Anyway, my point is, if you DoS the client's web site, you're not hurting the spammer at all. Plus, any DoS will affect innocent bystanders. So don't do it; it's not the right answer.
If you DOS the clients website you may not hurt the pammer directly, but that isn't the idea. The idea is to make going to spammers the wrong choice for people trying to advertise, this would hurt spammers of a type.
Aside from that, you're right when you say:
"(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work."
It still amazes me how beautiful a language so ugly as english can be.
That english poets have had such crap to work wth and made such beauty is incredible, it's like you give some guy a shotgun and he carves the statue david.
My roommate is a digital animator and if his comments are worth anything then Mo-Cap is not all it's cracked up to be. This new great thing may end up there, where it can map facial expression but does it in a way that isn't quite right looking to the human eye, thus requiring hours and hours of cleanup afterwards.
I think it'll be a while before the industry starts putting out photo realistic digital animations of people.
Also be sure to read the comments of a N. Korean defector. What's most interesting is the fact that they have been in a virtual state of war readiness since the 1970's. They've been preparing for a war for 35 years! That means trenches, underground bunkers (and not concrete in sand ala Iraq, these are carved into GRANITE MOUNTAINS), caves, tunnels, massive anti-aircraft batteries, etc.
Um, 35 years? try 50+. The US is still technically at war with N Korea, we refuse to sign a peace treaty as part of a no nuke deal. They asked, we refused; Clinton and Bush.
There's a reason we aren't messing with N. Korea--we would lose! We should just let China and the rest of the region deal with their neighbor. My opinion.
Well, we would kind of lose. The industrial capacity of S Korea would be effectively destroyed. This would cause huge problems, but the US wouldn't physically be hurt.
Yeah, we can mow down their army, but they can flatten every major city in S Korea. We invade and S Korea is economically destroyed, possibly Japan as well.
I thought Bush was horribly wrong in invading Iraq, horribly, horribly wrong. I also think he is right in not using military force against the PRNK. The problem is that he refuses to negotiate irectly with them. What the US need to do is sign a fucking peace treaty, we are still technically at war with PRNK after 50 years and a treaty would go a long way towards easing tensions.
To be fair, Clinton made most of the same mistakes and also didn't press for a treaty.
What we need to do is give them so much aid that the government is forced to feed everyone for lack of other ways to dispense with the food. Maybe do airdrops of food to rural areas suffering from famine.
The prewar mortality rate was established by door-to-door survey just after the war, asking people about when they had had members of the household die, specifically because they didn't trust the regimes written records. There is a new study just out that seems to have a smaller margin of error and puts the total "extra" loss of life over Saddam's numbers at 540k, minimum. Linky
The present-day insurgents weren't in Iraq until after we removed Saddam from power.
I agree with your comment but you're technically wrong on this point. The vast majority of these insurgents were in country prior to the war but not actually fighting. And a lot of the Shi'a insurgents are related, literally and figuratively, to the uprising following the first Gulf War that we encouraged then let Saddam crush.
In other words, ANYONE with experience any of those fields is capable of reading papers, studying data and drawing conclusions.
While this technically true, the work is more than just a couple of papers. I might take their view on it more seriously than, say, a biologist, but criticizing one or two papers misses the point: There is a vast amount of literature showing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, that this increase is becuase of humans, and that this increase is causing a global rise in temperature. I am often amazed at how people can think that this is all so complicated.
You may choose to disagree with their positions, but you cannot discount ALL of these tens of thousands of scientists as willfully misrepresenting the truth as they see it.
Are they climatologists?
Would you trust a climatologists opinion on string theory?
The difference is that we actually have evidence that Global Warming will be problem, whereas Pascal's Wager is blind to the probabilities of God's existence.
I know that practically speaking you're right. I think people rely far to much or their immediate perception of the world for any meaningful change to happen on this issue in time to make a significant impact. But, in an intellectual, or psuedo-intellectual as the case may be, debate one must provide evidence beyond "they don't have enough evidence". Which, incidentally, is the exact same line the Intellegent Design folks use against Evolution.
I must say, this is a wonderful expansion of the older versions of anti-global warming arguments. Let's boil it down to what you're really saying.
Science is a long and slow process. You cannot knee-jerk it into working for you, as so many people want to believe. It has taken science 77 years just to prove that breast really isn't best (it's just equal). Something as simple to study as that takes 77 years to get right, you better believe something as complicated and with so many more uncontrollable factors as the environment will take much longer.
Yes, the environment is a complex system and can be quite difficult to understand. I'm a bit confused about the "breast isn't best" comment. I assume you mean the recent study that showed that breast feeding didn't contribute to intellegence levels, which is fine, but it does contribute to the immune system.
The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution living standards over what amounts to little more than a scientific theory? We're not talking about a theory that has concretely provable (and now, again, disprovable) components like Einstein's theory of relativity -- we're talking multiple theories that, while in the general sense show a consensus, in the specific sense show several different paths to take and have no specific way to prove them right now other than to take the plunge and see what happens.
