> Clearly fucking rape. The question includes the phrase "unable to consent".
Let me put it this way and maybe you'll understand my point. When my wife woke me up via a blow job, I was "unable to consent" - I was out cold when she started. I woke up very, very happy. I say I was not raped. Are you going to try to convince me that I was raped?
* You'll notice I already gave you this actual real-life event, and another like it, several posts ago.
ONE QUESTION asked if they were unable to consent. I said that question is pretty good. We agree on that. So I'm not sure why you keep bringing that question up. The question isn't perfect, and I showed you two real-life examples where it incorrectly labels something as rape, but that question is good enough. "Showing they were unhappy" is a horrible question. So we have a survey interpretation with some pretty good questions and some pretty bad ones. The results, therefore, are somewhere in the middle.
I'm not sure that you, so if you think that's in question here you might want to look it up, along with vaginismus and stress/tension.
That one question covers things that are rape, assuming there's neither PRIOR consent nor implied consent. I clearly and carefully explained to you two actual instances of PRIOR and implied consent, in which the "victim" didn't see themselves as a victim. One one case I told you about, the prior consent was explicit, expressed. Don't you think it's a little odd for the researchers to claim someone was raped when the person themselves feels that they had a romantic evening with their spouse? Do you think you can convince my friend she was raped, because she thinks she had a good partying with her husband.
Aside from that one question, which isn't bad, did you notice the questions I copied and pasted for you? This study calls it sexual violence if you choose to cheer your mate up because they were "showing they were unhappy". I come home stressed out, irritated that the damn database admin keeps screwing things up. My wife knows what will cheer me up, and she decides to do so. That's categorized as sexual violence in this survey.
You seriously trivialize rape when you pretend that consensual activity between adults in a loving relationship is the same as an assault. It's not. It's actually okay for your wife to cheer you up with a BJ. It's okay for you to reciprocate.
Just like it's okay for you to not use bittorrent - wtf what was wrong with that AC is the other thread?:)
> A torrent with few seeders isn't very efficient, but one with many hundreds of well-configured peers is hard to beat on overall transfer speed.
From that phrasing, it almost sounds like you're supposing that more speed is more efficient. Faster means less efficient more often than not. For something easy to visualize, a moped going 20 MPH requires several few ounces of fuel per hour. To go several thousand miles per hour, an X-37 must burn around 15,000 pounds of fuel per MINUTE.
Downloading from many sources means taking up many resources. Downloading from one source (the closest one) would be significantly more efficient, and almost as fast.
>> is leeching your bandwidth, they aren't paying cu >>... eliminated all the legal utility of bit torrent FOR ME
> corporate cocksucker
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because IKR pays his own bills rather than mooching off his neighbors, and prefers to download legitimate copies rather than malware-infested torrents, he's a corporate cocksucker? Lay off the drugs, dude. And get a job.
> If you really think that... alchohol/drug facilitated penetration isn't rape, I've got news for you, son.
When CONSENT is facilitated by EXCESSIVE alcohol, that's rape.
When my wife is stressed out and tense, so she wants to relax with a margarita and have a romantic evening, that's not rape. When people decide to go out and party, to have a few drinks and hook up, that's not rape - that's college. When a woman with vaginismus finds that a glass of wine helps relieve the symptoms, that's not rape.
He doesn't hide the fact that his normal pattern and practice is to act like a complete asshole, especially online. Therefore, if someone says he was being a complete asshole online, that matches with what one would expect from him.
To me, it's similar to if someone were to tell me that my friend Christina delivered a pizza to their house. Christina was a pizza-delivery person for several years, so the statement is likely true, absent any evidence to the contrary.
I've noticed people tend to get busted for the wrong crime fairly often, or busted on the wrong day. An old friend of mine started selling drugs, buying and selling abusable prescription drugs. He got busted for selling pot, which he apparently doesn't do, and he wasn't selling anything at the moment.
I can't think of anyone I know who isn't a criminal, yet ended up in jail. It's kind of odd, but in some ways it makes sense.
