And if you think it's just left wingers, perform an experiment. Post a message asking "Why would someone even want an assualt rifle?" It will hit -1 troll with a bullet (that's a joke son)
And I've seen such sentiments modded up to +5 before as well, though it'll usually take more insight than just that one question.
Half the time, it's really just the luck of the draw -- which moderator did I get today? Who actually read my post, someone who can appreciate a well-reasoned argument from the other side, or is it going to be a left-wing or right-wing partisan with an itchy trigger finger? Will I get modded down quickly, thus making it less likely that the folks who would have modded my post up would see it? Or will I get modded up first, thus making it more likely that the post will still be seen even if it gets a downmod right after?
I've found on Slashdot you can get modded up one day, modded down the next for saying the same thing. Phrasing matters, and it matters who happens to have mod points that day.
It's still OK (you won't get booted) to challenge any of those positions with logic and reason, but you generally have to make a much more cogent post and still risk more downmodding.
But that line is WAY out-of-sync with the extreme political left..
Slashdot is no Daily Kos, or even HuffPo, that's for damned sure.
It's almost as if the media intentional seeks them out to plaster all over national news,
It's almost as if we reward media outlets who promote sensationalism. Which in turn leads to the uncomfortable implication that as a society we aren't that concerned with real news, but we love shock and entertainment.
In the 2016 US Presidential Elections, several large national news-agencies and financial institutions decided that Hillary should be the next president.
I think predicting that she would be President is different from deciding that she should be President. The Democratic Party had, and still has, almost no leaders who could credibly make a presidential run. When Elizabeth Warren announced that she would not run for President (she had to do it several times since not many people believed her the first few times) it seemed like Hillary had a straight shot. And really, who was there to derail her campaign? She'd been building support for a decade now. In the past, at least in the recent past, people didn't just come out of nowhere to take the nomination; they needed establishment support. Even Obama had about four years of support-building before he launched his campaign. Warren could have been this year's Obama. Clinton's campaign had the aura of inevitability to it because you could see it coming for years. No one has been particularly excited about Hillary, but they didn't think, assuming they're voting for the party, that they had anyone better. As soon as Obama jumped in, everyone flocked to him. And now Sanders is siphoning away her support.
You don't really understand the difference between being for sale, and being a person who buys other people. Politicians being for sale is the problem.
Are you buying the nonsense that Trump is "self funded?" He was self-funded, until his campaign took off. Right now, his campaign is very traditionally-funded, but he still says that he's self-funded.
Yeah, the Democrats that are now part of the Republican party, fuckwad.
I just checked and the grand total of Republicans that were former Democrats and also voted in favor of Jim Crow is a grand total of...wait for it...fucking zero! You ignorant piece of shit
The Democrats that joined the Republican Party are most dead at this point, because it happened a long time ago. The South used to be solidly Democratic, as before the Civil War, it was the party of small government, states rights, and strict construction. After the Civil War, they were the Solid South, the voting bloc of southern states that voted for Democrats. That ended in the 60s and 70s with the Civil Rights Movement. The Southern Democrat President, Lyndon B. Johnson, mentioned when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." The next Presidential election, LBJ won, but he'd lost the Deep South.
In a way, the Southerners (small government, states rights, Jim Crow, anti-federalist) didn't really change their beliefs in the last 200 years, but the Democratic Party certainly had. Maybe there was something to Reagan's "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."
Well the point was could the exit node filter based on content, the real answer is no, anybody using TOR is very likely to be using end to end encryption. In the particular case 4chan.org did in fact report the possible illegal upload, 4chan.org is the nexus of oppositional-defiant youth and mostly Not Workplace Safe anyway.
And 4chan has certainly been around the block enough and lived long enough to know that when someone posts child porn on their boards and the investigators give them a call, they cooperate.
They're not suppose to investigate? The couple running the exit node weren't aware that their equipment could be used to facilitate criminal actions?
