SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET, I MUST CORRRRRRRECC...
Point if this is the botnet side and the indicators of compromise.
The question I hear more often at $DAYJOB whenever one of these pops up is: "Are we affected?", which more often than not can be answered with some introspection (you know your patching practices), rather than looking at the current patch level. This applies to 90% of the companies.
Why do you care about the CVEs? Just fucking patch it. Unsure if that fixes it? Patch it again. HD leds are blinking in a funny way that makes you think you're affected? PATCH IT HARDER.
Absolutely. Because there's never an issue that can't be fixed by patching. No one ever has an insecure/incorrect configuration. Please send me your resume so I can file it with the other "never hire this moron" resumes. Thanks.
> may use infected Linux systems to launch DDoS attacks against the entertainment industry...
WHERE IS THE DOWNLOAD LINK?
It's behind a registration form so that the fine folks at Prolexic can get your PII for marketing purposes. One of the *many* benefits is that once you register, nice folks from Prolexic will send you emails and maybe even call you on the phone to let you know about all the wonderful products and services you can buy from them.
So many vendors just report this kind of stuff to CERT so it gets assigned a stupid CVE number and all the details are then available without the consumer of information giving up any PII that can be used to sell them stuff. Stupid vendors!
Prolexic is using a real vulnerability to enhance their contacts DB and increase the surface area of their sales efforts. Disgusting.
And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure?
The answer to your question is to have one "last-mile" company provide the wires, while other companies act as ISPs. So under that system, Comcast and Verizon can run a wire to my house, but they cannot provide service. Other companies such as AOL, Earthlink, and Netzero provide the service. About 20 years ago these two things were called "telephone companies" and "internet service providers" but a foolish regulatory framework allowed the telephone companies to either buyout the ISPs, or limit/deny their access to the wires until they went out of business. That created the problem we have today. But it is so entrenched that people can't even imagine such a world, even though we already had it. Nobody complained about network neutrality when they could switch ISPs with a 5-minute phone call and a credit card.
The last true ISP I know of was Cavtel, and they stopped accepting new customers in 2011. Does anyone know any others? It could still be done, albeit inefficiently, with a VPN. Not quite the same though.
Geez. I can understand why folks don't read TFA. I even get why some might not read TFS. But why have three of you replied to my post without actually reading it? You repeated, pretty much exactly what I wrote, along with (correct) references to the aftermath of the 1984 AT&T consent decree. Yes, I was there. Yes, I remember. Had you actually bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post you would have realized that. Sigh.
No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.
You are in essence though. You are claiming that natural change is nonexistent next to anthropogenic change. You (and others like you) deny constantly that natural processes account for one iota of change, or else you would mention it with any talk about climate change.
Hmm...Why are you ascribing things to me that I did not say? I make no such claim. Please show me, in any post, *ever*, where I have written anything even close to what you assert that I "claim." This is exactly the kind of stuff I was decrying. You don't know me, you have no idea what "those like me" assert or deny. You're trying (and rather poorly, I might add) to apply your own stereotypes and prejudices to me. That's not logical or helpful, even to you. Careful sonny, your biases are showing.
It is a legitimate concern. Mocking it doesn't allay the concern.
A legitimate concern? Man! I want some of what you've been smoking, buddy!
I'd be really interested to know how one can send and receive data across the Internet without sharing your IP address with each intervening router, as well as the endpoint. I've been doing IP networking (since you're obviously rather thick, I'll explain that IP is the Internet Protocol which is the basis for all communications across the Internet. You can find out more with the TCP/IP Tutorial and the Internet Protocol Specification) for a long time, possibly since before you were born (your comments indicate that it may have been yesterday) and your IP address is critical to routing your data to and from the network node you're using at any given time.
So please, do enlighten all of us who clearly don't have your intimate knowledge of IP networking as to how we can send and receive data without sharing our IP address. I'd be much obliged.
I pick **D** -- Any or all of the above, as deemed appropriate by a Public Utilities Commission and economists / engineers they supervise.
We do this. A LOT. Public Utility regulatory bodies have MORE THAN A CENTURY OF PRACTICE IN NEARLY EVERY STATE, in multiple similar infrastructure types. Stop pretending this is impossible. It's a shitty straw man invented by the same deregulatory wonks that got us into this mess in the first place.
I'm neither Socialist nor Libertarian. Both are false utopias with no shining example. I like REGULATED MARKETS. CUZ THAT SHIT JUST WORKS.
