You know those little ID batches you have to wear to work (office workers everywhere know this)? Same technology. Adults do it all the time, and nobody complains about how MegaCorp Inc is watching where they're going once they're off work because they're carrying an RFID card.
Nope, don't have one of those.
Your credit card probably has an RFID too.
Nope.
Your cell phone may even have one.
Well, sort of, they have to communicate with towers. Cell phones have RFID built in by definition, thats how they work.
The crap you buy at the superstore... yup, there too.
Aaand nope. Some of the newer ones, maybe, and expensive product is generally tagged with a badge that sets off the exit alarms, but it gets removed/disabled after you walk out, and it doesn't track the movement through the store (that stuff is far more expensive than most megamarts are willing to spring for). Besides, I'm not exactly going to complain over what someone else does with the stuff they own, am I?
In any case, the point is if I don't want to, I don't need to be tracked, by anyone or anything. Students, however, don't get that right. They can't object, courtesy of this case. And if teenagers when they are most impressionable are being tracked, they get used to it and start to accept it as adults... which means very soon our sort-of democracy sees no problem forcing everyone to be tracked by the government. And that every right-minded individual should have a very big problem with.
Fair enough, but you certainly can make your own bullets (casting lead if you have to). You are correct that most people don't, because it's a lot easier and more precise to use mass-manufactured bullets and simply do the loading process yourself, but you could.
Nokia has certificates pre-installed to make a man-in-the-middle attack. From the article:
You completely misunderstand how the browser in question works. The whole point of the browser is that it doesn't connect to websites directly. Hell, it probably can't (most likely doesn't have a full rendering engine included). It connects to Nokia's servers, which fetch the page, do some pre-rendering, then sends it to the phone itself. Opera Mini works the same way, and has for probably nearly a decade now. It's called a "proxy browser". Nokia's website specifically says that's how they work. Whether it is a privacy nightmare depends on whether you believe Nokia when they say they don't store the information (well, I assume they say that, I know Opera does). It's not an "attack" any more than your router is "attacking" your traffic by directing packets through itself.
They shouldn't be doing it for HTTPS traffic, though. That's straight-up a MITM attack that allows gathering of info (credentials, bank info, HIPAA info etc.), that should not be viewable to anyone outside of the user and the site he's connecting to. Despite Nokia's TOS, they could be in trouble legally here.
No, it's not a MITM attack. From the sound of it, that's exactly how the browser was always intended to work. I haven't used the Nokia browser, but the Opera Mini "browser" isn't actually a browser properly speaking, it downloads everything onto Opera's servers, renders it, compresses it to an image file, and sends it to the phone (reduces bandwidth and CPU costs). It does this to HTTPS and HTTP connections alike (couldn't use HTTPS without it at all). I'm guessing that is exactly what the Nokia browser is doing too. There's no legal trouble with doing that, at least if they aren't recording the data (Opera doesn't, I'd assume Nokia doesn't either). FFS, Wikipedia lists the damned browser as a proxy-based one, as does Nokia's website. It's like being surprised your browser can see the passwords you type into a website. Can't be an "attack'" if they publicly inform you that's how the thing works.
Yes, it is worse, because anyone who is going on a spree can disable it (trivially so if modern DRM systems are anything to go by) or buy a gun without it (legal or not, he doesn't care), while the people who carry guns for self defense would be locked out by such systems when they need it (especially since the shooter would have a gun that isn't recognized as such by the unhacked gun), even assuming the shooter doesn't go all out and hack the guns of everyone around him, meaning potentially not even the police could stop him (which would be vastly worse than our current situation). Since the majority of killing sprees are pre-meditated, gun locks won't do a single damned thing. It's a system that could almost only have negative results. The times when it would help are the incredible minority (someone steals a gun off a legal carrier, for example).
It works better as a joke, because making your own bullets is pretty easy to do (pretty much trivially so if you have the equipment, which isn't hard to get).
You know must of us English speakers, both in the USA and else were would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline. "Australia Is On So Much Fire" Sounds like George Lucas is posting now.