Let me paraphrase your comment: THINK OF THE CHILDREN! AND TERRORISTS! WHAT ABOUT THE TERRORISTS!
You know, shouting THINK OF THE CHILDREN doesn't mean that one shouldn't actually investigate crimes involving real children. The story isn't about TOR being banned because it COULD be used for child porn. It's not about how the police bashed open the front door, threw in a flash grenade, killed a few pets, and hauled away the computers.
It seems like everything went down just about the way it should have.
The stuffed tiger in this case was a creation of Bill Watterson, who already decided that pursuing people for copyright infringement (really, trademark infringement) was more trouble than it was worth for him.
How would they know, if I connect through HTTPS, only the two end point computers would ever know what was in the packets because it would be encrypted before they entered the TOR network.
My guess is that the hosting website gave up the IP address which posted the images to law enforcement.
Sympathizers with the police need to be harassed by the federal agency that needs to be created to investigate local law enforcement independent of states.
Yeah, keep up with the stupid war, buddy. Fight the "good fight."
Evidence tending to show a lack of probable cause must be included in making a determination of whether PC exists. It's a "totality of the circumstances" test. The TOR exit node tends to show a lack of PC--it is much less likely that there will be evidence there of any kind.
"TOR" does not suddenly mean that you have no responsibility for things that go through your network, it doesn't mean they are suddenly immune from investigation, just as it doesn't mean no one will come knocking if your neighbor is using your unsecured Wi-Fi to hack banks or download kiddie porn or whatever. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from running a TOR exit node, then just doing whatever illegal activity they want, and they can just say "sorry, it must have been someone on TOR. No way could it have been me."
They absolutely had probable cause -- they knew that the child porn had come from the activist's network connection. This is something that TOR users are going to have to get used to, since the legal system hasn't caught up yet. In the offline world, there are statutes against providing a location for criminal activity, even if you aren't actively involved in such activity yourself. I'm not sure that those statutes apply directly to TOR exit nodes, but they're certainly close enough situations that investigators aren't going to have a difficult time getting investigatory warrants.
As the activists mentioned, they knew that criminal activity was likely to be routed through their network connection. I expect there will be searches a-plenty until a court case decides on the legality of TOR exit nodes, and you can look forward to it being decided in favor of law enforcement.
Paying taxes is not a moral imperative, you fucking dipshit.
This isn't church, and the IRS isn't a collection plate.
If you want to pay more, go for it, but don't pretend that somehow makes you better than anyone else. Just a sucker.
Interesting. Do you use government services at all? Is there a road in front of your house? A bridge nearby? Do you like knowing that the meat you buy at the grocery store won't kill you? Or that your funds are FDIC-insured? Perhaps you enjoy the security that a strong military gives. I suppose I could go on and on, but you use and benefit from a lot of government services. So pay your damn taxes.
I think "25 years ago" wasn't the number the original poster meant to give. "20 years" is probably more accurate, give how Russia's GDP in 1995 was half of what it was in 1990. They probably hit a low with the 1998 Russian Financial Crisis.
I do think it's weird that Putin would funnel money overseas for personal use. Is he planning on retiring to Costa Rica or something? My guess is that Putin is boss and lives in Russia forever, which means he basically has the entire resources of the state at his personal disposal. Why bother moving money overseas at all?
The smart investor diversifies, puts his money in many different places. He lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union and the near-dissolving of Russia's economy before he came to power. Put all of your money in Russian banks, and then if the Russian banks go down, so do you.
Also, there could be some hedging of bets against, say, the rest of the world freezing his assets if he does something even more aggressive than the Crimea invasion.