I hate to break it to you friend, but you're yelling at the wrong guy.
I have repeatedly suggested the third option (along with the same comment that this is how public works projects are successfully done). I gave our "herp derp Gub'mint bad" GP several choices as to how to introduce competition, not because I think they won't work (with the caveat that multiple last mile providers with duplicated infrastructure is a really dumb idea), but because GP obviously hadn't thought through his "All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition." trope. Or tripe. Actually, it's both.
So save your bile for someone else, please. Thanks, and have a lovely evening!
Even if all the ice in the world melted tomorrow we'd still have more than enough land mass for nature and humans to thrive on. Sure, many coastal cities would vanish under the waves, but that would force us to build in smarter places instead of wasting tons of resources on something that will eventually get swallowed.
You do realize that somewhere between 35% (2.45 billion) and 45% (3.15 billion) humans live within 100km (62 miles) of the oceans, right?
Even if only half of those end up having to move, the social, economic and military upheavals would be catastrophic.
This will likely happen, too -- but it's certainly not something to cheer for IMHO.
It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.
All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
-jcr
And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure? Good luck getting them all the rights-of-way and access to the poles, tunnels and other access-ways currently in use.
Do you use eminent domain to take the local monopoly's infrastructure and install a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the last-mile, while selling access to the infrastructure to independent ISPs who compete on price and features?
Do you build out (paid for with municipal bonds) a new high-speed last mile infrastructure, with a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the infrastructure, paid for by selling access to independent ISPs?
Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.
It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.
Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...
No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.
However, making the assumption that because there are non-anthropogenic processes that affect the global climate, anthropogenic processes do not exist, or are not relevant to the discussion, is like saying "well, since people die from old age, disease, lightning strikes, avalanches and landslides, that means that murder, auto accidents, arson deaths and the like do not exist."
Yes, that's a straw man. Yes, I'm exaggerating. However, that argument is at least as good in defending the idea that anthropogenic causes of death do not exist, as most arguments about climate change from anthropogenic climate change deniers.
It shows their intelligence. The SJWs are out in full force here today, modding down any comment that is critical of Feminism. Honestly, Feminism is already dead if it has to resort to censorship to survive.
Not sure what an SJW (straight jewish woman?) is, but I'm a middle-aged, atheist, male who considers himself to be a feminist (one who holds the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities) and I believe that rape/death threats (even if they can't be immediately verified as credible) can be quite frightening and intimidating. Those who make such threats are using the tactics of terror and should be roundly criticized and, if the threats are found to be credible, prosecuted. This holds whether or not the subject of those threats is a demagogue, a liar or someone just trying to get their point of view out there is irrelevant, IMHO.
No censorship coming from me. I firmly believe that the solution to offensive (to anyone) speech is more speech.
It is expected. It is not legal though. Those that perpetrated this crime should be caught and punished.
That said. She is a stupid fucking bitch that should, nevertheless feel safe from physical threats of violence as she makes her way through her pathetic, retarded life.
It's sad that this was modded "flamebait." It's exactly the kind of comment which, while some may find objectionable, isn't threatening or intended to provoke fear in its subject. As I said, some may find it objectionable or even disagree with the poster's assertions. Nonetheless, it's a perfectly reasonable (if obnoxious) use of the freedom of expression.
should she not be held to the same standard? She deletes comments that are nothing more than pointing out her inaccuracies and blatant lies about content of games and cries "TROLL TROLL TROLL, see men are evil!" Criticism is not an insult, unless its at her work right?
So that makes it okay to threaten her life and well-being? Did I miss something here?
Posting AC to keep mods--I get what you're saying. I'm not lumping you in with the trolls. I don't like what you're saying, but I understand. It is unreasonably to expect everyone on the internet to act civilized. Not every one is mature or has normal adult-level impulse control in spite of their age.
What you and GP are saying is accurate and relevant. Given that there is a small fraction of Internet denizens who are not stable, sane, rational and/or civilized, it's inevitable that some will speak and (potentially) act in socially unacceptable (threats of violence, in this case) ways.
Here's where I get off that particular bus: It is not unreasonable to expect that any specific individual on the Internet will act in a civilized manner. Those that do not should be roundly criticized and, if the behavior warrants it, prosecuted.
