"Omitting a lot of detail, the police, even without going to a judge first, can obtain your name, address, and credit card number from your ISP if they can show the information is relevant to a criminal investigation."
Not if you're using someone else's, or a public, wireless connection with a minor amount of obfuscation (fake MAC address).
This article is pointless really... you can easily do a lot of illegal things on a PC with nearly complete anonymity, if you're smart about it.
The only example he gave was someone downloading kiddie porn or sending a death threat. Who does that anyways? Why do I care? Does he really realize how easy it would be to do either of those things with complete anonymity if you had any technical savvy and cared that much? What idiot would do that on his home computer without any obfuscation and think nobody could track it anyways?
I like what someone else said... start another blog back at him called "You are not Technically Savvy".
Exactly. I'll be curious to see the google analytic stats on what these drives are actually used for. Taking bets on the percentage that is porn, my guess is 80%.
Anyone else at least on notice that Google is looking to know not only all of the sites we visit with google analytics and chrome, all of the videos we watch on google video and correlate this with our gmail/video logins, but also get statistics on data that we store.
Not that they are necessarily going to do anything nefarious with it. But it's a lot of data that, if someone had access to and was inclined to mine, could yield an unnerving amount of information about an individual who heavily uses Google products.
I think I'm gonna change the drop box on my browser to Yahoo! for a while. Need to spread the love.
Yes, I know Cocaine was legal. And now it's not. At the end of the day, I would vote again to ban both Cocaine and Opium. You are of course welcome to your opinion, as am I and I think here that we will have to agree to disagree.
I agree with your sentiments about both prostitution and suicide. I believe, however, that there would be serious societal impacts if harder drugs were made legal and readily available. IMHO, those drugs are so strong and addictive that you aren't just hurting yourself, the effects ripple through our society. We all become victims.
You quoted my statement about addiction then went on to make another argument, hence my confusion. I'm still not sure why you quoted it. As I said earlier, that death argument isn't arguing with anyone since it would be incredibly difficult to die DIRECTLY from the usage of marijuana and I wouldn't argue otherwise... so why would I try to provide an example to counter-point an argument that I have no argument against?
Anyways, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I would vote to ban harder drugs again if it came to it. I could be swayed on pot though.
Those arguments may be valid for you but for many others of us they are not valid reasons.
So you feel that Opium should be legalized? Make your petition and vote then, GLWT. Those reasons are very valid arguments for making Opium illegal due to its high degree of danger. Pot is not as dangerous, I wholeheartedly agree, which is primarily why I would listen to your argument and supporting facts about its dangerousness if you are supporting legalization. But, again, to say that those aren't valid reasons for banning a substance, I believe, is absurd as the degree of danger, mind alteration and abuse is important. If it's high enough, like Opium, then it can have a major detrimental impact on our society through the destruction of many individuals. We are all victims in that case.
So!? While not one person has died from smoking marijuana, I dare to find one person that has, 1000s die riding bikes and almost 50,000 people died in transportation accidents in 2000 alone. I almost became one of those to die when I was hit while riding my bike, and I wish I had. While in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. I'd argue that with those docs, my life since then has been a living hell. Should transportation be illegal? According to the chart linked to, 341 people died drowning in bathtubs in 2000, should bathtubs be illegal?
Huh? I'm sorry to hear about that and I'm glad that you came out alright.
To be blunt though, your rebuttal stinks of flirting the issue by talking about entirely unrelated things and attempting to exploit your misfortune to make me feel bad and somehow sway the argument.
You quoted my statement on addiction, which was a rebuttal to your statement that pot is not addictive, and went on to talk about fatality?? My argument is that pot IS indeed addictive, I did not at any time attempt to argue that you would die from an OD of pot, as that is absurd and almost infeasible. I have never said, nor would I ever say, that pot should be illegal because it's directly deadly. I have no idea what you are arguing against lol.
While it may not be deadly though, excessive use does have serious negative impacts.
Actually, it is true, smoking pot is really bad for you.. just because it's not as bad as heroin doesn't mean it's not hurting you. Just like binge drinking and chain smoking is really bad for you.