Ah, here comes the scare factor. I can flip this around and ask whether we are willing to bet our living standards on continuing things the way they are now on the assumption that things will remain the same? Do we expect our world to support continued growth for an indefinite time? We're talking about multiple assumptions that seem reasonable but have no evidence at all that things will remain the same, in fact we have evidence to the opposite.
I, for one, would rather take the cautious route and wait for more concrete, proven, and accurate information. The economy isn't a laser light beam that you can turn on and off at will. Turning it off (which is what would be required to reduce emissions to the point that most of the more environmentally-evagelistic scientists wish) will result in drastic changes not only to things like lifestyle, but also drastic changes to our standards of health and hunger.
I, for one, believe there is a much better middle ground than "no more CO2 emissions". But, unfortunately, as long as the extremists are able to shout the loudest, we will continue to be unable to find the middle ground.
Again, this isn't what you're saying. What you're saying is that you would like hard evidence that what you think is wrong, and yet you fail to present evidence that your view is correct.
This really is not much more different than religion, if you think about it. Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white. And to the left you have extremist muslims that would be happy to blow up anyone that isn't arabic. In the middle you have people who are whatever religion their parents were and that go to church once a month out of a sense of duty, and some agnostics that don't care so much. Your ultra-right christians would be like your Exxons of the world that just want it all at any cost. Your ultra-left muslims would be like your greenpeaces of the world that just want everyone to have nothing at any cost. Everyone else wants a life of balance but can't get it as long as the other two keep fighting each other.
No, it is completely different than religion. Religion has no basis in evidence, religion is based on faith.
Example 1: We could easily power everything we use today with nuclear power, at a cost to the economy, if implemented slowly, that would be negligible. The end result would even likely be positive. But we can't have that because ultra-left environmental groups like the Sierra Club
The Monroe doctrine was the South American equivalent of the Truman doctrine, which is the reason we, the U.S., are hip deep in West Asia right now. It essentially laid the foundations for all of the bloody intervention that has happened over the years.
Slashdot Mirror
"set a precedent for hardware manufacturers paying music companies."
Yeah, remind me to thank Microsoft for all this 'innovation' they've done for the customer the next time I'm up in Redmond.
Um, I agree that the article is crap, but that's some sad, sad logic.
Anyway, my point is, if you DoS the client's web site, you're not hurting the spammer at all. Plus, any DoS will affect innocent bystanders. So don't do it; it's not the right answer.
If you DOS the clients website you may not hurt the pammer directly, but that isn't the idea. The idea is to make going to spammers the wrong choice for people trying to advertise, this would hurt spammers of a type.
Aside from that, you're right when you say:
"(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work."
But a I can dream, can't I?
I'm just happy that laws such as these have reduced the amount of spam I recieve.
Oh, wait.
Damnit, they haven't.
Maybe someone needs to starts DOSing the sites that are advertised for in spam, then people would be afraid to go to spammers for advertising.
It still amazes me how beautiful a language so ugly as english can be.
That english poets have had such crap to work wth and made such beauty is incredible, it's like you give some guy a shotgun and he carves the statue david.
Clearly the Bush Administration knew about this emerging threat ahead of time and began developing nuclear bunker busters.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it probably works really good on a large scale.
My roommate is a digital animator and if his comments are worth anything then Mo-Cap is not all it's cracked up to be. This new great thing may end up there, where it can map facial expression but does it in a way that isn't quite right looking to the human eye, thus requiring hours and hours of cleanup afterwards.
I think it'll be a while before the industry starts putting out photo realistic digital animations of people.
Also be sure to read the comments of a N. Korean defector. What's most interesting is the fact that they have been in a virtual state of war readiness since the 1970's. They've been preparing for a war for 35 years! That means trenches, underground bunkers (and not concrete in sand ala Iraq, these are carved into GRANITE MOUNTAINS), caves, tunnels, massive anti-aircraft batteries, etc.
Um, 35 years? try 50+. The US is still technically at war with N Korea, we refuse to sign a peace treaty as part of a no nuke deal. They asked, we refused; Clinton and Bush.
There's a reason we aren't messing with N. Korea--we would lose! We should just let China and the rest of the region deal with their neighbor. My opinion.
Well, we would kind of lose. The industrial capacity of S Korea would be effectively destroyed. This would cause huge problems, but the US wouldn't physically be hurt.
U-238 absorbes a neutron, becoming U-239.
So what we really need to do is cut off their supply of neutrons?
Yeah, we can mow down their army, but they can flatten every major city in S Korea. We invade and S Korea is economically destroyed, possibly Japan as well.
Not too good for us.
I thought Bush was horribly wrong in invading Iraq, horribly, horribly wrong. I also think he is right in not using military force against the PRNK. The problem is that he refuses to negotiate irectly with them. What the US need to do is sign a fucking peace treaty, we are still technically at war with PRNK after 50 years and a treaty would go a long way towards easing tensions.
To be fair, Clinton made most of the same mistakes and also didn't press for a treaty.
Of course there's enough Americium. Even the smallest amount of Americium is more powerful than any other element.
Why do you hate Americium?
Liberal!
How does starving people help them revolt?
What we need to do is give them so much aid that the government is forced to feed everyone for lack of other ways to dispense with the food. Maybe do airdrops of food to rural areas suffering from famine.
The prewar mortality rate was established by door-to-door survey just after the war, asking people about when they had had members of the household die, specifically because they didn't trust the regimes written records. There is a new study just out that seems to have a smaller margin of error and puts the total "extra" loss of life over Saddam's numbers at 540k, minimum. Linky
The present-day insurgents weren't in Iraq until after we removed Saddam from power.
I agree with your comment but you're technically wrong on this point. The vast majority of these insurgents were in country prior to the war but not actually fighting. And a lot of the Shi'a insurgents are related, literally and figuratively, to the uprising following the first Gulf War that we encouraged then let Saddam crush.
You're so twentieth century.
These days even non-events are news stories.
"Man to finish biggest ball of twine in 2010! News at 11."
Get with the times.
In other words, ANYONE with experience any of those fields is capable of reading papers, studying data and drawing conclusions.
While this technically true, the work is more than just a couple of papers. I might take their view on it more seriously than, say, a biologist, but criticizing one or two papers misses the point: There is a vast amount of literature showing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, that this increase is becuase of humans, and that this increase is causing a global rise in temperature. I am often amazed at how people can think that this is all so complicated.
You may choose to disagree with their positions, but you cannot discount ALL of these tens of thousands of scientists as willfully misrepresenting the truth as they see it.
Are they climatologists?
Would you trust a climatologists opinion on string theory?
I sure as hell wouldn't.
The difference is that we actually have evidence that Global Warming will be problem, whereas Pascal's Wager is blind to the probabilities of God's existence.
I know that practically speaking you're right. I think people rely far to much or their immediate perception of the world for any meaningful change to happen on this issue in time to make a significant impact. But, in an intellectual, or psuedo-intellectual as the case may be, debate one must provide evidence beyond "they don't have enough evidence". Which, incidentally, is the exact same line the Intellegent Design folks use against Evolution.
Now try the same experiment and use water saturated with sea salt, you will find that the level does rise.
I must say, this is a wonderful expansion of the older versions of anti-global warming arguments. Let's boil it down to what you're really saying.
Science is a long and slow process. You cannot knee-jerk it into working for you, as so many people want to believe. It has taken science 77 years just to prove that breast really isn't best (it's just equal). Something as simple to study as that takes 77 years to get right, you better believe something as complicated and with so many more uncontrollable factors as the environment will take much longer.
Yes, the environment is a complex system and can be quite difficult to understand. I'm a bit confused about the "breast isn't best" comment. I assume you mean the recent study that showed that breast feeding didn't contribute to intellegence levels, which is fine, but it does contribute to the immune system.
The question is, are we willing to risk total destruction of our economy and pre-industrial revolution living standards over what amounts to little more than a scientific theory? We're not talking about a theory that has concretely provable (and now, again, disprovable) components like Einstein's theory of relativity -- we're talking multiple theories that, while in the general sense show a consensus, in the specific sense show several different paths to take and have no specific way to prove them right now other than to take the plunge and see what happens.
Ah, here comes the scare factor. I can flip this around and ask whether we are willing to bet our living standards on continuing things the way they are now on the assumption that things will remain the same? Do we expect our world to support continued growth for an indefinite time? We're talking about multiple assumptions that seem reasonable but have no evidence at all that things will remain the same, in fact we have evidence to the opposite.
I, for one, would rather take the cautious route and wait for more concrete, proven, and accurate information. The economy isn't a laser light beam that you can turn on and off at will. Turning it off (which is what would be required to reduce emissions to the point that most of the more environmentally-evagelistic scientists wish) will result in drastic changes not only to things like lifestyle, but also drastic changes to our standards of health and hunger.
I, for one, believe there is a much better middle ground than "no more CO2 emissions". But, unfortunately, as long as the extremists are able to shout the loudest, we will continue to be unable to find the middle ground.
Again, this isn't what you're saying. What you're saying is that you would like hard evidence that what you think is wrong, and yet you fail to present evidence that your view is correct.
This really is not much more different than religion, if you think about it. Consider that to the right you would have extremist christians and catholics, people who would, at some point in time, find a way to get rid of anyone who wasn't white. And to the left you have extremist muslims that would be happy to blow up anyone that isn't arabic. In the middle you have people who are whatever religion their parents were and that go to church once a month out of a sense of duty, and some agnostics that don't care so much. Your ultra-right christians would be like your Exxons of the world that just want it all at any cost. Your ultra-left muslims would be like your greenpeaces of the world that just want everyone to have nothing at any cost. Everyone else wants a life of balance but can't get it as long as the other two keep fighting each other.
No, it is completely different than religion. Religion has no basis in evidence, religion is based on faith.
Example 1: We could easily power everything we use today with nuclear power, at a cost to the economy, if implemented slowly, that would be negligible. The end result would even likely be positive. But we can't have that because ultra-left environmental groups like the Sierra Club
The Monroe doctrine was the South American equivalent of the Truman doctrine, which is the reason we, the U.S., are hip deep in West Asia right now. It essentially laid the foundations for all of the bloody intervention that has happened over the years.
And the Pentium says "Floating point operations are haaaaaaard!"