Taxes are regressive. The rich will avoid them, and the middle class and poor cannot. You can say it is "BS" all you want, but I have evidence, and you have your "BS";)
Yet in the US, the top 1% of earners paid nearly half of the federal income taxes. The top 20% paid around 85% of the federal income taxes, which makes up about half of the federal budget. Those numbers come from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think-tank, but they don't seem to be controversial to conservatives or progressives. They certainly don't square with the notion that the rich can just avoid all their taxes. They certainly have more ways around some taxes, but they certainly have more taxes aimed at them that the poor don't have to pay either. Where the poor gets hit more is with the payroll tax, but the services the payroll tax funds (social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance) are not supposed to act as wealth redistributors -- you get out what you put in. Theoretically. In reality, money moves through the federal government in creative ways.
Omg.. u never been in Russia. No one cares if you talk to reporter domestic or foreign.
It is not 1950 anymore sigh...
It's not 1950 anymore, but it's also not 2000 either. Keep in mind that Russia is currently governed by an autocrat who feels that Russia should have returned to its 1950s ways. But under him, not The Party. He's more corporatist than communist.
Which really wouldn't make too much sense. Most of the subscribers of WoW have been there for years. They already played vanilla in many cases. There may be new people who just wanted to experience WoW as it used to be, but if they have the client, they bought the game or got the client somewhere. And they will probably want to move on to new content when they are done with vanilla. There's only so many Molten Core runs you can make, after all.
There's a further benefit as well -- it takes some of the rosiness off of those rose-tinted glasses that many oldtimers (myself included) use when talking about Vanilla. I've played on the Vanilla servers recently and it was kindof fun, but I realized quickly... the game really has improved since Vanilla. There are a lot of things that work a lot better, the combat is better paced, it gets boring walking slowly over lands with no actual content, and there is a lot of syntactic sugar that just makes the game "feel" better. Running around as a warrior at level 10 with heroic strike being my ONLY damaging special ability, and having to auto-attack for 10 seconds to get the rage to use it just once, then rinse and repeat... yeah, that's kindof boring!
I think the parent poster is shying away and ending the debate because you're using offensive terms like "snide asshole," "cram that bit of semantic bullshit up your ass until your ears bleed," and "kindly go fuck yourself."
Is that the sort of approach you take to your coworkers? To your relatives when you visit or any you live with? Why is acting like you're rabid and foaming at the mouth acceptable when the other person is a stranger located hundreds of miles away? Why is that considered okay?
Lumpy was right, getting annoyed is one thing, but this is gross over-reaction.
Except it requires data from another server to FUNCTION.
But there's nothing damaged, so the California Code doesn't cover it. Whether it works or not is going to be different from whatever the legal definition of "damaged" is in court. The Code does not say that the device must operate with the same functionality that it had the day you got it.
Everything ends up centrally hosted because people are scared of hosting their own services (technically difficult, lack of provision of static IPs and a security risk)
Well in the "old days" of the early 2000s and mid-late 90s, the games industry learned the hard way that getting people to run their own game servers was a pain in the ass. The "good" online gaming experiences came from the companies that ran their own online game services and didn't require that gamers' computers talk directly to each other. Diablo 2 was great for firewalls and ip masquerading because all it required was one specific TCP port to be opened on the machine of whomever was hosting. Most other games required some weird, sometimes unpublished, arbitrary list of UDP ports, and this was always, always a total PITA to set up. A number of games asked the hosting computer for its IP address and sent that to the remote computer for that remote computer to use as the address to connect back to -- doesn't work if the hosting computer thinks its address is 192.168.1.1! Things got worse and worse using ISP-supplied firewalls and routers and now just about every game that has some sort of online play does -not- require that server be hosted inside the household network. And it shouldn't, because it's begging for even most attack vectors to open up.
That's one of the downsides to ipv6 -- maybe it'll open up more holes in the network again for attackers to worm their way in.
Slashdot Mirror
And if you think it's just left wingers, perform an experiment. Post a message asking "Why would someone even want an assualt rifle?" It will hit -1 troll with a bullet (that's a joke son)
And I've seen such sentiments modded up to +5 before as well, though it'll usually take more insight than just that one question.