I believe GP was saying that the particular study cited had a questionable definition of "rape", not that the victims were lying. The survey didn't ask if they were raped. The survey asked questions about if this happened or that happened, then the researchers call it rape, even if the "victim" was perfectly happy with what happened.
One question was if they engaged in sex while drunk or high to the point that they couldn't really give informed consent, or if their partner initiated sex while they were asleep. The researchers then called that rape, which is many cases it probably was. In other cases not - I recently spoke with a woman who didn't remember having sex with her husband one night when they were drunk. It just so happened that he videotaped about two minutes of it, and after he starts, then backs off she says "what are you doing, I thought we were going to have sex?" Upon viewing the tape, she wasn't bothered about it. Since she didn't remember it and was too drunk to really give consent, this study would call that rape. The woman doesn't think it's rape, but the researchers say it is.
I've actually talked to my wife about some of these situations ahead of time. I've told her I'd very much enjoy being awoken by her in a special way, and she said it's fine if I massaging her and such while she's asleep, waking her with sexual contact. The RESEARCHERS call that rape, we call it a great way to wake up.
The researchers also called it sexual violence if the partner did any of these things (quoting from the survey):
doing things like telling you lies, MAKING PROMISES ABOUT THE FUTURE WHICH THEY KNEW WERE UNTRUE, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you?
wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or SHOWING THEY WERE UNHAPPY?
So letting my wife know I'm disappointed that our last two date nights were cancelled and I'd like to have a romantic evening is sexual violence, as defined by these researchers.
Sexual violence is an important issue. These researchers trivialize it and create more problems when they define "showing they were unhappy" as sexual violence.
The main purpose of smoking pot is to chill out, to be mellow. If you smoke a bunch of pot and you feel wound up, driven, ambitious and motivated you might want a refund.
> the popular misconception that "marijuana users are lazy, stupid, stoners" (an ad hominem frequently used by supporters of prohibition).
The belief is that being a pothead tends to make people mellow/chill/lazy (true, at 15 I was getting scholarship offers, after smoking pot for a year I did nothing but sit around smoking pot), stupid (true - try talking to a stoned person while you're 100% sober), and stoners (true by definition).
It's not an ad hominem (attack on the person) to recognize that pot changes my state of mind in several ways. Nor is it an ad hominem to recognize that those effects include making me relaxed/chill/lazy. That's kind of the whole point of smoking pot, the purpose - to mellow the heck out, to get lazy rather than ambitious for a while.
Google's security isn't awesome. Therefore, you reason, Apple's must be perfect, because you're a fan. Do you throw your panties on stage at Apple events?
When you grow up a little bit, you'll come to understand that a) fanatacism toward a company like Apple (or Google) just means you're easily manipulated by marketing and b) all companies, all products, and all services have limitations - especially security limitations. The fact that users routinely forget their passwords makes it extremely difficult to secure mass-market services like iCloud, Gmail, Facebook, etc. When you have millions of users, tens of thousands of those will forget their passwords each year. Therefore, you _must_ make it possible to access the account without knowing the password. Because many of the users who forgot their passwords are technically unsophisticated, you must make it _easy_ to access the account without knowing the password.
If you'd like further details on exactly how it's done, refer to any of my earlier posts or posts by swillden.
> If the cost of making something is so low that a >100 year monopoly isn't needed for its production, then either the copyright term must be diminished or the product should not be covered by copyright.
The term of copyright is ridiculously long. I would think that anyone who thinks copyright is a good idea should support reducing the length considerably. Having it so long encourages and provides good arguments for those who wish to greatly restrict copyright. A term of around seven years would accomplish the stated purpose, without unnecessary drawbacks.
Yeah Larry has long said that Perl6 is the development playground. Things are tried out in 6 and what works well get applied to Perl 5.x. We may never have a Perl release called 6.x, and we don't need one. In some ways, it's like Fedora and Red Hat - try things out in the development branch and put the best stuff in the stable branch.
Complaining that Perl6 isn't stable "yet" is like complaining that Fedora isn't stable "yet" - it's not supposed to be stable.
> I've witnessed probably man/centuries of wasted efforts due to crappy APIs - > and I've seen single-person projects springing to life and seamingly leveling mountains when the available APIs were good.