Having such expectations is critical, as it creates a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, IMHO. Will those expectations keep everyone from spewing bile? Of course not. But if we excuse such behavior with tropes like "Internet anonymity makes people act like idiots, what can you do?" we encourage such behaviors -- again, IMHO.
That *might* make them realize what the government and media trying to accomplish to maintain their power and influence:
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Are there mistakes made? Of course. Unfortunately the process is administered by human beings who are flawed vessels at best.
Which is exactly why we have that dusty old Constitution thingy, an artifact the Security State not just ignores but openly flouts.
There. FTFY.
You may think I'm being a grammar nazi here, but words actually have meanings and the word you used gave your statement the exact opposite meaning, judging from the context.
Flaunt (v): display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
Flout (v): openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).
So. You can take this as an attack on you or you can use this information to enhance your communication skills. Or both. Either way, carry on and have a nice day!
Except they didn't ignore those, else no one would know what you mean when you say "Bush LIED!"
And if lies are bad, what about Obama's serial lying about the ACA?
- If you like your doctor, you can keep him
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
He probably said those sound bites HUNDREDS if not thousands of times, and each time he did he KNEW he was lying.
BTW, got the stones to compare what Obama said about ISIS to what David Cameron said? Watch the two speeches and tell us all which one of those two looks and sounds like a deer caught in headlights.
Both of those situations were heavily covered by the press on both sides. The difference, IMHO, is a matter of degree.
The G. W. Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, justifying the invasion of Iraq, costing 4,486 U.S. service personnel and more than 100,000 iraqi lives. The hand-picked leader of Iraq further destabilized the region causing thousands, if not tens of thousands, more deaths.
The Obama administration claimed:
"If you like your doctor, you can keep him," and "If you like your plan, you can keep it." at the cost of zero lives and some confusion about the new ACA plans.
As I said, a matter of degree. I'll leave a decision about the relative impacts of each as an exercise for the reader.
Most arguments are really about the meaning of words, but the people involved don't realize this.
Very few are actually about the "state of the world". 8-}
A salient point. The biggest issue in that regard, is that in order to have a substantive discussion or debate, we need agreement as to the definition of important terms, such as "theory" vs. "scientific theory."
Evolution isn't a theory; it's an observation. That it is responsible for speciation is the theory. That's why Darwin's book is called "On the origin of the species," and not "Evolution."
Well, you're right about the *fact* of evolution, but the scientific theory of evolution goes beyond Darwin's initial formulation and concerns itself with more than just speciation.
Interestingly, global warming is also an observation. That humans are the driving force behind this is slightly debateable, in the same way that it's still slightly debateable whether your kid is actually your kid after the second DNA test confirmed it. (Congratulations, BTW!) Yes, your baby momma could have setup an elaborate trick, or aliens could be playing a huge practical joke on all of us. (With the climate, I mean, but obviously they could be responsible for the baby too.) But in the meantime, we should accept the available evidence as useful for decision-making purposes. And by that I mean a few people will form a cult, and the rest of us can carry on under the relatively safe bet (but not absolute certainty) that the Hale-Bopp comet is not hiding the mother ship.
Yes. In fact, that's exactly what I said, minus the moronic analogies. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET, I MUST CORRRRRRRECC... Point if this is the botnet side and the indicators of compromise.
The question I hear more often at $DAYJOB whenever one of these pops up is: "Are we affected?", which more often than not can be answered with some introspection (you know your patching practices), rather than looking at the current patch level. This applies to 90% of the companies.
Why do you care about the CVEs? Just fucking patch it. Unsure if that fixes it? Patch it again. HD leds are blinking in a funny way that makes you think you're affected? PATCH IT HARDER.
Absolutely. Because there's never an issue that can't be fixed by patching. No one ever has an insecure/incorrect configuration. Please send me your resume so I can file it with the other "never hire this moron" resumes. Thanks.
> may use infected Linux systems to launch DDoS attacks against the entertainment industry...
WHERE IS THE DOWNLOAD LINK?
It's behind a registration form so that the fine folks at Prolexic can get your PII for marketing purposes. One of the *many* benefits is that once you register, nice folks from Prolexic will send you emails and maybe even call you on the phone to let you know about all the wonderful products and services you can buy from them.
So many vendors just report this kind of stuff to CERT so it gets assigned a stupid CVE number and all the details are then available without the consumer of information giving up any PII that can be used to sell them stuff. Stupid vendors!