That's the joke. It's a joke. the awkward structure makes the headline more humorous by highlighting the absurdity of the situation involved.
Battery life and cost. The damned thing is $999. I can buy quite a decent laptop for that, with similar or better specs, better battery life, and a lot more usability (since it's an actual laptop).
True, but the data rate would be much much lower than this can achieve, TFA says they can get almost 1 kilobit/second, good luck getting morse code that fast using pauses. And it would be easily decrypted assuming you didn't use a cipher on top of the Morse code system, while this is (supposedly) undetectable.
I agree. The netbook was nothing but a quick bait and switch by manufacturers that wanted to make a quick buck off of the recession. The image of a business person using a netbook is just that. Users of netbooks were people with little money looking for a new toy, and nothing more.
They aren't a desktop replacement. Normal laptops can be, but netbooks aren't (although I have stretched one to it, with a 24" monitor and keyboard.... worked alright, slightly underpowered but not terribly so for simple work). They never were intended to be. They were intended to be super light-weight, super small, super mobile, and have long battery life with decent specs. For portable web use, nothing was better. Tablets? Sure, if you never intend to type anything and don't mind cradling it uncomfortably in your arms, plus paying quite a lot more for similar or less power.
What killed the netbook was the manufacturers. They wanted higher margins, which meant shoving in more features and power (mostly completely unnecessary). That kills the battery life, raises cost, and completely destroys the whole point of the device. But the original netbooks, for simple web usage, email browsing, and light document editing? Incredibly useful.
Mandatory reversible sterilization of all children when they turn 12 years of age. Then let them undergo the procedure for free to reverse it after age 21 if they choose to do so. I will bet you that 90% will prefer to not have kids. Keeping young teens from ruining their lives by having kids is important, teens will hump like rabbits, it's in their nature. Lets not let them ruin their lives because a bunch of backwater uneducated hillbillies wont let the government give out birth control and educated kids in the use of birth control.
You do realize that if 90% of the population is sterile, then the remaining 10% would have to have no less than 10 kids each (not per family, mind you, per person, one for each person not having kids +1 for themselves, and extras since some will die young) merely to sustain the existing population? Yeah, that sounds like a fantastic idea... if you want your country to collapse in 20 years or so.
Besides which: forced government sterilization... for serious? Have you read A Brave New World? That's not meant as a guidebook, you know.
You misinterpreted her statement. The correlation is, in fact, given in the abstract (relevant quote below). What she says she cannot do, because the study did not examine it, was how likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later, i.e. when they were not young (they only covered between 13 and 19 years old, looks like).
Findings Significant associations (r=.12-.23) were observed between psychosis vulnerability and cannabis use at all assessments. Also, cannabis use at age 16 predicted psychosis vulnerability at age 19 (z=2.6, p<.05). Furthermore, psychosis vulnerability at ages 13 (z=2.0, p<.05) and 16 (z=3.0, p<.05) predicted cannabis use at, respectively, ages 16 and 19.
It clearly wasn't global, if you check their stats page you can see the numbers takes a dip, but doesn't go to zero (which is what happens during global outages). Looks like ~1.4 million people were affected, which is significant but nowhere near worldwide. The news story is making a mountain out of almost nothing (sounds like the submitter has a major anti-Steam axe to grind). I, for one, had zero problem playing games even though Steam started with "no connection" this morning.
I thought none of the climate change models allowed for accurate short term forecasting? I've been told not to expect short term forecasting (as in, the next five years, the next year, and certainly not the next few months) to be accurately predictable from the models and predictions of climate change experts. Are we working off predictions made ten years ago? I guess I'm confused as to why 2012 was perfectly on track with predictions.
They don't. What they allow is overall statistical predictions. They cannot predict that a year will be warm or cold, only that on average these years will be colder than that (with a certain degree of probability).
