Of course, because convincing some marks to send you nude photos of themselves and then blackmailing them is totally equivalent to repeated violent rape. How can you even pretend to be appalled by this guy's actions when you would like an even worse penalty for him?
On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly
What do you mean "interact". Tweeting at a person you don't know is the equivalent of saying (or maybe yelling) something at them as they walk by in a public place. Celebs don't really do the public interactions very well as it is, so why would they interact with something that is far easier to ignore / delete?
with thousands of people talking to them, you're lucky if they notice what you say.
I have a password manager in my head. I have one strong password that gets modified by my own algorithm. The modification is based on the site or service the password applies to. You only need to remember two things, the strong password and the algorithm to apply the modification to get the real password. For a simple example: If your strong password was "kittens" (obviously "kittens" is not strong, but it works for an example) and your algorithm was to simply concatenate the password and the name of the site, the password for/. might be "kittensslashdot" while the password for a Google account might be "kittensgoogle".
Obviously you would want a stronger password to begin with, and you would want an algorithm a little more complicated than concatenation, but this does help prevent having to remember a potentially infinite set of passwords and just remember 1 + an algorithm. If your algorithm is good, you won't have a lot of dictionary words, the password length will be fairly long, and you won't suffer from password reuse.
Your source links to a Wikipedia page that says the "plural of virus is viruses". Virii is not generally accepted. The word virus has no plural in latin. Here's some further discussion here.
Not all words ending in -us are plural with an -ii suffix. See genus (plural genera) for an example.
What sort of logic is this? Because one thing is possible, it doesn't mean that a different result could be caused by similar damage. This is very speculative at best.
If Law & Order has taught me anything, the NYPD will use these new gun laws as leverage to get people they're sweating in lockup to give up more of their rights for leniency.
Your point is valid that dangerous items can easily be created with ordinary items, but this formula is wrong. Bleach and ammonia will produce Chlorine gas not mustard gas. Not that big a difference really, both were used for gas attacks in WWI and both can be deadly.
Also, how about the smaller magazine requirements? Do those do anything to reduce the number of murders (the idea being reduce the number of shots fired before a shooter has to reload or switch weapons)?
I believe NY already had a 10 round magazine law. Going from 10 to 7 won't change a whole lot.
It's unlawful to take arms against the government, and that's specifically written in the constitution (treason clause).
The constitution was written by men that had just done exactly that! They took up arms against the British government that was ruler of the colonies at the time. They clearly saw a need to do this and it isn't a stretch to think it would be needed again.
It's a guarantee that this law will face a quick court review. Mostly because the state of New York has told it's residents that if they don't sell their legally obtained magazines that hold over 7 rounds out of state within a year, they will be criminals.
That's right, they bought something legally, now they have a timer running to get rid of it before becoming a lawbreaker. They aren't confiscating guns in mass because that would be a big problem, instead, they will take them one by one if you're found with them while they're doing other business. One person at a time can be handled and the populace of New York will be disarmed (or less armed in this case)
There are no Israeli Senators List of foreign born senators. In addition, if one was born in Israel, they need to become a US citizen for 9 years to be eligible for election to the Senate.
Of course, I'm probably just feeding an antisemitic troll that has a problem with a Jewish Senator, but I wanted to post the link since I looked it up and it is interesting to see where some Senators were born.
What I didn't understand was that you couldn't recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment when you read one.
But my snarkiness aside, if you systematically remove all the things that cause the highest amount of homicides. You would start with guns clearly. Then, after all the really dangerous things were removed from society, we would eventually track hammer related homicides as that would be one of the only remaining weapons available. Then we would be having this same debate, "Why don't we remove hammers from society as they are the leading cause of homicides?" It's a slippery slope to a nanny state.
But by all means, don't try to have an actual discussion about things. Continue to use your biased terms like "gun-nut" and mentally distort any comment that doesn't tow your line as lies and misinformation. I mean, you are on to something here, we clearly need to distinguish between hammers and other blunt objects as that helps frame a gun control debate. It is a fine point of distinction that anyone who has had a family member bashed to death with a non-hammer blunt object will tell you.
Really? What are you fermenting to make beer exactly? Barley is most definitely a grain. It is illegal to distill the fermented product into liquor without some permits.
It's called an internal magazine. Think of many pump action and auto-loading shotguns, many bolt action and lever action rifles, etc. Basically instead of loading rounds into the magazine then loading the mag into the gun, you directly load the rounds into the magazine that is an internal part of the gun.
I imagine that in the future, 3D printers wil become much more common. Possibly common enough that any shmuck that feels the need to print out a simple object like a 30 round magazine could easily do so in minutes. So, if someone were about to leave the house to go on a massive killing spree (already highly illegal by the way), why wouldn't they take a little time to print up some magazines so they can be more effective. After all, if they kill more people they'll be immortalized by the media for sure.
Making objects illegal only prevents people from obtaining those objects while they are scarce, expensive, dangerous to obtain, etc. If people have a way to obtain those objects cheaply and easily in their own home, outlawing that object is a fool's errand.
Well, once you outlaw all the guns the hammer homicide rate will surely be higher than the gun homicide rate. Would you then be willing to make the tough choice of outlawing hammers?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, because convincing some marks to send you nude photos of themselves and then blackmailing them is totally equivalent to repeated violent rape. How can you even pretend to be appalled by this guy's actions when you would like an even worse penalty for him?
The Macedonians definitely colonized Afghanistan. link.
If I point out that more than half of turkey is in Asia, will you paste the same reply to the other two responses in?
That would be the lamest form of steganography ever. The message is kind of supposed to be hidden within the file, not part of the video.
