If I had a wife and found out she's banging some other guy who knows she's married, about 90% of my anger is going to be directed at her. The guy is just doing what may be natural to him, even if it's disrespectful to me (which is the source of my anger at him). The wife is the person who is engaged in deceit. The only reason the guy doesn't want me knowing about it is because he wants it to continue.
Yes, so they're looking to have sex with a married person, without the knowledge or consent of the married person's spouse.
I would suggest the guy is looking to have sex with *any* woman, regardless of her social situation. He doesn't give a shit that she's married, it's not like he's only going after married women. He's casting a wide net and accepting all invitations. What he's doing is not necessarily deceitful, especially if he's meeting strangers on the internet and doesn't even know their spouses. He's just trying to get laid and doesn't care who it is.
The site advertises itself as a place for people wanting to cheat on their spouses to do so.
Yeah, so what? I sign up, if you want to cheat on your spouse, you can cheat with me. What's the problem? The terms of use or policy do not prohibit single people from signing up, and people actually do. When someone wants to hook up they will cast a wide net in order to improve their chances, and a site like AM specifically has people who are probably not looking for anything long-term or involved, which is attractive to a lot of people. Look at Tinder. AM probably has a lot of people who do not have accounts on other dating sites, so again, more opportunity for people looking to get laid.
This has nothing to do with a single person looking for a fling.
According to who, you? Because according to Troy Hunt, the security researcher linked in the summary (did you make it all the way through the summary?), he's fielding emails from single people who were doing just that wondering what their options are now that there are credit card transactions out there.
If you think that 100% of the AM membership is married people trying to have an affair, you're delusional. The site is (was) about 14% women and 86% men. Out of those ~27.5 million men, you can be damn sure many of them are single just trying to get laid and nothing else, which happens on literally every other dating site.
The moral compass being touted here is the moral compass of millions of people who do not do such things.
The "right" people, correct? Because they live the "correct" way, and people who don't have something wrong with them. Got it.
I fail to see why anyone with a traditional moral compass would sign up for this website.
A single person looking to meet whoever they can, maybe they're only in town for a few nights and don't expect any interaction after that.
Ooooh, wait, I see what you did there. "A traditional moral compass", as in your moral compass. "Why would anyone who's great like me do this?" Yeah, ok champ, why indeed?
When you define any extramarital intimacy as "cheating"
Who exactly is defining that? Cheating involves going behind your spouse's back, deception, lying, etc. Cheating is not telling your spouse that you have a hot date tonight and asking if they want you to bring the person back to the house or go to a hotel instead.
Anyway, nice straw man you've got there, but I don't see anyone defining "any extramarital intimacy" as cheating with the possible exception of various extremist religious groups that I wouldn't take seriously anyway.
The database can't be trusted, and I can verify this because my email address is in their database... I know this because whoever signed up my address was able to do so without access to my email account... Merely having an email address listed in the leaked database is not proof of anything...
How about credit card transactions? It doesn't mean a whole lot when joesmithsonnwa@gmail.com is listed as a member, but when that account is paid for by Joshua Duggar with two of his known addresses then that's a little more incriminating.
Number of NASA asteroid material return missions, zero.
What, are we comparing dicks here? Quick, name the only country to have sent a probe to fly by or land on every planet. Or every body that was ever considered a planet, if you prefer.
from pad 2 of the Yoshinobu Launch Complex at Tanegashima south of Tokyo
for very loose definitions of the word "south". The island housing the launch site is just south of Kyushu island, which is decidedly west-southwest of Tokyo.
It looks like the ibtimes.co.uk article uses data from 2008 through 2013, while the numbeo link defaults to mid-year 2015. Like you can see with Phoenix, pollution in a particular city varies year over year. Here in Phoenix we probably peak during the middle of the year because we haven't received much rain by then, most of the rain comes at the end of the summer. During the first 6 months of the year we average 3.23 inches of precipitation, with a low of.02 inches in June. July and August each average over 1 inch, so that helps get rid of some of the air pollution (some by falling rain, more by the wind associated with the storms).