Prolexic is using a real vulnerability to enhance their contacts DB and increase the surface area of their sales efforts. Disgusting.
Sure, or even simpler: sudo rm -r / It has advantage of removing all viruses.
Actually, you really should use the 'f' parameter as well, or else the viruses might ask you if you really want to delete it. As in 'rm -rf /'
Oh, and you're welcome!
Why do these mega corporations keep storing credit card information insecurely? Are they required by law to be stupid?
No. But they are not required by law to be smart about security. Since they charge back everything to the retailers, they don't care.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just use a known attribute or method rather than trying to come up with yet another solution every few years?
That's the wonderful thing about standards. there are so many to choose from!
My biases are not "showing", I have declared them openly. Unlike you.
The fact that is all you have to say in response speaks volumes.
I'll ask you again. Why are you ascribing to me things I did not say?
And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure?
The answer to your question is to have one "last-mile" company provide the wires, while other companies act as ISPs. So under that system, Comcast and Verizon can run a wire to my house, but they cannot provide service. Other companies such as AOL, Earthlink, and Netzero provide the service. About 20 years ago these two things were called "telephone companies" and "internet service providers" but a foolish regulatory framework allowed the telephone companies to either buyout the ISPs, or limit/deny their access to the wires until they went out of business. That created the problem we have today. But it is so entrenched that people can't even imagine such a world, even though we already had it. Nobody complained about network neutrality when they could switch ISPs with a 5-minute phone call and a credit card.
The last true ISP I know of was Cavtel, and they stopped accepting new customers in 2011. Does anyone know any others? It could still be done, albeit inefficiently, with a VPN. Not quite the same though.
Geez. I can understand why folks don't read TFA. I even get why some might not read TFS. But why have three of you replied to my post without actually reading it? You repeated, pretty much exactly what I wrote, along with (correct) references to the aftermath of the 1984 AT&T consent decree. Yes, I was there. Yes, I remember. Had you actually bothered to read beyond the first sentence of my post you would have realized that. Sigh.
No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.
You are in essence though. You are claiming that natural change is nonexistent next to anthropogenic change. You (and others like you) deny constantly that natural processes account for one iota of change, or else you would mention it with any talk about climate change.
Hmm...Why are you ascribing things to me that I did not say? I make no such claim. Please show me, in any post, *ever*, where I have written anything even close to what you assert that I "claim." This is exactly the kind of stuff I was decrying. You don't know me, you have no idea what "those like me" assert or deny. You're trying (and rather poorly, I might add) to apply your own stereotypes and prejudices to me. That's not logical or helpful, even to you. Careful sonny, your biases are showing.
You're joking, right? Most lines were laid with government subsidies. Here's what you do:
You revoke the monopoly agreements to giving those pipes to the cable provider and allow any provider to provide access over it.
Ummm...That was the second option that I offered. Are we having issues with reading comprehension, or are you just ignorant of eminent domain, friend?
It is a legitimate concern. Mocking it doesn't allay the concern.
Oh, and I wouldn't dream of mocking your "point." I'll just mock you. You're certainly asking for it.
It is a legitimate concern. Mocking it doesn't allay the concern.
A legitimate concern? Man! I want some of what you've been smoking, buddy!
I'd be really interested to know how one can send and receive data across the Internet without sharing your IP address with each intervening router, as well as the endpoint. I've been doing IP networking (since you're obviously rather thick, I'll explain that IP is the Internet Protocol which is the basis for all communications across the Internet. You can find out more with the TCP/IP Tutorial and the Internet Protocol Specification) for a long time, possibly since before you were born (your comments indicate that it may have been yesterday) and your IP address is critical to routing your data to and from the network node you're using at any given time.
So please, do enlighten all of us who clearly don't have your intimate knowledge of IP networking as to how we can send and receive data without sharing our IP address. I'd be much obliged.
I pick **D** -- Any or all of the above, as deemed appropriate by a Public Utilities Commission and economists / engineers they supervise.
We do this. A LOT. Public Utility regulatory bodies have MORE THAN A CENTURY OF PRACTICE IN NEARLY EVERY STATE, in multiple similar infrastructure types. Stop pretending this is impossible. It's a shitty straw man invented by the same deregulatory wonks that got us into this mess in the first place.
I'm neither Socialist nor Libertarian. Both are false utopias with no shining example. I like REGULATED MARKETS. CUZ THAT SHIT JUST WORKS.