> Some APIs fit the puzzle of any applications - some force projects as a whole back to the drawing board.
So you're saying there are good APIs and bad APIs, that there is an art to writing a concise, balanced, beautiful API?
I want Google to win this one, but copyright _is_ supposed to cover stuff you write where there's an art to writing it well.
> what would I do differently? Most rooms are fine. I find I could use more in one of the entertainment areas, but some of those devices are both wired and wireless (and if push came to shove, I would simply move a device to WiFi).
You could also put a 5 port switch at the entertainment center. Then decide which devices can share a gigabit connection - you're not using them all at once anyway.
At my house, the office has several devices, and two jacks on opposite walls. Three or four devices connect to a little 5 port switch in the office. The lines from each room connect to a centrally located 8 port switch at the top of a closet. One if those rooms has the big switch, where we plug in the file server, the pbx, the printer, the modem, etc. So I figure one or two ports per room, no matter which room. If one side of a room needs 8 ports it gets an 8 port switch right there.
AC asked: How would apple or said letter agency install...
Plumpaquatsch replied:
a way that doesn't require access to the Apple-ID account sure would be better
I'm fairly sure that Apple already has access to your Apple account, and the NSA or other three-letter agency can get access whenever they feel like it. Heck, I only work for a FOUR-letter agency, and I can personally access most Apple accounts.
Before getting out orbit, you'd need to get into orbit, which means moving sideways fast enough to compensate for the fact that you're falling. That's around 10,000 MPH, depending on altitude. Balloons don't go 10,000 MPH.
Depending on your definition of orbit, you also need to be high enough that the earth's atmosphere causes negligible drag, so you don't have to keep your engine running to maintain 10,000 MPH. Balloons don't go that high.
So orbit is out of question for two reasons. Can a balloon get you high enough that earth's gravity is minimal and your ion thruster can therefore be used to fly away? That would require being about as high up as the moon (very roughly) so no.
That's what I've noticed - I shop for a 16 bay rack mount drive enclosure and for a long time afterward I'll see ads for 16 bay rack mount drive enclosures. Silly, do you think of I bought a rack mount enclosure I might be interested in better cable management for my rack, maybe drives to put in that enclosure, an IP KVM, a good deal on rack screws... the possibilities are endless. Amazon gets it right on their product pages - people who bought this also bought these things. If I buy this, show my ads for what other people who bought X also bought, not for the exact item I bought a month ago.
If you go past the first paragraph, you'll see they agree with Verizon regarding what the _problem_ is:
congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect
It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point.
So they agree, the congestion is at those seven points where they plug into Verizon's network. The thing they are arguing about is that Level3 offered to pay for some $10 patch cords to connect more ports. Verizon looks at that just like you or me saying "I'll buy the patch cords if you give me a free connection to your network". Verizon wants to get paid for people to connect to their network.
I'm about to go into a meeting where we're going to design a security architecture for a government agency involved in cybersecurity. While designing it, I'm going to watch out for the error GP made by implication, which is:
Today's topic is encryption of data on mobile devices. A method of bypassing the encryption was suggested. Gp (and you) essentially argue that the encryption doesn't need to be solid because sandboxing. Next week, the same logic would argue that sandboxing doesn't need to be strong because encryption. Result: Neither sandboxing nor encryption are as strong as they could be.
That's depths of weakness, not depths of defense.
One answer that adds a layer of security would be to encrypt application- private data with an application- specific key. That way, the encryption prevents an app from accessing app-private data, providing a second layer on top of the sandboxing.
Slashdot Mirror
> Clearly fucking rape. The question includes the phrase "unable to consent".
Let me put it this way and maybe you'll understand my point.
When my wife woke me up via a blow job, I was "unable to consent" - I was out cold when she started.
I woke up very, very happy. I say I was not raped. Are you going to try to convince me that I was raped?
* You'll notice I already gave you this actual real-life event, and another like it, several posts ago.
ONE QUESTION asked if they were unable to consent. I said that question is pretty good. We agree on that. So I'm not sure why you keep bringing that question up. The question isn't perfect, and I showed you two real-life examples where it incorrectly labels something as rape, but that question is good enough. "Showing they were unhappy" is a horrible question. So we have a survey interpretation with some pretty good questions and some pretty bad ones. The results, therefore, are somewhere in the middle.
> Do you not know what "facilitated" means? No.
I'm not sure that you, so if you think that's in question here you might want to look it up, along with vaginismus and stress/tension.
That one question covers things that are rape, assuming there's neither PRIOR consent nor implied consent. I clearly and carefully explained to you two actual instances of PRIOR and implied consent, in which the "victim" didn't see themselves as a victim. One one case I told you about, the prior consent was explicit, expressed. Don't you think it's a little odd for the researchers to claim someone was raped when the person themselves feels that they had a romantic evening with their spouse? Do you think you can convince my friend she was raped, because she thinks she had a good partying with her husband.
Aside from that one question, which isn't bad, did you notice the questions I copied and pasted for you?
This study calls it sexual violence if you choose to cheer your mate up because they were "showing they were unhappy".
I come home stressed out, irritated that the damn database admin keeps screwing things up. My wife knows what will cheer me up, and she decides to do so. That's categorized as sexual violence in this survey.
You seriously trivialize rape when you pretend that consensual activity between adults in a loving relationship is the same as an assault. It's not. It's actually okay for your wife to cheer you up with a BJ. It's okay for you to reciprocate.
Just like it's okay for you to not use bittorrent - wtf what was wrong with that AC is the other thread? :)
> A torrent with few seeders isn't very efficient, but one with many hundreds of well-configured peers is hard to beat on overall transfer speed.
From that phrasing, it almost sounds like you're supposing that more speed is more efficient. Faster means less efficient more often than not. For something easy to visualize, a moped going 20 MPH requires several few ounces of fuel per hour. To go several thousand miles per hour, an X-37 must burn around 15,000 pounds of fuel per MINUTE.
Downloading from many sources means taking up many resources. Downloading from one source (the closest one) would be significantly more efficient, and almost as fast.
>> is leeching your bandwidth, they aren't paying cu ... eliminated all the legal utility of bit torrent FOR ME
>>
> corporate cocksucker
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Because IKR pays his own bills rather than mooching off his neighbors, and prefers to download legitimate copies rather than malware-infested torrents, he's a corporate cocksucker? Lay off the drugs, dude. And get a job.
> If you really think that ... alchohol/drug facilitated penetration isn't rape, I've got news for you, son.
When CONSENT is facilitated by EXCESSIVE alcohol, that's rape.
When my wife is stressed out and tense, so she wants to relax with a margarita and have a romantic evening, that's not rape.
When people decide to go out and party, to have a few drinks and hook up, that's not rape - that's college.
When a woman with vaginismus finds that a glass of wine helps relieve the symptoms, that's not rape.
This song is not about rape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
He doesn't hide the fact that his normal pattern and practice is to act like a complete asshole, especially online. Therefore, if someone says he was being a complete asshole online, that matches with what one would expect from him.
To me, it's similar to if someone were to tell me that my friend Christina delivered a pizza to their house. Christina was a pizza-delivery person for several years, so the statement is likely true, absent any evidence to the contrary.
I've noticed people tend to get busted for the wrong crime fairly often, or busted on the wrong day. An old friend of mine started selling drugs, buying and selling abusable prescription drugs. He got busted for selling pot, which he apparently doesn't do, and he wasn't selling anything at the moment.
I can't think of anyone I know who isn't a criminal, yet ended up in jail. It's kind of odd, but in some ways it makes sense.
I believe GP was saying that the particular study cited had a questionable definition of "rape", not that the victims were lying. The survey didn't ask if they were raped. The survey asked questions about if this happened or that happened, then the researchers call it rape, even if the "victim" was perfectly happy with what happened.
One question was if they engaged in sex while drunk or high to the point that they couldn't really give informed consent, or if their partner initiated sex while they were asleep. The researchers then called that rape, which is many cases it probably was. In other cases not - I recently spoke with a woman who didn't remember having sex with her husband one night when they were drunk. It just so happened that he videotaped about two minutes of it, and after he starts, then backs off she says "what are you doing, I thought we were going to have sex?" Upon viewing the tape, she wasn't bothered about it. Since she didn't remember it and was too drunk to really give consent, this study would call that rape. The woman doesn't think it's rape, but the researchers say it is.
I've actually talked to my wife about some of these situations ahead of time. I've told her I'd very much enjoy being awoken by her in a special way, and she said it's fine if I massaging her and such while she's asleep, waking her with sexual contact. The RESEARCHERS call that rape, we call it a great way to wake up.
The researchers also called it sexual violence if the partner did any of these things (quoting from the survey):
doing things like telling you lies, MAKING PROMISES ABOUT THE FUTURE WHICH THEY KNEW WERE UNTRUE, threatening to end your relationship,
or threatening to spread rumors about you?
wearing you down by repeatedly asking for
sex, or SHOWING THEY WERE UNHAPPY?
So letting my wife know I'm disappointed that our last two date nights were cancelled and I'd like to have a romantic evening is sexual violence, as defined by these researchers.
Sexual violence is an important issue. These researchers trivialize it and create more problems when they define "showing they were unhappy" as sexual violence.
Along with the practice images others mentioned, some of your students may be interested in these free online classes, particularly the CYB-201 track.
http://www.teex.org/teex.cfm?p...
The main purpose of smoking pot is to chill out, to be mellow. If you smoke a bunch of pot and you feel wound up, driven, ambitious and motivated you might want a refund.
> the popular misconception that "marijuana users are lazy, stupid, stoners" (an ad hominem frequently used by supporters of prohibition).
The belief is that being a pothead tends to make people mellow/chill/lazy (true, at 15 I was getting scholarship offers, after smoking pot for a year I did nothing but sit around smoking pot), stupid (true - try talking to a stoned person while you're 100% sober), and stoners (true by definition).
It's not an ad hominem (attack on the person) to recognize that pot changes my state of mind in several ways. Nor is it an ad hominem to recognize that those effects include making me relaxed/chill/lazy. That's kind of the whole point of smoking pot, the purpose - to mellow the heck out, to get lazy rather than ambitious for a while.
I dodn't have an exhaustive list. Moose is one example http://act.yapc.eu/ye2013/talk...
Google's security isn't awesome. Therefore, you reason, Apple's must be perfect, because you're a fan. Do you throw your panties on stage at Apple events?
When you grow up a little bit, you'll come to understand that a) fanatacism toward a company like Apple (or Google) just means you're easily manipulated by marketing and b) all companies, all products, and all services have limitations - especially security limitations. The fact that users routinely forget their passwords makes it extremely difficult to secure mass-market services like iCloud, Gmail, Facebook, etc. When you have millions of users, tens of thousands of those will forget their passwords each year. Therefore, you _must_ make it possible to access the account without knowing the password. Because many of the users who forgot their passwords are technically unsophisticated, you must make it _easy_ to access the account without knowing the password.
If you'd like further details on exactly how it's done, refer to any of my earlier posts or posts by swillden.
> If the cost of making something is so low that a >100 year monopoly isn't needed for its production, then either the copyright term must be diminished or the product should not be covered by copyright.
The term of copyright is ridiculously long. I would think that anyone who thinks copyright is a good idea should support reducing the length considerably. Having it so long encourages and provides good arguments for those who wish to greatly restrict copyright. A term of around seven years would accomplish the stated purpose, without unnecessary drawbacks.
Again, I'm expressing arguments against the outcome I prefer.
If, as you argue, the purpose for creating your API is to facilitate cooperation, would you not license it to allow cooperation?
Yeah Larry has long said that Perl6 is the development playground. Things are tried out in 6 and what works well get applied to Perl 5.x. We may never have a Perl release called 6.x, and we don't need one. In some ways, it's like Fedora and Red Hat - try things out in the development branch and put the best stuff in the stable branch.
Complaining that Perl6 isn't stable "yet" is like complaining that Fedora isn't stable "yet" - it's not supposed to be stable.
> I've witnessed probably man/centuries of wasted efforts due to crappy APIs -
> and I've seen single-person projects springing to life and seamingly leveling mountains when the available APIs were good.
> Some APIs fit the puzzle of any applications - some force projects as a whole back to the drawing board.
So you're saying there are good APIs and bad APIs, that there is an art to writing a concise, balanced, beautiful API?
I want Google to win this one, but copyright _is_ supposed to cover stuff you write where there's an art to writing it well.
Do
http://www.ibtimes.com/icloud-...
you
http://securitywatch.pcmag.com...
think
http://www.thehothits.com/news...!
iCloud
http://www.businessinsider.com...
is
http://www.troyhunt.com/2014/0...
secure?
http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/...
Three major hacks in the last few months, one by a preteen.
> what would I do differently? Most rooms are fine. I find I could use more in one of the entertainment areas, but some of those devices are both wired and wireless (and if push came to shove, I would simply move a device to WiFi).
You could also put a 5 port switch at the entertainment center. Then decide which devices can share a gigabit connection - you're not using them all at once anyway.
At my house, the office has several devices, and two jacks on opposite walls. Three or four devices connect to a little 5 port switch in the office. The lines from each room connect to a centrally located 8 port switch at the top of a closet. One if those rooms has the big switch, where we plug in the file server, the pbx, the printer, the modem, etc. So I figure one or two ports per room, no matter which room. If one side of a room needs 8 ports it gets an 8 port switch right there.
AC asked: How would apple or said letter agency install ...
Plumpaquatsch replied:
a way that doesn't require access to the Apple-ID account sure would be better
I'm fairly sure that Apple already has access to your Apple account, and the NSA or other three-letter agency can get access whenever they feel like it. Heck, I only work for a FOUR-letter agency, and I can personally access most Apple accounts.
Before getting out orbit, you'd need to get into orbit, which means moving sideways fast enough to compensate for the fact that you're falling. That's around 10,000 MPH, depending on altitude. Balloons don't go 10,000 MPH.
Depending on your definition of orbit, you also need to be high enough that the earth's atmosphere causes negligible drag, so you don't have to keep your engine running to maintain 10,000 MPH. Balloons don't go that high.
So orbit is out of question for two reasons. Can a balloon get you high enough that earth's gravity is minimal and your ion thruster can therefore be used to fly away? That would require being about as high up as the moon (very roughly) so no.
That's what I've noticed - I shop for a 16 bay rack mount drive enclosure and for a long time afterward I'll see ads for 16 bay rack mount drive enclosures. Silly, do you think of I bought a rack mount enclosure I might be interested in better cable management for my rack, maybe drives to put in that enclosure, an IP KVM, a good deal on rack screws ... the possibilities are endless. Amazon gets it right on their product pages - people who bought this also bought these things. If I buy this, show my ads for what other people who bought X also bought, not for the exact item I bought a month ago.
If you go past the first paragraph, you'll see they agree with Verizon regarding what the _problem_ is:
congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect
It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point.
So they agree, the congestion is at those seven points where they plug into Verizon's network.
The thing they are arguing about is that Level3 offered to pay for some $10 patch cords to connect more ports.
Verizon looks at that just like you or me saying "I'll buy the patch cords if you give me a free connection to your network".
Verizon wants to get paid for people to connect to their network.
I'm about to go into a meeting where we're going to design a security architecture for a government agency involved in cybersecurity. While designing it, I'm going to watch out for the error GP made by implication, which is:
Today's topic is encryption of data on mobile devices.
A method of bypassing the encryption was suggested.
Gp (and you) essentially argue that the encryption doesn't need to be solid because sandboxing.
Next week, the same logic would argue that sandboxing doesn't need to be strong because encryption.
Result: Neither sandboxing nor encryption are as strong as they could be.
That's depths of weakness, not depths of defense.
One answer that adds a layer of security would be to encrypt application- private data with an application- specific key. That way, the encryption prevents an app from accessing app-private data, providing a second layer on top of the sandboxing.
Here's how I do it:
http://osxdaily.com/2014/02/16...
Timtowtdi of course