Just saying "that just isn't true" isn't really a valid defense. Any real medical studies I've seen pretty conclusively indicate that long term usage has permanent deterioration on your short term memory (daily usage in teens has the worst and most permanent impact on your brain) and that smoking a joint is about as bad for you as smoking 20 cigarettes.
The only arguments I've seen saying it's not bad for you are people who say, "Man like the smartest kid I knew from HS smoked pot all the time! And he's fine!" Similarly to the "I prayed and it happened" proof of God's existence.
I agree that pot is not as bad as opium and, for the record, I wouldn't be bothered if it's legalized, that wasn't really my argument...
HOWEVER...I was arguing against your statement that "such things" are not valid reasons for banning a substance from our society, when I feel that a substance being dangerous, mind altering and easily abused are absolutely valid reasons for it being banned from a "free" society.
It's the degree of danger that is the major factor here. That can be discussed, but saying that those aren't valid reasons, I feel, is a poor argument.
Also, studies have indicated similar withdrawal symptoms from regular pot smokers as those seen from nicotine addiction.
You say that we're a "free" society and we should make the decisions for ourselves as individuals, which is a false statement. We're free, to a point. I believe that enough people are dumb enough and incapable of controlling themselves with very dangerous substances, that some substances need to be banned to prevent the risk of collapse or significant decay of society. This isn't just blowing hot air, this is learning from example of societies before us. We may be slightly more enlightened than we were 200 years ago, but people are still generally not capable of self-governance (hence why anarchy is infeasible, government would arise almost immediately from it anyways).
That said, pot is borderline. It's not as bad as harder drugs but, I mean.. Smoking pot is really freaking bad for you. Some substances in it might be good, and it's probably nice to be stoned if you've got cancer and are on your death bed, but smoking enough to get high is pretty much really bad for you.
Eh.. you can argue that alcohol and cigarettes are nearly as bad, that we should have more freedoms and that the government shouldn't control this aspect of our lives... and I think you would have a compelling argument... but the following are also very rational and compelling arguments for it being illegal.
"Smoked marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system. It impairs learning and interferes with memory, perception, and judgment. Smoked marijuana contains cancer-causing compounds and has been implicated in a high percentage of automobile crashes and workplace accidents."
-- John Walters
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Syndicated editorial
Mar., 2002
"3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
Cannabis smoking is likely to weaken the immune system. Infections of the lung are due to a combination of smoking-related damage to the cells lining the bronchial passage and impairment of the principal immune cells in the small air sacs caused by cannabis."
-- British Lung Foundation
"Smoking Gun: The Impact of Cannabis Smoking on Respiratory Health,"
a publicly disseminated report
Nov., 2002
"The most compelling concerns regarding marijuana smoking in HIV/AIDS patients are the possible effects of marijuana on immunity.
Reports of opportunistic fungal and bacterial pneumonia in AIDS patients who used marijuana suggest that marijuana smoking either suppresses the immune system or exposes patients to an added burden of pathogens.
In summary, patients with preexisting immune deficits due to AIDS should be expected to be vulnerable to serious harm caused by smoking marijuana."
-- Institute of Medicine Report
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
Mar., 1999
"This study validated several specific effects of marijuana abstinence in heavy marijuana users, and showed they were reliable and clinically significant.
These withdrawal effects appear similar in type and magnitude to those observed in studies of nicotine withdrawal [...]
Craving for marijuana, decreased appetite, sleep difficulty, and weight loss reliably changed across the smoking and abstinence phases. Aggression, anger, irritability, restlessness, and strange dreams increased significantly during one abstinence phase, but not the other."
--Alan J. Budney, PhD et al.
Professor, University of Arkansas Center for Addiction Research
"Marijuana Abstinence Effects in Marijuana Smokers Maintained in Their Home Environment"
Archives of General Psychiatry
Oct., 2001
The most compelling resulting conclusion, in my mind, is that it puts both yourself and those around you at unreasonably high risk.
IMHO, I definitely don't think it's on par with hard drugs, it's probably about on par with alcohol + cigarettes. I'd have no problem with it being legal, but I do believe that the reasons for it being illegal are perfectly rational. Many people have never done it, it has lots of bad press and legalizing it will require a massive shift in momentum though.