Half the time, it's really just the luck of the draw -- which moderator did I get today? Who actually read my post, someone who can appreciate a well-reasoned argument from the other side, or is it going to be a left-wing or right-wing partisan with an itchy trigger finger? Will I get modded down quickly, thus making it less likely that the folks who would have modded my post up would see it? Or will I get modded up first, thus making it more likely that the post will still be seen even if it gets a downmod right after?
I've found on Slashdot you can get modded up one day, modded down the next for saying the same thing. Phrasing matters, and it matters who happens to have mod points that day.
It's still OK (you won't get booted) to challenge any of those positions with logic and reason, but you generally have to make a much more cogent post and still risk more downmodding.
But that line is WAY out-of-sync with the extreme political left..
Slashdot is no Daily Kos, or even HuffPo, that's for damned sure.
It's almost as if the media intentional seeks them out to plaster all over national news,
It's almost as if we reward media outlets who promote sensationalism.
Which in turn leads to the uncomfortable implication that as a society we aren't that concerned with real news, but we love shock and entertainment.
In the 2016 US Presidential Elections, several large national news-agencies and financial institutions decided that Hillary should be the next president.
I think predicting that she would be President is different from deciding that she should be President. The Democratic Party had, and still has, almost no leaders who could credibly make a presidential run. When Elizabeth Warren announced that she would not run for President (she had to do it several times since not many people believed her the first few times) it seemed like Hillary had a straight shot. And really, who was there to derail her campaign? She'd been building support for a decade now. In the past, at least in the recent past, people didn't just come out of nowhere to take the nomination; they needed establishment support. Even Obama had about four years of support-building before he launched his campaign. Warren could have been this year's Obama. Clinton's campaign had the aura of inevitability to it because you could see it coming for years. No one has been particularly excited about Hillary, but they didn't think, assuming they're voting for the party, that they had anyone better. As soon as Obama jumped in, everyone flocked to him. And now Sanders is siphoning away her support.
You don't really understand the difference between being for sale, and being a person who buys other people. Politicians being for sale is the problem.
Are you buying the nonsense that Trump is "self funded?" He was self-funded, until his campaign took off. Right now, his campaign is very traditionally-funded, but he still says that he's self-funded.
Yeah, the Democrats that are now part of the Republican party, fuckwad.
I just checked and the grand total of Republicans that were former Democrats and also voted in favor of Jim Crow is a grand total of...wait for it...fucking zero! You ignorant piece of shit
The Democrats that joined the Republican Party are most dead at this point, because it happened a long time ago. The South used to be solidly Democratic, as before the Civil War, it was the party of small government, states rights, and strict construction. After the Civil War, they were the Solid South, the voting bloc of southern states that voted for Democrats. That ended in the 60s and 70s with the Civil Rights Movement. The Southern Democrat President, Lyndon B. Johnson, mentioned when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." The next Presidential election, LBJ won, but he'd lost the Deep South.
In a way, the Southerners (small government, states rights, Jim Crow, anti-federalist) didn't really change their beliefs in the last 200 years, but the Democratic Party certainly had. Maybe there was something to Reagan's "I didn't leave the party, the party left me."
Well the point was could the exit node filter based on content, the real answer is no, anybody using TOR is very likely to be using end to end encryption. In the particular case 4chan.org did in fact report the possible illegal upload, 4chan.org is the nexus of oppositional-defiant youth and mostly Not Workplace Safe anyway.
And 4chan has certainly been around the block enough and lived long enough to know that when someone posts child porn on their boards and the investigators give them a call, they cooperate.
They're not suppose to investigate? The couple running the exit node weren't aware that their equipment could be used to facilitate criminal actions?
Let me paraphrase your comment: THINK OF THE CHILDREN! AND TERRORISTS! WHAT ABOUT THE TERRORISTS!
