As long as we've got Pringles cans, time on our hands and the ability to drive within a 100ft of a open wifi point, I think that we'll have true anonymity.
I know no one RTFA, but at least someone should read their legally binding contracts:
Changes to the Agreement or Charges. except to the extent prohibited by law, if we: (a) increase the charges included in your monthly recurring access rate plan, or (b) modify a material term of our agreement with you and the modification would be materially adverse to you, we will notify you of the increase or modification and you can cancel that service without paying a cancellation fee (which is your only remedy) by following the cancellation instructions in the notice. if you do not cancel your service by following those instructions, or you otherwise accept the change, then you agree to the increase or modification, even if you paid for service in advance. if the notice does not say how long you have to cancel, then it is within 14 days after the date of the notice, unless a longer period is required by law. except to the extent prohibited by law, charges for products, services, optional services, or any other charges that are not included in your monthly recurring access rate plan (such as directory assistance, roaming, downloads, and third-party content) are subject to change at any time without notice, and if you continue to use those services, or you otherwise agree to the changes, then you agree to the new charges. visit our web site, retail locations, or call customer care for current charges.
Very true, though I must admit I've a very staunch supporter of different passwords for different sites and the easiest way that I've personally found to do that is to theme them according. For example my WoW password is usually some variation of #W4rCrfT#112 or my credit card is something like $5M0ni35s$$!... it just makes it easier.
I am in total agreement with you. I do think that we could make the plants safer. We need to lower the cost inherent in opening new plants for that to happen rather than making it more economical to prolong the life of antiquated designs.
Also, that's an excellent point, I admit and one that I honestly have no answer for except to say that if the technology is properly implemented and maintained, even the risk of losing land can be limited. Three Mile Island still operates the Reactor 1 in the same compound that Reactor 2 went down in. In fact, the license for TMI-1 to keep operating was extended through 2034 in the last 2 years. People work there, day in, day out.
Thank you for pointing that out! I didn't realize what I did there. If you check the paper - they're giving a hypothetical PRA result - but that doesn't excuse my awful out of context paste there. It's important to note though that even in Three Mile Island, the steel reactor vessel nor the building were ever breached. Some safety measures worked as intended. The hate against it is often attributed to the China Syndrome... which rates somewhere below Hollow Man on the scale of scientific accuracy in movies.
Global death toll from the pollution from fossil fuel burning-based electricity generation. It is estimated that 0.3 million people die annually world-wide from societally-imposed, fossil fuel-based electricity generation pollutants
So you're telling me that you'd rather have 300,000 people die a year... and rising. Rather than advance Nuclear power when Pripyat (Chernobyl) has killed about 9000 total after decades of radiation? The choice sucks. But one is, to me, the lesser suck.
To compensate, you could just follow me around following Hermione around all day, everyday. I've got a nice little love nest in the bushes outside of her house. You keep an eye on where she goes to make sure you don't miss Hogwarts and I'll keep an eye on her to make sure I don't miss a thing...
Are you challenging an AC to make a concession in an argument which he has already determined his beliefs in? Well sir, welcome to Slashdot.
And while I totally agree with the sentiment - I'd say that it is hard to consider Keith objectively when he has always been against fossil fuels at seemingly any costs (which he should be). So in the spirit of actually contributing something to the conversation:
Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe he was just going on idlespeculation.
Or just maybe some of us aren't politically correct enough to ignore the simple fact that it wouldn't be the first time the PRC (got caught) made a cover up for something that would be global news.
That's a common misconception about what entrapment really is. In order for that to be entrapment, you'd have to have a uniformed officer telling you to speed. There are three conditions for entrapment to be considered.
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents. Source
I would like to second my proposal to live vicariously through you.
Seriously though - the one time in my life I did know a girl that obsessive about it, she seemed to be the only one who wouldn't do anything about it. Damn kids.
I was along the same vein of thought except to me I see it as thus:
Selling drugs - for whatever reason the person wants the drugs. I'm not debating addiction, just that the both parties are willing participants. Same thing with the sex worker (once again, slavery is something else)
But hitting someone with your car while your DUI? That seems pretty damn jail-able to me.
- Jail a person because they have sold drugs
- Jail a person because they force people to sell their bodies - Jail a person because they ran over someone else while drunk
Really? Your reasoned and rational use of force as suggested is that someone (hopefully you meant cop) kicks in a **SUSPECT**s door for... taking a server offline?
Wikileaks, the press, Anonymous, the whole internet, etc are not to blame for coming into possession of them through legal means.
I'd like to point out that according to appendix B of 18 U.S.C. 793 - they are indeed guilty. But that's just an example of a law that despite (or because of) best efforts is ridiculously broad in scope.
"Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense"
Slashdot Mirror
As long as we've got Pringles cans, time on our hands and the ability to drive within a 100ft of a open wifi point, I think that we'll have true anonymity.
Changes to the Agreement or Charges. except to the extent prohibited by law, if we: (a) increase the charges included in your monthly recurring access rate plan, or (b) modify a material term of our agreement with you and the modification would be materially adverse to you, we will notify you of the increase or modification and you can cancel that service without paying a cancellation fee (which is your only remedy) by following the cancellation instructions in the notice. if you do not cancel your service by following those instructions, or you otherwise accept the change, then you agree to the increase or modification, even if you paid for service in advance. if the notice does not say how long you have to cancel, then it is within 14 days after the date of the notice, unless a longer period is required by law. except to the extent prohibited by law, charges for products, services, optional services, or any other charges that are not included in your monthly recurring access rate plan (such as directory assistance, roaming, downloads, and third-party content) are subject to change at any time without notice, and if you continue to use those services, or you otherwise agree to the changes, then you agree to the new charges. visit our web site, retail locations, or call customer care for current charges.
Whoosh.
I'd like to second that, I see this fading from the public spotlight in a few months and suddenly LulzSec and Anonymous will be backburner news again.
Very true, though I must admit I've a very staunch supporter of different passwords for different sites and the easiest way that I've personally found to do that is to theme them according. For example my WoW password is usually some variation of #W4rCrfT#112 or my credit card is something like $5M0ni35s$$!... it just makes it easier.
I am in total agreement with you. I do think that we could make the plants safer. We need to lower the cost inherent in opening new plants for that to happen rather than making it more economical to prolong the life of antiquated designs.
Also, that's an excellent point, I admit and one that I honestly have no answer for except to say that if the technology is properly implemented and maintained, even the risk of losing land can be limited. Three Mile Island still operates the Reactor 1 in the same compound that Reactor 2 went down in. In fact, the license for TMI-1 to keep operating was extended through 2034 in the last 2 years. People work there, day in, day out.
I would perhaps suggest this though - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors. 5 reactors in the last 40 years have had serious issues that you can think of? What about the other 15 or so that you don't know about because the media didn't make a big deal out of them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents.
Now for the coup de grace:
Global death toll from the pollution from fossil fuel burning-based electricity generation. It is estimated that 0.3 million people die annually world-wide from societally-imposed, fossil fuel-based electricity generation pollutants
Source: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants, http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf
So you're telling me that you'd rather have 300,000 people die a year... and rising. Rather than advance Nuclear power when Pripyat (Chernobyl) has killed about 9000 total after decades of radiation? The choice sucks. But one is, to me, the lesser suck.
To compensate, you could just follow me around following Hermione around all day, everyday. I've got a nice little love nest in the bushes outside of her house. You keep an eye on where she goes to make sure you don't miss Hogwarts and I'll keep an eye on her to make sure I don't miss a thing...
And after writing that, I must go wash my hands.
And while I totally agree with the sentiment - I'd say that it is hard to consider Keith objectively when he has always been against fossil fuels at seemingly any costs (which he should be). So in the spirit of actually contributing something to the conversation:
Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.
From: http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
I just want you to know that I see what you did there and you deserve the +5 funny, though I think it'll woosh over most people.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe he was just going on idle speculation.
Or just maybe some of us aren't politically correct enough to ignore the simple fact that it wouldn't be the first time the PRC (got caught) made a cover up for something that would be global news.
That's a common misconception about what entrapment really is. In order for that to be entrapment, you'd have to have a uniformed officer telling you to speed. There are three conditions for entrapment to be considered.
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
2. Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.
Source
...but he was a Genius! *rimshot*
/ducks
I would like to second my proposal to live vicariously through you.
Seriously though - the one time in my life I did know a girl that obsessive about it, she seemed to be the only one who wouldn't do anything about it. Damn kids.
If his wife is that stupid that she wants people to lie to her rather than just eating better, he shouldn't have married her..
Since I can see that you're clearly still single, would you mind if I live vicariously through you?
While I totally agree with you, I want to point out that the Dutch are terrible offenders when it comes to phone/connection tapping.
And if we adopt this from the Dutch, I'll continue to think that even if we're stealing ideas - at least we steal some of the good ones.
I was along the same vein of thought except to me I see it as thus:
Selling drugs - for whatever reason the person wants the drugs. I'm not debating addiction, just that the both parties are willing participants. Same thing with the sex worker (once again, slavery is something else)
But hitting someone with your car while your DUI? That seems pretty damn jail-able to me.
- Jail a person because they have sold drugs
- Jail a person because they force people to sell their bodies
- Jail a person because they ran over someone else while drunk
One of those things is not like the other...
Dude, you're 11. Let the adults handle this, okay?
They're doing a bang up job so far... maybe we should let the younger generation take a crack at it.
Really? Your reasoned and rational use of force as suggested is that someone (hopefully you meant cop) kicks in a **SUSPECT**s door for... taking a server offline?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Wikileaks, the press, Anonymous, the whole internet, etc are not to blame for coming into possession of them through legal means.
I'd like to point out that according to appendix B of 18 U.S.C. 793 - they are indeed guilty. But that's just an example of a law that despite (or because of) best efforts is ridiculously broad in scope.
"Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense"
Source.
He didn't release that information - Jesse Cool did. Jesus Christ it's in the god damn summary!
More importantly, even if he did say it: with his track record on privacy - which part about this would be hard to believe?
And I learned something today. Thanks for your post (and the 15 or so wiki articles you sent me to.)
Sir, if you're still buying DRM'd music when you can get the mp3s for 99 cents I'd call that the first problem.