I hate to break it to you friend, but you're yelling at the wrong guy.
I have repeatedly suggested the third option (along with the same comment that this is how public works projects are successfully done). I gave our "herp derp Gub'mint bad" GP several choices as to how to introduce competition, not because I think they won't work (with the caveat that multiple last mile providers with duplicated infrastructure is a really dumb idea), but because GP obviously hadn't thought through his "All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition." trope. Or tripe. Actually, it's both.
So save your bile for someone else, please. Thanks, and have a lovely evening!
Even if all the ice in the world melted tomorrow we'd still have more than enough land mass for nature and humans to thrive on. Sure, many coastal cities would vanish under the waves, but that would force us to build in smarter places instead of wasting tons of resources on something that will eventually get swallowed.
You do realize that somewhere between 35% (2.45 billion) and 45% (3.15 billion) humans live within 100km (62 miles) of the oceans, right?
Even if only half of those end up having to move, the social, economic and military upheavals would be catastrophic.
This will likely happen, too -- but it's certainly not something to cheer for IMHO.
It's a buzzword for demanding federal control of the internet, to remedy the government-caused problem of last mile providers who are protected from competition by local cable monopoly privileges.
All we need to solve the problem of the Comcasts and the Time-warners of the world is to expose them to competition.
-jcr
And how, exactly, do you propose to "expose them to competition"? Do you invite multiple last mile providers to install new infrastructure? Good luck getting them all the rights-of-way and access to the poles, tunnels and other access-ways currently in use.
Do you use eminent domain to take the local monopoly's infrastructure and install a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the last-mile, while selling access to the infrastructure to independent ISPs who compete on price and features?
Do you build out (paid for with municipal bonds) a new high-speed last mile infrastructure, with a not-for-profit organization to manage, maintain and upgrade the infrastructure, paid for by selling access to independent ISPs?
Please do share with the group.
Climate warming occurs naturally, it's historically been warmer before than it is now. So this was destined to happen sometime - why are you afraid of it now? The rise is still so gradual sea-side communities can still adapt, and overall rise is something like a foot and a half over 150-200 years. That's hardly anything to get worked up over.
It is amusing though to think you probably bought into the whole "global warming pause is because oceans are storing heat" story when we find from this story ocean temperatures are rising from glacial melt entering the ocean... which has to be affecting measured temperatures.
Just all around so much fear and total misunderstanding of what climate change actually means from the people who deny natural climate change exists...
No one (at least not anyone I know) denies that climate change through non-anthropogenic processes exists.
However, making the assumption that because there are non-anthropogenic processes that affect the global climate, anthropogenic processes do not exist, or are not relevant to the discussion, is like saying "well, since people die from old age, disease, lightning strikes, avalanches and landslides, that means that murder, auto accidents, arson deaths and the like do not exist."
Yes, that's a straw man. Yes, I'm exaggerating. However, that argument is at least as good in defending the idea that anthropogenic causes of death do not exist, as most arguments about climate change from anthropogenic climate change deniers.
It shows their intelligence. The SJWs are out in full force here today, modding down any comment that is critical of Feminism. Honestly, Feminism is already dead if it has to resort to censorship to survive.
Not sure what an SJW (straight jewish woman?) is, but I'm a middle-aged, atheist, male who considers himself to be a feminist (one who holds the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities) and I believe that rape/death threats (even if they can't be immediately verified as credible) can be quite frightening and intimidating. Those who make such threats are using the tactics of terror and should be roundly criticized and, if the threats are found to be credible, prosecuted. This holds whether or not the subject of those threats is a demagogue, a liar or someone just trying to get their point of view out there is irrelevant, IMHO.
No censorship coming from me. I firmly believe that the solution to offensive (to anyone) speech is more speech.
It is expected. It is not legal though. Those that perpetrated this crime should be caught and punished.
That said. She is a stupid fucking bitch that should, nevertheless feel safe from physical threats of violence as she makes her way through her pathetic, retarded life.
It's sad that this was modded "flamebait." It's exactly the kind of comment which, while some may find objectionable, isn't threatening or intended to provoke fear in its subject. As I said, some may find it objectionable or even disagree with the poster's assertions. Nonetheless, it's a perfectly reasonable (if obnoxious) use of the freedom of expression.
should she not be held to the same standard? She deletes comments that are nothing more than pointing out her inaccuracies and blatant lies about content of games and cries "TROLL TROLL TROLL, see men are evil!" Criticism is not an insult, unless its at her work right?
