Re:Well, well: CLONE FINALLY REPLIES 2 days later?
on
4chan Has Been DDOSed
·
· Score: 1
1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family
The IETab Firefox addon allows viewing pages that only work in Internet Explorer, WITH adblock functionality, so your claim was false to begin with. But I only use one browser family anyway.
2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc.
You’re repeating yourself. That was the same as your first point, which I already disproved and discredited.
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
URLs open Firefox, and if your external e-mail reader is configured to load stuff from the web you’re “doing it wrong”. Point invalid.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will
On the rare occasion that this should be the case. Let me think... never. I’ve never suffered from this.
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs
But you’ll still get tracked when you run your APKBullShit(TM)HostsFileUpdaterAssUglyCruncher2011-ASCII-art-WHOOPDEFUCKINGDOO. ZOMG whatever will you do.
So you replied to my post (advocating people learning how to the use of AdBlock Plus) by agreeing with me (“It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock”) and you think this is some big victory for you? Calling me right?
Maybe you are the one guilty of “skimming” (and stalking, certainly, which I’ve told you to stop at least several times previously and you’re treading on legal thin ice and you know it).
I never said in that post that the HOSTS file isn’t “superior to AdBlock &/or DNS”.
Nor did I say in that post that anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
Your post was nothing more than an off-topic attempt to hijack the discussion and shrilly scream your personal theme music, which is about as worthwhile and entertaining as a vuvuzela.
But now I will say them:
AdBlock is vastly superior to hosts file blocking and anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
Didn't he also know about the cheating? And what did he lose?
He lost a test grade from pretty much the whole class (it makes a teacher look rather bad when the entire class fails, you understand), and he gained a bunch of students who were probably not going to try cheating again. It was a calculated trade.
If the court didn't [I assume you mean DID] order ripoffreports to take down the posts and they refused to do it... that would be simple, they would be in contempt of court
Note, I didn’t say the court ordered 3rd party webhost to take down the posts: the court ordered the individual to take down the posts. Therefore the webhost is not in any way in contempt of court until said individual takes them to court over the matter; then 3rd party webhost might be ordered to either take it down, post a redaction, or make some other conciliatory action. But until the individual sues the webhost, they don’t legally really have to do anything.
I.e. individual has to go after webhost out-of-pocket to try to get the stuff taken down, which is somewhat necessary for they themselves to avoid being in contempt of court.
Language is confusing, I’ll grant you that. Several prefixes can mean multiple things, even contradictory things (for instance, in- may mean “not”, as in “indiscreet”, or it may mean “extremely”, as in “inflammable” – two entirely opposite meanings).
The prefix a- generally means “not” or “without”, but it can also mean “against” in a sense. And to fully confuse the issue, it can also mean to indicate that something is in the particular state indicated (i.e. aglow), or even the stronger concept that it is completely/fully so (i.e. abashed).
The word “atheist” means “not a theist” but in the sense that it is opposed to theism.
The word “agnostic” is formed from the same prefix (a-) with the word derived from the Greek “gnosis”, i.e. knowledge/enlightenment. And in the same sense that atheist meant “against theism”, agnostic means “against knowledge”: the belief that nobody has adequate knowledge or enlightenment to determine conclusively either one way or the other whether God exists.
I’d be willing to settle for having the original content updated in such a way to guarantee that anyone finding the defamatory content would also see the updated note stating that the content was deemed false and defamatory. Apparently the courts agreed, and apparently ripoffreports had done this, so it’s more or less remedied. In this case.
But my question still stands as posed, in general.
Actually, my $20 bill would still be worth the same thing: "20 US dollars". Sure, the arbitrary value of the unit the bill is based upon has depreciated significantly
“Value” isn’t something that can be expressed in a fixed number of US dollars. The value of the US dollar changes.
However, in true Socratic method, how am I to define the limits of my own beliefs unless I am willing to entertain what seems like the most absurd comedy?
You may, but your extension of the notion wasn’t any less silly as the original notion.
Can you find any case law on incidental or unintended damage to marital property?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1312928.html: “The specter of prosecution for the destruction of marital property through unintentional acts such as house cleaning, we believe, does not provide a sufficient justification for excusing intentional destruction of property. Prosecution for an accidental act of property destruction should be no more likely than an assault prosecution arising out of an accidental physical injury to one’s spouse. Both types of criminal act require intent, and we rely on the good judgment of prosecutors and fact finders at trial to sort out the intentional cases from the unintentional ones.”
Tautologically, property is already property... you just disagree with the current definition of "property".
