Illegal or not, it is certainly immoral and unethical to disrupt funeral services to taunt the survivors. And, BTW - the GOVERNMENT is mandated to respect free speech. Those whose services are being disrupted aren't exactly bound by the same laws as the government is. The obligations are entirely different.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Any freak who barges into a funeral, and taunts the grieving friends and relatives of the deceased deserves to be held accountable. I'm losing faith in God. If there really were a God, then He would have sent some old soldier already diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress to gun down the whole bunch of them as they stood chanting their hate at a funeral.
To bad I don't have it. I'd be happy to take care of that little chore. Since I've not been diagnosed with anything, I'd be railroaded into prison for the rest of my life.
The larger the sample of a person's writings, the more accurate this thing will become, of course. The nature of the writings will also influence the accuracy. In school, even an essay is going to be very similar to other people's essays, as they are unlikely to contain a lot of original thought. Everyone is doing their best to feed the teacher the responses that they believe the teacher wants to be fed.
Now, if your ex girlfriend were to give these researchers everything that you ever wrote to her, there would likely be more original work, giving more insight into your mental processes, than your homework ever contained.
Even more revealing, would be any discourses that you have ever written on politics or philosophy. With those, you would be revealing one hell of a lot about your mind, and how it works. Given a hundred pages of such musings and ramblings, you would be pegged pretty accurately, and a genuine researcher wouldn't mistake anyone else for you.
It is comparatively easy to establish that Author A did NOT write a particular document, than to prove conclusively that he DID write that document. In the latter case, you can establish that he probably wrote it, with a high confidence level in your findings, but it's not conclusive proof. It probably is proof enough to get a warrant to examine his computer(s), in an attempt to get that conclusive proof.
Yep - that was part of Barr's stock in trade. He compared posts made by anon members in various venues, then traced some of those members to identify them. An IRC server was critical to Barr's process, as I recall. Or, more accurately, the IRC server was critical in this particular instance, as it maintained logs that some of the other servers did not.
Traceability, ie, masking your IP address, has almost nothing to do with the article. Just damned near nothing.
You can find a few dozens of my posts here on slashdot. You might browse to another site, where someone has posted, using my identification. Based on my thought processes, my writing style, my use of punctuation, etc, you can COMPARE the documents, and decide with a pretty high probability that either, A: I am the same author or B: I am not the same Runaway1956 that posted that other document.
The title is a little misleading, as I might post thousands of posts online, and remain anonymous. It's likely that the more posts I make, the less anonymous I become, but anonymity isn't really the issue addressed in TFA.
I know nothing about singularities in Canada, but I'm convinced that we'll have to invade Canada soon, and confiscate all the old, obsolete code books.
Anyway - I thought the singularity was supposed to originate in India. Or, maybe it was England. Crap, who cares where it originates - let's just invade EVERYWHERE, so that we can head it off!
I take it then, that those thunderstorms that I have observed from above, while parked on a mountain highway, were just freaks of nature?
Obviously, something as powerful as a hurricane will affect the atmosphere all the way up to the ozone layer. Localized storms, on the other hand, are often only a few thousand feet high. 70,000 feet is an exceptional storm, and even 40,000 feet is a pretty large, and powerful storm.
Average thunderstorms extend to 7 miles up in the atmosphere? Really? Odd - I've stopped on the mountainside above Las Cruces, New Mexico to watch thunderstorms pass below me. Ditto on dozens of other mountains. The airlines operate at about six miles. (not being a pilot, I don't understand the complexities of choosing a cruising altitude, but 30,000 feet seems to be the "norm") For the most part, their cruising altitudes are above the storms and turbulence. The vast majority of airline turbulence is experienced soon after takeoff, and soon before landing, at altitudes of less than 7000 feet.
NOTE that I have not claimed that turbulence ends at any point in the atmosphere, nor have I claimed that storms don't reach to any particular height. My claim is ONLY that the "average" thunderstorm doesn't reach up into the stratosphere. Aircraft capable of attaining an elevation of only 5000 feet will fly over many thunderstorms, squalls and showers.
400 kg of cargo? Almost half a ton? About the payload carried around in most cars and SUV's? Not bad for local deliveries, if you can just work out a safe vertical takeoff and landing. UPS often sends trucks out carrying less than a ton of cargo!