However, certain years will fit better into that statistical model than others. If you predict a.1C rise over 10 years, and next year is.01C warmer, it fits exactly with the prediction. That year is nearly meaningless, of course, next year could be a.05 rise followed by a.03 decline and the model could still be accurate over time. The only thing that you can predict with any accuracy using such models is the averages over an extended period of time, which is why when either side points at events in a single year to show evidence for or against global warming they are acting unscientifically (mind you, that may be the best way to convince people, but it's not science). You can still estimate if a year is going to be warm or cold using short-term models, but those aren't particularly relevant to the subject at hand (being by definition short-term).
The USPTO has said the "bounce" patent ('381) should never have been granted, and the judge involved has said the tap-to-zoom ('163) looks like it might be invalid. That together with this would mean Samsung only violated the 3 design patents (the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader).
Samsung hasn't paid any money yet, the final details of the case aren't 100% settled yet. This isn't the only patent involved in the case Apple has lost since the judgment, either. Most likely, damages will be reduced. By how much is yet undetermined (my guess would be "considerably", but then I would also have guessed Apple wouldn't have won in the first place).
Good, so we can finally put that myth to rest. Or by "study" do they mean "find some evidence that shows a correlation between them no matter how faulty the logic may be"? I'm guessing it's supposed to be the latter. After all, you can't earn many political points by commissioning a study that doesn't allow you to create a scapegoat or enact some laws to crack down on the "problem", and the fact he is proposing this now means it is, most definitely, a political move to create the appearance of action (never mind most of the time what should be done is nothing, because bad shit happens sometimes).
The most expensive weapons are $7 dollars (USD). They can be unlocked by points earned ingame, but that takes a while (weeks, at least), and those points are better spent on actual upgrades (nominally, anything that can be bought with cash is a side-grade, although of course in reality, they aren't). However, you would want to focus on 1-2 classes and 1-2 vehicles. 1 weapon per class, and 2 weapons per vehicle (for adaptability) puts the total at ~40$, but Sony also does 2x or 3x deals on "Station Cash" sometimes and occasionally has sales on weapons, so you could easily get them for $15-20. Not terrible. Not great, but not a wallet-breaker.
We've been over this at some point... OCZ has a greater volume of sales generating higher return rates, it's a rule of QC. Crucial (#1 lowest returns) has relatively minor sales in comparison so not as many are shipping out that can fail.
What? Higher sales generates higher returns in absolute quantity, not in terms of return rates. Return rates are a percentage, and are independent of the quantity shipped (although a larger shipped quantity means the rates will more accurately reflect actual failure percentages).
This is so much pie-in-the-sky bullshit I can't even believe it. I hear about this kind of thing year after year, and it never happens.
This is DARPA, a company for whom "aim at the sky" is more of a directive rather than a metaphor. Some of there other work includes flying tanks, passive radar systems, stealth ships, onion routing, and wide area interconnected computer networks. Most of it doesn't work, of course... but when it does, we get something no one else would have bothered developing.
I agree, lets go the Switzerland route and actually require able bodied individuals to own and be trained in firearms. That way, the US too can have one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world.
Oh, you meant the other direction, didn't you? Right, because the illegality of gun ownership is going to stop someone who walks into an elementary school and opens fire on kids. Dude will be totally scared of breaking that law, right? I mean, the war on drugs worked so well at stopping people from getting drugs...
So long as he stays in the UK, yes. The US still has an extradition warrant against him, so if he travels to another country he could be extradited from there (although it would depend on the judgment of those courts). Traveling to the US would obviously get him arrested.
You can (some sites have before), but doing so takes up resources and won't necessarily stop all the different attack vectors. DDoS can use multiple approaches aside from just flooding the server with requests. You can, in theory, protect against all the known attacks, but that requires time and money before the attack starts, which might be wasted if you never get attacked (you don't typically want 10x your expected maximum load worth of bandwidth just sitting around unless you absolutely need it, for example).
And if it is spinning like that, it becomes nearly impossible to control unless you can reverse the spin, so tumbling out of control seems like a reasonable phrase.