Also, they are probably factoring in how much energy it takes to keep those servers up for 10 or 15 minutes and how much it takes to keep up your computer for 10 or 15 minutes. When, in fact, those servers are up all the time and get hit probably tens of thousands of times. Each hit is going to divide the energy efficiency number down... probably to the point where it is irrelevant.
The most relevant energy numbers are how much energy your PC consumes and vilifying "Google Searches" (buzzword) is as much bull shit as is vilifying Notepad when you could use a piece of paper or playing Minesweeper when you could be playing a board game.
Maybe if they had a moral that was to say, "Everything you do uses up energy!" but I mean... who doesn't know that turning on and using a computer uses energy?
/rant, meh annoying article. Also...
His research indicates that viewing a simple web page generates about 0.02g of CO2 per second. This rises tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.
Amused me how this article was written on a page that is filled over 3/4 with useless ads and images.
Isn't water vapor one of the biggest greenhouse gasses?
Not saying I agree with the plan but... from TFA..
When it condenses at higher altitudes, it releases the latent heat, which then can radiate into space, producing more cooling. It's a greenhouse gas, trapping heat and causing warming. It can form low clouds that reflect solar energy, a cooling effect. It can form more high clouds, which block some sunlight but mostly prevent the release of infrared radiation from below, another warming effect."
It would appear that the majority of the cooling comes from the water absorbing heat near the earth's surface, carrying it to the atmosphere and radiating it into space.
Again, I personally think the idea is a little ridiculous, but it would appear that the scientist does indeed realize it's a greenhouse gas and that there are side effects.
"I am sure if you contacted Microsoft, they would be more than happy to supply you with copies of an older version of Windows and that way, your computers would actually be of service to those receiving them..."
I was LMAO at this. If I wanted to get the get the goat of Ken Starks, I'm pretty sure this is about what I would say.
Then he goes on to counter that she's pro Microsoft because her Union told her so LOL.
I'm not sure which is more comical, the prank letter or his response.
Mythbusters to the rescue! haha, I knew I remembered them doing an episode on this. Basically, no matter where you put your toothbrush, it's going to get the same bacteria on it.
Fecal coliforms bacteria can grow in toothbrush bristles. confirmed Fecal coliforms were indeed found on all the test brushes, including the control ones. However, none were of a level high enough to be dangerous, and experts confirm that such coliforms were impossible to completely avoid.
awesome, thanks.. going to have to play this this more later.. does it let it track what the satellite is looking at and when it will be at a certain location? Or is it just the current location in space?
Would be crazy to organize an event to gather people and smile for the google camera in the sky lol.
Yup, there are a lot of definitions of 2-factor authentication.
The key-chains with number generators are one of the strongest imo.
Too bad I get modded down for stating facts?
I never said I have complete faith in a computer network though, my original argument was in response to preferring to take the risk of losing my money through cyber crime than being held at gunpoint and losing it to a thug. In other words, the lower my risk of bodily injury the better heh.
I think more research could stand to be done on personal losses via cyber crime (NOT through social engineering) versus losses from real crime. I believe there is more of the latter, but I don't know for sure.
And to take go a step further, if someone is going to bother to take my information by breaking a network, I think we're both equally vulnerable. Considering they keep everyone's information digitally, whether you're registered for online banking or not.
I agree on the skepticism though, I am very skeptical of the system and I know the risks and do what I can to protect myself.
Like I said, the risk/reward is satisfactory me, especially when the system is under improvement.
Actually, the federal government has forced all US banks to use 2 factor authentication. They were all in a tizzy a year back to get it done by the deadline.
2-factor authentication has a lot of definitions though. We need to keep critiquing the system and pushing improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
In other news, Kruger and Dunning grossly over-estimated the accuracy of their tests and results ;P.
"Omitting a lot of detail, the police, even without going to a judge first, can obtain your name, address, and credit card number from your ISP if they can show the information is relevant to a criminal investigation."
Not if you're using someone else's, or a public, wireless connection with a minor amount of obfuscation (fake MAC address).