You're aware that the sun still shines above the clouds? You may be getting drenched, but 2000 feet up, it's likely a clean sunshiny day. If not - try 3000 feet. Still not happy? Climb some more.
Funny - my wife had little problem migrating to Linux, either.
She resisted initially. But, I talked her into trying it out. I explained that I didn't want to spend yet more money on a license to install an operating system, when I could install a free system on her existing hardware. So, she went along, and tried it out.
There were some questions over the first few days. Fewer questions as the first weeks went by. Almost no questions over the next several months.
Today, I find her doing stuff that I NEVER told her about. Believe me, she is NOT a techy. She has little idea how any of the components in her machine work. She is NOT the person you want to choose new hardware. But, she has learned her way around Linux pretty well, with little pain. Occasionally, I even see a terminal open on her desktop. Do I pry? No way. Let the old girl do whatever pleases her - just like I do on my own computer!
Of course, most of what pleases her is Pogo games and watching soap operas. Silly waste of resource, if you ask me, LMAO
I disagree. The so called "rights holders" have twisted the law to their benefit, over the past several decades. People such as Walt Disney have wined and dined, and bribed the lawmakers to pass ridiculous laws, extending copyrights far beyond anything that is reasonable. Sonny Bonehead did the same.
The "rights holders" have even thrown a wet blanket over the use of "Happy Birthday" by little children at private parties.
I see the Pirate Party as a modern day Robin Hood, standing up to an unreasonable Sheriff of Nottanyfun.
Browser hijacks and browser vulnerabilities are exactly that, and have little to do with which operating systems they are being run on. Phishing attempts work on any operating system. My own operating system has been one flavor or another of Linux for many years now, and I have to be cautious. Mac, Windows, Unix, Solaris, Linux, DRDOS, MSDOS 6.22, - it doesn't matter which you are using if the exploit is aimed at the browser.
Those items that you list are indeed natural. In fact, there have been outbreaks of anthrax on the land that I live on. The spores are in the soil, and it's very possible that if I were to be searched for anthrax, I might actually have a spore on my boots, or my jeans. But - no one is being searched for anthrax spore, or being jailed for "possession" of a few random spores.
The word "natural" was used in my post, because these things ARE natural. They can be found anywhere in the world, with or without man's intervention. It isn't necessary that I plant a marijuana seed, for the stuff to grow on my property. Some strains of the plant are more hardy than others, and it's highly unlikely that any of the "good stuff" is going to magically pop up - but it's a natural plant. A seed can be dropped here by the wind, or in bird droppings, or however else marijuana seeds are distributed naturally.
And - if the cops find that stupid plant growing on my property, they'll want to confiscate my land, my home, my cars, and everything else of value.
Theft is bad. It's never a good thing. But, you become a judge for a few minutes.
First case - you have a young man from a wealthy family who is charged with embezzling tens of thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros, whatever) from the local bank. The facts are all in, your jury has returned with a verdict, there is no doubt of his guilt, there is no doubt that he has caused tremendous harm to the community. It's time for you to sentence him.
Second case - a young parent has a kid or six at home, who are hungry all the time. The parent has a history of working hard, but work is scarce these days. (S)he is having a string of bad luck. (S)he is charged with stealing a couple dollars worth of food. The jury has returned it's verdict - guilty. Now, judge.
I haven't scrolled very far down - but so far, it seems that people are missing the single most important part of this news.
Being arrested for possession is bad. Being jailed is worse. Serving time in the pen is yet worse. But, that's all rather petty, when compared to the people who die during any stage of these processes.
The "war on drugs" never was a "war on drugs". It has always been a war on American citizens. Your kid, your neighbor, your nutty classmate, your cousin, or the local grocer, it doesn't matter WHO they are. They disapprove of the government's mandate, and they disobey the government. As a result, hundreds, if not thousands, die every year.
No city, no county, no state, and not even the feds, should have the authority to more or less stop people randomly, then arrest them for possession of a more or less natural substance.
It's insane, is what it is.
And, I don't even use the stuff. I don't even use the prescription drugs that I'm given. I don't like drugs, don't want drugs, won't be purchasing any no matter how legal they get. But, my idiot son shouldn't be at risk of spending a decade in prison for doing a dooby.