You know, shouting THINK OF THE CHILDREN doesn't mean that one shouldn't actually investigate crimes involving real children. The story isn't about TOR being banned because it COULD be used for child porn. It's not about how the police bashed open the front door, threw in a flash grenade, killed a few pets, and hauled away the computers.
It seems like everything went down just about the way it should have.
The stuffed tiger in this case was a creation of Bill Watterson, who already decided that pursuing people for copyright infringement (really, trademark infringement) was more trouble than it was worth for him.
A hacker wouldn't have chosen that name because "Zero Cool" is equivalent to "Not Cool".
He's a hipster hacker. It's ironic, and therefore, it's even more cool.
How would they know, if I connect through HTTPS, only the two end point computers would ever know what was in the packets because it would be encrypted before they entered the TOR network.
My guess is that the hosting website gave up the IP address which posted the images to law enforcement.
Sympathizers with the police need to be harassed by the federal agency that needs to be created to investigate local law enforcement independent of states.
Yeah, keep up with the stupid war, buddy. Fight the "good fight."
Evidence tending to show a lack of probable cause must be included in making a determination of whether PC exists. It's a "totality of the circumstances" test. The TOR exit node tends to show a lack of PC--it is much less likely that there will be evidence there of any kind.
"TOR" does not suddenly mean that you have no responsibility for things that go through your network, it doesn't mean they are suddenly immune from investigation, just as it doesn't mean no one will come knocking if your neighbor is using your unsecured Wi-Fi to hack banks or download kiddie porn or whatever. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from running a TOR exit node, then just doing whatever illegal activity they want, and they can just say "sorry, it must have been someone on TOR. No way could it have been me."
They absolutely had probable cause -- they knew that the child porn had come from the activist's network connection. This is something that TOR users are going to have to get used to, since the legal system hasn't caught up yet. In the offline world, there are statutes against providing a location for criminal activity, even if you aren't actively involved in such activity yourself. I'm not sure that those statutes apply directly to TOR exit nodes, but they're certainly close enough situations that investigators aren't going to have a difficult time getting investigatory warrants.
As the activists mentioned, they knew that criminal activity was likely to be routed through their network connection. I expect there will be searches a-plenty until a court case decides on the legality of TOR exit nodes, and you can look forward to it being decided in favor of law enforcement.
Paying taxes is not a moral imperative, you fucking dipshit.
This isn't church, and the IRS isn't a collection plate.
If you want to pay more, go for it, but don't pretend that somehow makes you better than anyone else. Just a sucker.
Interesting. Do you use government services at all? Is there a road in front of your house? A bridge nearby? Do you like knowing that the meat you buy at the grocery store won't kill you? Or that your funds are FDIC-insured? Perhaps you enjoy the security that a strong military gives. I suppose I could go on and on, but you use and benefit from a lot of government services. So pay your damn taxes.
I think "25 years ago" wasn't the number the original poster meant to give. "20 years" is probably more accurate, give how Russia's GDP in 1995 was half of what it was in 1990. They probably hit a low with the 1998 Russian Financial Crisis.
I do think it's weird that Putin would funnel money overseas for personal use. Is he planning on retiring to Costa Rica or something? My guess is that Putin is boss and lives in Russia forever, which means he basically has the entire resources of the state at his personal disposal. Why bother moving money overseas at all?
The smart investor diversifies, puts his money in many different places. He lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union and the near-dissolving of Russia's economy before he came to power. Put all of your money in Russian banks, and then if the Russian banks go down, so do you.
Also, there could be some hedging of bets against, say, the rest of the world freezing his assets if he does something even more aggressive than the Crimea invasion.
That's right! Everything that's legal is also moral!
