It happens even when our computers are turned off. I recently reinstalled Windows which had no effect. We both run BitDefender and malwarebytes software. I've got the firewalls rules in the router turned up to only allow certain ports. What else can I check to see if it's us as opposed to outside traffic?
I posted one of the logs in another post, my router doesn't provide proper packet logging, or I can't find it. My setup:
Windows 7 Ultimate and Home Premium
Vonage VOIP modem
DirecTV network hookup
NetGear D6200 DSL modem/router
NetGear WN2000RPTv2 wifi extender
We game on Steam but we've tried being logged off and getting a new IP address and still the "attacks" come. We're running bitdefender and malwarebytes. We've got PnP turned off and the firewall configured to allow only what we need for gaming and browsing etc.
I have a speed test site provided by my ISP, which usually runs fine, but when the "attacks" are in full swing my download speed drops to 1 or 2 mbps (should be around 16) and I can't browse the web or watch anything on Netflix. I'm not saying I'm absolutely certain that my Netgear router isn't over-reporting, but there is something going on. And now, rather than being only when we're gaming online and getting threatened by folks, it's constant. I can't figure out what we're being tracked by though. What is there besides MAC address and IP address to latch on to? Something maybe that windows does that we've been "signed up" for? I just don't know. I'm a software geek, not a network guru sadly.
As a software developer and a woman, I can say I hope more women find their way into the field. I have worked with a number of other women and find them to be on average just a capable as the men. As far as "rock stars" go, I have yet to meet one at all. I've met a few who thought they were, but mostly they were just egotistical and unwilling to work in a group and follow the rules. I think you'll find fewer women in that category because as a mindset, we're probably less likely to do vigilante coding and hope that someone sees it as awesome.
I understand there are some truly great programmers out there, people who come up with clever solutions to difficult problems. But the lone wolf guy who feels the rest of the team is just holding him back - he may look like a rock star, but he's really just a jerk.
I think you might possibly have a point that he heard some stat somewhere and thought he was regurgitating it and just misspoke except he followed it up with the whole "the female body has ways of shutting that down" shenanigans. That really does make it seem like he was never going for just the rarity of the event but rather that a woman claiming she was pregnant by rape was probably lying about it. In any case, thankfully he wasn't elected and his willingness to lie to himself to justify his beliefs can't infect whatever bit of government he was running for.
I've actually heard that there is a bit of a statistical edge in favor of pregnancy by rape, because birth control is rather not a priority of most rapists. Perhaps he'd use a condom to reduce evidence of a crime, but most likely not - as it's really about power anyway. But a woman is hardly likely to be sure she's on birth control just in case some inhuman asshole decides to make her a victim. By raw numbers, yes, there are fewer pregnancies by rape, but by percentages of consensual vs. forcible sex, I'm not sure you are correct about the statistics.
Anyway, we both know that wasn't what Mr. Akin meant. And if by some chance it happens that some women out there do manage to get damaged ovaries while driving, it would be a lucky fluke and not evidence that this cleric knows anything about gynecology.
I'm pretty sure that very few of the people who were shocked and outraged at his comment were worried about his choice of words. Everyone I know understood what he meant. The basic problem is the exact same one this Saudi cleric has - people who make up "facts" to support their beliefs. Both of those men believe completely that they need no real scientific reason for keeping women as second class citizens. In the face of a world which doesn't agree with them, they try to come up with "reasons" why their sexism isn't sexism. When you make up shit to support your outdated and unpopular beliefs, it shows, and people make fun of it. And, also, if the rest of us are lucky, they don't get elected to office where their stupid ideas might actually hurt someone.
Given the number of Christians who claim the bible is 100% literal truth, I'm not sure I agree with you. I know people who otherwise seem very intelligent and capable of critical thought, but still believe that everything in the bible is word for word accurate and precise.
Once you've gotten past that, and you're reading it as a collection of stories and letters written by people then I fail to see how it is any more authoritative than all the religious writings that came before (and after) it. Now I really don't care if someone gets comfort from what's in the bible and it makes them lead a better life. But in America these days, a bunch of "Christians" seem dead set on enforcing their beliefs on everyone. Pointing to the bible and saying "this is why we need to prevent marriage equality" really falls flat when the bible is nothing more than a book describing an old culture's morality - however advanced it may have been at the time.
