In many cases, bottled water is coming from a municipal water source. It's treated and filtered the same way all municipal water is. About the only thing that happens is that the companies sometimes re-introduce minerals to enhance the flavor.
Bullshit on your bullshit.
It is completely intellectually dishonest to the point of a LIE to assert that water delivered via a sterile, new, plastic container is the equivalent of what runs through the often old, sometimes lead, sometimes infused with bacteria and sediments stuff tossed through underground lines prone to breakage and then on premise, subject to the neglectful landlord's, and cheap ass developer's habits.
You never had the fire department flush their lines and all of a sudden your water is brown for a day? Try shaking a bottle of bottled water, if it becomes brown afterward I'll concede the piped in water is the same as the bottled stuff.
Water from the tap may be "as safe" but it is NOT "as good" most of the time. How come I can go to my neighbor's apartment and the water tastes different? How come the water at the office tastes like there's a goddamn garden hose in the loop somewhere? (Probably because there IS somewhere. ick.)
The water delivery to the tap is completely different, and it's different in a way that's old, broke down, and full of flaws to the point that many consumers routinely filter it to make it semi-palatable again.
That's not "about the only thing that happens". Lie, lie, and then LIE again.
Chernobyl for one was certainly not "very localized" and whether it "kill[ed] very few people" is contested.
The figure of "just a few thousand" as given by the WHO for Chernobyl ignores the huge uncertainties given by the nature of radiation exposure, and is not least thanks to an 56 year old agreement with the IAEA that provides the latter with "an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power".
It was the black guy who promised "change". He knew he would not deliver but still acts like he's got the moral high ground. He does not. If you tell me you're going to something, you ask my backing on that condition and that renege, you broke your promise and I can call you a liar. I don't care if you're white, black, yellow or purple with green dots.
Things changed alright. Just not in the way people thought they would. We now have a bigger racial divide in our country than the 50's due in part, to the actions of ol'jug-ears for example.
I have a problem with the reasons they abandoned it. They abandoned it because they thought it would stir up too much trouble. Any good administration would have never explored the idea at all because it's a shitty thing to do and unconstitutional.
There is a great frustration with the Constitution by our leaders.
They have been trying in earnest for years, to find a way to make the tools they already use for "parallel construction" (look it up) to allow for circumvention of the 4th and 5th Amendments. See, they get the data illicitly, then they need a way they can use a court order to say they got it legitimately. The actual back door doesn't need to work, people just need to believe it is there.
The problem is, people are getting just as pissed about the appearance of a back door as they were finding out the ramblings of paranoid tinfoil hat wearers about government listening to everything were TRUE when Saint Snowden showed this fact to the world.
... equivalent to admitting that one is guilty of at least one thing that is just as bad as whatever it is they are being charged with, or that what one is being charged with is actually entirely accurate?
Granted, they don't know exactly what that something one is evidently guilty of might be, but still...
Maybe I'm being just a goofy non-American here, but I honestly don't understand the point. In the general case, would someone explain to me how this constitutional amendment protects genuinely innocent people?
Yes.
And. So what?
Not having the 5th amendment opens the door to what would basically be torture. I think you want the government doing that less than you want the government to win this case.
Anyway, they can go ASK THE FUCKING NSA about what was transferred between the phones. Oh, right, that wasn't a legal search either. Sometimes the parallel construction doesn't work I guess.
A lot of people have expressed some doubt as to what this word means. So let me explain it to you. Getting "Ubered" means that the old stupid company you work for has been made obsolete by a young forward looking company that is the epitome of the future of the global technology industry. Even though you will probably lose your job, you are secretly happy that this will finally give you the opportunity to realize your dreams of working for the company that "Ubered" you, even if it is just as a poorly paid driving contractor with no benefits, it;s totally the best decision you've ever made.
Getting "Ubered" basically means falling in love all over again. You don't care that your mistress is a criminal. You are willing to travel the ends of the earth to be with her, or at least vote for politicians who will change the law to make her innocent again.
But most of all getting "Ubered" means not resisting this beautifully elegant idiom permeating the English language completely.
You've been "Ubered" and you love it so much all you can think about is getting "Ubered" again and again.
What you are describing is a "disruptive technology" and the term has been around for 30 years.
Bing as a verb is never going to work, as we already have the verb 'to binge', which would have the same written past tense as 'to Bing' and doesn't exactly have a great connotation.
