Reasons a Phone Book is different from being doxxed:
More than just your name, phone number and address might be shared.
It is linking offline and online, not just posting your info in isolation. Imagine if a phone book contained every single one of your online identities and logons.
Phone books don't link to material that could threaten your personal relationships or career.
Doxxing is used as a tool to intimidate and attack people. It is a form of retaliation, not a public service.
Often(though not always) a single person is singled out.
As others are pointing out, this is a poor argument and should not be modded up.
Yes, you could do most of a doxxing manually in the days prior to the Internet and google, via looking things up in city hall and newspaper morgues and etc., but it was harder. Sometimes, making something easier makes a significant qualitative difference. As you would learn if you ever tried to push a.45 caliber bullet into somebody's chest by hand.
You know, back in the day they published whole doxxing books. One per town (though you could request another town's by mail). In fact many such doing books were shipped for free to everyone. They were white and yellow too, if I remember correctly.
Ah, but the identities were cleverly hashed, so that for instance, P. Diddy would be coded as Diddy P.
Unless this doxxing contained anything beyond public records what are they police going to do even then? It's not illegal to post public information on someone (barring things like victim shield laws, etc.).
Could have all your email and phone calls automatically forwarded to the police department.
If you want to get the police to do anything in this world, don't contact them yourself, have your lawyer contact them.
In all seriousness, this is the kind of thing that the Mafia was created to deal with, long ago. But oddly enough, they got corrupted by power just as the police had before them.
They've just wound up and kicked their most loyal customer base in the nuts as hard as they can. VW diesel owners are unswervingly loyal and unswervingly proud of their purchase and the VW brand, and unanimously proud of doing the right thing ecologically, so this is like finding their wife committing adultery with their dog.
Yes, I do know what a Sufi is. Of course, the fact that the father is a Sufi is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the father has acted as a provocateur in attempting on multiple occasions in attempts to magnify various incidents into "America is persecuting Muslims."
I am going to guess from your take on this that you still think that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.
You ever notice how rightwingers not only seem to revel in the belief that they have access to information that we peons do not have; but they enjoy that fact so much that they can't actually point you to that information.
it all goes back to that hierarchical authoritative cognitive style of theirs.
1) They are good
2) the sources on their side are good
3) therefore they can believe whatever those sources say without checking
4) furthermore, their opponents (who of course are evil) know that they are good, and are therefore evil by definition, for opposing goodness
5) therefore their opponents know that they possess the truth and should believe everything they say
6) and doing something like posting a link to a primary source is just confusing the issues with lying facts.
Good Lord,
We had no inclination of taking the slew of pharmaceutical drugs back in my day as a teen. Ok, sure, we had plenty of "parking lot" drugs we often had fun with...but as far as systemized drugging of kids, we did just fine without all the anti-depressants turning kids into zombies so early ln life.
I can't imagine we're doing these young teens and pre-teens any good with all this. We didn't need it in the past and we all came out well adjusted (always a few exceptions), so why in God's name do we feel the need to start drugging kids from such an early age ?
It is just big Pharma selling more wares, getting folks hooked early?
Between "Attention deficit disorder" (formerly known as being "a boy")...and now anti-depressants, can a kid that was once considered normal growing up and developing with all the fun times and turbulent times grow up today without the first inclination be to DRUG THEM?
Medical thinking? "I don't know what's causing your problem, or even if you have a problem at all. Let me give you some drugs that have problems associated with them, then you won't suffer from problems of unknown cause any more" some of you probably think I'm kidding.
Investing in solar during the 70s wouldn't have generated a return for another 30+ years.
Energy companies invest ALL THE TIME in new chemical technologies that won't be profitable for decades.
There was plenty of time to wait and see if the prediction turned out to be correct and if some alternative energy source would come along to save the day.
plenty of time? exxon has ALREADY missed the boat on solar panel research.
through the early 80s, while the research in question was being conducted, Exxon was actively planning what to get into in the post-petroleum era. Between the Reagan Revolution, the reduction in government oversight, and the general change to emphasis on short-term profits over long-term, there was quite a significant change of the guard in the Exxon boardroom, and with it a change of direction.