That’s fairly obvious, yes. And, at least in my opinion (or I wouldn’t have it), my definition of property is more valid than the one expressed in the law, so unless my opinion puts me at odds with the law (which would leave me at a decision whether to violate the law and possibly suffer consequences, or temporarily suspend my opinion to avoid that), I’ll continue to hold it.
But I'm curious... what then do you intend that [intellectual property] should be defined as?
A secret is a secret, and what isn’t is not; the entire business model based on selling the same information repeatedly to multiple people is thus fundamentally flawed. The claim that “I’ll tell you because you paid me, but I own this information and you can’t tell anyone else” is patently ridiculous. If you don’t trust them to keep it a secret, you don’t tell them.
Agnosticism is a bit more rounded out than you make it appear to be. It’s more than just fence-sitting, it’s the position that since nobody has proven that God exists or doesn’t exist, that fact alone is sufficient to prove that if he does exist, he’s irrelevant (if he were relevant, one ought to be able to prove he does exist) and if he doesn’t exist of course he’s irrelevant anyway.
So if you took the agnostic approach to Sagan’s Dragon, or anything else, unless it can be proven to exist it shouldn’t make any difference to you. Or, to borrow an analogy I saw someone use (can’t remember who) if you claim that invisible pink elephants live in your garage, that claim is adequate to prove that invisible pink elephants actually live in your garage: as long as those invisible pink elephants stay invisible and don’t affect anything in any real sense. If you define them in such a way that they’re completely irrelevant, it really doesn’t matter anymore whether you believe in them or not.
In other words, atheists believe God doesn’t exist, while agnostics simply believe God isn’t relevant (regardless of him existing or not). Functionally, they both act like God more or less doesn’t exist; the primary difference tends to be that atheists tend to be more evangelical about it, whereas agnostics tend to really not care what someone else believes as long as they’re not pushing it on people.
Lookup thin blue line and perhaps that will be clearer.
I know what thin blue line means, but I’ve not seen the sticker you’re referring to so I don’t know whether the sticker is advocating or opposing the concept.
2nd of all - was she trespassing? Where does it say that?
WTOP: “it was 8:40 a.m. when she was walking her son to school along a path between houses.” The Week: “a woman cutting through his yard with her son saw Williamson drinking coffee, naked, in his kitchen” MyFoxDC, after his acquittal: “One of those women was taking a shortcut with her daughter through Williamson's yard”
What’s more, that report by MyFoxDC tells that in the trial, the information came to light that though the woman and police claimed she was ~25 feet from the door when she saw him, defense claims to have proven that she was more than 3 times that distance, 83 feet from the door.
Additionally, “By the time the jury found him not guilty, six months had passed and Williamson had been laid off, lost visitation rights with his young daughter and racked up $15,000 in legal bills.” One would hope that they made right, but that’s an awful lot of grief over drummed-up charges.
And perhaps most worrisome: “police testified that a broken window pane in Williamson's door gave them cause to enter. Williamson and his attorney say nothing was broken.” – as is all-too-typical, police fabricated cause to perform an illegal search without warrant. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from this sort of behavior: They’re never punished for it if the jury decides the search was illegal, but if they can convince the jury to allow the evidence, they benefit.
Jeez, you’re awfully rude. Okay, I missed that. What should I write on the chalkboard?
I will not reply without carefully reading parent post. I will not reply without carefully reading parent post. I will not reply without carefully reading parent post. I will not reply without carefully reading parent post....
An atheist is a person who is not a theist. Therefore, an atheist does not believe in the existence of god. An atheist doesn't have to believe in the non-existence of god.
The fact of the matter was that she was apparently trespassing.
Oh and no it doesn't surprise me that somehow a police officer's wife is somehow more credible.
It’s not about her credibility. It’s about the credibility of the department when the public gets outraged over something stupid like this. Suddenly they’re rushing to cover their asses. If it were just a nobody, they’d have admitted it was stupid and the matter would have been dropped. But since it was a cop’s wife, they had to justify it.
Plus her story starts changing to make it sound more reasonable, which isn’t good for her credibility either... but that’s unrelated to her being a cop’s wife.
Originally it was reported that the incident took place on Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 at FIVE THIRTY in the morning, and the guy appeared first through the window in the front door and then in a front window, and the woman was cutting through his front yard (i.e. trespassing).
In updates to the story, apparently the woman had changed her story... now it apparently happened at EIGHT THIRTY, she WASN’T trespassing in his yard, and he was standing OUTSIDE in his carport.
With respects to the time it occurred: He claimed it was dark. Sunrise for Arlington, VA (~6 mi. from Springfield, where this occurred) was at 7:22 AM on 10/19/2009. If he’s telling the truth about it being dark, there is no way it could have possibly happened at 8:30 in the morning.
From the updated news report by Fox 5 News, a police spokesperson said: “Because this was being spun into a national story, and the idea you can't be naked in your own house – we wanted to come forward and say in this case our officers believed there was probable cause the law had been violated”. I wonder why? Could it possibly have been because the woman who reported the incident turned out to be “a respected member of the community, and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer”?
Eric Williamson was making coffee in his kitchen Monday morning and didn’t thing anything of the fact that he was nude since he was alone in the house... But a woman and her 7-year-old son happened to be strolling through his front yard and saw the 29-year-old having breakfast in the buff through his window
I know. It’s rather fun, actually. He apparently really has nothing better to do than release/renew his IP address and hit F5 on my user page to reply to all my comments.
That would be when I spoke up in a 4-day-old thread, and APK assumed I was the same Anonymous Coward he’d been arguing with for 4 days, which I wasn’t. I just couldn’t resist stepping into the fray.
With classic screen-editor BASIC, you can just type in PRINT "1+1=";1+1 and immediately see the results. Once you've entered in a program, you can interactively do things like A=3:GOSUB1000 and try out a sub-portion of their code.
Agreed. Back when I was learning BASIC, I probably did a test-run for every two lines of code (maybe every single line). It probably sucked for my productivity, but I wasn’t programming for productivity’s sake back then.
I was the opposite. Learned BASIC quite well, picked up C, got disgusted with the shenanigans one had to put up with to handle strings, and gave up. Plus it had no built-in support for colours, sounds, graphics, and cursor control, which I had by that time already been using quite frequently in my BASIC programs. C was like going back to a teletype terminal. Stuff goes in, stuff comes out.
Slashdot Mirror
1.) Adblock blocks ads in only 1 browser family
The IETab Firefox addon allows viewing pages that only work in Internet Explorer, WITH adblock functionality, so your claim was false to begin with. But I only use one browser family anyway.
2.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc.
You’re repeating yourself. That was the same as your first point, which I already disproved and discredited.
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
URLs open Firefox, and if your external e-mail reader is configured to load stuff from the web you’re “doing it wrong”. Point invalid.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will
On the rare occasion that this should be the case. Let me think... never. I’ve never suffered from this.
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs
But you’ll still get tracked when you run your APKBullShit(TM)HostsFileUpdaterAssUglyCruncher2011-ASCII-art-WHOOPDEFUCKINGDOO. ZOMG whatever will you do.
I’m bored, I’m stopping now. Bye APK.
QED. Thanks, AC. Come back soon.
So you replied to my post (advocating people learning how to the use of AdBlock Plus) by agreeing with me (“It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock”) and you think this is some big victory for you? Calling me right?
Maybe you are the one guilty of “skimming” (and stalking, certainly, which I’ve told you to stop at least several times previously and you’re treading on legal thin ice and you know it).
I never said in that post that the HOSTS file isn’t “superior to AdBlock &/or DNS”.
Nor did I say in that post that anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
Your post was nothing more than an off-topic attempt to hijack the discussion and shrilly scream your personal theme music, which is about as worthwhile and entertaining as a vuvuzela.
But now I will say them:
AdBlock is vastly superior to hosts file blocking and anyone using HOSTS files to block ads is a bleeding moron.
This only covers email spam.
Refer to AC replies to my post for proof of this.
Didn't he also know about the cheating? And what did he lose?
He lost a test grade from pretty much the whole class (it makes a teacher look rather bad when the entire class fails, you understand), and he gained a bunch of students who were probably not going to try cheating again. It was a calculated trade.
If the court didn't [I assume you mean DID] order ripoffreports to take down the posts and they refused to do it... that would be simple, they would be in contempt of court
Note, I didn’t say the court ordered 3rd party webhost to take down the posts: the court ordered the individual to take down the posts. Therefore the webhost is not in any way in contempt of court until said individual takes them to court over the matter; then 3rd party webhost might be ordered to either take it down, post a redaction, or make some other conciliatory action. But until the individual sues the webhost, they don’t legally really have to do anything.
I.e. individual has to go after webhost out-of-pocket to try to get the stuff taken down, which is somewhat necessary for they themselves to avoid being in contempt of court.
Language is confusing, I’ll grant you that. Several prefixes can mean multiple things, even contradictory things (for instance, in- may mean “not”, as in “indiscreet”, or it may mean “extremely”, as in “inflammable” – two entirely opposite meanings).
The prefix a- generally means “not” or “without”, but it can also mean “against” in a sense. And to fully confuse the issue, it can also mean to indicate that something is in the particular state indicated (i.e. aglow), or even the stronger concept that it is completely/fully so (i.e. abashed).
