook stupidity) or it doesn't work to start with.
And I don't think anyone has a problem with Christopher Tolkien having a copyright on his dad's stuff Christopher released, especially considering he had to do a hell of a lot of editing and whatnot.
The clock on unreleased works doesn't actually start ticking until released, anyway. Of course Christopher is entitled to that copyright, even if he did nothing. Copyright is incentive to publish works, he published a work that wasn't published, we aren't here to run around judging how much work it took, he gets a copyright.
The problem is twofold:
a) With copyright's irrational 'X years after death', this will result in a lot of stupidity. If Chris lives another 30 years, the copyright for LoTR will expire 70 years before the copyright on the Silmarillion, published only 20 years later, does.
Copyright needs to be for a set amount of time, period, and have nothing to do with how long anyone lives. That idea is just crazy. If we want to 'help their children', well, first off, 'children' do not need support for 75 years, and secondly, that's accomplished simply by having copyright be inheritable. I'd even be fine without taxing it. (Which we don't.)
And can I point out the inherent insanity of 'helping' orphaned dependents by having the clock start ticking on copyright's expiration? Even if the clock takes near-forever to run out, that really doesn't make sense in any logical manner.
b) Copyright is way too long to start with. Lord of the Rings should be public domain now. Hell, the Beatles should be. The Silmarillion should be bumping up against expiration if not already expired. 40 years is more than long enough to incentive people to make stuff.
Oh, wait, nevermind, you were right.
Ignore me.
Which is still no big deal for most people. If you have £350,000 only the £25,000 excess gets taxed. So if that's split between two children they get a £170,000 inheritance instead of £175,000.
While you are right int hat they aren't taxed for the amount under that part, you're still wrong.
Here is how to state it: 'So if that's split between two children they get a £170,000 inheritance without taxes on it, and get the additional £5000 after taxes of 40%, which means £3000 after taxes.'
We have to be very careful about how we say that...I don't know about the UK, but lying about how tax rates work is a favorite hobby of the right over here, where apparently if you make slightly over $250,000 a year you get taxes to pennilessness.
Looks like someone missed the hyperbole.
You...um...just said exactly what I said, except you left out the interesting part.
The interesting part is, while male abusers are about two and a half times as likely to be homosexual as the population would dictate, female abusers are six times as likely to be homosexual as the population would dictate.
And I don't even slightly understand where you got '0 lesbians'. The linked article very clearly says, and this was actually quote: 'Both lone female and lone male perpetrators abused more girls (62%, 76%, respectively) than boys.'
Or, to remove male perpetrators: lone female perpetrators abused more girls (62%) than boys.
If there are 166 to 200 female victims, then there somewhere between 100 and 134 lesbians. (Erm, using your math, which is comparing victims and perpetrators for some reason, despite the fact abusers usually abuse more than one person.) More of them are homosexual than not.
Of course, this is mixing two classes of things, assault on underaged teenagers and assaults on pre-pubescent kids, which have very different sorts of perpetrators.
ciabs, you are retarded, and I suspect your problem is that you think I responded to you in my original post.
I did not. I responded to a post that said 'It's very simple. Once you discover an exploit in someones code, you can choose to either inform them so they can fix it (White Hat) or withhold the discovery for personal gain (Black Hat).'
That was the post. You, in response to that, told a stupid little story about getting root. Likewise, I responded to that with a clarification of the terms.
You took my response to the original post and hallucinated I responded to you, and, because you have some sort of brain trouble and cannot quote, you did not even manage to make your misunderstanding clear.
In short: Learn how the goddamn internet works.
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say that 'attacks == oops I have root'.
Someone who accidentally has root is not an attacker or a hacker in any sense.
If, after accidentally getting root, and being unable to get the server owner to do anything about it, he replaced the original web page with one explaining how the server was insecure, he'd be a 'gray hat hacker'.
Although, strictly speaking, if he ends up 'exploiting' a security flaw entirely by accident, he isn't really a 'hacker' at all, anymore than he'd be a safecracker because he noticed a safe is unlocked. He's just a 'gray hat person'.