This article is pointless really... you can easily do a lot of illegal things on a PC with nearly complete anonymity, if you're smart about it.
The only example he gave was someone downloading kiddie porn or sending a death threat. Who does that anyways? Why do I care? Does he really realize how easy it would be to do either of those things with complete anonymity if you had any technical savvy and cared that much? What idiot would do that on his home computer without any obfuscation and think nobody could track it anyways?
I like what someone else said... start another blog back at him called "You are not Technically Savvy".
Exactly. I'll be curious to see the google analytic stats on what these drives are actually used for. Taking bets on the percentage that is porn, my guess is 80%.
Anyone else at least on notice that Google is looking to know not only all of the sites we visit with google analytics and chrome, all of the videos we watch on google video and correlate this with our gmail/video logins, but also get statistics on data that we store.
Not that they are necessarily going to do anything nefarious with it. But it's a lot of data that, if someone had access to and was inclined to mine, could yield an unnerving amount of information about an individual who heavily uses Google products.
I think I'm gonna change the drop box on my browser to Yahoo! for a while. Need to spread the love.
What if the universe is just binary code.
Sorry.. Cocaine and Opium are both currently illegal as recreational drugs. I guess that wasn't implied in my post? lol?
Yes, I know Cocaine was legal. And now it's not. At the end of the day, I would vote again to ban both Cocaine and Opium. You are of course welcome to your opinion, as am I and I think here that we will have to agree to disagree.
I agree with your sentiments about both prostitution and suicide. I believe, however, that there would be serious societal impacts if harder drugs were made legal and readily available. IMHO, those drugs are so strong and addictive that you aren't just hurting yourself, the effects ripple through our society. We all become victims.
You quoted my statement about addiction then went on to make another argument, hence my confusion. I'm still not sure why you quoted it. As I said earlier, that death argument isn't arguing with anyone since it would be incredibly difficult to die DIRECTLY from the usage of marijuana and I wouldn't argue otherwise... so why would I try to provide an example to counter-point an argument that I have no argument against?
Anyways, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I would vote to ban harder drugs again if it came to it. I could be swayed on pot though.
Those arguments may be valid for you but for many others of us they are not valid reasons.
So you feel that Opium should be legalized? Make your petition and vote then, GLWT. Those reasons are very valid arguments for making Opium illegal due to its high degree of danger. Pot is not as dangerous, I wholeheartedly agree, which is primarily why I would listen to your argument and supporting facts about its dangerousness if you are supporting legalization. But, again, to say that those aren't valid reasons for banning a substance, I believe, is absurd as the degree of danger, mind alteration and abuse is important. If it's high enough, like Opium, then it can have a major detrimental impact on our society through the destruction of many individuals. We are all victims in that case.
So!? While not one person has died from smoking marijuana, I dare to find one person that has, 1000s die riding bikes and almost 50,000 people died in transportation accidents in 2000 alone. I almost became one of those to die when I was hit while riding my bike, and I wish I had. While in a coma the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived. I'd argue that with those docs, my life since then has been a living hell. Should transportation be illegal? According to the chart linked to, 341 people died drowning in bathtubs in 2000, should bathtubs be illegal?
Huh? I'm sorry to hear about that and I'm glad that you came out alright.
To be blunt though, your rebuttal stinks of flirting the issue by talking about entirely unrelated things and attempting to exploit your misfortune to make me feel bad and somehow sway the argument.
You quoted my statement on addiction, which was a rebuttal to your statement that pot is not addictive, and went on to talk about fatality?? My argument is that pot IS indeed addictive, I did not at any time attempt to argue that you would die from an OD of pot, as that is absurd and almost infeasible. I have never said, nor would I ever say, that pot should be illegal because it's directly deadly. I have no idea what you are arguing against lol.
While it may not be deadly though, excessive use does have serious negative impacts.
Actually, it is true, smoking pot is really bad for you.. just because it's not as bad as heroin doesn't mean it's not hurting you. Just like binge drinking and chain smoking is really bad for you.
Just saying "that just isn't true" isn't really a valid defense. Any real medical studies I've seen pretty conclusively indicate that long term usage has permanent deterioration on your short term memory (daily usage in teens has the worst and most permanent impact on your brain) and that smoking a joint is about as bad for you as smoking 20 cigarettes.