I'll remind you that BOTH of the women involved in the Assange scandal have stated quite clearly in interviews that Assange did NOT commit a rape. The only "charges" that have been made concern "sexual misconduct" involving the failure to use a condom. No actual, formal charges have ever been filed. Some muck raker just wants the opportunity to sit Assange down for an interrogation.
Get your facts straight, please. You simply cannot comprehend the situation, unless you start getting the basic facts straight. Both women spoke to the media, both women made similar statements. So similar, in fact, one has to wonder just how long they rehearsed their statements. We know that they are in collusion, but we don't know for certain who they are in collusion with. Are they the only conspirators, playing a rather petty game, or are they members of a larger conspiracy, playing at international intrigue? OR, is their little petty conspiracy simply being taken advantage of by another larger conspiracy?
Tune in next week, same time, same station, for another installment of, "Bimbos Rape Assange"!!
That is a dishonest, or a naive very question and statement.
We are talking "profits" or "income" taxes. Businesses are taxed on net profit, always have been. If you gross income in 1.2 million, and your expenses are an even million, then your income is only.2 million. You cannot, you will not, be taxed on the 1.2 million.
Your apparent misunderstanding is part of the GOP's propaganda. They want to scare small business owners into believing that they will be taxed to death, and the scare tactics are working.
The top 1% of tax payers earn what - 75% of total earnings in the US? They should be paying 75% of all income taxes. No, 20% is not plenty - even if that figure is accurate. The more you make, the more you pay.
Heh - I went googling for the actual percentage of total income taxes paid by the top 1%. I found a site with a wilder spin that I've read before - it claims they pay 38%, or almost double what you've stated. Which, only goes to prove that someone with an agenda can make any claim they like, and back it up somehow.
Bottom line - everyone pays xx% of their income, no matter how poor, or how rich, no matter how many influential people they bribe or sleep with. Set it at about 27 or 28%, and I'll see no change. Set it somewhere, anywhere - then ENFORCE IT FOR EVERYONE!
Alright - you CANNOT tax gross profit, with the system we have in place. Gross profit is defined as your product's total worth, or value, ie, all the money that you put into the till.
If we switched to a Value Added Tax, like the Euros, then you could come closer to taxing gross profits.
The problem is, we have allowed, and condoned, outrageous "deductions" such as you have mentioned. Corporate accountants know that these deductions are just gimmicks to dodge taxes. Corporate officers know it. The IRS knows it. Lawmakers know it. Everyone knows it - even the unwashed masses who have nothing to do with the corporation, or the tax system.
What we need, is to revamp the tax system, and eliminate all those deductions, loopholes, exemptions, etc.
As for taxing gross profits, I can see big corporations pushing for that. In the two or three years before it went into effect, they would move ALL operations beyond the jurisdiction of the IRS. Then, they would sit around, off shore for awhile, watching all the small corporations based in the US just fold up, one by one. As soon as all the small businesses were gone, they would swoop into Washington, to "save us" from our foolishness.
Thanks for the link. I've seen some pretty big pieces of equipment, but I never saw that big Fifty. Cleveland, huh? It's slightly odd that I never heard of it - gotta Google some more. Very interesting - and I do note the government involvement in it's development, construction, and mission.
That statement is foolish, at best. This is not the "free market". US industry has been under attack for a couple of decades now, and this is just another footnote in the grand globalization scheme.
I would suspect, though I haven't looked for proof, that the Chinese government may have been involved. A small subsidy maybe, to enable the Chinese company to bid a bit higher than they might have been able to?
Please, re-read my last sentence. Maybe read it twice. How might you construe what I have actually posted as approving of the left's mass media propaganda? I find them to be only slightly less revolting than Faux Noise.
It often seems that people are intentionally obtuse. This looks like one of those instances.
The problem is the divisiveness. During the election, the left put out plenty of nonsense indicating that a Republican victory would send us back in time to about the twelfth century. The right positively stated that a Democratic victory would mean the end of the civilized world, the collapse of the United States, and possibly even the end of life as we know it.
Slashdot Mirror
Illegal or not, it is certainly immoral and unethical to disrupt funeral services to taunt the survivors. And, BTW - the GOVERNMENT is mandated to respect free speech. Those whose services are being disrupted aren't exactly bound by the same laws as the government is. The obligations are entirely different.