You can call Antiguans whatever you want, but it still won't make USian a valid term.
On Twitter I can actually interact with celebrities directly
What do you mean "interact". Tweeting at a person you don't know is the equivalent of saying (or maybe yelling) something at them as they walk by in a public place. Celebs don't really do the public interactions very well as it is, so why would they interact with something that is far easier to ignore / delete?
with thousands of people talking to them, you're lucky if they notice what you say.
There are at least 256GB ones available here. Not exactly cheap, but we only need 4x the density to hit 1TB. Might be more like 2 years.
his algorithm was an example. Just improve your algo to make it hard to see the pattern.
just make a harder "hashing" algorithm that makes it harder to spot that the site name was used in the process of building the password.
I have a password manager in my head. I have one strong password that gets modified by my own algorithm. The modification is based on the site or service the password applies to. You only need to remember two things, the strong password and the algorithm to apply the modification to get the real password. For a simple example: If your strong password was "kittens" (obviously "kittens" is not strong, but it works for an example) and your algorithm was to simply concatenate the password and the name of the site, the password for /. might be "kittensslashdot" while the password for a Google account might be "kittensgoogle".
Obviously you would want a stronger password to begin with, and you would want an algorithm a little more complicated than concatenation, but this does help prevent having to remember a potentially infinite set of passwords and just remember 1 + an algorithm. If your algorithm is good, you won't have a lot of dictionary words, the password length will be fairly long, and you won't suffer from password reuse.
Your source links to a Wikipedia page that says the "plural of virus is viruses". Virii is not generally accepted. The word virus has no plural in latin. Here's some further discussion here.
Not all words ending in -us are plural with an -ii suffix. See genus (plural genera) for an example.
You got me there. Luckily the human English parser has fairly good error correction.
No hard feelings, I was just struck by the visual of all the bangs.
What sort of logic is this? Because one thing is possible, it doesn't mean that a different result could be caused by similar damage. This is very speculative at best.
You're code must be awesome to look at.
If Law & Order has taught me anything, the NYPD will use these new gun laws as leverage to get people they're sweating in lockup to give up more of their rights for leniency.
Bleach and ammonia = mustard gas
Your point is valid that dangerous items can easily be created with ordinary items, but this formula is wrong. Bleach and ammonia will produce Chlorine gas not mustard gas. Not that big a difference really, both were used for gas attacks in WWI and both can be deadly.
Also, how about the smaller magazine requirements? Do those do anything to reduce the number of murders (the idea being reduce the number of shots fired before a shooter has to reload or switch weapons)?
I believe NY already had a 10 round magazine law. Going from 10 to 7 won't change a whole lot.
It's unlawful to take arms against the government, and that's specifically written in the constitution (treason clause).
The constitution was written by men that had just done exactly that! They took up arms against the British government that was ruler of the colonies at the time. They clearly saw a need to do this and it isn't a stretch to think it would be needed again.
It's a guarantee that this law will face a quick court review. Mostly because the state of New York has told it's residents that if they don't sell their legally obtained magazines that hold over 7 rounds out of state within a year, they will be criminals.
That's right, they bought something legally, now they have a timer running to get rid of it before becoming a lawbreaker. They aren't confiscating guns in mass because that would be a big problem, instead, they will take them one by one if you're found with them while they're doing other business. One person at a time can be handled and the populace of New York will be disarmed (or less armed in this case)
There are no Israeli Senators List of foreign born senators. In addition, if one was born in Israel, they need to become a US citizen for 9 years to be eligible for election to the Senate.
Of course, I'm probably just feeding an antisemitic troll that has a problem with a Jewish Senator, but I wanted to post the link since I looked it up and it is interesting to see where some Senators were born.
so "no published rate" = "does not happen"?
What I didn't understand was that you couldn't recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment when you read one.
But my snarkiness aside, if you systematically remove all the things that cause the highest amount of homicides. You would start with guns clearly. Then, after all the really dangerous things were removed from society, we would eventually track hammer related homicides as that would be one of the only remaining weapons available. Then we would be having this same debate, "Why don't we remove hammers from society as they are the leading cause of homicides?" It's a slippery slope to a nanny state.
But by all means, don't try to have an actual discussion about things. Continue to use your biased terms like "gun-nut" and mentally distort any comment that doesn't tow your line as lies and misinformation. I mean, you are on to something here, we clearly need to distinguish between hammers and other blunt objects as that helps frame a gun control debate. It is a fine point of distinction that anyone who has had a family member bashed to death with a non-hammer blunt object will tell you.
Really? What are you fermenting to make beer exactly? Barley is most definitely a grain. It is illegal to distill the fermented product into liquor without some permits.
It's called an internal magazine. Think of many pump action and auto-loading shotguns, many bolt action and lever action rifles, etc. Basically instead of loading rounds into the magazine then loading the mag into the gun, you directly load the rounds into the magazine that is an internal part of the gun.
I imagine that in the future, 3D printers wil become much more common. Possibly common enough that any shmuck that feels the need to print out a simple object like a 30 round magazine could easily do so in minutes. So, if someone were about to leave the house to go on a massive killing spree (already highly illegal by the way), why wouldn't they take a little time to print up some magazines so they can be more effective. After all, if they kill more people they'll be immortalized by the media for sure.
Making objects illegal only prevents people from obtaining those objects while they are scarce, expensive, dangerous to obtain, etc. If people have a way to obtain those objects cheaply and easily in their own home, outlawing that object is a fool's errand.
Well, once you outlaw all the guns the hammer homicide rate will surely be higher than the gun homicide rate. Would you then be willing to make the tough choice of outlawing hammers?