Another similarity; both oil and tobacco industry have huge PR and lobby efforts to continue misleading and confuse the topic and as much as possible avoid that anything is done about it.
Heck, it's the very same people. S. Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute. Steven J. Milloy and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.
MOST oil companies tried to go the solar route. At one point BP was the largest solar panel manufacturer in the world.
Also you fail at history. Exxon bankrolled Solar Power Corporation back in the 70s. Eventually that was sold to Royal Dutch Shell, and then divested out of the oil industry in 2006.
Most of the western oil companies had some stake in renewable energies. Solar particularly they all got their asses handed to them and divested in the last 10 years.
As a side note, I think you have an ignorant solar fanboy modding up all your posts.
Exxon in the 70s was a different corporation than Exxon in the late 80s. Much as the US in the 70s was a different country than the US in the late 80s.
"Car owners should know that although these vehicles have emissions exceeding standards, these violations do not present a safety hazard and the cars remain legal to drive and resell. Owners of cars of these models and years do not need to take any action at this time."
I assume they mean to say that it's not a hazard that will kill the occupants of the vehicle, but only hazardous considering the number of these vehicles on the road, but the way they phrase it seems to contradict the necessity of emission controls.
IIRC, last time I looked at federal laws, you could disable the emissions controls on your own car, but nobody was allowed to do it for hire. Local laws probably make it tougher in california and places like that, though.
CO2 is plant food, therefor it's harmless. Nightshade berries are bird food, therefor they are harmless. Why don't you eat some nightshade berries and let us know how that logic of yours works out.
How much water do you save taking an 30-minute shower with a showehead that uses half the water, compared to a 15-minute shower with a regular showerhead?
Normal human beings can get clean with a 5 minute low flow shower. What is your problem that you need a half an hour?
Ironically, nobody's come up with a low flow bathtub yet; and a bath is like a 1 hour shower with a regular flow shower head. even more ironically, that wasn't very ironic at all, looking back at it.
This is what my design professor called a high tech solution to a low tech problem. I use a dipstick.
Dipstick tells you oil level, and if you're good, a smidge about oil condition. Unless you're driving an oil-burner, level doesn't say much.
Also, oil turns black pretty quickly, and it's actually guesswork on how well it's holding up depending on numerous values - changing it early saves the engine, but costs you more oil changes. Changing it late costs the engine, but saves you on oil changes. Ideally, you change the oil once the sustainers and such in it are exhausted and it can't carry out the contaminants quickly enough.
In order to really do this, you need to test. I actually ordered an oil test kit recently, and I already use an oversized oil filter - cleans just as good as the standard, but has ~50% more filter.
i used to do oil test kits, years ago. every single report made me worry though. one month it would be full of zinc. one month it would be full of aluminum. etc. for one thing, the additives between different brands of oil show up in the tests sometimes as excess of whatever metal, and i wasn't too faithful to one brand of oil at the time. i eventually gave up.
The last person I knew who bought a VW was told by the dealership that it was normal for a modern gasoline engine to burn a quart of oil every month.
Back in the 70s, when my professor complained that her new VW wouldn't go over 60, the dealership told her it was illegal to go over 60. Later, when she noted that the front wheels were covered with soot, they told her it was because she didn't drive enough. (turned out the catalytic converter was completely plugged, from the factory)
Slashdot Mirror
"Disable Advertising As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising."
Reasons a Phone Book is different from being doxxed:
As others are pointing out, this is a poor argument and should not be modded up.
Yes, you could do most of a doxxing manually in the days prior to the Internet and google, via looking things up in city hall and newspaper morgues and etc., but it was harder. Sometimes, making something easier makes a significant qualitative difference. As you would learn if you ever tried to push a .45 caliber bullet into somebody's chest by hand.