They were worried about those, too.
This is because they are goddamn stupid morons. I don't know why we have to pretend that their worry makes any sense.
If all terrorists need is a signal, there are dozens of ways to set that up without bothering with news media.
Stick a specific post on a well-read bboard or something. In fact, have a dozen places that such a thing gets posted.
Or, better, post on usenet...it's utterly impossible to monitor people who read a specific post, as it's on a thousand different servers, and people usually download entire groups at once. I can just imagine how that works: 'Well, we caught one guy, and he says he was instructed to search everyday his usenet client for the string '39457295' in alt.tv.lost, and read codewords in that post as a trigger. We better...uh...check the thousands of servers that carry them for the IPs of tens thousands of people who download that group, and then look up their IPs.' Yeah, that sounds like a workable plan to find the other terrorists.
And this is _without_ any specialized software that can decode messages hidden in files.
Or just run a fricking classified ad, like spies used to do decades ago. (Although pretty soon 'buying a newspaper' will be suspicious in and of itself.)
At some point, we really need to start back up on the whole eugenics thing. People who think 'Recording a message that is blatantly from terrorists is a good way to pass messages _to_ terrorists', as opposed to the literally millions of other ways to get messages to sleeper agents, none of which require them carefully watching obviously terrorist-produced video (Which is somewhat suspicious)...well, they need to be castrated and thus removed from the gene pool. (Or, alternately, if we could somehow figure out how to get them to be, or at least mate with, terrorists...)
HBGary are not 'mercenaries', they are 'weapon suppliers'.
Mercenaries are 'people paid to fight a war who are not in the armed services'. That's all that means.
Some of the DoD contractors are, indeed, mercenaries, although they really dislike being called that, thanks to our quite legitimate dislike of mercenaries.
Actually, the distinctions are:
white hat - attacks with permission(Or attacks own computer.), informs target/manufacturers afterward of security holes and how to fix, if they see a way
gray hat - attacks without permission, informs target of hole and how to fix afterward. Often, these are hackers who noticed a security flaw by accident in someone else's system and were unable to get them to fix it, so does this to force them to, often by causing them public embarrassment but little or no damage.
black hat - attacks without permission for some other purpose, not only does not inform target of how to how to fix, but often does not want target to know they were compromised.
And this is definitely black hat stuff this article is talking about.
Well, yes, but he still appeared to say them in front of the kid, and, in the end, isn't that all that matters? Apparently?
Um, actually, no.
If you take pictures (or video), you do not need other people's permission who appear in that.
You need permission if you use it for specific purposes, like advertising, but a demo of your musical performance is not 'advertising'.
Perhaps more importantly, this doesn't have anything to do with child porn. For all we know, he parked illegally at the school, that doesn't mean he should be charged with vehicular homicide.
I think the "official" rate is about 500 per year for the United States for stranger kidnappings whether or not sexual abuse occurs.
Yeah, and that's really microscopic. For comparison, 300 kids drown in pools each year, and that's just kids under five.
And I'd bet money that at least 50% of those 500 are for 'Build a family' kidnappings, which is mostly with babies and very young children, by crazy adults who want to have 'children'. (Admittedly, this isn't _much_ better for parents to think about, I guess.)
And another 10% or so for traditional ransom-based kidnapping. (Which kids have a somewhat greater chance of living through than adults.)
Parents, if your kid is out playing in the front yard and a seedy looking van pulls up, your kid is much more likely to be injured by the driver accidentally swerving into your yard and running him over than being kidnapped by him.
I don't have it in front of me but I recently saw a statistic that said about 1/3 of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by children and teenagers.
I suspect than even more child abuse of the non-sexual nature is perpetrated by children and teenagers, too, we just call it 'bullying'.
I suspect sexual abuse is just an outgrowth of that. Once children have mentally entered a place where you can do anything to weaker children, getting them to do something sexual is a very small step.
