Since the law is basically written such that you must avoid hitting the cars in front of you (even if the driver of the car in front does something absurdly foolish like slams on the brakes), the insurance company has almost no choice but to attribute the fault in a rear-end collision to the driver of the vehicle in back.
Oh really? Minivans can be pretty damn heavy, especially after you put a few hundred pounds of sports equipment and seven or eight passengers in them.
The Dodge Grand Caravan SE and SXT, and Chrysler Town & Country LX, Touring, and Limited (basically the same vehicles underneath all the extra features) have V6 engines ranging from 170 hp 3.3L up to 251 hp 4.0L (2008, http://www.allpar.com/model/m/2008-minivans.html).
A top-end minivan has a bigger engine than a low-end F150, and in any case I’d say the margin of safety should be large enough for the minivan to easily stop the truck in just about all of those cases unless maybe you’re pitting the smallest minivan against the most powerful truck.
And there’s almost zero risk of injury in a rear-end collision between two vehicles that are going almost exactly the same speed. So whatever that greater responsibility to them is, multiply it by ~0, and whatever the lesser responsibility that he had to the other people was can be multiplied by “high probability of severe injury or death * multiple people”.
It was a rear-end collision and it was (almost by definition, in a rear-end collision) caused by the driver of the truck. They had to pay for the damages.
This is because you aren't a trained engineer. Based on the speeds overall speeds, and speeds differences, and the fact that the other driver was clearly unconscious, the risk was almost non existent. It literally would have had a freak incident to even cause a crash. It wasn't like he got in front of a car travelling 60 MPH and just locked up his breaks.
I was referring to the claim that Anon did any real damage to CoS. Not Simmons.
Oh! Excellent, you appear to know something that we didn’t! Please let the CoS know right away that Prolexic Technologies’ DDoS protection services come free of charge...*
“Shortly after it was hit with the DDOS flood, the Scientology.org Web site was moved to a server hosted by Prolexic Technologies, according to dat compiled by Netcraft, an Internet monitoring company. Prolexic specializes in protecting companies from DDOS attacks.”
I highly suspect they actually tried to charge money for those FREE services. But you obviously know better and I’m sure that everything will be set straight now that you’ve clarified that the CoS was not “really” damaged and obviously shouldn’t incur any additional costs because of these non-lasting, intangible attacks.
They can piss off one aging rock star and make some self involved teenage girls cry, but they bring no real change to society.
I’m sorry, you don’t get to define “real” change. You’re just defining that to be slightly beyond whatever they’re currently capable of... that way you’ll never have to admit that the effect they’re having is “real”.
Tell you what... when you can prove that you’re not a witch, I will attempt to prove that Anonymous did not use an illegal botnet to attack Gene Simmons’ websites.
Until then, crazy nutters and conspiracy theorists such as yourself can assume that, despite having no proof whatsoever, we’re all witches and Anonymous used secret illegal botnets to attack Simmons’ websites...
...and sane and reasonable people can assume that, since there is no proof otherwise, no illegal botnet was involved regardless of any nutter conspiracy theorist who claims otherwise. We will also assume that you are probably not a witch since there’s no proof of that either – the fact that you are a moron, however, has been clearly and definitively proven.
Feel free to let me have the last word... you’re only making yourself look more stupid by refusing to quit arguing when you’re wrong. This “impasse” (as you call it) consists entirely of you insisting that something illegal took place despite having no proof, demanding that we prove that it didn’t, and refusing to admit that this is completely illogical. Of course we will have an impasse as long as you maintain that illogical position.
Guerilla warfare actually causes lasting damage or achieves some sort of tangiable goal.
Gene Simmons paid for bandwidth, storage, and hosting. His bandwidth was wasted and the storage and hosting were made temporarily worthless for its intended purpose.
That is real damage and I’m sure he would take you to task on your claim that it didn’t cause him any “lasting” damage. He will have to eat that expense unless his internet server reimburses him at their own loss.
"4 lulz" is not a tangiable goal.
Says you. I say any goal is tangible by definition if it brings about real effects.
You have claimed, and must prove, that non-illegal means were insufficient to cause the effects of this DDoS. What proof do you have? None, and you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about either. Unless you can prove that something illegal took place, you’re just talking out your ass, and I’ll continue to presume innocence unless you can prove guilt.
Khyber has claimed that non-illegal means were adequate to create this DDoS. His proof is that the non-illegal methods were, provably, occurring, and that he knows much more about it than you do. Besides which, the application of Occam’s Razor indicates that if this explanation is adequate, your obsessive desire to add the illegal use of a botnet to the equation requires you to first prove that it was necessary.