Please, "Ubered", no. Not only no, and also no, but it sounds like a noise I once made in between too many bratwursts with too much mustard and too much sauerkraut, and way way way too much beer. I think the beer was lagered, which would make a sort of onomatopoetic sense, if it led to ubering.
Yes. The word is dumb. Using this particular one seems like a marketing campaign.
Anyway, we already HAVE a term for this phenomena, "disruptive technology" and it's been around since the late 80's.
Just because you fall for some marketing crap, doesn't mean the idea is new...
You know what kind of ads I really hate? The autoplaying video ads that have started appearing on Slashdot. Is there an ad blocker that will kill only those?
Aside from blocking ads (by whole servers, blacklists of URLs and whatever) browsers need options to simply completely turn off certain behaviors.
I never want my entire browser (or screen) faded out and one object put out front to "sign up" or look at an ad. I don't want my browser to even be able to understand how to do that.
Most people are not happy with a basic living, and will certainly work to supplement it.
You know Switzerland has already implemented a basic income right? Strangely, they have not been plagued by a mass of people quitting their jobs.
The thing about Switzerland is... it's not full of Americans.
Hand out chunks of cash to the "low income" people in the US and you'll have lots more e-Cig shops, liquor stores, weed grow ops, shiny car rims, big subwoofers in cars, lots of brand-new top of the line smart phones used to record for worldstarhiphop.com, more baby mamas, gold grills, donks and whooptys, big screen TVs that let you sign over your check for "a few months" electronically to pay for it, four wheelers with big stereos in the inner city etc.
You won't get people productively buying books for their kids, feeding them fresh vegetables, you won't see new tires on their kids bikes bikes, nor will it go toward fixing their run down houses and fences or getting the two pitbulls chained out back neutered (or socialized for that matter.)
Nobody cares what the Swiss can do besides the Swiss. Your sanctimonious bullshit is the equivalent of a high metabolism high school kid telling some 50 year old with a bad back that losing weight is easy.
People in the US are low income because they are lazy or willingly participate in a culture that glorifies failure.
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
He's not looking to make friends, he's looking for dates. Trying to pretend that looks don't matter in romantic/sexual relationships discounts oh about 99.9% of people. Going for nothing but looks is shallow, but it's quite reasonable for looks to be one of a number of factors you take into account up to and including ruling someone out completely.
Looking for "dates" is sort of a silly thing to do with this. While looks get both parties in the door for "dating" that quickly falls to a less important trait if it's a relationship. (Hook ups and generally shallow people, it might not. To each his own.)
He should finish the project using porn.
Then sell the functionality to porn sites that can quickly learn what any given user likes in order to serve up / find more of it.
The problem is they DON'T want a better dialogue on security issues. A better dialogue would include things like limits on spying on law abiding citizens and retention limits on recorded data. What they want is to be ignored.
I am a bit puzzled why these two guys bothered to say anything about it at all. They are going to do their damnedest to get more corrupt and spy on everybody and anything the best they can anyway.
The only thing I can think of is they either ARE losing the battle to encryption or are trying to make everybody THINK they are losing the battle so they stop pushing encryption because they've got something right around the corner that can deal with what is in use now.
Complaining about "resistance" to being spied upon by one's own government is dumb. They should be more worried about the radical or two (pick your type) deciding they have had enough.(And, yes, we are going to end up there. Who, what, how, and when is anybody's guess, but we are on that road.) Opening their mouths just increases the chances they'll be targets when that point is reached. It can't possibly help their cause, like people are going to go "golly gee, ok mr corrupt ass FBI director obama lapdog, and mr holier than thou CIA goon, we'll let you look at all our racy iPhone photos in the name of national security!"
The only thing opening their mouths does is prove yet again how arrogant and out of touch they are.
If they said the impact of would knock them out, that's descriptive language. When you talk about kinetic energy over area, that's scientific language. Getting hit by the ball might smack you, stating that the application of kinetic force has a given effect implies that you're speaking of actual physical effects.
It won't knock them out unless they get hit in certain portions of the head. And, in that case, the "less lethal" part of the device has gone wrong as any blow to the head hard enough to knock you out, could also kill you.
Bullets don't knock people down. Bullets barely knock a soda can down. I have fired 9 MM ball ammo right through soda cans and they twitch a bit. I friggin 2 gauge slug won't knock a deer half my weight down and that has about 750 foot pounds of energy, 4-5 times that of a 9 MM bullet. Bullets work by applying lots of force to a small spot not by pushing on something to make it move.