It works both ways. It's far more likely that something simple and relatively unstructured has always existed, and has come to order itself gradually, than some human-like god has always existing. A god could have evolved, but an intelligent god just happening to exist is as likely as that whole watchmaker thingy that theists love to talk about.
The argument there gets a bit more complex, but you can get the basic point by looking at entropy. An unordered system is not likely to become ordered over time, and it cannot do so over an infinite time, which it would need to (it would eventually degenerate into a final stable state, unlike the universe we see around us with non-homogeneous elements). That, however, is an argument that you can (and people have) written books about, so I won't go into it further.
But, to your first point, God didn't create himself, he simply always was. Eternal uncreated existence is required. You can then argue that that thing has to be what theologians call "god" (which isn't particularly "human-like" except is certain very limited ways), but like I say, that is an argument in philosophy. The problem there is two-fold: first of all, if the atheist and the theist don't hold certain common principles, they're arguments will always assume and be based on completely different things, and since you can't prove principles (especially metaphysical principles, the principles of other fields can be shown but not within their own area of study), only argue over them, you can't reach a definitive conclusion. Secondly, most atheists (most people in general) don't know nearly enough philosophy to understand the actual arguments. That goes for religious and non-religious people: most people rely on the authority of the arguments of others. You need to look at the credentials of the authority figure you are trusting to know if they have a reasonable position or not.
I would argue that most of the scientists you hear arguing for atheism have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, because they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist (that combined with their reluctance to trust the authority of anyone or anything they can't understand tends to lead them to atheism). That doesn't follow. Mind you, anything that occurs in the natural world does (so magic is right out), but you cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural beings existing. You can put conditions on them: for example, they cannot have mass or speed or heat or be visible (otherwise they would fall under physics... part of the reason people attempting magic are foolish), but none of those things are required to actually exist. You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
Slashdot Mirror
You know those little ID batches you have to wear to work (office workers everywhere know this)? Same technology. Adults do it all the time, and nobody complains about how MegaCorp Inc is watching where they're going once they're off work because they're carrying an RFID card.
Nope, don't have one of those.
Your credit card probably has an RFID too.
Nope.
Your cell phone may even have one.
Well, sort of, they have to communicate with towers. Cell phones have RFID built in by definition, thats how they work.
The crap you buy at the superstore... yup, there too.
Aaand nope. Some of the newer ones, maybe, and expensive product is generally tagged with a badge that sets off the exit alarms, but it gets removed/disabled after you walk out, and it doesn't track the movement through the store (that stuff is far more expensive than most megamarts are willing to spring for). Besides, I'm not exactly going to complain over what someone else does with the stuff they own, am I?
In any case, the point is if I don't want to, I don't need to be tracked, by anyone or anything. Students, however, don't get that right. They can't object, courtesy of this case. And if teenagers when they are most impressionable are being tracked, they get used to it and start to accept it as adults... which means very soon our sort-of democracy sees no problem forcing everyone to be tracked by the government. And that every right-minded individual should have a very big problem with.
Fair enough, but you certainly can make your own bullets (casting lead if you have to). You are correct that most people don't, because it's a lot easier and more precise to use mass-manufactured bullets and simply do the loading process yourself, but you could.
Nokia has certificates pre-installed to make a man-in-the-middle attack. From the article:
You completely misunderstand how the browser in question works. The whole point of the browser is that it doesn't connect to websites directly. Hell, it probably can't (most likely doesn't have a full rendering engine included). It connects to Nokia's servers, which fetch the page, do some pre-rendering, then sends it to the phone itself. Opera Mini works the same way, and has for probably nearly a decade now. It's called a "proxy browser". Nokia's website specifically says that's how they work. Whether it is a privacy nightmare depends on whether you believe Nokia when they say they don't store the information (well, I assume they say that, I know Opera does). It's not an "attack" any more than your router is "attacking" your traffic by directing packets through itself.
They shouldn't be doing it for HTTPS traffic, though. That's straight-up a MITM attack that allows gathering of info (credentials, bank info, HIPAA info etc.), that should not be viewable to anyone outside of the user and the site he's connecting to. Despite Nokia's TOS, they could be in trouble legally here.
No, it's not a MITM attack. From the sound of it, that's exactly how the browser was always intended to work. I haven't used the Nokia browser, but the Opera Mini "browser" isn't actually a browser properly speaking, it downloads everything onto Opera's servers, renders it, compresses it to an image file, and sends it to the phone (reduces bandwidth and CPU costs). It does this to HTTPS and HTTP connections alike (couldn't use HTTPS without it at all). I'm guessing that is exactly what the Nokia browser is doing too. There's no legal trouble with doing that, at least if they aren't recording the data (Opera doesn't, I'd assume Nokia doesn't either). FFS, Wikipedia lists the damned browser as a proxy-based one, as does Nokia's website. It's like being surprised your browser can see the passwords you type into a website. Can't be an "attack'" if they publicly inform you that's how the thing works.
Yes, it is worse, because anyone who is going on a spree can disable it (trivially so if modern DRM systems are anything to go by) or buy a gun without it (legal or not, he doesn't care), while the people who carry guns for self defense would be locked out by such systems when they need it (especially since the shooter would have a gun that isn't recognized as such by the unhacked gun), even assuming the shooter doesn't go all out and hack the guns of everyone around him, meaning potentially not even the police could stop him (which would be vastly worse than our current situation). Since the majority of killing sprees are pre-meditated, gun locks won't do a single damned thing. It's a system that could almost only have negative results. The times when it would help are the incredible minority (someone steals a gun off a legal carrier, for example).
It works better as a joke, because making your own bullets is pretty easy to do (pretty much trivially so if you have the equipment, which isn't hard to get).
You know must of us English speakers, both in the USA and else were would have written "So Much of Australia is on Fire" for a headline. "Australia Is On So Much Fire" Sounds like George Lucas is posting now.
That's the joke. It's a joke. the awkward structure makes the headline more humorous by highlighting the absurdity of the situation involved.
Battery life and cost. The damned thing is $999. I can buy quite a decent laptop for that, with similar or better specs, better battery life, and a lot more usability (since it's an actual laptop).
True, but the data rate would be much much lower than this can achieve, TFA says they can get almost 1 kilobit/second, good luck getting morse code that fast using pauses. And it would be easily decrypted assuming you didn't use a cipher on top of the Morse code system, while this is (supposedly) undetectable.
I agree. The netbook was nothing but a quick bait and switch by manufacturers that wanted to make a quick buck off of the recession. The image of a business person using a netbook is just that. Users of netbooks were people with little money looking for a new toy, and nothing more.
They aren't a desktop replacement. Normal laptops can be, but netbooks aren't (although I have stretched one to it, with a 24" monitor and keyboard.... worked alright, slightly underpowered but not terribly so for simple work). They never were intended to be. They were intended to be super light-weight, super small, super mobile, and have long battery life with decent specs. For portable web use, nothing was better. Tablets? Sure, if you never intend to type anything and don't mind cradling it uncomfortably in your arms, plus paying quite a lot more for similar or less power.
What killed the netbook was the manufacturers. They wanted higher margins, which meant shoving in more features and power (mostly completely unnecessary). That kills the battery life, raises cost, and completely destroys the whole point of the device. But the original netbooks, for simple web usage, email browsing, and light document editing? Incredibly useful.
Mandatory reversible sterilization of all children when they turn 12 years of age. Then let them undergo the procedure for free to reverse it after age 21 if they choose to do so. I will bet you that 90% will prefer to not have kids. Keeping young teens from ruining their lives by having kids is important, teens will hump like rabbits, it's in their nature. Lets not let them ruin their lives because a bunch of backwater uneducated hillbillies wont let the government give out birth control and educated kids in the use of birth control.