Did you miss the part of TFA which says that the study covers 97% of the population in China, and that the corridor between Beijing and Shanghai is the worst? There's even a nice map with pretty colors and everything. The darkest spot on the map doesn't look like it's Beijing, either, it looks like the region between Shijiazhuang and Liaocheng, southwest of Beijing, is the worst.
The price is not the primary reason I use Uber, I use it because it is easier, more convenient, cleaner, and has better accountability than a phone taxi service. If I knew, for example, that the price of a ride from Uber would always be the same as a standard taxi, I would still use Uber every time. Taxi companies have been slow to upgrade their service to match Uber.
Advertising is part of my gripe also. I have Cox, and they have a service called On Demand where you can watch previous episodes. So, I wanted to watch a specific Daily Show a while ago and used On Demand to do it. First, they don't offer brand new episodes, I think the most recent one I could watch was 2 weeks old. Then, while watching it, they show commercials that are unskippable. The Daily Show has 3 commercial breaks. During one of the breaks they showed me 11 commercials (yeah, I counted).
Compare that with The Daily Show website, where I can watch the current batch of episodes. I think the most ads I've seen in one break there is 5, normally it's only 1 or 2 though. But I accept that, because I'm not paying anyone to watch those on the website. With Cox, I'm paying them to show me around 20 commercials that I can't skip during an episode that is 2 weeks old, and they wonder why they're losing customers.
I would not have ruled out that someone bought a piece of a 777
Strange, Google isn't showing any shopping results for "777 flaperon". I checked Amazon too. I think the conspiracy goes deeper than any of us realizes.
Macs don't get viruses, compared to antivirus software, except for certain vectors like this bios or rom stuff, and also new ones that pop up from time to time. and when they do get viruses, they are usually patched pretty quickly.
That's what you call "consistent and clear"?
Macs don't get viruses. Well, they don't get viruses that antivirus software can detect, anyway (this is how I choose to define "virus", because it fits my narrative). Except for various other ways they can get infected. And sometimes there are new ways. But if they DO get infected, then they USUALLY get patched "pretty" quickly. Other than that, they don't get infected though.
OK, clear as mud.
so for the most part, mac users can be worry free about viruses and AV because apple has them covered and some things you just can't prevent? I think this is true not just for viruses but all malware.
Yeah, that's generally pretty true, which is why it's stupid to go around saying that any computer is immune to viruses or malware.
like java? what can apple do about it?
Sandbox it, detect when it tries to make system changes, and not allow it. People have no problems raking Microsoft over the coals for things like this, why should Apple get a free pass? For my part, I simply choose to not install Java in the first place, it's an infection vector that I don't need.
You wrote a long post about Obama that makes it seem like he is an outlier when it comes to failure to uphold campaign promises.
It wasn't my intention to make him seem like an outlier, I just believed he wasn't going to be the same as everyone else. In other words, I thought he would be an outlier in that he would actually do many of the things he promised which I felt were important. I was wrong.
You do know that every single president in history has made a ton of promises while campaigning that were later dropped or not accomplished once elected, right?
Moreover, don't you think it's a fairly serious flaw if Macs cannot detect a trojan being installed? Why exactly are Macs incapable of detecting when Flashback gets installed?
Slashdot Mirror
If I had a wife and found out she's banging some other guy who knows she's married, about 90% of my anger is going to be directed at her. The guy is just doing what may be natural to him, even if it's disrespectful to me (which is the source of my anger at him). The wife is the person who is engaged in deceit. The only reason the guy doesn't want me knowing about it is because he wants it to continue.
Yes, so they're looking to have sex with a married person, without the knowledge or consent of the married person's spouse.
I would suggest the guy is looking to have sex with *any* woman, regardless of her social situation. He doesn't give a shit that she's married, it's not like he's only going after married women. He's casting a wide net and accepting all invitations. What he's doing is not necessarily deceitful, especially if he's meeting strangers on the internet and doesn't even know their spouses. He's just trying to get laid and doesn't care who it is.
The site advertises itself as a place for people wanting to cheat on their spouses to do so.
Yeah, so what? I sign up, if you want to cheat on your spouse, you can cheat with me. What's the problem? The terms of use or policy do not prohibit single people from signing up, and people actually do. When someone wants to hook up they will cast a wide net in order to improve their chances, and a site like AM specifically has people who are probably not looking for anything long-term or involved, which is attractive to a lot of people. Look at Tinder. AM probably has a lot of people who do not have accounts on other dating sites, so again, more opportunity for people looking to get laid.
This has nothing to do with a single person looking for a fling.
According to who, you? Because according to Troy Hunt, the security researcher linked in the summary (did you make it all the way through the summary?), he's fielding emails from single people who were doing just that wondering what their options are now that there are credit card transactions out there.
If you think that 100% of the AM membership is married people trying to have an affair, you're delusional. The site is (was) about 14% women and 86% men. Out of those ~27.5 million men, you can be damn sure many of them are single just trying to get laid and nothing else, which happens on literally every other dating site.
The moral compass being touted here is the moral compass of millions of people who do not do such things.
The "right" people, correct? Because they live the "correct" way, and people who don't have something wrong with them. Got it.
I fail to see why anyone with a traditional moral compass would sign up for this website.
A single person looking to meet whoever they can, maybe they're only in town for a few nights and don't expect any interaction after that.
Ooooh, wait, I see what you did there. "A traditional moral compass", as in your moral compass. "Why would anyone who's great like me do this?" Yeah, ok champ, why indeed?
When you define any extramarital intimacy as "cheating"
Who exactly is defining that? Cheating involves going behind your spouse's back, deception, lying, etc. Cheating is not telling your spouse that you have a hot date tonight and asking if they want you to bring the person back to the house or go to a hotel instead.
Anyway, nice straw man you've got there, but I don't see anyone defining "any extramarital intimacy" as cheating with the possible exception of various extremist religious groups that I wouldn't take seriously anyway.
Right, because when someone breaks into my house nothing gets them out quicker than lighting the entire thing on fire.
That sounds like a threat... "If you make encryption, we won't bother with protecting civil liberties any more."
"Any more?" Cute sentiment.
Oh, the humanity?
The right wing is severely splintered. There's the establishment side and there's the libertarian side.
In all fairness, so is the left. There's the establishment side (Hillary) and "other" (Sanders).
The database can't be trusted, and I can verify this because my email address is in their database...
I know this because whoever signed up my address was able to do so without access to my email account...
Merely having an email address listed in the leaked database is not proof of anything...
How about credit card transactions? It doesn't mean a whole lot when joesmithsonnwa@gmail.com is listed as a member, but when that account is paid for by Joshua Duggar with two of his known addresses then that's a little more incriminating.
Number of NASA asteroid material return missions, zero.
What, are we comparing dicks here? Quick, name the only country to have sent a probe to fly by or land on every planet. Or every body that was ever considered a planet, if you prefer.
While we're making corrections...
from pad 2 of the Yoshinobu Launch Complex at Tanegashima south of Tokyo
for very loose definitions of the word "south". The island housing the launch site is just south of Kyushu island, which is decidedly west-southwest of Tokyo.
Xi'an makes one list but not the other, that just comes to show how reliable these lists are.
I'm sure the data from numbeo is reliable, it just fluctuates. If I focus on Northern America, then I see these numbers for Phoenix:
Mid-year 2015: 70.59 (rank 1)
2015: 68.12 (4)
Mid-year 2014: 72.49 (2)
2014: 76.75 (1)
2013: 58.05 (5)
It looks like the ibtimes.co.uk article uses data from 2008 through 2013, while the numbeo link defaults to mid-year 2015. Like you can see with Phoenix, pollution in a particular city varies year over year. Here in Phoenix we probably peak during the middle of the year because we haven't received much rain by then, most of the rain comes at the end of the summer. During the first 6 months of the year we average 3.23 inches of precipitation, with a low of .02 inches in June. July and August each average over 1 inch, so that helps get rid of some of the air pollution (some by falling rain, more by the wind associated with the storms).
Yet another article that assumes Beijing = China.
Did you miss the part of TFA which says that the study covers 97% of the population in China, and that the corridor between Beijing and Shanghai is the worst? There's even a nice map with pretty colors and everything. The darkest spot on the map doesn't look like it's Beijing, either, it looks like the region between Shijiazhuang and Liaocheng, southwest of Beijing, is the worst.
Uber rates are of course cheaper because...
The price is not the primary reason I use Uber, I use it because it is easier, more convenient, cleaner, and has better accountability than a phone taxi service. If I knew, for example, that the price of a ride from Uber would always be the same as a standard taxi, I would still use Uber every time. Taxi companies have been slow to upgrade their service to match Uber.
[quote]It hasn't been updated since 2013.[/quote]
It also looks like exactly 1 URL at that domain actually returns content.
Octopodes is correct since octopus has a Greek root. If it were a Latin root then octopi would be correct.
Advertising is part of my gripe also. I have Cox, and they have a service called On Demand where you can watch previous episodes. So, I wanted to watch a specific Daily Show a while ago and used On Demand to do it. First, they don't offer brand new episodes, I think the most recent one I could watch was 2 weeks old. Then, while watching it, they show commercials that are unskippable. The Daily Show has 3 commercial breaks. During one of the breaks they showed me 11 commercials (yeah, I counted).
Compare that with The Daily Show website, where I can watch the current batch of episodes. I think the most ads I've seen in one break there is 5, normally it's only 1 or 2 though. But I accept that, because I'm not paying anyone to watch those on the website. With Cox, I'm paying them to show me around 20 commercials that I can't skip during an episode that is 2 weeks old, and they wonder why they're losing customers.
I would not have ruled out that someone bought a piece of a 777
Strange, Google isn't showing any shopping results for "777 flaperon". I checked Amazon too. I think the conspiracy goes deeper than any of us realizes.
Macs don't get viruses, compared to antivirus software, except for certain vectors like this bios or rom stuff, and also new ones that pop up from time to time. and when they do get viruses, they are usually patched pretty quickly.
That's what you call "consistent and clear"?
Macs don't get viruses. Well, they don't get viruses that antivirus software can detect, anyway (this is how I choose to define "virus", because it fits my narrative). Except for various other ways they can get infected. And sometimes there are new ways. But if they DO get infected, then they USUALLY get patched "pretty" quickly. Other than that, they don't get infected though.
OK, clear as mud.
so for the most part, mac users can be worry free about viruses and AV because apple has them covered and some things you just can't prevent? I think this is true not just for viruses but all malware.
Yeah, that's generally pretty true, which is why it's stupid to go around saying that any computer is immune to viruses or malware.
like java? what can apple do about it?
Sandbox it, detect when it tries to make system changes, and not allow it. People have no problems raking Microsoft over the coals for things like this, why should Apple get a free pass? For my part, I simply choose to not install Java in the first place, it's an infection vector that I don't need.
You've decided to stop responding to direct questions, I see. I'll just leave some of your quotes from this thread here:
Mac OS's don't get viruses.
macs are immune to malware
Nobody said that macs are immune to viruses
Also, for what it's worth, I'm not a lawyer, I just can't stand unapologetic knob-slobbering fanboy shills.
You're saying that a fragment from flight MH370 is from the missing flight MH370? That's amazing.
I wonder if anyone bothered to check at Skybox Packaging, right next door to the prison.
You wrote a long post about Obama that makes it seem like he is an outlier when it comes to failure to uphold campaign promises.
It wasn't my intention to make him seem like an outlier, I just believed he wasn't going to be the same as everyone else. In other words, I thought he would be an outlier in that he would actually do many of the things he promised which I felt were important. I was wrong.
You do know that every single president in history has made a ton of promises while campaigning that were later dropped or not accomplished once elected, right?
Yes.
Because this is a brand-new Class of malware.
What is, Thunderstrike 2 or what I was referring to, Flashback? Because Flashback looks like a trojan installed via a Java flaw.
Moreover, don't you think it's a fairly serious flaw if Macs cannot detect a trojan being installed? Why exactly are Macs incapable of detecting when Flashback gets installed?