Do you still french kiss your dog every day?
I mean, if we're asking inane questions I'd like to at least get a laugh out of the answers.
doesn't everybody?
Ben Dover, Max Imum, I.P. Daily, Fuq Q. Googel....and the list goes on. :)
Deez Nuts.
You know, back in the day they published whole doxxing books. One per town (though you could request another town's by mail). In fact many such doing books were shipped for free to everyone. They were white and yellow too, if I remember correctly.
Ah, but the identities were cleverly hashed, so that for instance, P. Diddy would be coded as Diddy P.
Unless this doxxing contained anything beyond public records what are they police going to do even then? It's not illegal to post public information on someone (barring things like victim shield laws, etc.).
Could have all your email and phone calls automatically forwarded to the police department.
The police don't care,
If you want to get the police to do anything in this world, don't contact them yourself, have your lawyer contact them.
In all seriousness, this is the kind of thing that the Mafia was created to deal with, long ago. But oddly enough, they got corrupted by power just as the police had before them.
Kind of a paradox.
They've just wound up and kicked their most loyal customer base in the nuts as hard as they can.
VW diesel owners are unswervingly loyal and unswervingly proud of their purchase and the VW brand, and unanimously proud of doing the right thing ecologically, so this is like finding their wife committing adultery with their dog.
Yes, I do know what a Sufi is. Of course, the fact that the father is a Sufi is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the father has acted as a provocateur in attempting on multiple occasions in attempts to magnify various incidents into "America is persecuting Muslims." I am going to guess from your take on this that you still think that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.
You ever notice how rightwingers not only seem to revel in the belief that they have access to information that we peons do not have; but they enjoy that fact so much that they can't actually point you to that information.
it all goes back to that hierarchical authoritative cognitive style of theirs.
1) They are good
2) the sources on their side are good
3) therefore they can believe whatever those sources say without checking
4) furthermore, their opponents (who of course are evil) know that they are good, and are therefore evil by definition, for opposing goodness
5) therefore their opponents know that they possess the truth and should believe everything they say
6) and doing something like posting a link to a primary source is just confusing the issues with lying facts.
Hmm.... Still, I figure 1 test to make sure I don't have problems like antifreeze or fuel getting into my oil is a good idea.
can't argue with that. maybe once a year or some such.
Good Lord, We had no inclination of taking the slew of pharmaceutical drugs back in my day as a teen. Ok, sure, we had plenty of "parking lot" drugs we often had fun with...but as far as systemized drugging of kids, we did just fine without all the anti-depressants turning kids into zombies so early ln life.
I can't imagine we're doing these young teens and pre-teens any good with all this. We didn't need it in the past and we all came out well adjusted (always a few exceptions), so why in God's name do we feel the need to start drugging kids from such an early age ?
It is just big Pharma selling more wares, getting folks hooked early?
Between "Attention deficit disorder" (formerly known as being "a boy")...and now anti-depressants, can a kid that was once considered normal growing up and developing with all the fun times and turbulent times grow up today without the first inclination be to DRUG THEM?
Medical thinking? "I don't know what's causing your problem, or even if you have a problem at all. Let me give you some drugs that have problems associated with them, then you won't suffer from problems of unknown cause any more"
some of you probably think I'm kidding.
... that they got hit with trumped up charges!
I shoot my rim at you.
LOOOOSERS!!!
Investing in solar during the 70s wouldn't have generated a return for another 30+ years.
Energy companies invest ALL THE TIME in new chemical technologies that won't be profitable for decades.
There was plenty of time to wait and see if the prediction turned out to be correct and if some alternative energy source would come along to save the day.
plenty of time? exxon has ALREADY missed the boat on solar panel research.
through the early 80s, while the research in question was being conducted, Exxon was actively planning what to get into in the post-petroleum era. Between the Reagan Revolution, the reduction in government oversight, and the general change to emphasis on short-term profits over long-term, there was quite a significant change of the guard in the Exxon boardroom, and with it a change of direction.