You, you watch too many movies and don't know shit about guns.
The maker of this device, probably does know the physics of the situation but is outright simply LYING.
15 years ago that was every boy. Now you have to be some kind of troubled youth to enjoy killing can with BBs.
I went all over with a BB gun (rifle and pistols) and NEVER ONCE pointed at people in order to get a kick out of scaring them, menacing them or anything like that. Also, when the cops showed up (for whatever reason, never had the neighbors complain about what we were doing with BB guns) we stopped what we were doing, answered questions politely and complied every time.
The difference is not the gun or the BB gun or the airsoft gun. It's the culture, mindeset, intent, and parenting of the person holding it that counts.
Getting shot or not is mostly in the control of the shootee, the shooter is not the driving force (other than being in a profession that is the force part of "authorized force by the state."
Getting confused about which gun shaped handle is in the hand is common place enough as it is. Many (dozens) of people have been shot with real bullets when the officer intended to be firing a Tazer. This is the reason many Tazer holsters are cross-draw now and not just in a second holster on the strong side.
This thing, is going to be fired from the SAME weapon and without a lot besides mental training between it, and real bullets. Follow up shots will come right after when the officer did not intend them. Guaranteed. If it gets used, it will get confused, and people will die over it.
This stupid little tool isn't going to work, it's a minor pain compliance tool attached to a "gonna wipe your ass out" tool where things shouldn't be mixed. It's LESS painful and LESS damaging than an asp or night stick.
The only real benefit is this thing can be just clipped on and takes up less space on the belt, or could just sit in a holder on the dash or something.
The dumbass inventor drags it out and pays to have a big marketing stir about once a year, or whenever police have shot someone and it made a bunch of news.
This "censorship" must be really weird. Twitter still contains a cesspool of vicious threats, lies, illegally leaked information, etc. that rivals most other social media combined.
If you got censored on Twitter, it's because they thought you were a terrorist or you shot some poor anchor woman and posted live videos of it. Everything short of that seems to stick around.
If two homosexuals were in an exclusive, monogomous relationship, they wouldn't have to worry about HIV in the first place. Now, the fact that many homosexuals engage in promiscuous sexual behavior, is a major factor in the high transmission rate of HIV among homosexuals.
Now, if you are suggesting that man made drugs allow people to continue engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior in defiance of God, then you have made a point.
While this is true, the AIDS virus has one trick that "breaks through" this type of "protection." Basically, for the behavior to work, the participants would have to have a _lifetime_ monogamy of partners. The time period between infection and sickness/death is very long with the AIDS virus. (Not always, but it can be.)
Because that period is quite long it's quite possible to get infected by one serial monogamy partner and then carry AIDS, get a different partner a decade later and then spread it.
If you look at the marriage patterns of folks like the sanctimonious twatwaffle I quoted above where two, maybe three marriages over the course of fertile years are common... they don't have any more protection than any heterosexual couples with long term partners do. And that's without counting all the adultery going on.
Yes, bath houses and glory holes and IV drugs made a huge impact on how fast it spread. But don't be thinking because you behave like your church says you should that you are protected, because you aren't.
Aside from lots of partners, there's one huge risk factor that makes a big difference in infection rates, anal sex. Refraining from anal sex (even where an infected partner is involved) will drastically reduce risk of transmission.
I read the article all the way through, and it SEEMS like you have to click on the ad in order for it to infect you. They don't specifically come out and SAY this, though. So, is this the case? Does not clicking on ads keep you safe? I thought just having a flash ad download and execute on your machine was enough, or are we not talking about this? There are references to "hardened landing pages" that infect the users, so WTF is up with that?
The funny part is that the malware installed is used to install click-fraud bots on infected machines, so the ad networks and/or end clients themselves are the ones being screwed out of money.
How do you not-click an ad that takes up the entire screen with a transparent hotspot?
please forgive my ignorance, if my prejudice is in any way misguided, but i am under the impression that the attack vector, in actual fact, is flash, as i cannot see how a simple image, or even a "normal" video, could possibly compromise a target machine, whereas i understand adobe is full of holes, deliberate or otherwise.
or, to put it another way, i've never seen a machine compromised, to date, after wiping adobe (hack, spit) from the system.
while i'm at it - am i correct to believe the company was actually responsible for jailing a man, a foreign national, without charges, for well over a year, in direct response to his having exposed the insecurity of an adobe "security" mechanism?