You do realize that if 90% of the population is sterile, then the remaining 10% would have to have no less than 10 kids each (not per family, mind you, per person, one for each person not having kids +1 for themselves, and extras since some will die young) merely to sustain the existing population? Yeah, that sounds like a fantastic idea... if you want your country to collapse in 20 years or so.
Besides which: forced government sterilization... for serious? Have you read A Brave New World? That's not meant as a guidebook, you know.
You misinterpreted her statement. The correlation is, in fact, given in the abstract (relevant quote below). What she says she cannot do, because the study did not examine it, was how likely young pot users were to exhibit psychotic symptoms later, i.e. when they were not young (they only covered between 13 and 19 years old, looks like).
Findings
Significant associations (r=.12-.23) were observed between psychosis vulnerability and cannabis use at all assessments. Also, cannabis use at age 16 predicted psychosis vulnerability at age 19 (z=2.6, p<.05). Furthermore, psychosis vulnerability at ages 13 (z=2.0, p<.05) and 16 (z=3.0, p<.05) predicted cannabis use at, respectively, ages 16 and 19.
It clearly wasn't global, if you check their stats page you can see the numbers takes a dip, but doesn't go to zero (which is what happens during global outages). Looks like ~1.4 million people were affected, which is significant but nowhere near worldwide. The news story is making a mountain out of almost nothing (sounds like the submitter has a major anti-Steam axe to grind). I, for one, had zero problem playing games even though Steam started with "no connection" this morning.
I thought none of the climate change models allowed for accurate short term forecasting? I've been told not to expect short term forecasting (as in, the next five years, the next year, and certainly not the next few months) to be accurately predictable from the models and predictions of climate change experts. Are we working off predictions made ten years ago? I guess I'm confused as to why 2012 was perfectly on track with predictions.
They don't. What they allow is overall statistical predictions. They cannot predict that a year will be warm or cold, only that on average these years will be colder than that (with a certain degree of probability).
However, certain years will fit better into that statistical model than others. If you predict a .1C rise over 10 years, and next year is .01C warmer, it fits exactly with the prediction. That year is nearly meaningless, of course, next year could be a .05 rise followed by a .03 decline and the model could still be accurate over time. The only thing that you can predict with any accuracy using such models is the averages over an extended period of time, which is why when either side points at events in a single year to show evidence for or against global warming they are acting unscientifically (mind you, that may be the best way to convince people, but it's not science). You can still estimate if a year is going to be warm or cold using short-term models, but those aren't particularly relevant to the subject at hand (being by definition short-term).
The USPTO has said the "bounce" patent ('381) should never have been granted, and the judge involved has said the tap-to-zoom ('163) looks like it might be invalid. That together with this would mean Samsung only violated the 3 design patents (the, uh, "rounded corners and color" and "rounded edges on icons" design patents, I'll leave the validity of a patent on those up to the reader).
Samsung hasn't paid any money yet, the final details of the case aren't 100% settled yet. This isn't the only patent involved in the case Apple has lost since the judgment, either. Most likely, damages will be reduced. By how much is yet undetermined (my guess would be "considerably", but then I would also have guessed Apple wouldn't have won in the first place).
Good, so we can finally put that myth to rest. Or by "study" do they mean "find some evidence that shows a correlation between them no matter how faulty the logic may be"? I'm guessing it's supposed to be the latter. After all, you can't earn many political points by commissioning a study that doesn't allow you to create a scapegoat or enact some laws to crack down on the "problem", and the fact he is proposing this now means it is, most definitely, a political move to create the appearance of action (never mind most of the time what should be done is nothing, because bad shit happens sometimes).
The most expensive weapons are $7 dollars (USD). They can be unlocked by points earned ingame, but that takes a while (weeks, at least), and those points are better spent on actual upgrades (nominally, anything that can be bought with cash is a side-grade, although of course in reality, they aren't). However, you would want to focus on 1-2 classes and 1-2 vehicles. 1 weapon per class, and 2 weapons per vehicle (for adaptability) puts the total at ~40$, but Sony also does 2x or 3x deals on "Station Cash" sometimes and occasionally has sales on weapons, so you could easily get them for $15-20. Not terrible. Not great, but not a wallet-breaker.
We've been over this at some point... OCZ has a greater volume of sales generating higher return rates, it's a rule of QC. Crucial (#1 lowest returns) has relatively minor sales in comparison so not as many are shipping out that can fail.
What? Higher sales generates higher returns in absolute quantity, not in terms of return rates. Return rates are a percentage, and are independent of the quantity shipped (although a larger shipped quantity means the rates will more accurately reflect actual failure percentages).
This is so much pie-in-the-sky bullshit I can't even believe it. I hear about this kind of thing year after year, and it never happens.
This is DARPA, a company for whom "aim at the sky" is more of a directive rather than a metaphor. Some of there other work includes flying tanks, passive radar systems, stealth ships, onion routing, and wide area interconnected computer networks. Most of it doesn't work, of course... but when it does, we get something no one else would have bothered developing.
I agree, lets go the Switzerland route and actually require able bodied individuals to own and be trained in firearms. That way, the US too can have one of the lowest firearm crime rates in the world.
Oh, you meant the other direction, didn't you? Right, because the illegality of gun ownership is going to stop someone who walks into an elementary school and opens fire on kids. Dude will be totally scared of breaking that law, right? I mean, the war on drugs worked so well at stopping people from getting drugs...
So long as he stays in the UK, yes. The US still has an extradition warrant against him, so if he travels to another country he could be extradited from there (although it would depend on the judgment of those courts). Traveling to the US would obviously get him arrested.
You can (some sites have before), but doing so takes up resources and won't necessarily stop all the different attack vectors. DDoS can use multiple approaches aside from just flooding the server with requests. You can, in theory, protect against all the known attacks, but that requires time and money before the attack starts, which might be wasted if you never get attacked (you don't typically want 10x your expected maximum load worth of bandwidth just sitting around unless you absolutely need it, for example).
And if it is spinning like that, it becomes nearly impossible to control unless you can reverse the spin, so tumbling out of control seems like a reasonable phrase.
Then where did your god come from?
It works both ways. It's far more likely that something simple and relatively unstructured has always existed, and has come to order itself gradually, than some human-like god has always existing. A god could have evolved, but an intelligent god just happening to exist is as likely as that whole watchmaker thingy that theists love to talk about.
The argument there gets a bit more complex, but you can get the basic point by looking at entropy. An unordered system is not likely to become ordered over time, and it cannot do so over an infinite time, which it would need to (it would eventually degenerate into a final stable state, unlike the universe we see around us with non-homogeneous elements). That, however, is an argument that you can (and people have) written books about, so I won't go into it further.
But, to your first point, God didn't create himself, he simply always was. Eternal uncreated existence is required. You can then argue that that thing has to be what theologians call "god" (which isn't particularly "human-like" except is certain very limited ways), but like I say, that is an argument in philosophy. The problem there is two-fold: first of all, if the atheist and the theist don't hold certain common principles, they're arguments will always assume and be based on completely different things, and since you can't prove principles (especially metaphysical principles, the principles of other fields can be shown but not within their own area of study), only argue over them, you can't reach a definitive conclusion. Secondly, most atheists (most people in general) don't know nearly enough philosophy to understand the actual arguments. That goes for religious and non-religious people: most people rely on the authority of the arguments of others. You need to look at the credentials of the authority figure you are trusting to know if they have a reasonable position or not.
I would argue that most of the scientists you hear arguing for atheism have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, because they assume that if it exists in any way, it can be reached scientifically, and that anything that cannot be reached scientifically, cannot exist (that combined with their reluctance to trust the authority of anyone or anything they can't understand tends to lead them to atheism). That doesn't follow. Mind you, anything that occurs in the natural world does (so magic is right out), but you cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural beings existing. You can put conditions on them: for example, they cannot have mass or speed or heat or be visible (otherwise they would fall under physics... part of the reason people attempting magic are foolish), but none of those things are required to actually exist. You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.