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. Any freak who barges into a funeral, and taunts the grieving friends and relatives of the deceased deserves to be held accountable. I'm losing faith in God. If there really were a God, then He would have sent some old soldier already diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress to gun down the whole bunch of them as they stood chanting their hate at a funeral.
To bad I don't have it. I'd be happy to take care of that little chore. Since I've not been diagnosed with anything, I'd be railroaded into prison for the rest of my life.
The larger the sample of a person's writings, the more accurate this thing will become, of course. The nature of the writings will also influence the accuracy. In school, even an essay is going to be very similar to other people's essays, as they are unlikely to contain a lot of original thought. Everyone is doing their best to feed the teacher the responses that they believe the teacher wants to be fed.
Now, if your ex girlfriend were to give these researchers everything that you ever wrote to her, there would likely be more original work, giving more insight into your mental processes, than your homework ever contained.
Even more revealing, would be any discourses that you have ever written on politics or philosophy. With those, you would be revealing one hell of a lot about your mind, and how it works. Given a hundred pages of such musings and ramblings, you would be pegged pretty accurately, and a genuine researcher wouldn't mistake anyone else for you.
It is comparatively easy to establish that Author A did NOT write a particular document, than to prove conclusively that he DID write that document. In the latter case, you can establish that he probably wrote it, with a high confidence level in your findings, but it's not conclusive proof. It probably is proof enough to get a warrant to examine his computer(s), in an attempt to get that conclusive proof.
Yep - that was part of Barr's stock in trade. He compared posts made by anon members in various venues, then traced some of those members to identify them. An IRC server was critical to Barr's process, as I recall. Or, more accurately, the IRC server was critical in this particular instance, as it maintained logs that some of the other servers did not.
Traceability, ie, masking your IP address, has almost nothing to do with the article. Just damned near nothing.
You can find a few dozens of my posts here on slashdot. You might browse to another site, where someone has posted, using my identification. Based on my thought processes, my writing style, my use of punctuation, etc, you can COMPARE the documents, and decide with a pretty high probability that either, A: I am the same author or B: I am not the same Runaway1956 that posted that other document.
The title is a little misleading, as I might post thousands of posts online, and remain anonymous. It's likely that the more posts I make, the less anonymous I become, but anonymity isn't really the issue addressed in TFA.
I know nothing about singularities in Canada, but I'm convinced that we'll have to invade Canada soon, and confiscate all the old, obsolete code books.
Anyway - I thought the singularity was supposed to originate in India. Or, maybe it was England. Crap, who cares where it originates - let's just invade EVERYWHERE, so that we can head it off!
You're obviously missing the point. You cite the highest thunderstorms, completely neglecting that not all thunderstorms are "highest".
http://theweatherprediction.com/habyhints2/536/
I take it then, that those thunderstorms that I have observed from above, while parked on a mountain highway, were just freaks of nature?
Obviously, something as powerful as a hurricane will affect the atmosphere all the way up to the ozone layer. Localized storms, on the other hand, are often only a few thousand feet high. 70,000 feet is an exceptional storm, and even 40,000 feet is a pretty large, and powerful storm.
Average thunderstorms extend to 7 miles up in the atmosphere? Really? Odd - I've stopped on the mountainside above Las Cruces, New Mexico to watch thunderstorms pass below me. Ditto on dozens of other mountains. The airlines operate at about six miles. (not being a pilot, I don't understand the complexities of choosing a cruising altitude, but 30,000 feet seems to be the "norm") For the most part, their cruising altitudes are above the storms and turbulence. The vast majority of airline turbulence is experienced soon after takeoff, and soon before landing, at altitudes of less than 7000 feet.
NOTE that I have not claimed that turbulence ends at any point in the atmosphere, nor have I claimed that storms don't reach to any particular height. My claim is ONLY that the "average" thunderstorm doesn't reach up into the stratosphere. Aircraft capable of attaining an elevation of only 5000 feet will fly over many thunderstorms, squalls and showers.
400 kg of cargo? Almost half a ton? About the payload carried around in most cars and SUV's? Not bad for local deliveries, if you can just work out a safe vertical takeoff and landing. UPS often sends trucks out carrying less than a ton of cargo!
You're aware that the sun still shines above the clouds? You may be getting drenched, but 2000 feet up, it's likely a clean sunshiny day. If not - try 3000 feet. Still not happy? Climb some more.
Funny - my wife had little problem migrating to Linux, either.
She resisted initially. But, I talked her into trying it out. I explained that I didn't want to spend yet more money on a license to install an operating system, when I could install a free system on her existing hardware. So, she went along, and tried it out.
There were some questions over the first few days. Fewer questions as the first weeks went by. Almost no questions over the next several months.
Today, I find her doing stuff that I NEVER told her about. Believe me, she is NOT a techy. She has little idea how any of the components in her machine work. She is NOT the person you want to choose new hardware. But, she has learned her way around Linux pretty well, with little pain. Occasionally, I even see a terminal open on her desktop. Do I pry? No way. Let the old girl do whatever pleases her - just like I do on my own computer!
Of course, most of what pleases her is Pogo games and watching soap operas. Silly waste of resource, if you ask me, LMAO
I disagree. The so called "rights holders" have twisted the law to their benefit, over the past several decades. People such as Walt Disney have wined and dined, and bribed the lawmakers to pass ridiculous laws, extending copyrights far beyond anything that is reasonable. Sonny Bonehead did the same.
The "rights holders" have even thrown a wet blanket over the use of "Happy Birthday" by little children at private parties.
I see the Pirate Party as a modern day Robin Hood, standing up to an unreasonable Sheriff of Nottanyfun.
Browser hijacks and browser vulnerabilities are exactly that, and have little to do with which operating systems they are being run on. Phishing attempts work on any operating system. My own operating system has been one flavor or another of Linux for many years now, and I have to be cautious. Mac, Windows, Unix, Solaris, Linux, DRDOS, MSDOS 6.22, - it doesn't matter which you are using if the exploit is aimed at the browser.
Those items that you list are indeed natural. In fact, there have been outbreaks of anthrax on the land that I live on. The spores are in the soil, and it's very possible that if I were to be searched for anthrax, I might actually have a spore on my boots, or my jeans. But - no one is being searched for anthrax spore, or being jailed for "possession" of a few random spores.
The word "natural" was used in my post, because these things ARE natural. They can be found anywhere in the world, with or without man's intervention. It isn't necessary that I plant a marijuana seed, for the stuff to grow on my property. Some strains of the plant are more hardy than others, and it's highly unlikely that any of the "good stuff" is going to magically pop up - but it's a natural plant. A seed can be dropped here by the wind, or in bird droppings, or however else marijuana seeds are distributed naturally.
And - if the cops find that stupid plant growing on my property, they'll want to confiscate my land, my home, my cars, and everything else of value.
Yep - it's insane.
Theft is bad. It's never a good thing. But, you become a judge for a few minutes.
First case - you have a young man from a wealthy family who is charged with embezzling tens of thousands of (dollars, pounds, euros, whatever) from the local bank. The facts are all in, your jury has returned with a verdict, there is no doubt of his guilt, there is no doubt that he has caused tremendous harm to the community. It's time for you to sentence him.
Second case - a young parent has a kid or six at home, who are hungry all the time. The parent has a history of working hard, but work is scarce these days. (S)he is having a string of bad luck. (S)he is charged with stealing a couple dollars worth of food. The jury has returned it's verdict - guilty. Now, judge.
I haven't scrolled very far down - but so far, it seems that people are missing the single most important part of this news.
Being arrested for possession is bad. Being jailed is worse. Serving time in the pen is yet worse. But, that's all rather petty, when compared to the people who die during any stage of these processes.
The "war on drugs" never was a "war on drugs". It has always been a war on American citizens. Your kid, your neighbor, your nutty classmate, your cousin, or the local grocer, it doesn't matter WHO they are. They disapprove of the government's mandate, and they disobey the government. As a result, hundreds, if not thousands, die every year.
No city, no county, no state, and not even the feds, should have the authority to more or less stop people randomly, then arrest them for possession of a more or less natural substance.
It's insane, is what it is.
And, I don't even use the stuff. I don't even use the prescription drugs that I'm given. I don't like drugs, don't want drugs, won't be purchasing any no matter how legal they get. But, my idiot son shouldn't be at risk of spending a decade in prison for doing a dooby.
Two days, huh? Sometimes, I don't log in to Facebook for two weeks. Then, I seldom post anything. Two day.
Basically, Facebook didn't really want anyone's opinion, aside from it's stockholders and management.
Citations, please.
I'll remind you that BOTH of the women involved in the Assange scandal have stated quite clearly in interviews that Assange did NOT commit a rape. The only "charges" that have been made concern "sexual misconduct" involving the failure to use a condom. No actual, formal charges have ever been filed. Some muck raker just wants the opportunity to sit Assange down for an interrogation.
Get your facts straight, please. You simply cannot comprehend the situation, unless you start getting the basic facts straight. Both women spoke to the media, both women made similar statements. So similar, in fact, one has to wonder just how long they rehearsed their statements. We know that they are in collusion, but we don't know for certain who they are in collusion with. Are they the only conspirators, playing a rather petty game, or are they members of a larger conspiracy, playing at international intrigue? OR, is their little petty conspiracy simply being taken advantage of by another larger conspiracy?
Tune in next week, same time, same station, for another installment of, "Bimbos Rape Assange"!!
That is a dishonest, or a naive very question and statement.
We are talking "profits" or "income" taxes. Businesses are taxed on net profit, always have been. If you gross income in 1.2 million, and your expenses are an even million, then your income is only .2 million. You cannot, you will not, be taxed on the 1.2 million.
Your apparent misunderstanding is part of the GOP's propaganda. They want to scare small business owners into believing that they will be taxed to death, and the scare tactics are working.
The top 1% of tax payers earn what - 75% of total earnings in the US? They should be paying 75% of all income taxes. No, 20% is not plenty - even if that figure is accurate. The more you make, the more you pay.
Heh - I went googling for the actual percentage of total income taxes paid by the top 1%. I found a site with a wilder spin that I've read before - it claims they pay 38%, or almost double what you've stated. Which, only goes to prove that someone with an agenda can make any claim they like, and back it up somehow.
Bottom line - everyone pays xx% of their income, no matter how poor, or how rich, no matter how many influential people they bribe or sleep with. Set it at about 27 or 28%, and I'll see no change. Set it somewhere, anywhere - then ENFORCE IT FOR EVERYONE!
Alright - you CANNOT tax gross profit, with the system we have in place. Gross profit is defined as your product's total worth, or value, ie, all the money that you put into the till.
If we switched to a Value Added Tax, like the Euros, then you could come closer to taxing gross profits.
The problem is, we have allowed, and condoned, outrageous "deductions" such as you have mentioned. Corporate accountants know that these deductions are just gimmicks to dodge taxes. Corporate officers know it. The IRS knows it. Lawmakers know it. Everyone knows it - even the unwashed masses who have nothing to do with the corporation, or the tax system.
What we need, is to revamp the tax system, and eliminate all those deductions, loopholes, exemptions, etc.
As for taxing gross profits, I can see big corporations pushing for that. In the two or three years before it went into effect, they would move ALL operations beyond the jurisdiction of the IRS. Then, they would sit around, off shore for awhile, watching all the small corporations based in the US just fold up, one by one. As soon as all the small businesses were gone, they would swoop into Washington, to "save us" from our foolishness.
Better be careful what you wish for.
Thanks for the link. I've seen some pretty big pieces of equipment, but I never saw that big Fifty. Cleveland, huh? It's slightly odd that I never heard of it - gotta Google some more. Very interesting - and I do note the government involvement in it's development, construction, and mission.
That statement is foolish, at best. This is not the "free market". US industry has been under attack for a couple of decades now, and this is just another footnote in the grand globalization scheme.
I would suspect, though I haven't looked for proof, that the Chinese government may have been involved. A small subsidy maybe, to enable the Chinese company to bid a bit higher than they might have been able to?
*sigh*
Please, re-read my last sentence. Maybe read it twice. How might you construe what I have actually posted as approving of the left's mass media propaganda? I find them to be only slightly less revolting than Faux Noise.
It often seems that people are intentionally obtuse. This looks like one of those instances.
The problem is the divisiveness. During the election, the left put out plenty of nonsense indicating that a Republican victory would send us back in time to about the twelfth century. The right positively stated that a Democratic victory would mean the end of the civilized world, the collapse of the United States, and possibly even the end of life as we know it.
I have problems with both sides of that issue.