The only arguments I've seen saying it's not bad for you are people who say, "Man like the smartest kid I knew from HS smoked pot all the time! And he's fine!" Similarly to the "I prayed and it happened" proof of God's existence.
What are the examples? Amsterdam? Technically, pot is illegal there as well. And they are now banning smoking from restaurants.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/103880/Marijuana-bars-in-Amsterdam-brace-for-smoking-ban
I agree that pot is not as bad as opium and, for the record, I wouldn't be bothered if it's legalized, that wasn't really my argument...
HOWEVER...I was arguing against your statement that "such things" are not valid reasons for banning a substance from our society, when I feel that a substance being dangerous, mind altering and easily abused are absolutely valid reasons for it being banned from a "free" society.
It's the degree of danger that is the major factor here. That can be discussed, but saying that those aren't valid reasons, I feel, is a poor argument.
Also, studies have indicated similar withdrawal symptoms from regular pot smokers as those seen from nicotine addiction.
There are documented cases of societies wherein, a drug became much more readily available and caused detrimental problems to said society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War
You say that we're a "free" society and we should make the decisions for ourselves as individuals, which is a false statement. We're free, to a point. I believe that enough people are dumb enough and incapable of controlling themselves with very dangerous substances, that some substances need to be banned to prevent the risk of collapse or significant decay of society. This isn't just blowing hot air, this is learning from example of societies before us. We may be slightly more enlightened than we were 200 years ago, but people are still generally not capable of self-governance (hence why anarchy is infeasible, government would arise almost immediately from it anyways).
That said, pot is borderline. It's not as bad as harder drugs but, I mean.. Smoking pot is really freaking bad for you. Some substances in it might be good, and it's probably nice to be stoned if you've got cancer and are on your death bed, but smoking enough to get high is pretty much really bad for you.
Eh.. you can argue that alcohol and cigarettes are nearly as bad, that we should have more freedoms and that the government shouldn't control this aspect of our lives... and I think you would have a compelling argument... but the following are also very rational and compelling arguments for it being illegal.
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=141
"Smoked marijuana damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system. It impairs learning and interferes with memory, perception, and judgment. Smoked marijuana contains cancer-causing compounds and has been implicated in a high percentage of automobile crashes and workplace accidents."
-- John Walters
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Syndicated editorial
Mar., 2002
"3-4 Cannabis cigarettes a day are associated with the same evidence of acute and chronic bronchitis and the same degree of damage to the bronchial mucosa as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
Cannabis smoking is likely to weaken the immune system. Infections of the lung are due to a combination of smoking-related damage to the cells lining the bronchial passage and impairment of the principal immune cells in the small air sacs caused by cannabis."
-- British Lung Foundation
"Smoking Gun: The Impact of Cannabis Smoking on Respiratory Health,"
a publicly disseminated report
Nov., 2002
"The most compelling concerns regarding marijuana smoking in HIV/AIDS patients are the possible effects of marijuana on immunity.
Reports of opportunistic fungal and bacterial pneumonia in AIDS patients who used marijuana suggest that marijuana smoking either suppresses the immune system or exposes patients to an added burden of pathogens.
In summary, patients with preexisting immune deficits due to AIDS should be expected to be vulnerable to serious harm caused by smoking marijuana."
-- Institute of Medicine Report
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
Mar., 1999
"This study validated several specific effects of marijuana abstinence in heavy marijuana users, and showed they were reliable and clinically significant.
These withdrawal effects appear similar in type and magnitude to those observed in studies of nicotine withdrawal [...]
Craving for marijuana, decreased appetite, sleep difficulty, and weight loss reliably changed across the smoking and abstinence phases. Aggression, anger, irritability, restlessness, and strange dreams increased significantly during one abstinence phase, but not the other."
--Alan J. Budney, PhD et al.
Professor, University of Arkansas Center for Addiction Research
"Marijuana Abstinence Effects in Marijuana Smokers Maintained in Their Home Environment"
Archives of General Psychiatry
Oct., 2001
The most compelling resulting conclusion, in my mind, is that it puts both yourself and those around you at unreasonably high risk.