48.2% male and 51.1% female? Some 'undecided's in there? ;)
Actually pulling that up to 100%, we get 48.55% and 51.45%. Which is actually incredibly close to the population ratio, which is 48.7% male and 51.3% female.
Yay for society able to overcome its inherent sexism and abusing the genders equally? Probably not much of a 'yay' there.
However, yes, both genders target females more than males for actual sexual abuse.
That's actually a pretty interesting fact to point out the next time that try to explain homophobia because 'most abusers are gay men'. Well, no, most are straight men, although roughly two and a half times more of them are 'gay' when compared to the standard '10%' that you'd expect statistically.
But if that is 'gay', then logic dictates that something sixty percent of female abusers are 'gay', which is crazy off the charts.
Which rather demonstrates, as people have pointed out, that sexual orientation isn't really related to this at all. Or, rather, their sexual orientation is defined as 'broken'.
Hey, idiot, the US doesn't have hate speech laws.
The US has laws that make other criminal acts worse based on specific intent.
If you don't break those laws, which are all felonies to start with, no one gives a flying fuck what you said.
If you do break those laws, like if you assault people, yes, it matters why you did it. That has actually always mattered under the law. It's called intent.
Remember, folks: Everyone who whines about the 'hate crimes laws' in the US wants to commit felonies against people, and they are worried they will get an extra year or two because they often say racist or sexist things, but they insist they're targeting people to commit felonies against randomly.
Sure, they're going to beat up that black guy, and just the other day were talking about how black people should go back to Africa, but they beat him up because just didn't like his hat...they beat up a white guy last week for the same reason, so an extra year or two is totally unfair.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you go off on this tangent when I never said anything about the Dems banning guns
Um, yes you did. I quote you:
No, because I refuse to associate with a party that holds core beliefs with which I largely disagree; I'm generally pro-life, pro-gun ownership and gun rights, and the list goes on.
That was in response to me saying 'Call yourself a Democrat', so the 'party' there is the Democrats.
In other words, you just very explicitly said that you hold the position 'pro-gun ownership and gun rights', and that was a belief the Democrats didn't hold.
Which, as I pointed out, they do, or at least they hold a position of apathy towards gun ownership.
The Arizona shooter could have easily used 8 or 10 round magazines, taped together, and flipped them when he ran out.
If you think that, you missed the part of the story where he was actually stopped when he tried to load another clip. He was stopped when he run out of bullets in his clip and tried to get another one.
And, yes, clip. 'Clip' is a synonym for 'magazine'. I quote the NRA: 'Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for "detachable magazine." For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military. '
If you think this is the opposite of what I said early, you've managed to get my point exactly backwards. My point is that words change. The meaning of 'clip' now includes 'magazines'. Meanwhile, the meaning of 'fiscal conservative' now includes 'bailing out banks' and 'passing Medicare part D' and 'giant tax cuts with tiny spending decreases'. In other words, the phrase has suffered a total meltdown and has no meaning anymore.
You're a guy trying to argue that 'nice' means 'precise'. Well, it did, sure. Not anymore.
The Fort Hood shooter had multiple firearms during his shooting--which would also circumvent any capacity limits.
He didn't use the other firearm. He only used the FN Five-seven, because he never actually ran out of ammo in front of people. He had a bunch of 20 and 30 bullet clips in his pockets, but he was strolling from room to room as people ran and hid, so had breaks where he could exchange clips. (I have no idea if restricting the size of his clips would have helped, because I don't know if he ever got to the point where he shot more than ten times at once, but, as he had another gun anyway, probably it wouldn't help even if he did.)
Whereas the Arizona shooter suddenly attacked an entire crowd of people who didn't have time to go anywhere before he ran out of bullets, so they lunged at him when they realized he'd stopped shooting. And, yes, he was rather incompetent, he didn't even know he was out until he actually ran out, and then fumbled to get another clip.
If you want to claim that limiting clip size wouldn't help, that is not actually an argument I was making in the first place. I was pointing out that was all some Democrats were trying to do, and didn't actually manage to even get that off the ground. They are not attacking gun rights at all, even when handed a perfect opening to do so.