Your subsequent rebuttal – “yeah but prove that my big illegal conspiracy didn’t happen” – just makes you sound (a) stupid, (b) a conspiracy theorist, (c) nutter, (d) all of the above.
"takes on" = "confronts" in the world of grown ups
"stays ahead of"= "gets the best of"
The world of grown ups must be completely unfamiliar with the concept of waging a guerrilla war, then. Or maybe that’s just you.
Anon almost had some their identities revealed by Regency and CoS until Youtube took down the video.
Skewering a few scapegoats? Yeah, that is an oft-tried method of combating an opponent who uses guerrilla tactics... and if it was working, there’d be no need for Gene to get himself all worked up; people would be too afraid of getting bankrupted by the RIAA if they downloaded anything.
I know for a fact that what you described would be illegal, whereas what Khyber described is not. Since you are claiming that something illegal took place, the burden of proof lies on you.
I’m not speculating. I know for a fact that what Khyber described is one of the tactics used by Anonymous. In fact I’ve seen pastebin pages that embed all the images from a website and automatically reload them constantly, all done via javascript.
Now, whether or not he was the one who came up with that tactic is questionable, but it doesn’t matter anyway.
Really, though, serving a restraining order via facebook actually makes a bit more sense than the lawsuit even did... if the bullying is occurring via facebook, the person being harassed might not even know who the bully is, but if the court is able to legally order the bully to quit, it makes sense to do so via facebook.
And there’s almost zero chance that you actually know what you’re talking about, or aren’t making this up as you go merrily along on baseless assumptions.
This is thousands, millions even, of people using their own individual online presence to collectively drown a website – essentially in a storm of protest. It’s no different from any real-life protest or strike. They aren’t hacking or cracking their way into anything they don’t have access to. They’re just requesting a page over and over, and the server is trying to accommodate those requests and melting under the load.
What he described would be a single entity or small group of people using millions of computers, probably without the knowledge of the people who even owned them, to make themselves seem louder than they actually would be. Not only would it be illegal to hijack my computer this way, it would be unfairly representative of the voice of the people behind the protest.
So how is it analogous? In this case you have millions of people raising a ruckus. Of course that causes severe problems just as millions of people on the mall in Washington DC would cause quite a snarl in the usual traffic there. It’s not even remotely similar to what he claimed.
I guarantee you that if Microsoft used its corporate servers and Windows base to DDOS open source supporting software, that Slashdot would cry "foul". Yet in this instance, a sizeable percentage of Slashdot loves the DDOS of Simmons.
It’s a rallying cry. What difference does it make who first said it?
Anyone could have started it. If enough people thought that the cause was worth contributing to, it would have gained momentum just the same. “Who started it” is just as irrelevant to the cause as the poor kid who takes the fall for it.
*It must be done Anonymously, otherwise you're obviously a shill or something *It must be done by somebody who isn't rich, famous, educated
There was a very good reason that Ben Franklin used a pen name to remain anonymous in some of the things he authored.
Anonymity prevents people from attacking the messenger. It also prevents people from attributing undeserved credibility to a message just because the messenger is rich, famous, or educated.
Thus the only way to stop them is indimidation, or the Simmon's method: Pick a few at random, and totally destroy them. Take their money, destroy their careers, throw them in jail, and in general hit them with a punishment grossly disproportionate to their crime in order to scare others away.
You give Simmons too much credit... the *IAA came up with that tactic.
Amusingly, if it had worked for the *IAA, Simmons wouldn’t need to be working himself up over this...
Slashdot Mirror
Since the law is basically written such that you must avoid hitting the cars in front of you (even if the driver of the car in front does something absurdly foolish like slams on the brakes), the insurance company has almost no choice but to attribute the fault in a rear-end collision to the driver of the vehicle in back.
Oh really? Minivans can be pretty damn heavy, especially after you put a few hundred pounds of sports equipment and seven or eight passengers in them.
The Dodge Grand Caravan SE and SXT, and Chrysler Town & Country LX, Touring, and Limited (basically the same vehicles underneath all the extra features) have V6 engines ranging from 170 hp 3.3L up to 251 hp 4.0L (2008, http://www.allpar.com/model/m/2008-minivans.html).
The F150 comes in sizes ranging from a 4.2L 202 hp V6 up to a 5.4L 380 hp V8 (2001, http://www.fordf150.net/specs/engines.php).
A top-end minivan has a bigger engine than a low-end F150, and in any case I’d say the margin of safety should be large enough for the minivan to easily stop the truck in just about all of those cases unless maybe you’re pitting the smallest minivan against the most powerful truck.
A pressed accelerator overpowers breaks
Stop reading right there, folks. He’s wrong.
Shompol: You can feel free to try to find some evidence if you still want to argue your case.
Oh, why don’t you just go ahead and Godwin it already...
Will you watch in silence while Nazis kill 2 million Jews if they might kill your kids if you speak up?
And there’s almost zero risk of injury in a rear-end collision between two vehicles that are going almost exactly the same speed. So whatever that greater responsibility to them is, multiply it by ~0, and whatever the lesser responsibility that he had to the other people was can be multiplied by “high probability of severe injury or death * multiple people”.
that's why they footed the bill
Perhaps... or perhaps not.
It was a rear-end collision and it was (almost by definition, in a rear-end collision) caused by the driver of the truck. They had to pay for the damages.
Ok... so what he should have said is:
This is because you aren't a trained engineer. Based on the speeds overall speeds, and speeds differences, and the fact that the other driver was clearly unconscious, the risk was almost non existent. It literally would have had a freak incident to even cause a crash. It wasn't like he got in front of a car travelling 60 MPH and just locked up his breaks.
It is funny. This isn’t real life, it’s Slashdot, and things people post here don’t necessarily have to be taken 100% literally.
I was referring to the claim that Anon did any real damage to CoS. Not Simmons.
Oh! Excellent, you appear to know something that we didn’t! Please let the CoS know right away that Prolexic Technologies’ DDoS protection services come free of charge...*
“Shortly after it was hit with the DDOS flood, the Scientology.org Web site was moved to a server hosted by Prolexic Technologies, according to dat compiled by Netcraft, an Internet monitoring company. Prolexic specializes in protecting companies from DDOS attacks.”
I highly suspect they actually tried to charge money for those FREE services. But you obviously know better and I’m sure that everything will be set straight now that you’ve clarified that the CoS was not “really” damaged and obviously shouldn’t incur any additional costs because of these non-lasting, intangible attacks.
They can piss off one aging rock star and make some self involved teenage girls cry, but they bring no real change to society.
I’m sorry, you don’t get to define “real” change. You’re just defining that to be slightly beyond whatever they’re currently capable of... that way you’ll never have to admit that the effect they’re having is “real”.
*My sarcasm meter just broke. You owe me $5.
Tell you what... when you can prove that you’re not a witch, I will attempt to prove that Anonymous did not use an illegal botnet to attack Gene Simmons’ websites.
Until then, crazy nutters and conspiracy theorists such as yourself can assume that, despite having no proof whatsoever, we’re all witches and Anonymous used secret illegal botnets to attack Simmons’ websites...
...and sane and reasonable people can assume that, since there is no proof otherwise, no illegal botnet was involved regardless of any nutter conspiracy theorist who claims otherwise. We will also assume that you are probably not a witch since there’s no proof of that either – the fact that you are a moron, however, has been clearly and definitively proven.
Feel free to let me have the last word... you’re only making yourself look more stupid by refusing to quit arguing when you’re wrong. This “impasse” (as you call it) consists entirely of you insisting that something illegal took place despite having no proof, demanding that we prove that it didn’t, and refusing to admit that this is completely illogical. Of course we will have an impasse as long as you maintain that illogical position.
Guerilla warfare actually causes lasting damage or achieves some sort of tangiable goal.
Gene Simmons paid for bandwidth, storage, and hosting. His bandwidth was wasted and the storage and hosting were made temporarily worthless for its intended purpose.
That is real damage and I’m sure he would take you to task on your claim that it didn’t cause him any “lasting” damage. He will have to eat that expense unless his internet server reimburses him at their own loss.
"4 lulz" is not a tangiable goal.
Says you. I say any goal is tangible by definition if it brings about real effects.
You have claimed, and must prove, that non-illegal means were insufficient to cause the effects of this DDoS. What proof do you have? None, and you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about either. Unless you can prove that something illegal took place, you’re just talking out your ass, and I’ll continue to presume innocence unless you can prove guilt.
Khyber has claimed that non-illegal means were adequate to create this DDoS. His proof is that the non-illegal methods were, provably, occurring, and that he knows much more about it than you do. Besides which, the application of Occam’s Razor indicates that if this explanation is adequate, your obsessive desire to add the illegal use of a botnet to the equation requires you to first prove that it was necessary.
