I typed in Newt Gingrich in google. The first result was news stories. They second was www.newt.com. Even typing in "Rick Santorum" gives his website as the first result. So, do you want to provide a link to back up the bullshit you are spouting or (like a typical republican) would facts just get in the way of your talking points?
Actually, the closest thing I found to what you are talking about is that if you type in "Rick Perry" the ad at the top is a link to donate to Santorum's campaign. So should we chalk that up to lack of technical skills or lack of morals?
And, keep in mind that Obama (the nominal leader of the Democratic Party) was opposed to the Supreme Court allowing the creation of SuperPACs. This was what the Republicans wanted and now they have to live with the consequences.
No... Huntsman is the best of the lot. He is very consistent and quite conservative, but he has not bowed down to the extreme rhetoric demanded by the Tea Party so he is seen as a moderate. So he will never get picked for the Republican candidate. But I think he would have the greatest chance of beating Obama because independents and some Democrats might actually vote for him.
I think it makes the Democrats look scared. They have gone beyond pleading their own case (effective if you have a case worth pleading) and smearing the opposition (reviled, but effective), to actively trying to stop the opposition from getting their message out. Seems like this will make some excellent 'what are they so afraid of' campaign material.
How are they "actively trying to stop the opposition from getting their message out"? The Newt campaign obviously do not need the domain, or they would have bought it already. The Democrats have not taken down his real website. If someone wants to find the real website, they should have no problem finding it on google. They are just taking advantage of a previously unused site to get their message out.
As for your accusations of smearing, all I have seen is them bringing up his past actions in a less than flattering light (and some of his past actions are less than flattering... 3 successive wives, lobbying for freddie mac right before the financial crisis). For examples of actual smearing you should see the lies Republicans have said about Obama (he is a muslim, he was not born in the US, he is in league with Soros to give up US sovereignty and make a world government). If you want to talk about being afraid to talk about the actual issues, you don't need to go any further than the Republican response to Obama.
Ok... you don't like SQL. That is not the point. Whatever replaces it will probably still be programming (at least if it is flexible enough to be actually useful).
Also, why do you think it is better for kids just to "discover" things on their own. Its a terrible idea to give the kid a football as a christmas present... let him "discover" it on his own.
Or, you can try to give him (or her) things that you think they might like and help them to discover it. If they don't like it, then you will know. I, in general (not just for kids), don't like to give people things that are on their lists. You don't have to know anything about the person if you just order something that they link to in their list (or by getting them a cop-out gift like chocolates). I prefer to show the person that I actually know about them by getting them something that I think they will like but that they probably have never thought of getting for themselves.
And I would not get a young girl who is in the doll phase a robotics kit. But, a young boy who plays with LEGOs I probably would. You obviously have to use your brain. And I would love for my nephew to be interested in the things that I do for a living because that would give us things in common. I could be the AWESOME uncle who helps him learn robotics. And maybe it is selfish that I want my relations to be interested in the things I am interested in. But since all relationships are based upon common interests, I think that building a relationship with a child can only be good in the long run.
You are right that I could guess wrong about his interests and be *that* person. But there is no greater gift in life than being able to know that you have helped a child become a better person. I am willing to risk being *that* uncle when the potential reward is so great. So stick to your cop-out gifts if you want. I will continue to try to actually know the interests of my relations and use my knowledge to get them gifts that they may not have even considered.
I completely disagree with you. For one, I do not think you should avoid teaching a child something because you are afraid that they will want to do it when they are older. I think you should expose them to as much as possible so that they can make the decision for themselves.
Also, the "programming bug" is not a bad thing to catch. While I agree that being a code monkey is probably a bad idea, and going to be even more of a bad idea in the future, for the reasons you mention, almost EVERY other field can benefit from programming knowledge. Physicists might have to know how to program (to analyze data). Engineers might need to know how to program CNC. Even librarians might need to know how to program to make SQL queries. Computers are used in just about every field. Knowing how to program is a value-add.
You should try broadening your kids horizons instead of narrowing their vision. If you have been a good enough parent then they should know how to make the right decisions. If not, then you probably shouldn't be telling them how to live their life anyways.
Or they will just stop sending bug reports. If you are an ass to your users then they will weigh how much they care about the app working vs how much of a pain it is to deal with you. If the app is relatively unimportant to them or you are a very big ass then they will stop sending bug reports (and possibly stop using your app). In which case the dev loses.
Even if we didn't have the screwed up financial system that we have, we still would not have capitalism. We have public schools, public sewers, public defense (police, firefighters, national guard, military). We have never had capitalism (at least according to your definition) and I prefer it that way. While it may sometimes screw things up (like "too big to fail") and we have to modify the system to fix prevent those problems from occurring in the future, I much prefer it to the absolute anarchy that "true" (by "true" I mean your definition) capitalism would be.
But you also have to factor in being paid back for risks you have already taken. If I start my own company, which I bankroll with some of my own money as well as free (or underpriced) labor, then shouldn't I get paid back for the "risks" over the subsequent years? What about the other people who bankroll my company by buying "stock"? The whole financial system is based upon being rewarded for taking risks. You seem to be arguing that companies are making to much money for the risks they are taking, but the only case in which that is true is when they have manipulated the system (usually by buying politicians) to give themselves an unfair advantage and distort the market in their favor. All other profits, by your logic, are fair and deserved because they are paying back previous risks. So there is no point in worrying about "profit beyond which is necessary to cover risk" because it never exists except in the case of fraud or political manipulation.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing under the US Constitution (and hence US laws in general). For some reason conservatives cannot fit that idea into their heads.
My parents (who live in the suburbs of Atlanta), had lightning hit a tree along the fence at the back of the yard. As far as we can tell, the electricity traveled along about 100ft of fence to the powered gate and blew its way into the control panel (on a wooden post 6in from the gate). The cover on the panel was literally blown off (it ended up about 15ft away from the control panel). From there we believe that it went through the power lines (for the gate) back to the detached garage. In the garage it went from a phone into the phone lines that went back to the main house and were terminated in the low voltage panel. Somehow from there it got into the ethernet network and fried 2 hubs and an ethernet port on their desktop computer.
There is no way for me to know conclusively that this is what happened, but a lightning strike on a neighbors tree (it was on their side of the fence) 30 feet from the detached garage, and 50 feet from the house fried the controls for the gate, a phone in the garage, and 2 hubs and an ethernet port in the house (I think we discovered later that some old caller ID units also got fried, and we think it was probably that strike). No one died. There were no fires. CPR was also not necessary. Probably about $500 - $600 worth of damage.
How do you hack into a webcam through a firewall that does not allow incoming connections? I'll tell you how, and its the same way you would do it if were behind NAT (with no publically visible IP). You compromise another computer on the network (or that computer) and have it make the connection to you so you get through the firewall, then use that computer to compromise other computers on the network. That is usually accomplished by getting the dumbass who owns the computer to run a program that you send to him. Its all social engineering, regardless of whether it is NAT or IPv6.
That depends on a lot of factors. Still if it weren't cheaper for them to pay contractors they would just hire employees. It's obviously cheaper.
How do you figure that? Your argument is that the US government always makes the most cost-effective decision? From what I have seen, political influence has a lot more to do with the decision making process than cost-effectiveness.
The conspiracy theory argument in your first post is, surprisingly, much more valid than your second. Spamhaus could, in (conspiracy) theory, be benefiting if someone were paying them to take down TPB. So if that were happening then it could be defined as blackmail (but might just be extortion). But, just because they are denying A2B valuable items as you enumerated above, does not mean that they benefit from it. So... not blackmail.
It is also possible that Spamhaus has had previous problems with CyberBunker being friendly to spammers (not necessarily being in league with, just not taking the appropriate steps to prevent spam). If that were the case, I think that Spamhaus would be within its rights, and probably have a responsibility to block them. If their ISP does not cooperate, then Spamhaus would have to take the appropriate measures to protect their reputation (as having a quality spammer blacklist) which could thus lead to blocking the ISP. Not saying this is likely or that I believe it is the case, but it is a counter scenario to your conspiracy theory that would instead have Spamhaus on the moral high ground.
Basically, I do not have enough information to condemn one or the other.
I did not say they were not incorrectly classifying them. I am not intimate enough with the situation to make that conclusion. But, I am pretty sure that, whether right or wrong, they are not performing a criminal act (so A2B should talk to a lawyer, not the police).
They ARE blackmailing them.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Generally (at least in the US, I am not as familiar with the Netherlands), for it to be blackmail you have to benefit from your demands. "Stop stealing or I will tell the police" is not blackmail. "Give me $100 or I will tell the police" is. From what I understand, Spamhaus is saying "Stop supporting spammers or we will blacklist you". I do not see how A2B submitting to Spamhaus's demands will benefit Spamhaus. If you see it differently, please educate me.
BTW... I am not trying to take a side between Spamhaus and A2B. I just do not see why A2B is trying to make this a criminal matter instead of a civil one.
"Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
How does Spamhaus "demands or receives any money or other valuable thing"? The only benefit they would see is that there is less spam on the internet. Which does not really benefit Spamhaus as much as society as a whole. And might actually hurt them because without spam there would be no need for spam blacklists.
What is criminal about it? A spam-blacklisting service is classifying someone as a spam-producer. Is that illegal? If they are incorrectly classified and it adversely affects their business, then they possibly have a valid civil suit. But I still don't see what Spamhaus has done to break the law. The only possible one I can think of would be libel, but that would be a big stretch.
He didn't say you should be fined based upon the cost of your supplies to do the damage. He said fine based upon environmental damage (which is usually measured by the cost of cleaning it up). So, basically, you should get charged 10x the cost of having a hazmat crew come out and clean up your spill (probably in the thousands of dollars range).
The government which is bought and paid for by Wall Street. Do you really think that we should be protesting the peons (politicians) instead of the people controlling them?
Slashdot Mirror
When he doesn't keep his promises in his personal life, why should I expect him to keep them in his professional life?
I typed in Newt Gingrich in google. The first result was news stories. They second was www.newt.com. Even typing in "Rick Santorum" gives his website as the first result. So, do you want to provide a link to back up the bullshit you are spouting or (like a typical republican) would facts just get in the way of your talking points?
Actually, the closest thing I found to what you are talking about is that if you type in "Rick Perry" the ad at the top is a link to donate to Santorum's campaign. So should we chalk that up to lack of technical skills or lack of morals?
And, keep in mind that Obama (the nominal leader of the Democratic Party) was opposed to the Supreme Court allowing the creation of SuperPACs. This was what the Republicans wanted and now they have to live with the consequences.
No... Huntsman is the best of the lot. He is very consistent and quite conservative, but he has not bowed down to the extreme rhetoric demanded by the Tea Party so he is seen as a moderate. So he will never get picked for the Republican candidate. But I think he would have the greatest chance of beating Obama because independents and some Democrats might actually vote for him.
I think it makes the Democrats look scared. They have gone beyond pleading their own case (effective if you have a case worth pleading) and smearing the opposition (reviled, but effective), to actively trying to stop the opposition from getting their message out. Seems like this will make some excellent 'what are they so afraid of' campaign material.
How are they "actively trying to stop the opposition from getting their message out"? The Newt campaign obviously do not need the domain, or they would have bought it already. The Democrats have not taken down his real website. If someone wants to find the real website, they should have no problem finding it on google. They are just taking advantage of a previously unused site to get their message out.
As for your accusations of smearing, all I have seen is them bringing up his past actions in a less than flattering light (and some of his past actions are less than flattering... 3 successive wives, lobbying for freddie mac right before the financial crisis). For examples of actual smearing you should see the lies Republicans have said about Obama (he is a muslim, he was not born in the US, he is in league with Soros to give up US sovereignty and make a world government). If you want to talk about being afraid to talk about the actual issues, you don't need to go any further than the Republican response to Obama.
Wrong. We have the government that the monied interests in this country let us have (the type they can buy).
They are very consistent. They consistently try to lower taxes for the rich, and make up for it by raising taxes on the poor and middle class.
Ok... you don't like SQL. That is not the point. Whatever replaces it will probably still be programming (at least if it is flexible enough to be actually useful).
Also, why do you think it is better for kids just to "discover" things on their own. Its a terrible idea to give the kid a football as a christmas present... let him "discover" it on his own.
Or, you can try to give him (or her) things that you think they might like and help them to discover it. If they don't like it, then you will know. I, in general (not just for kids), don't like to give people things that are on their lists. You don't have to know anything about the person if you just order something that they link to in their list (or by getting them a cop-out gift like chocolates). I prefer to show the person that I actually know about them by getting them something that I think they will like but that they probably have never thought of getting for themselves.
And I would not get a young girl who is in the doll phase a robotics kit. But, a young boy who plays with LEGOs I probably would. You obviously have to use your brain. And I would love for my nephew to be interested in the things that I do for a living because that would give us things in common. I could be the AWESOME uncle who helps him learn robotics. And maybe it is selfish that I want my relations to be interested in the things I am interested in. But since all relationships are based upon common interests, I think that building a relationship with a child can only be good in the long run.
You are right that I could guess wrong about his interests and be *that* person. But there is no greater gift in life than being able to know that you have helped a child become a better person. I am willing to risk being *that* uncle when the potential reward is so great. So stick to your cop-out gifts if you want. I will continue to try to actually know the interests of my relations and use my knowledge to get them gifts that they may not have even considered.
I completely disagree with you. For one, I do not think you should avoid teaching a child something because you are afraid that they will want to do it when they are older. I think you should expose them to as much as possible so that they can make the decision for themselves.
Also, the "programming bug" is not a bad thing to catch. While I agree that being a code monkey is probably a bad idea, and going to be even more of a bad idea in the future, for the reasons you mention, almost EVERY other field can benefit from programming knowledge. Physicists might have to know how to program (to analyze data). Engineers might need to know how to program CNC. Even librarians might need to know how to program to make SQL queries. Computers are used in just about every field. Knowing how to program is a value-add.
You should try broadening your kids horizons instead of narrowing their vision. If you have been a good enough parent then they should know how to make the right decisions. If not, then you probably shouldn't be telling them how to live their life anyways.
Or they will just stop sending bug reports. If you are an ass to your users then they will weigh how much they care about the app working vs how much of a pain it is to deal with you. If the app is relatively unimportant to them or you are a very big ass then they will stop sending bug reports (and possibly stop using your app). In which case the dev loses.
Even if we didn't have the screwed up financial system that we have, we still would not have capitalism. We have public schools, public sewers, public defense (police, firefighters, national guard, military). We have never had capitalism (at least according to your definition) and I prefer it that way. While it may sometimes screw things up (like "too big to fail") and we have to modify the system to fix prevent those problems from occurring in the future, I much prefer it to the absolute anarchy that "true" (by "true" I mean your definition) capitalism would be.
But you also have to factor in being paid back for risks you have already taken. If I start my own company, which I bankroll with some of my own money as well as free (or underpriced) labor, then shouldn't I get paid back for the "risks" over the subsequent years? What about the other people who bankroll my company by buying "stock"? The whole financial system is based upon being rewarded for taking risks. You seem to be arguing that companies are making to much money for the risks they are taking, but the only case in which that is true is when they have manipulated the system (usually by buying politicians) to give themselves an unfair advantage and distort the market in their favor. All other profits, by your logic, are fair and deserved because they are paying back previous risks. So there is no point in worrying about "profit beyond which is necessary to cover risk" because it never exists except in the case of fraud or political manipulation.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing under the US Constitution (and hence US laws in general). For some reason conservatives cannot fit that idea into their heads.
My parents (who live in the suburbs of Atlanta), had lightning hit a tree along the fence at the back of the yard. As far as we can tell, the electricity traveled along about 100ft of fence to the powered gate and blew its way into the control panel (on a wooden post 6in from the gate). The cover on the panel was literally blown off (it ended up about 15ft away from the control panel). From there we believe that it went through the power lines (for the gate) back to the detached garage. In the garage it went from a phone into the phone lines that went back to the main house and were terminated in the low voltage panel. Somehow from there it got into the ethernet network and fried 2 hubs and an ethernet port on their desktop computer.
There is no way for me to know conclusively that this is what happened, but a lightning strike on a neighbors tree (it was on their side of the fence) 30 feet from the detached garage, and 50 feet from the house fried the controls for the gate, a phone in the garage, and 2 hubs and an ethernet port in the house (I think we discovered later that some old caller ID units also got fried, and we think it was probably that strike). No one died. There were no fires. CPR was also not necessary. Probably about $500 - $600 worth of damage.
I think he should worry about lightning strikes.
How do you hack into a webcam through a firewall that does not allow incoming connections? I'll tell you how, and its the same way you would do it if were behind NAT (with no publically visible IP). You compromise another computer on the network (or that computer) and have it make the connection to you so you get through the firewall, then use that computer to compromise other computers on the network. That is usually accomplished by getting the dumbass who owns the computer to run a program that you send to him. Its all social engineering, regardless of whether it is NAT or IPv6.
That depends on a lot of factors. Still if it weren't cheaper for them to pay contractors they would just hire employees. It's obviously cheaper.
How do you figure that? Your argument is that the US government always makes the most cost-effective decision? From what I have seen, political influence has a lot more to do with the decision making process than cost-effectiveness.
Yet.
It was the quickest thing I could find on wikipedia. If danish law is different, please prove me wrong.
The conspiracy theory argument in your first post is, surprisingly, much more valid than your second. Spamhaus could, in (conspiracy) theory, be benefiting if someone were paying them to take down TPB. So if that were happening then it could be defined as blackmail (but might just be extortion). But, just because they are denying A2B valuable items as you enumerated above, does not mean that they benefit from it. So... not blackmail.
It is also possible that Spamhaus has had previous problems with CyberBunker being friendly to spammers (not necessarily being in league with, just not taking the appropriate steps to prevent spam). If that were the case, I think that Spamhaus would be within its rights, and probably have a responsibility to block them. If their ISP does not cooperate, then Spamhaus would have to take the appropriate measures to protect their reputation (as having a quality spammer blacklist) which could thus lead to blocking the ISP. Not saying this is likely or that I believe it is the case, but it is a counter scenario to your conspiracy theory that would instead have Spamhaus on the moral high ground.
Basically, I do not have enough information to condemn one or the other.
They ARE incorrectly classifying them.
I did not say they were not incorrectly classifying them. I am not intimate enough with the situation to make that conclusion. But, I am pretty sure that, whether right or wrong, they are not performing a criminal act (so A2B should talk to a lawyer, not the police).
They ARE blackmailing them.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Generally (at least in the US, I am not as familiar with the Netherlands), for it to be blackmail you have to benefit from your demands. "Stop stealing or I will tell the police" is not blackmail. "Give me $100 or I will tell the police" is. From what I understand, Spamhaus is saying "Stop supporting spammers or we will blacklist you". I do not see how A2B submitting to Spamhaus's demands will benefit Spamhaus. If you see it differently, please educate me.
BTW... I am not trying to take a side between Spamhaus and A2B. I just do not see why A2B is trying to make this a criminal matter instead of a civil one.
Blackmail...
"Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."
How does Spamhaus "demands or receives any money or other valuable thing"? The only benefit they would see is that there is less spam on the internet. Which does not really benefit Spamhaus as much as society as a whole. And might actually hurt them because without spam there would be no need for spam blacklists.
What is criminal about it? A spam-blacklisting service is classifying someone as a spam-producer. Is that illegal? If they are incorrectly classified and it adversely affects their business, then they possibly have a valid civil suit. But I still don't see what Spamhaus has done to break the law. The only possible one I can think of would be libel, but that would be a big stretch.
A lawyer.
He didn't say you should be fined based upon the cost of your supplies to do the damage. He said fine based upon environmental damage (which is usually measured by the cost of cleaning it up). So, basically, you should get charged 10x the cost of having a hazmat crew come out and clean up your spill (probably in the thousands of dollars range).
The government which is bought and paid for by Wall Street. Do you really think that we should be protesting the peons (politicians) instead of the people controlling them?