IMHO, I definitely don't think it's on par with hard drugs, it's probably about on par with alcohol + cigarettes. I'd have no problem with it being legal, but I do believe that the reasons for it being illegal are perfectly rational. Many people have never done it, it has lots of bad press and legalizing it will require a massive shift in momentum though.
Really wish I could mod you up and the other poster down.
Cringed when he called the IEEE a waste of time.
I would employ the Gary Busey technology, which is my teeth.
The most relevant energy numbers are how much energy your PC consumes and vilifying "Google Searches" (buzzword) is as much bull shit as is vilifying Notepad when you could use a piece of paper or playing Minesweeper when you could be playing a board game.
Maybe if they had a moral that was to say, "Everything you do uses up energy!" but I mean... who doesn't know that turning on and using a computer uses energy?
His research indicates that viewing a simple web page generates about 0.02g of CO2 per second. This rises tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.
Amused me how this article was written on a page that is filled over 3/4 with useless ads and images.
Isn't water vapor one of the biggest greenhouse gasses?
Not saying I agree with the plan but... from TFA..
When it condenses at higher altitudes, it releases the latent heat, which then can radiate into space, producing more cooling. It's a greenhouse gas, trapping heat and causing warming. It can form low clouds that reflect solar energy, a cooling effect. It can form more high clouds, which block some sunlight but mostly prevent the release of infrared radiation from below, another warming effect."
It would appear that the majority of the cooling comes from the water absorbing heat near the earth's surface, carrying it to the atmosphere and radiating it into space.
Again, I personally think the idea is a little ridiculous, but it would appear that the scientist does indeed realize it's a greenhouse gas and that there are side effects.
"I am sure if you contacted Microsoft, they would be more than happy to supply you with copies of an older version of Windows and that way, your computers would actually be of service to those receiving them..."
I was LMAO at this. If I wanted to get the get the goat of Ken Starks, I'm pretty sure this is about what I would say.
Then he goes on to counter that she's pro Microsoft because her Union told her so LOL.
I'm not sure which is more comical, the prank letter or his response.
Mythbusters to the rescue! haha, I knew I remembered them doing an episode on this. Basically, no matter where you put your toothbrush, it's going to get the same bacteria on it.
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode12
Fecal coliforms bacteria can grow in toothbrush bristles.
confirmed
Fecal coliforms were indeed found on all the test brushes, including the control ones. However, none were of a level high enough to be dangerous, and experts confirm that such coliforms were impossible to completely avoid.
awesome, thanks.. going to have to play this this more later.. does it let it track what the satellite is looking at and when it will be at a certain location? Or is it just the current location in space? Would be crazy to organize an event to gather people and smile for the google camera in the sky lol.
The Fox Enquirer.. I like it.
We had some way of tracking where it's going to be, so we could go outside and do something ridiculous when it passes over ;D.
Obviously, but it's still an awesome name lol.
As long as they don't start the development of Skynet, I think we're safe.
Yup, there are a lot of definitions of 2-factor authentication. The key-chains with number generators are one of the strongest imo. Too bad I get modded down for stating facts?
I never said I have complete faith in a computer network though, my original argument was in response to preferring to take the risk of losing my money through cyber crime than being held at gunpoint and losing it to a thug. In other words, the lower my risk of bodily injury the better heh.
I think more research could stand to be done on personal losses via cyber crime (NOT through social engineering) versus losses from real crime. I believe there is more of the latter, but I don't know for sure.
And to take go a step further, if someone is going to bother to take my information by breaking a network, I think we're both equally vulnerable. Considering they keep everyone's information digitally, whether you're registered for online banking or not.
I agree on the skepticism though, I am very skeptical of the system and I know the risks and do what I can to protect myself.
Like I said, the risk/reward is satisfactory me, especially when the system is under improvement.
Actually, the federal government has forced all US banks to use 2 factor authentication. They were all in a tizzy a year back to get it done by the deadline.
2-factor authentication has a lot of definitions though. We need to keep critiquing the system and pushing improvements.