Your subsequent rebuttal – “yeah but prove that my big illegal conspiracy didn’t happen” – just makes you sound (a) stupid, (b) a conspiracy theorist, (c) nutter, (d) all of the above.
"takes on" = "confronts" in the world of grown ups
"stays ahead of"= "gets the best of"
The world of grown ups must be completely unfamiliar with the concept of waging a guerrilla war, then. Or maybe that’s just you.
Anon almost had some their identities revealed by Regency and CoS until Youtube took down the video.
Skewering a few scapegoats? Yeah, that is an oft-tried method of combating an opponent who uses guerrilla tactics... and if it was working, there’d be no need for Gene to get himself all worked up; people would be too afraid of getting bankrupted by the RIAA if they downloaded anything.
I know for a fact that what you described would be illegal, whereas what Khyber described is not. Since you are claiming that something illegal took place, the burden of proof lies on you.
I’m not speculating. I know for a fact that what Khyber described is one of the tactics used by Anonymous. In fact I’ve seen pastebin pages that embed all the images from a website and automatically reload them constantly, all done via javascript.
Now, whether or not he was the one who came up with that tactic is questionable, but it doesn’t matter anyway.
We’re talking about Australia, where back in 2008 a couple was served with a lawsuit via facebook under similar circumstances.
Really, though, serving a restraining order via facebook actually makes a bit more sense than the lawsuit even did... if the bullying is occurring via facebook, the person being harassed might not even know who the bully is, but if the court is able to legally order the bully to quit, it makes sense to do so via facebook.
Drakkenmensch was claiming that they "regularly take on" and "stay ahead" of Scientology.
“takes on” = pisses off
“stays ahead of” = never faces any consequences
HTH, HAND
there's almost zero chance that it didn't happen
And there’s almost zero chance that you actually know what you’re talking about, or aren’t making this up as you go merrily along on baseless assumptions.
Show me some evidence that it did happen.
I repeat... how is it analogous?
This is thousands, millions even, of people using their own individual online presence to collectively drown a website – essentially in a storm of protest. It’s no different from any real-life protest or strike. They aren’t hacking or cracking their way into anything they don’t have access to. They’re just requesting a page over and over, and the server is trying to accommodate those requests and melting under the load.
What he described would be a single entity or small group of people using millions of computers, probably without the knowledge of the people who even owned them, to make themselves seem louder than they actually would be. Not only would it be illegal to hijack my computer this way, it would be unfairly representative of the voice of the people behind the protest.
So how is it analogous? In this case you have millions of people raising a ruckus. Of course that causes severe problems just as millions of people on the mall in Washington DC would cause quite a snarl in the usual traffic there. It’s not even remotely similar to what he claimed.
I’ll settle for “sometimes must”. Other times it perhaps doesn’t.
I guarantee you that if Microsoft used its corporate servers and Windows base to DDOS open source supporting software, that Slashdot would cry "foul". Yet in this instance, a sizeable percentage of Slashdot loves the DDOS of Simmons.
How is that in any way analogous?
Also, sizable doesn’t have 2 e’s.
Hopefully they'll find the guy who called it.
It’s a rallying cry. What difference does it make who first said it?
Anyone could have started it. If enough people thought that the cause was worth contributing to, it would have gained momentum just the same. “Who started it” is just as irrelevant to the cause as the poor kid who takes the fall for it.
*It must be done Anonymously, otherwise you're obviously a shill or something
*It must be done by somebody who isn't rich, famous, educated
There was a very good reason that Ben Franklin used a pen name to remain anonymous in some of the things he authored.
Anonymity prevents people from attacking the messenger.
It also prevents people from attributing undeserved credibility to a message just because the messenger is rich, famous, or educated.
Thus the only way to stop them is indimidation, or the Simmon's method: Pick a few at random, and totally destroy them. Take their money, destroy their careers, throw them in jail, and in general hit them with a punishment grossly disproportionate to their crime in order to scare others away.
You give Simmons too much credit... the *IAA came up with that tactic.
Amusingly, if it had worked for the *IAA, Simmons wouldn’t need to be working himself up over this...
In fact it’s more that they do believe in free speech.
Free speech has a dark side... if everyone speaks at once, who do you listen to? Who do you answer?
They’re dousing his sites’ server with a shitstorm of so much free speech that it can’t figure out who to listen to and who to ignore...