Another similarity; both oil and tobacco industry have huge PR and lobby efforts to continue misleading and confuse the topic and as much as possible avoid that anything is done about it.
Heck, it's the very same people. S. Fred Singer and the Heartland Institute. Steven J. Milloy and the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.
MOST oil companies tried to go the solar route. At one point BP was the largest solar panel manufacturer in the world. Also you fail at history. Exxon bankrolled Solar Power Corporation back in the 70s. Eventually that was sold to Royal Dutch Shell, and then divested out of the oil industry in 2006.
Most of the western oil companies had some stake in renewable energies. Solar particularly they all got their asses handed to them and divested in the last 10 years.
As a side note, I think you have an ignorant solar fanboy modding up all your posts.
Exxon in the 70s was a different corporation than Exxon in the late 80s. Much as the US in the 70s was a different country than the US in the late 80s.
I don't know, the EPA is using some double-speak:
"Car owners should know that although these vehicles have emissions exceeding standards, these violations do not present a safety hazard and the cars remain legal to drive and resell. Owners of cars of these models and years do not need to take any action at this time."
I assume they mean to say that it's not a hazard that will kill the occupants of the vehicle, but only hazardous considering the number of these vehicles on the road, but the way they phrase it seems to contradict the necessity of emission controls.
IIRC, last time I looked at federal laws, you could disable the emissions controls on your own car, but nobody was allowed to do it for hire. Local laws probably make it tougher in california and places like that, though.
CO2 is plant food, therefor it's harmless. Nightshade berries are bird food, therefor they are harmless. Why don't you eat some nightshade berries and let us know how that logic of yours works out.
Dead humans are plant food too.
How much water do you save taking an 30-minute shower with a showehead that uses half the water, compared to a 15-minute shower with a regular showerhead?
Normal human beings can get clean with a 5 minute low flow shower. What is your problem that you need a half an hour?
Ironically, nobody's come up with a low flow bathtub yet; and a bath is like a 1 hour shower with a regular flow shower head.
even more ironically, that wasn't very ironic at all, looking back at it.
Some people care about the emissions from their car...
just like some people like low flow shower heads and low flow toilets.
You know those two things are not physically connected, right?
It's such a common problem-type it even had a name: Externalities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality).
external. from the latin for, not my problem. see also "compassionate conservatism"
This is what my design professor called a high tech solution to a low tech problem. I use a dipstick.
Dipstick tells you oil level, and if you're good, a smidge about oil condition. Unless you're driving an oil-burner, level doesn't say much.
Also, oil turns black pretty quickly, and it's actually guesswork on how well it's holding up depending on numerous values - changing it early saves the engine, but costs you more oil changes. Changing it late costs the engine, but saves you on oil changes. Ideally, you change the oil once the sustainers and such in it are exhausted and it can't carry out the contaminants quickly enough.
In order to really do this, you need to test. I actually ordered an oil test kit recently, and I already use an oversized oil filter - cleans just as good as the standard, but has ~50% more filter.
i used to do oil test kits, years ago. every single report made me worry though. one month it would be full of zinc. one month it would be full of aluminum. etc. for one thing, the additives between different brands of oil show up in the tests sometimes as excess of whatever metal, and i wasn't too faithful to one brand of oil at the time. i eventually gave up.
Yes. Several manufacturers have this in their owners' manuals. Some claim as much as a quart per 600 miles is 'normal'.
Not that that makes it suck any less.
Diesels burn a real lot of oil
The last person I knew who bought a VW was told by the dealership that it was normal for a modern gasoline engine to burn a quart of oil every month.
Back in the 70s, when my professor complained that her new VW wouldn't go over 60, the dealership told her it was illegal to go over 60. Later, when she noted that the front wheels were covered with soot, they told her it was because she didn't drive enough. (turned out the catalytic converter was completely plugged, from the factory)