So that makes it okay to threaten her life and well-being? Did I miss something here?
Posting AC to keep mods--I get what you're saying. I'm not lumping you in with the trolls. I don't like what you're saying, but I understand. It is unreasonably to expect everyone on the internet to act civilized. Not every one is mature or has normal adult-level impulse control in spite of their age.
What you and GP are saying is accurate and relevant. Given that there is a small fraction of Internet denizens who are not stable, sane, rational and/or civilized, it's inevitable that some will speak and (potentially) act in socially unacceptable (threats of violence, in this case) ways.
Here's where I get off that particular bus: It is not unreasonable to expect that any specific individual on the Internet will act in a civilized manner. Those that do not should be roundly criticized and, if the behavior warrants it, prosecuted.
Having such expectations is critical, as it creates a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior, IMHO. Will those expectations keep everyone from spewing bile? Of course not. But if we excuse such behavior with tropes like "Internet anonymity makes people act like idiots, what can you do?" we encourage such behaviors -- again, IMHO.
That *might* make them realize what the government and media trying to accomplish to maintain their power and influence:
Just sayin'.
Are there mistakes made? Of course. Unfortunately the process is administered by human beings who are flawed vessels at best.
Which is exactly why we have that dusty old Constitution thingy, an artifact the Security State not just ignores but openly flouts.
There. FTFY.
You may think I'm being a grammar nazi here, but words actually have meanings and the word you used gave your statement the exact opposite meaning, judging from the context.
Flaunt (v): display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance.
Flout (v): openly disregard (a rule, law or convention).
So. You can take this as an attack on you or you can use this information to enhance your communication skills. Or both. Either way, carry on and have a nice day!
End every punishment doled out by the government without a trial by jury.
Hey, but 93% of prosecutions end in plea bargains;...
Exactly. When prosecutors actually need to prosecute, we all win.
Except they didn't ignore those, else no one would know what you mean when you say "Bush LIED!"
And if lies are bad, what about Obama's serial lying about the ACA?
- If you like your doctor, you can keep him - If you like your plan, you can keep it
He probably said those sound bites HUNDREDS if not thousands of times, and each time he did he KNEW he was lying.
BTW, got the stones to compare what Obama said about ISIS to what David Cameron said? Watch the two speeches and tell us all which one of those two looks and sounds like a deer caught in headlights.
Both of those situations were heavily covered by the press on both sides. The difference, IMHO, is a matter of degree.
The G. W. Bush administration lied about WMD in Iraq, justifying the invasion of Iraq, costing 4,486 U.S. service personnel and more than 100,000 iraqi lives. The hand-picked leader of Iraq further destabilized the region causing thousands, if not tens of thousands, more deaths.
The Obama administration claimed: "If you like your doctor, you can keep him," and "If you like your plan, you can keep it." at the cost of zero lives and some confusion about the new ACA plans.
As I said, a matter of degree. I'll leave a decision about the relative impacts of each as an exercise for the reader.
Most arguments are really about the meaning of words, but the people involved don't realize this. Very few are actually about the "state of the world". 8-}
A salient point. The biggest issue in that regard, is that in order to have a substantive discussion or debate, we need agreement as to the definition of important terms, such as "theory" vs. "scientific theory."
Evolution isn't a theory; it's an observation. That it is responsible for speciation is the theory. That's why Darwin's book is called "On the origin of the species," and not "Evolution."
Well, you're right about the *fact* of evolution, but the scientific theory of evolution goes beyond Darwin's initial formulation and concerns itself with more than just speciation.
Interestingly, global warming is also an observation. That humans are the driving force behind this is slightly debateable, in the same way that it's still slightly debateable whether your kid is actually your kid after the second DNA test confirmed it. (Congratulations, BTW!) Yes, your baby momma could have setup an elaborate trick, or aliens could be playing a huge practical joke on all of us. (With the climate, I mean, but obviously they could be responsible for the baby too.) But in the meantime, we should accept the available evidence as useful for decision-making purposes. And by that I mean a few people will form a cult, and the rest of us can carry on under the relatively safe bet (but not absolute certainty) that the Hale-Bopp comet is not hiding the mother ship.
Yes. In fact, that's exactly what I said, minus the moronic analogies. I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh?