The "(un)reasonable" standard is so vague, almost anything can be argued in and out of it.
The anonymous grandparent is right in that DNA-samples (and fingerprints) could be collected from everyone, and it would help police immensely.
The question then boils down to whether we want the police helped so much. More generally, do we want 100% of crimes to be reliably solvable, or would we rather some criminals remained able to escape today in exchange for it being possible (however remotely) for some future subversives to succeed against some hypothetically oppressive government, which would have already illegalized all ordinary methods of opposition?
Check your post history or mine or dave420's or I kan reed's, or any of a number of other people who've taken the time to fix your ignorance in the past.
Nope. All of you tried to come up with a list, but none succeeded.
And right here you are doing it — failing — again. Posting angry accusations (mixed with "me toos") instead of simply offering the requested link-pairs...
But we both know you wont do that, cause you're just a troll.
Proving me wrong would've been much easier for you, if you could just offer the links requested — instead of impotently claiming they exist — somewhere... As is typical for losers, who can not, you are faking a case of would not.
Now, I have no problem with the university choosing not to support a racist organization
Right there is an example, ladies and gentlemen, of how subsidies destroy freedom.
While it is hard to disagree with pla above, consider the following hypothetical example... Everybody is taxed at 100% — with everything they need available to them for "free" in exchange. You can not afford anything on your own, but you don't need to — because everything you could possibly want is provided to you.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, such Communist ideal is achievable in principle... Aren't you now "supported" in everything you receive? And can the government not "choose not to support" you because of your racism or any other thought-crimes?
Back to fraternities — why are they supported by colleges to begin with? Why can't students save on tuition, if they don't want to join such a group? One can be forgiven for suspecting, colleges want to hook them on subsidies so as to be able to control them later...
Better than a curse, IMHO - even if she believes in curse
You know, I meant it as a joke, but at least two moderators have been sufficiently offended by it to downmod the suggestion. And that's on/., which should be higher in rationality, than average.
So, I think, it would work on an average script-reading third-world woman hired by a scammer.
and I'll not make a convincing threat with it
Yes, this may be a problem. But, as long as you don't use smily-faces, I don't care:-)
If aviation were regulated, when Wright brothers were building plane, would they have even bothered? Having to pay lawyers to file applications with Aviation authorities, would they have been able to afford the plane itself?
Same question about Ford and other early automobile-makers... We've surrendered important liberties in exchange for illusory relief from, mostly, imaginary problem.
compare historical predictions for anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic historical climates
For a while now I've been asking adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to provide examples of just such predictions and so far nobody could manage... There are plenty of predictions that failed to materialize, and plenty of attempts to, sort of, "retroactively predict" some observed phenomena. But I have so far seen no mention of anything, that was predicted first and materialized later...
Can you offer a list of pairs of links: with the first link pointing at a quantifiable prediction and the second — at evidence of it materializing within, say, 80% of the predicted figure(s)?
The prediction and the materialization should be a few years apart (that is, successful prediction of tomorrow's rain does not count). Anybody up for it?
(Note, that any responses without at least one such pair of links may be returned unopened.)
depending on his locality, that might be illegal speech.
No, I don't believe, a threat to curse somebody can be prosecuted in the US. Not even if you are cursing the President.
Instead, monitor the honeypot and see what they install later, what they use the compromised VM for, and build an actual case against them.
Yes, that would be more responsible. But it requires much more involvement — with you having fun only for the first few minutes of it.
I used to do this to spammers: pretending to be interested, collecting responses from their real e-mail addresses, identifying their real web-sites, &c., then trying to get them shut down for good based on all the evidence I collected. It only worked in about 10% of cases (in late 90ies) and now I just post the spam to SpamCop and feed it to my own Bayesian filter...
I am a security researcher, and you've been busted. But nice try!:-)
Was it a "nice try"? And what's there to smile about? You have the criminal's attention for a few seconds — use it to communicate something harmful, something to cause them actual anguish. This is not a game — an asshole entering your home under such pretenses deserves to be shot to death, so do harm such people with words so much, they starts hating her job and become disinclined to do it.
If that's a woman, for example, tell her, that she'd been identified and cursed to never have children. Something along the lines of 4chan-hatred... No quarter
The 19th century French poet Charles Baudelaire once said, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." That is, indeed, a great trick, but hardly the greatest. The devil's even greater and, therefore, less known trick, was to convince the world that God is just as much of an evil, corrupt, and conniving trickster as he is, if not worse. The acceptance that both sides are morally equal has allowed the devil to stop living incognito, get out into the big wide world, start a legitimate business, print out business cards with his real name and contact information, put his face on a billboard, and make a good living by consulting the Russian government.
Well, it turns out that the protesters were 100% right on that one.
It only "turns out" that way, because those same people, who protested it back then, also run major media outlets. Do you suppose, that Time-magazine's reporter could've written: "We were all morons doing the bidding of America's enemies"?
No, the most you could get 10 years after he went protesting, was to admit, their protest was coordinated — though it is unclear by who...
Bush II and the neo-con war criminals
Please, what "war crimes" are you talking about? Saddam Hussein violated the cease-fire agreement of 1992 so many times, Clinton should've resumed shooting in his time. No, it was no "war crime". But let's not get too side-tracked...
much trouble beating Vladimir Putin in a global popularity contest
Every little bit counts. Like I said, Putin does not need a "win" — a "tie" would be sufficient. And Westerners have always been gullible — the generation calling Bush "war criminal" was raised by morons seriously equating Joseph McCarthy to Lavrenty Beria...
Or is it that invading a distant nation for its oil wealth
Ah, I should have known... Where there are "war crimes", "war for oil" can not be far behind — like Moon-landing denials it just would not die. For 10 years Saddam Hussein was prevented from selling his oil. All we had to do to get it was to agree to lifting the sanctions — which would've been much cheaper than war. Instead, we went after oil-tycoons for breaking the embargo.
Of course, it was "better" — for we didn't annex anything. But see, win an argument, just use a (false) tu quoque to tie your opponent. And you are now doing (or trying to do) the same to me...
peninsula that was recently part of Russia
Score another one for Kremlin! Last time Crimea was part of Russia was 1954 — or 60 years ago. Before that, in 1918, it was part of Ukraine (36 years earlier). So, which one was "recent"?
and is still full of Russians
It is just as full of ethnic Ukrainians now, but, more importantly, achieving that nice White appearance required ethnic cleansing it off Crimean Tatars, who were only allowed to return by the newly-independent Ukraine in 1990-ies. They are now in trouble again — suspected by the occupiers for their loyalty to Ukraine.
So what if it is "full of Russians"? Texas, Arizona, and California are full of Mexicans — would some new Santa Anna be justified invading those states and organizing a referendum?
Khrushchev should never have given it to Ukraine.
Yes, and Romanov should not have sold Alaska — did you just pre-emptively justify Russian invasion into US? Can Japan now use the example to take back Kuril Islands? Japanese special forces may be just as "polite" as Russians were in Crimea and, once the occupation succeeds, arranging a "referendum" i
And more importantly, the propaganda is intended for domestic consumption, not "the world".
Oh, how one may wish, this were true! It is not. Compare, for example, the world's reaction to US invading Iraq in 2003 — it caused, what Time magazine would later call "World's biggest coordinated protest in history" — with Russia's invasion into Ukraine and annexation of a jewel of a province after a fraudulent "referendum".
What few protests in the West this caused, they were organized (and attended) mostly by Ukrainian expats — without sympathetic locals.
Because, somehow, both Left and Right in the West were providing Russia with propaganda-cover. Some called Ukraine's new government "Nazis" while others dismissed them all as "Jews" — without arguing with each other both helped Putin.
Exactly. Thank you very much for providing yet another link to illustrate my point.
Newsweek is not saying, US did it. The title of the article is "Russian State Media Says [emphasis mine -mi] CIA Shot Down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17".
And yet, a casual reader would just notice Russia and NATO "trading accusations" — and discount both sides equally...
They don't have to convince anybody with such accusations. They just need to make enough noise to make the perfectly credible accusations against them look similarly lunatic to the short attention-span majority of the world's population...
Distinction without difference. "Chromium"is Chrome compiled from source-code. Not entirely unlike "Mozilla" vs. "Netscape", I suppose...
The practical differences are few and what shortcomings there are in "Chromium" by default, can be overcome at build-time. One major deficiency of official Chrome, in my not so humble opinion, is the bundling of various software, that's supposed to already exist on any decent system. FreeBSD port of Chromium, for example, goes through quite a list of "third-party" stuff to remove — including zlib, yasm, and sqlite, for crying out loud!
Rather than adding new code to your kernel, why not simply remove new code (whatever breaks without this TSYNC) from your browser? If this code was recently added, it just can't be that difficult to remove.
You are compiling it yourself, aren't you? I certainly do — that's what source code is for. What's the problem?
We had enough to destroy them 10x over. Being able to do it 20x over doesn't make us any more powerful.
Of course, it does. Your logic only works, if all missiles available will remain operational and reach their targets if launched.
But that's not a valid assumption. Consider, for example, the possibility of one side's launchers — submarines, bombers, mobile launchers, or stationary silos — being disabled and/or taken-over somehow. They aren't run always by the best, unfortunately...
If a mere handful of such installations need to survive for us to remain capable of annihilating the enemy, they would not risk it. But, if our counter-attack requires, say, 50% of them to be operational, the enemy might attempt such an action.
Similar arithmetic applies, if the target's defenses are deemed capable of destroying a significant fraction of incoming missiles. Russia already fears our interception technology, for example, and has its own. If such defenses can take out 90% of the incoming, you do need to fire 10x more. And you better use 20x more to be sure...
While such advice is by all means well-intentioned
Well-intentioned, but still wrong — even in the case of nuclear weapons. For all the treaties, both USA and USSR retained enough nukes to destroy each other (and, probably, the rest of the planet) many times over — officially.
Unofficially it put the US, where the government is (somewhat) accountable to citizens, at a disadvantage — we had to abide by the agreements, while the rulers of USSR — unafraid of inquisitive lawmakers and "nosy" journalists — did not.
On February 8, after crossing the French border patrol agents of the National Police (CNP) was stopped at the toll Jonquera. "They told me it was a search routine, but it was very strange for an hour and a half because the vehicle was out of my field of vision, an agent took it and then came back to me" claims without understanding the reason for this police action.
I'm going to guess, this was when police installed the tracker.
On March 1, in the city of Valencia, where he traveled to participate in the Circumvention Tech Festival , the second incident occurred.
And this was, when they first checked-up on her.
Perhaps, the lady is suspected of being a Basque separatist or some such...
Slashdot Mirror
The "(un)reasonable" standard is so vague, almost anything can be argued in and out of it.
The anonymous grandparent is right in that DNA-samples (and fingerprints) could be collected from everyone, and it would help police immensely.
The question then boils down to whether we want the police helped so much. More generally, do we want 100% of crimes to be reliably solvable, or would we rather some criminals remained able to escape today in exchange for it being possible (however remotely) for some future subversives to succeed against some hypothetically oppressive government, which would have already illegalized all ordinary methods of opposition?
You don't have to defend them. But they better be worth defending...
Opinions don't — can not — "hold up on their own". They need to be expressed — verbally, in writing, or in some form of art...
Would care to defend this view? How about a Periklynian dialog?
No, that people post AC in general is not scary — that's perfectly normal for /. and elsewhere.
What is scary is that unusually more people chose to post anonymously on this particular subject. "Cowards on race"...
I see, that you find my ideas intriguing. Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?
Nope. All of you tried to come up with a list, but none succeeded.
And right here you are doing it — failing — again. Posting angry accusations (mixed with "me toos") instead of simply offering the requested link-pairs...
Proving me wrong would've been much easier for you, if you could just offer the links requested — instead of impotently claiming they exist — somewhere... As is typical for losers, who can not, you are faking a case of would not.
Right there is an example, ladies and gentlemen, of how subsidies destroy freedom.
While it is hard to disagree with pla above, consider the following hypothetical example... Everybody is taxed at 100% — with everything they need available to them for "free" in exchange. You can not afford anything on your own, but you don't need to — because everything you could possibly want is provided to you.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, such Communist ideal is achievable in principle... Aren't you now "supported" in everything you receive? And can the government not "choose not to support" you because of your racism or any other thought-crimes?
Back to fraternities — why are they supported by colleges to begin with? Why can't students save on tuition, if they don't want to join such a group? One can be forgiven for suspecting, colleges want to hook them on subsidies so as to be able to control them later...
The scariest part of this, to me, is the sheer number of people, who chose to post here anonymously...
Clearly, the fear of being prosecuted for thought-crimes is wide-spread... Among Whites.
You know, I meant it as a joke, but at least two moderators have been sufficiently offended by it to downmod the suggestion. And that's on /., which should be higher in rationality, than average.
So, I think, it would work on an average script-reading third-world woman hired by a scammer.
Yes, this may be a problem. But, as long as you don't use smily-faces, I don't care :-)
Well, so far three people did, including yourself. But none offered the link-pairs... Could it be, because they just do not exist?
If aviation were regulated, when Wright brothers were building plane, would they have even bothered? Having to pay lawyers to file applications with Aviation authorities, would they have been able to afford the plane itself?
Same question about Ford and other early automobile-makers... We've surrendered important liberties in exchange for illusory relief from, mostly, imaginary problem.
Yeah, yeah, the same old Libertarian ramblings...
For a while now I've been asking adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to provide examples of just such predictions and so far nobody could manage... There are plenty of predictions that failed to materialize, and plenty of attempts to, sort of, "retroactively predict" some observed phenomena. But I have so far seen no mention of anything, that was predicted first and materialized later...
Can you offer a list of pairs of links: with the first link pointing at a quantifiable prediction and the second — at evidence of it materializing within, say, 80% of the predicted figure(s)?
The prediction and the materialization should be a few years apart (that is, successful prediction of tomorrow's rain does not count). Anybody up for it?
(Note, that any responses without at least one such pair of links may be returned unopened.)
No, I don't believe, a threat to curse somebody can be prosecuted in the US. Not even if you are cursing the President.
Yes, that would be more responsible. But it requires much more involvement — with you having fun only for the first few minutes of it.
I used to do this to spammers: pretending to be interested, collecting responses from their real e-mail addresses, identifying their real web-sites, &c., then trying to get them shut down for good based on all the evidence I collected. It only worked in about 10% of cases (in late 90ies) and now I just post the spam to SpamCop and feed it to my own Bayesian filter...
Was it a "nice try"? And what's there to smile about? You have the criminal's attention for a few seconds — use it to communicate something harmful, something to cause them actual anguish. This is not a game — an asshole entering your home under such pretenses deserves to be shot to death, so do harm such people with words so much, they starts hating her job and become disinclined to do it.
If that's a woman, for example, tell her, that she'd been identified and cursed to never have children. Something along the lines of 4chan-hatred... No quarter
It only "turns out" that way, because those same people, who protested it back then, also run major media outlets. Do you suppose, that Time-magazine's reporter could've written: "We were all morons doing the bidding of America's enemies"?
No, the most you could get 10 years after he went protesting, was to admit, their protest was coordinated — though it is unclear by who...
Please, what "war crimes" are you talking about? Saddam Hussein violated the cease-fire agreement of 1992 so many times, Clinton should've resumed shooting in his time. No, it was no "war crime". But let's not get too side-tracked...
Every little bit counts. Like I said, Putin does not need a "win" — a "tie" would be sufficient. And Westerners have always been gullible — the generation calling Bush "war criminal" was raised by morons seriously equating Joseph McCarthy to Lavrenty Beria...
Ah, I should have known... Where there are "war crimes", "war for oil" can not be far behind — like Moon-landing denials it just would not die. For 10 years Saddam Hussein was prevented from selling his oil. All we had to do to get it was to agree to lifting the sanctions — which would've been much cheaper than war. Instead, we went after oil-tycoons for breaking the embargo.
Of course, it was "better" — for we didn't annex anything. But see, win an argument, just use a (false) tu quoque to tie your opponent. And you are now doing (or trying to do) the same to me...
Score another one for Kremlin! Last time Crimea was part of Russia was 1954 — or 60 years ago. Before that, in 1918, it was part of Ukraine (36 years earlier). So, which one was "recent"?
It is just as full of ethnic Ukrainians now, but, more importantly, achieving that nice White appearance required ethnic cleansing it off Crimean Tatars, who were only allowed to return by the newly-independent Ukraine in 1990-ies. They are now in trouble again — suspected by the occupiers for their loyalty to Ukraine.
So what if it is "full of Russians"? Texas, Arizona, and California are full of Mexicans — would some new Santa Anna be justified invading those states and organizing a referendum?
Yes, and Romanov should not have sold Alaska — did you just pre-emptively justify Russian invasion into US? Can Japan now use the example to take back Kuril Islands? Japanese special forces may be just as "polite" as Russians were in Crimea and, once the occupation succeeds, arranging a "referendum" i
Beats me. But then, I'm a FreeBSD-user and build everything from source...
Oh, how one may wish, this were true! It is not. Compare, for example, the world's reaction to US invading Iraq in 2003 — it caused, what Time magazine would later call "World's biggest coordinated protest in history" — with Russia's invasion into Ukraine and annexation of a jewel of a province after a fraudulent "referendum".
What few protests in the West this caused, they were organized (and attended) mostly by Ukrainian expats — without sympathetic locals.
Because, somehow, both Left and Right in the West were providing Russia with propaganda-cover. Some called Ukraine's new government "Nazis" while others dismissed them all as "Jews" — without arguing with each other both helped Putin.
Now, are all of these people on Kremlin's payroll? Probably, not — but they were carefully fed custom-crafted lies by the Kremlin analysts, who approach the government propaganda the way Western corporations approach advertising of goods...
Exactly. Thank you very much for providing yet another link to illustrate my point.
Newsweek is not saying, US did it. The title of the article is "Russian State Media Says [emphasis mine -mi] CIA Shot Down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17".
And yet, a casual reader would just notice Russia and NATO "trading accusations" — and discount both sides equally...
With a similar anniversary of flight 17 shot by Russia-sponsored assholes in Eastern Ukraine (by mistake), Russian propaganda is spreading lunatic rumors about America shooting down MH370.
They don't have to convince anybody with such accusations. They just need to make enough noise to make the perfectly credible accusations against them look similarly lunatic to the short attention-span majority of the world's population...
Distinction without difference. "Chromium" is Chrome compiled from source-code. Not entirely unlike "Mozilla" vs. "Netscape", I suppose...
The practical differences are few and what shortcomings there are in "Chromium" by default, can be overcome at build-time. One major deficiency of official Chrome, in my not so humble opinion, is the bundling of various software, that's supposed to already exist on any decent system. FreeBSD port of Chromium, for example, goes through quite a list of "third-party" stuff to remove — including zlib, yasm, and sqlite, for crying out loud!
Rather than adding new code to your kernel, why not simply remove new code (whatever breaks without this TSYNC) from your browser? If this code was recently added, it just can't be that difficult to remove.
You are compiling it yourself, aren't you? I certainly do — that's what source code is for. What's the problem?
Of course, it does. Your logic only works, if all missiles available will remain operational and reach their targets if launched.
But that's not a valid assumption. Consider, for example, the possibility of one side's launchers — submarines, bombers, mobile launchers, or stationary silos — being disabled and/or taken-over somehow. They aren't run always by the best, unfortunately...
If a mere handful of such installations need to survive for us to remain capable of annihilating the enemy, they would not risk it. But, if our counter-attack requires, say, 50% of them to be operational, the enemy might attempt such an action.
Similar arithmetic applies, if the target's defenses are deemed capable of destroying a significant fraction of incoming missiles. Russia already fears our interception technology, for example, and has its own. If such defenses can take out 90% of the incoming, you do need to fire 10x more. And you better use 20x more to be sure...
The Big Astronomy does not want you to know, that big planets are getting bigger, while the small ones are getting smaller.
Well-intentioned, but still wrong — even in the case of nuclear weapons. For all the treaties, both USA and USSR retained enough nukes to destroy each other (and, probably, the rest of the planet) many times over — officially.
Unofficially it put the US, where the government is (somewhat) accountable to citizens, at a disadvantage — we had to abide by the agreements, while the rulers of USSR — unafraid of inquisitive lawmakers and "nosy" journalists — did not.
Cyber-weapons are even worse in this regard, because their use and development can be delegated to a nominally private organization or even a person — the way Russia's propaganda war is already delegated too.
I'm going to guess, this was when police installed the tracker.
And this was, when they first checked-up on her.
Perhaps, the lady is suspected of being a Basque separatist or some such...
Don't know about Spain, but the fun and friendly Canada might charge someone with "Obstruction of Justice" in similar circumstances...
Now, if only we could have a self-governing country...
(Please, don't hate.)