The word “atheist” means “not a theist” but in the sense that it is opposed to theism.
The word “agnostic” is formed from the same prefix (a-) with the word derived from the Greek “gnosis”, i.e. knowledge/enlightenment. And in the same sense that atheist meant “against theism”, agnostic means “against knowledge”: the belief that nobody has adequate knowledge or enlightenment to determine conclusively either one way or the other whether God exists.
I’d be willing to settle for having the original content updated in such a way to guarantee that anyone finding the defamatory content would also see the updated note stating that the content was deemed false and defamatory. Apparently the courts agreed, and apparently ripoffreports had done this, so it’s more or less remedied. In this case.
But my question still stands as posed, in general.
Actually, my $20 bill would still be worth the same thing: "20 US dollars". Sure, the arbitrary value of the unit the bill is based upon has depreciated significantly
“Value” isn’t something that can be expressed in a fixed number of US dollars. The value of the US dollar changes.
However, in true Socratic method, how am I to define the limits of my own beliefs unless I am willing to entertain what seems like the most absurd comedy?
You may, but your extension of the notion wasn’t any less silly as the original notion.
Can you find any case law on incidental or unintended damage to marital property?
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1312928.html:
“The specter of prosecution for the destruction of marital property through unintentional acts such as house cleaning, we believe, does not provide a sufficient justification for excusing intentional destruction of property. Prosecution for an accidental act of property destruction should be no more likely than an assault prosecution arising out of an accidental physical injury to one’s spouse. Both types of criminal act require intent, and we rely on the good judgment of prosecutors and fact finders at trial to sort out the intentional cases from the unintentional ones.”
Tautologically, property is already property... you just disagree with the current definition of "property".
That’s fairly obvious, yes. And, at least in my opinion (or I wouldn’t have it), my definition of property is more valid than the one expressed in the law, so unless my opinion puts me at odds with the law (which would leave me at a decision whether to violate the law and possibly suffer consequences, or temporarily suspend my opinion to avoid that), I’ll continue to hold it.
But I'm curious... what then do you intend that [intellectual property] should be defined as?
A secret is a secret, and what isn’t is not; the entire business model based on selling the same information repeatedly to multiple people is thus fundamentally flawed. The claim that “I’ll tell you because you paid me, but I own this information and you can’t tell anyone else” is patently ridiculous. If you don’t trust them to keep it a secret, you don’t tell them.
Agnosticism is a bit more rounded out than you make it appear to be. It’s more than just fence-sitting, it’s the position that since nobody has proven that God exists or doesn’t exist, that fact alone is sufficient to prove that if he does exist, he’s irrelevant (if he were relevant, one ought to be able to prove he does exist) and if he doesn’t exist of course he’s irrelevant anyway.
So if you took the agnostic approach to Sagan’s Dragon, or anything else, unless it can be proven to exist it shouldn’t make any difference to you. Or, to borrow an analogy I saw someone use (can’t remember who) if you claim that invisible pink elephants live in your garage, that claim is adequate to prove that invisible pink elephants actually live in your garage: as long as those invisible pink elephants stay invisible and don’t affect anything in any real sense. If you define them in such a way that they’re completely irrelevant, it really doesn’t matter anymore whether you believe in them or not.
In other words, atheists believe God doesn’t exist, while agnostics simply believe God isn’t relevant (regardless of him existing or not). Functionally, they both act like God more or less doesn’t exist; the primary difference tends to be that atheists tend to be more evangelical about it, whereas agnostics tend to really not care what someone else believes as long as they’re not pushing it on people.
Lookup thin blue line and perhaps that will be clearer.
I know what thin blue line means, but I’ve not seen the sticker you’re referring to so I don’t know whether the sticker is advocating or opposing the concept.
2nd of all - was she trespassing? Where does it say that?
WTOP: “it was 8:40 a.m. when she was walking her son to school along a path between houses.”
The Week: “a woman cutting through his yard with her son saw Williamson drinking coffee, naked, in his kitchen”
MyFoxDC, after his acquittal: “One of those women was taking a shortcut with her daughter through Williamson's yard”
What’s more, that report by MyFoxDC tells that in the trial, the information came to light that though the woman and police claimed she was ~25 feet from the door when she saw him, defense claims to have proven that she was more than 3 times that distance, 83 feet from the door.
Additionally, “By the time the jury found him not guilty, six months had passed and Williamson had been laid off, lost visitation rights with his young daughter and racked up $15,000 in legal bills.” One would hope that they made right, but that’s an awful lot of grief over drummed-up charges.
And perhaps most worrisome: “police testified that a broken window pane in Williamson's door gave them cause to enter. Williamson and his attorney say nothing was broken.” – as is all-too-typical, police fabricated cause to perform an illegal search without warrant. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from this sort of behavior: They’re never punished for it if the jury decides the search was illegal, but if they can convince the jury to allow the evidence, they benefit.
Jeez, you’re awfully rude. Okay, I missed that. What should I write on the chalkboard?
I will not reply without carefully reading parent post. ...
I will not reply without carefully reading parent post.
I will not reply without carefully reading parent post.
I will not reply without carefully reading parent post.
An atheist is a person who is not a theist. Therefore, an atheist does not believe in the existence of god. An atheist doesn't have to believe in the non-existence of god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Nice definitions, but they aren't accurate. Check MW.
Those were quoted directly from MW.
The fact of the matter was that she was apparently trespassing.
Oh and no it doesn't surprise me that somehow a police officer's wife is somehow more credible.
It’s not about her credibility. It’s about the credibility of the department when the public gets outraged over something stupid like this. Suddenly they’re rushing to cover their asses. If it were just a nobody, they’d have admitted it was stupid and the matter would have been dropped. But since it was a cop’s wife, they had to justify it.
Plus her story starts changing to make it sound more reasonable, which isn’t good for her credibility either... but that’s unrelated to her being a cop’s wife.
And when the defamers are convicted and ordered to take down the defamatory posts, which 3rd party webhost refuses to do?
A few more details:
Originally it was reported that the incident took place on Monday, Oct. 19, 2009 at FIVE THIRTY in the morning, and the guy appeared first through the window in the front door and then in a front window, and the woman was cutting through his front yard (i.e. trespassing).
In updates to the story, apparently the woman had changed her story... now it apparently happened at EIGHT THIRTY, she WASN’T trespassing in his yard, and he was standing OUTSIDE in his carport.
With respects to the time it occurred: He claimed it was dark. Sunrise for Arlington, VA (~6 mi. from Springfield, where this occurred) was at 7:22 AM on 10/19/2009. If he’s telling the truth about it being dark, there is no way it could have possibly happened at 8:30 in the morning.
From the updated news report by Fox 5 News, a police spokesperson said: “Because this was being spun into a national story, and the idea you can't be naked in your own house – we wanted to come forward and say in this case our officers believed there was probable cause the law had been violated”. I wonder why? Could it possibly have been because the woman who reported the incident turned out to be “a respected member of the community, and just happens to be the wife of a Fairfax County Police officer”?
Here you go.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2009/10/22/2009-10-22_virginia_man_arrested_for_indecent_exposure_for_being_naked_in_his_own_home.html
Eric Williamson was making coffee in his kitchen Monday morning and didn’t thing anything of the fact that he was nude since he was alone in the house ... But a woman and her 7-year-old son happened to be strolling through his front yard and saw the 29-year-old having breakfast in the buff through his window
I know. It’s rather fun, actually. He apparently really has nothing better to do than release/renew his IP address and hit F5 on my user page to reply to all my comments.
That would be when I spoke up in a 4-day-old thread, and APK assumed I was the same Anonymous Coward he’d been arguing with for 4 days, which I wasn’t. I just couldn’t resist stepping into the fray.
This explains the stalking bit:
P.S.=> You've made my bookmarks/favs again, in my "trolls" section once more!
(Typical APK.)
I don’t get the problem with GOTO either. Was he using GOTO-GOTO instead of GOSUB-RETURN? then he used CALL-JMP instead of CALL-RET or JMP-JMP?
However, he said he never spent the $30.
Actually, no. That is a backward apostrophe used as an opening single-quote mark in typefaces where the ' looks slanted.
E.g. http://ompldr.org/vNnJ2bQ/untitled.png (Apostrophe is the 8th char in; the ` is directly before the lowercase alphabet.)
With classic screen-editor BASIC, you can just type in PRINT "1+1=";1+1 and immediately see the results. Once you've entered in a program, you can interactively do things like A=3:GOSUB1000 and try out a sub-portion of their code.
Agreed. Back when I was learning BASIC, I probably did a test-run for every two lines of code (maybe every single line). It probably sucked for my productivity, but I wasn’t programming for productivity’s sake back then.
I was the opposite. Learned BASIC quite well, picked up C, got disgusted with the shenanigans one had to put up with to handle strings, and gave up. Plus it had no built-in support for colours, sounds, graphics, and cursor control, which I had by that time already been using quite frequently in my BASIC programs. C was like going back to a teletype terminal. Stuff goes in, stuff comes out.
I don’t think you actually tried that.