Taxes are regressive. The rich will avoid them, and the middle class and poor cannot. You can say it is "BS" all you want, but I have evidence, and you have your "BS" ;)
Yet in the US, the top 1% of earners paid nearly half of the federal income taxes. The top 20% paid around 85% of the federal income taxes, which makes up about half of the federal budget. Those numbers come from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think-tank, but they don't seem to be controversial to conservatives or progressives. They certainly don't square with the notion that the rich can just avoid all their taxes. They certainly have more ways around some taxes, but they certainly have more taxes aimed at them that the poor don't have to pay either. Where the poor gets hit more is with the payroll tax, but the services the payroll tax funds (social security, Medicare, unemployment insurance) are not supposed to act as wealth redistributors -- you get out what you put in. Theoretically. In reality, money moves through the federal government in creative ways.
Omg.. u never been in Russia. No one cares if you talk to reporter domestic or foreign.
It is not 1950 anymore sigh...
It's not 1950 anymore, but it's also not 2000 either. Keep in mind that Russia is currently governed by an autocrat who feels that Russia should have returned to its 1950s ways. But under him, not The Party. He's more corporatist than communist.
Which really wouldn't make too much sense. Most of the subscribers of WoW have been there for years. They already played vanilla in many cases. There may be new people who just wanted to experience WoW as it used to be, but if they have the client, they bought the game or got the client somewhere. And they will probably want to move on to new content when they are done with vanilla. There's only so many Molten Core runs you can make, after all.
There's a further benefit as well -- it takes some of the rosiness off of those rose-tinted glasses that many oldtimers (myself included) use when talking about Vanilla. I've played on the Vanilla servers recently and it was kindof fun, but I realized quickly... the game really has improved since Vanilla. There are a lot of things that work a lot better, the combat is better paced, it gets boring walking slowly over lands with no actual content, and there is a lot of syntactic sugar that just makes the game "feel" better. Running around as a warrior at level 10 with heroic strike being my ONLY damaging special ability, and having to auto-attack for 10 seconds to get the rage to use it just once, then rinse and repeat... yeah, that's kindof boring!
How many have seen this error on boot over the years.
keyboard not detected - press F1 to continue.
It makes sense to me. Keyboard not detected.. plug in keyboard.. press F1 to keep booting.
I think the parent poster is shying away and ending the debate because you're using offensive terms like "snide asshole," "cram that bit of semantic bullshit up your ass until your ears bleed," and "kindly go fuck yourself."
Is that the sort of approach you take to your coworkers? To your relatives when you visit or any you live with? Why is acting like you're rabid and foaming at the mouth acceptable when the other person is a stranger located hundreds of miles away? Why is that considered okay?
Lumpy was right, getting annoyed is one thing, but this is gross over-reaction.
Except it requires data from another server to FUNCTION.
But there's nothing damaged, so the California Code doesn't cover it. Whether it works or not is going to be different from whatever the legal definition of "damaged" is in court.
The Code does not say that the device must operate with the same functionality that it had the day you got it.
Everything ends up centrally hosted because people are scared of hosting their own services (technically difficult, lack of provision of static IPs and a security risk)
Well in the "old days" of the early 2000s and mid-late 90s, the games industry learned the hard way that getting people to run their own game servers was a pain in the ass. The "good" online gaming experiences came from the companies that ran their own online game services and didn't require that gamers' computers talk directly to each other. Diablo 2 was great for firewalls and ip masquerading because all it required was one specific TCP port to be opened on the machine of whomever was hosting. Most other games required some weird, sometimes unpublished, arbitrary list of UDP ports, and this was always, always a total PITA to set up. A number of games asked the hosting computer for its IP address and sent that to the remote computer for that remote computer to use as the address to connect back to -- doesn't work if the hosting computer thinks its address is 192.168.1.1! Things got worse and worse using ISP-supplied firewalls and routers and now just about every game that has some sort of online play does -not- require that server be hosted inside the household network. And it shouldn't, because it's begging for even most attack vectors to open up.
That's one of the downsides to ipv6 -- maybe it'll open up more holes in the network again for attackers to worm their way in.
How can you say that? Provide proof that what he said isn't coming.
That's not how debating works.