Ah, good point. Yeah, I had forgotten that tungsten actually worked. That was discovered in 1781, but it was even rarer than gold for some time.
But it's not anymore.
Thanks to how extremely brittle tungsten alloys are, they can't actually mix it into the gold, because that would hilariously have corners chip off and whatnot, which would be a rather large giveaway. So they have to wrap tungsten in a shell of gold.
Technically, you still can discover this with weighing the bars, but almost no one weighs the bars.
I'm waiting for them to put a bit of depleted uranium in the tungsten, to fix the weight.
It's like if someone was saying they didn't have a problem focusing on the analogy except that they don't like the Focus.
Actually, they were using Solomn's gold to cover up fake theft.
The bad guy's plan was to get Newton executed for devaluing the currency by planting coins with less than the required amount of gold in the 'randomly selected samples' box, so during the test they'd come up light.
To counter the lack of weight in those coins, they had to put in something that was denser than than normal gold. Enter Solomn's gold, collected as part of some other scheme to gain immortality or something, but used here instead to save Newton's life.
Trying to figure out exactly what was going on in that series was pretty hard, though, so I could be entirely wrong.
Actually, this is exactly the reason that gold stayed as currency for so low. As we know from Archimedes, you can easily calculate the volume of things by displaced water, and gold was, for about 10,000 years of history, the densest material known to mankind (imaginary Solomon gold aside), so it was utterly impossible to forge or water down, and trivially easy to check the purity of with just a tub of water and a scale.
While we have since discovered denser things, gold is still cheaper than them (And a good percentage of them are radioactive!), so it still can't be forged in any useful way.
Indeed, I'm a little baffled by the fact that everyone's talking about the post having the same time as the 911 call.
SO? He didn't get hit during the 911 call. He got hit later. In fact, you usually make the 911 call before ever getting out of your car.
Let's pretend that the call and facebook post did happen at exactly the same time, 7:54:00.
So here's the timeline. All times approximate except 7:54:
7:53 - First car accident, Bea gets in her car.
7:54 - Veloz 911 call, Bea Facebook post
7:55 - Veloz gets out to exchange information with other driver, Bea drives off
7:59 - Bea hits Veloz standing in road talking to other driver.
If Bea updated her status at the same time as the 911 call, then that actually disproves she hit him while doing that, unless the 911 call is something like 'I'm calling to report an accide-AARRRRGH I JUST GOT HIT BY A CAR!!'
She killed someone who was walking around in the road using their cell phone.
We have no idea if the driver was driving while distracted, but we know for a fact the now dead person was walking, distracted, in the road, like an idiot, trying to make a phone call.
That's a Darwin award in and of itself.
Considering she had the accident two blocks from her starting location, yeah, it does matter, especially as the counterclaim is she was sitting in her car waiting for it to warm up, posted on facebook, and then drove off.
I was actually assuming some sort of custom system, and just using 'USB flash' as an explanation. We're talking about the NSA here, at least I was. The NSA can deal with computer chips.
What would be really clever is to have this chip or MicroSD or whatever inside a card reading hardware on the computer that pulls part of the key off the user's ID card, and the microSD or whatever inside just has the rest of the key. And made as one piece of hardware that can be attached to standard computers, in a drive bay or something, and attached to the USB connector on the mother board. (This internal connection keeps the computer from actually having a 'USB port' that someone could copy info to.)
So even if you steal the entire computer you can't get in, because you lack the card, but just in case someone clones the card, and managed to find the (reused) hard drive, they still can't get in, because when you reused the drive you destroyed the microSD other half of the key. And, unlike the passcard, the microSD thing is uncopiable without someone noticing. (Or actually being logged into the computer...but, um, at that point an attacker hardly needs to copy the card.)
When it comes time to reuse the computer, you just pull that thing out out, and take it back to the secure lab, where you can dismantle it to remove the micoSD card at your leisure, and the techs can do whatever they want with the rest of the computer.