One of my personal problems with it, since you claim not to understand, is that the Bible is alternately the "word of god" or simply a collection or morality tales meant for guidance but not literally true.
If it is truly the word of god, then the internal inconsistencies plus the various immoral acts it seems to glorify are hard to swallow. Am I really meant to believe that as a woman I am unclean? That slavery is OK as long as you don't beat them too often? There is too much there that feels fundamentally flawed to me and very much indicative of the time it was written, rather than of an all powerful loving god.
Which brings me to it being a collection of morality tales. Once you allow yourself to evaluate the various parts and determine which are still relevant to guiding behavior today, then you are tacitly admitting there is an external (to the bible) criteria that can be applied. Morality doesn't really come from the bible but from people and society determining what parts of it are still "good" for us to follow. It's not that it's arbitrary, or that there are no historical or contextual reasons, in fact it's exactly that it IS those things. That morality has nothing to do with the bible except in frantically searching for those tales in it which still pass the test of modern thinking.
If you are using rational thought and current societal mores to evaluate your sacred text then it seems easy enough to stop seeing the text as sacred and read it as an interesting account of stone age tribal morality. The rest of the rituals and superstitions of Christianity are just layered on to cement the tribe together and are not any more "true" than any other religious rituals.
Evolution has had >100 years to percolate through the understanding of anyone who can be bothered to try.
Climate change is relatively new and has a powerful industry that stands to suffer a great deal if it becomes generally accepted that their products are part of the problem. I tend to trust the people who've devoted time to becoming experts on the idea over anyone who hasn't.
Did you really say that? Of course an embryo is alive. The cells may not have differentiated enough to have consciousness yet, but they are alive. The viable living cells that will lead to a pregnancy once thawed and implanted are indeed an example of successfully reviving living tissue and having it thrive.
The big distinction here is that the cells are fast frozen while still alive. If they experienced cell death (by whatever scientific definition applies) and are then frozen, chances are you'd just end up with thawed dead cells.
Or, it was a (partially) successful attempt to deflect the rash of comments about how their research on the previous ice age must invalidate lots of other research on current climate change.
Better my trotting out a headcount of experts than others' trotting out gut feelings. I have a degree in chemistry, I understand the scientific method. I work in programming, I understand logic. Both of those concepts help me to understand that hundreds of scientists from around the world are not making this shit up. Perhaps new data will come to light and prove some or all of the current theories wrong, but it won't come from/. posters making snide remarks.
And it won't come because some people have decided that science is great when it provides computers, internet and porn on DVD but is somehow stacked full of blithering idiots when it comes to climate change.
So, you dismiss some current science but want to make cute quips about how other current science backs you up?
If you have an actual point to make about how hundreds of climate scientists are wrong, please cite your data. Otherwise you are just insinuating that hundreds of educated people are missing something that you see... as opposed to hundreds of educated scientists knowing something about how and why these occurrences are different and can have different causes.
Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that viewing someone's pages is using their bandwidth. It was the denial that I was commenting on, not the validity of third party cookies and all.
Part of the problem is that we already do pay for the poor health choices of people who can't afford to pay for it themselves. However we pay for it on an emergency basis after they've let those problems get too bad to solve easily. And, however much it might appeal to your sense of justice to have people "personally accountable," I personally wouldn't want to wade through a bunch of dying folks on my way to the grocery store because they can't pay and haven't died yet.
We don't just allow these people to die in the streets. We pay for them anyway. But we also force people who can barely afford it to wreck their lives paying too. The current system benefits no one.
5) This is an improvement over the decisions about life or death being about share prices and executive bonuses. I don't want it to even remotely cross the mind of anyone with a say in my health care that they might possibly make more money if they leave me sick.
6) Having someone in the family get a very nasty, expensive disease no longer ends in bankruptcy. Which means the rest of us continue to pay for it, but the afflicted family isn't ruined. As we live longer and eat more crap, this begins to affect almost everyone.
7) We quit talking about health care as though it should be less important than police or roads or a standing army - things we already care enough about to devote tax dollars to.
The eyes are only the outside part of the phenomenon we experience as sight. The rest of it happens in the brain, and the information that comes in from the eyes is actually quite drastically impacted by the brain and the person's expectations. In such an extreme state as near death, it doesn't take much to imagine all sorts of things going haywire in the brain. What would normally be memory or imagination could be interpreted as real. I'm not saying I know the answers, but I think we're far from saying that a natural explanation is impossible.
Actually you're using both your bandwidth and theirs. Many hosts meter served pages and tie their billing in some fashion to the amount of data going out.
I think advertisers made themselves even more hated than in other forms of media and they'll get zero sympathy from users over browser defaults. But don't delude yourself that you're not depriving someone of revenue while consuming resources they've got to pay for.
He did say, "If you're REALLY dead set on not even having it at all..." which would imply not simply turning it off, but it not being there. I think the statement is probably pretty accurate. If you don't mind turning it off, almost anything would work, if you want it not present... well, that's much harder.
Are you truly suggesting the cooperating leads to mediocrity? A good team acting in true cooperation can accomplish quite a bit more than a lone person in many cases. Just being forced to defend your stance against suggestions from others will help you to refine and solidify the best parts while discarding the worst. CEOs might take home the big money, but they don't work in a vacuum and they could not succeed as they do if everyone else walked away and left them to their own devices.
I would have said it revolves around competition. And yet, even in competition, cooperating with one or more of your competitors at least in an on-again-off-again basis certainly can lead to gains for all. Certainly the sociopaths who run companies and economies into the ground for their own benefit do well. But there's no room for each and every member of society to act that way. It only works for the select few because everyone else is playing by less psychotic rules.
Slashdot Mirror
It happens even when our computers are turned off. I recently reinstalled Windows which had no effect. We both run BitDefender and malwarebytes software. I've got the firewalls rules in the router turned up to only allow certain ports. What else can I check to see if it's us as opposed to outside traffic?
I posted one of the logs in another post, my router doesn't provide proper packet logging, or I can't find it. My setup:
Windows 7 Ultimate and Home Premium
Vonage VOIP modem
DirecTV network hookup
NetGear D6200 DSL modem/router
NetGear WN2000RPTv2 wifi extender
We game on Steam but we've tried being logged off and getting a new IP address and still the "attacks" come. We're running bitdefender and malwarebytes. We've got PnP turned off and the firewall configured to allow only what we need for gaming and browsing etc.
I have a speed test site provided by my ISP, which usually runs fine, but when the "attacks" are in full swing my download speed drops to 1 or 2 mbps (should be around 16) and I can't browse the web or watch anything on Netflix. I'm not saying I'm absolutely certain that my Netgear router isn't over-reporting, but there is something going on. And now, rather than being only when we're gaming online and getting threatened by folks, it's constant. I can't figure out what we're being tracked by though. What is there besides MAC address and IP address to latch on to? Something maybe that windows does that we've been "signed up" for? I just don't know. I'm a software geek, not a network guru sadly.
I have endless lists like this in the logs: [DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 216.39.55.12:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 12:08:28
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 2.39.202.191:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 12:06:04
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.208.162.210:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 12:05:13
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.246.147.204:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 12:04:52
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.249.0.5:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 12:04:31
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:46:15
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:43:49
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.246.143.169:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:38:43
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.249.10.88:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:38:14
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.246.143.169:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:37:54
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 95.64.37.10:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:31:17
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.236.215.239:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:03:12
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.246.147.204:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:01:33
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.236.215.239:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:01:12
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.246.145.162:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:00:25
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.244.30.140:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 11:00:01
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 176.221.80.2:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 10:59:05
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 10:45:17
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 95.64.37.10:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 10:25:43
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 173.208.222.206:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 08:43:58
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 08:21:40
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 95.64.37.10:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 07:47:41
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 07:37:42
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 173.208.222.206:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 07:13:09
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 46.4.126.76:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 06:14:39
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 173.208.222.206:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 06:13:26
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 04:18:08
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 58.64.205.166:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 03:23:24
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 02:18:01
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.236.215.239:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:56:16
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.161.59.31:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:55:55
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.249.10.88:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:55:33
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.227.236.10:443 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:55:05
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:46:54
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 173.208.222.206:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:45:59
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.208.162.210:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:45:26
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.249.0.5:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:45:05
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.161.59.32:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:30:23
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 46.51.207.184:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:30:02
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 81.22.107.179:56 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:24:44
[DoS attack: ACK Scan] from source: 54.244.30.147:80 Saturday, October 12,2013 01:22:53
As a software developer and a woman, I can say I hope more women find their way into the field. I have worked with a number of other women and find them to be on average just a capable as the men. As far as "rock stars" go, I have yet to meet one at all. I've met a few who thought they were, but mostly they were just egotistical and unwilling to work in a group and follow the rules. I think you'll find fewer women in that category because as a mindset, we're probably less likely to do vigilante coding and hope that someone sees it as awesome.
I understand there are some truly great programmers out there, people who come up with clever solutions to difficult problems. But the lone wolf guy who feels the rest of the team is just holding him back - he may look like a rock star, but he's really just a jerk.
I think you might possibly have a point that he heard some stat somewhere and thought he was regurgitating it and just misspoke except he followed it up with the whole "the female body has ways of shutting that down" shenanigans. That really does make it seem like he was never going for just the rarity of the event but rather that a woman claiming she was pregnant by rape was probably lying about it. In any case, thankfully he wasn't elected and his willingness to lie to himself to justify his beliefs can't infect whatever bit of government he was running for.
I shouldn't have laughed, but I did :)
I've actually heard that there is a bit of a statistical edge in favor of pregnancy by rape, because birth control is rather not a priority of most rapists. Perhaps he'd use a condom to reduce evidence of a crime, but most likely not - as it's really about power anyway. But a woman is hardly likely to be sure she's on birth control just in case some inhuman asshole decides to make her a victim. By raw numbers, yes, there are fewer pregnancies by rape, but by percentages of consensual vs. forcible sex, I'm not sure you are correct about the statistics.
Anyway, we both know that wasn't what Mr. Akin meant. And if by some chance it happens that some women out there do manage to get damaged ovaries while driving, it would be a lucky fluke and not evidence that this cleric knows anything about gynecology.
I'm pretty sure that very few of the people who were shocked and outraged at his comment were worried about his choice of words. Everyone I know understood what he meant. The basic problem is the exact same one this Saudi cleric has - people who make up "facts" to support their beliefs. Both of those men believe completely that they need no real scientific reason for keeping women as second class citizens. In the face of a world which doesn't agree with them, they try to come up with "reasons" why their sexism isn't sexism. When you make up shit to support your outdated and unpopular beliefs, it shows, and people make fun of it. And, also, if the rest of us are lucky, they don't get elected to office where their stupid ideas might actually hurt someone.
Given the number of Christians who claim the bible is 100% literal truth, I'm not sure I agree with you. I know people who otherwise seem very intelligent and capable of critical thought, but still believe that everything in the bible is word for word accurate and precise.
Once you've gotten past that, and you're reading it as a collection of stories and letters written by people then I fail to see how it is any more authoritative than all the religious writings that came before (and after) it. Now I really don't care if someone gets comfort from what's in the bible and it makes them lead a better life. But in America these days, a bunch of "Christians" seem dead set on enforcing their beliefs on everyone. Pointing to the bible and saying "this is why we need to prevent marriage equality" really falls flat when the bible is nothing more than a book describing an old culture's morality - however advanced it may have been at the time.
One of my personal problems with it, since you claim not to understand, is that the Bible is alternately the "word of god" or simply a collection or morality tales meant for guidance but not literally true.
If it is truly the word of god, then the internal inconsistencies plus the various immoral acts it seems to glorify are hard to swallow. Am I really meant to believe that as a woman I am unclean? That slavery is OK as long as you don't beat them too often? There is too much there that feels fundamentally flawed to me and very much indicative of the time it was written, rather than of an all powerful loving god.
Which brings me to it being a collection of morality tales. Once you allow yourself to evaluate the various parts and determine which are still relevant to guiding behavior today, then you are tacitly admitting there is an external (to the bible) criteria that can be applied. Morality doesn't really come from the bible but from people and society determining what parts of it are still "good" for us to follow. It's not that it's arbitrary, or that there are no historical or contextual reasons, in fact it's exactly that it IS those things. That morality has nothing to do with the bible except in frantically searching for those tales in it which still pass the test of modern thinking.
If you are using rational thought and current societal mores to evaluate your sacred text then it seems easy enough to stop seeing the text as sacred and read it as an interesting account of stone age tribal morality. The rest of the rituals and superstitions of Christianity are just layered on to cement the tribe together and are not any more "true" than any other religious rituals.
Evolution has had >100 years to percolate through the understanding of anyone who can be bothered to try.
Climate change is relatively new and has a powerful industry that stands to suffer a great deal if it becomes generally accepted that their products are part of the problem. I tend to trust the people who've devoted time to becoming experts on the idea over anyone who hasn't.
Did you really say that? Of course an embryo is alive. The cells may not have differentiated enough to have consciousness yet, but they are alive. The viable living cells that will lead to a pregnancy once thawed and implanted are indeed an example of successfully reviving living tissue and having it thrive.
The big distinction here is that the cells are fast frozen while still alive. If they experienced cell death (by whatever scientific definition applies) and are then frozen, chances are you'd just end up with thawed dead cells.
Or, it was a (partially) successful attempt to deflect the rash of comments about how their research on the previous ice age must invalidate lots of other research on current climate change.
Better my trotting out a headcount of experts than others' trotting out gut feelings. I have a degree in chemistry, I understand the scientific method. I work in programming, I understand logic. Both of those concepts help me to understand that hundreds of scientists from around the world are not making this shit up. Perhaps new data will come to light and prove some or all of the current theories wrong, but it won't come from /. posters making snide remarks.
And it won't come because some people have decided that science is great when it provides computers, internet and porn on DVD but is somehow stacked full of blithering idiots when it comes to climate change.
So, you dismiss some current science but want to make cute quips about how other current science backs you up?
If you have an actual point to make about how hundreds of climate scientists are wrong, please cite your data. Otherwise you are just insinuating that hundreds of educated people are missing something that you see... as opposed to hundreds of educated scientists knowing something about how and why these occurrences are different and can have different causes.
Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that viewing someone's pages is using their bandwidth. It was the denial that I was commenting on, not the validity of third party cookies and all.
Part of the problem is that we already do pay for the poor health choices of people who can't afford to pay for it themselves. However we pay for it on an emergency basis after they've let those problems get too bad to solve easily. And, however much it might appeal to your sense of justice to have people "personally accountable," I personally wouldn't want to wade through a bunch of dying folks on my way to the grocery store because they can't pay and haven't died yet.
We don't just allow these people to die in the streets. We pay for them anyway. But we also force people who can barely afford it to wreck their lives paying too. The current system benefits no one.
5) This is an improvement over the decisions about life or death being about share prices and executive bonuses. I don't want it to even remotely cross the mind of anyone with a say in my health care that they might possibly make more money if they leave me sick.
6) Having someone in the family get a very nasty, expensive disease no longer ends in bankruptcy. Which means the rest of us continue to pay for it, but the afflicted family isn't ruined. As we live longer and eat more crap, this begins to affect almost everyone.
7) We quit talking about health care as though it should be less important than police or roads or a standing army - things we already care enough about to devote tax dollars to.
The eyes are only the outside part of the phenomenon we experience as sight. The rest of it happens in the brain, and the information that comes in from the eyes is actually quite drastically impacted by the brain and the person's expectations. In such an extreme state as near death, it doesn't take much to imagine all sorts of things going haywire in the brain. What would normally be memory or imagination could be interpreted as real. I'm not saying I know the answers, but I think we're far from saying that a natural explanation is impossible.
Actually you're using both your bandwidth and theirs. Many hosts meter served pages and tie their billing in some fashion to the amount of data going out.
I think advertisers made themselves even more hated than in other forms of media and they'll get zero sympathy from users over browser defaults. But don't delude yourself that you're not depriving someone of revenue while consuming resources they've got to pay for.
He did say, "If you're REALLY dead set on not even having it at all..." which would imply not simply turning it off, but it not being there. I think the statement is probably pretty accurate. If you don't mind turning it off, almost anything would work, if you want it not present... well, that's much harder.
They probably wouldn't fix a recall issue for free after 20 years. Probably. They might just because it'd give them some publicity.
Are you truly suggesting the cooperating leads to mediocrity? A good team acting in true cooperation can accomplish quite a bit more than a lone person in many cases. Just being forced to defend your stance against suggestions from others will help you to refine and solidify the best parts while discarding the worst. CEOs might take home the big money, but they don't work in a vacuum and they could not succeed as they do if everyone else walked away and left them to their own devices.
I would have said it revolves around competition. And yet, even in competition, cooperating with one or more of your competitors at least in an on-again-off-again basis certainly can lead to gains for all. Certainly the sociopaths who run companies and economies into the ground for their own benefit do well. But there's no room for each and every member of society to act that way. It only works for the select few because everyone else is playing by less psychotic rules.