You are forgetting a whole class of those malware attempts (not ads, ads are just a subclass of malware) that masquarade as parts of windows, updates, parts of anti-virus programs, nVidia driver updates, etc. You know, the ones that old people can't quite figure out so they click anyway just to be sure.
You don't need a security hole if you can convince the user the malware is legit and should be installed.
The thing is, that type of festering garbage comes through the SAME ad network as the ads for the newest iPhone
It's getting to the point where I am going to have to teach my parents that nothing ever should be clicked on if it happens while they are web browsing. Sitting there looking at MS Word documents, sure, it's probably legit. On a web site somewhere (doesn't matter which one) then no, not legit and is an infection attempt.
Well, it better be "significant enough" to be the difference in a statewide election. If it's not, or if it's real, then all the research will have done is shown those republicans where they have over saturated some areas and it's time to redraw some lines. My guess, is that's the worst case scenario for the "researcher" and that if it is legit we'll never hear from the again.
Wait. Are you saying it's appropriate to "redraw some lines" based on what party won a district?
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH...
http://www.today.com/food/your...
http://www.allaboutwater.org/t...
https://youtu.be/saSgpX186MM
In many cases, bottled water is coming from a municipal water source. It's treated and filtered the same way all municipal water is. About the only thing that happens is that the companies sometimes re-introduce minerals to enhance the flavor.
Bullshit on your bullshit.
It is completely intellectually dishonest to the point of a LIE to assert that water delivered via a sterile, new, plastic container is the equivalent of what runs through the often old, sometimes lead, sometimes infused with bacteria and sediments stuff tossed through underground lines prone to breakage and then on premise, subject to the neglectful landlord's, and cheap ass developer's habits.
You never had the fire department flush their lines and all of a sudden your water is brown for a day? Try shaking a bottle of bottled water, if it becomes brown afterward I'll concede the piped in water is the same as the bottled stuff.
Water from the tap may be "as safe" but it is NOT "as good" most of the time. How come I can go to my neighbor's apartment and the water tastes different? How come the water at the office tastes like there's a goddamn garden hose in the loop somewhere? (Probably because there IS somewhere. ick.)
The water delivery to the tap is completely different, and it's different in a way that's old, broke down, and full of flaws to the point that many consumers routinely filter it to make it semi-palatable again.
That's not "about the only thing that happens". Lie, lie, and then LIE again.
It's not pretty.
Seriously,actually.
They should put glitter and sparkles in it. That will both prevent use, and encourage use at the same time.
Chernobyl for one was certainly not "very localized" and whether it "kill[ed] very few people" is contested.
The figure of "just a few thousand" as given by the WHO for Chernobyl ignores the huge uncertainties given by the nature of radiation exposure, and is not least thanks to an 56 year old agreement with the IAEA that provides the latter with "an effective veto on any actions by the WHO that relate in any way to nuclear power".
(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/com... )
Chernobyl was communist fuck-ups that lied about what they were doing with the reactor, what went wrong with the reactor, and who died.
The US, are not communist fuck-ups. Maybe, a different kind of fuck-up, but not likely to the same degree.
It was the black guy who promised "change". He knew he would not deliver but still acts like he's got the moral high ground. He does not. If you tell me you're going to something, you ask my backing on that condition and that renege, you broke your promise and I can call you a liar. I don't care if you're white, black, yellow or purple with green dots.
Things changed alright. Just not in the way people thought they would. We now have a bigger racial divide in our country than the 50's due in part, to the actions of ol'jug-ears for example.
I have a problem with the reasons they abandoned it. They abandoned it because they thought it would stir up too much trouble. Any good administration would have never explored the idea at all because it's a shitty thing to do and unconstitutional.
There is a great frustration with the Constitution by our leaders.
They have been trying in earnest for years, to find a way to make the tools they already use for "parallel construction" (look it up) to allow for circumvention of the 4th and 5th Amendments. See, they get the data illicitly, then they need a way they can use a court order to say they got it legitimately. The actual back door doesn't need to work, people just need to believe it is there.
The problem is, people are getting just as pissed about the appearance of a back door as they were finding out the ramblings of paranoid tinfoil hat wearers about government listening to everything were TRUE when Saint Snowden showed this fact to the world.
Granted, they don't know exactly what that something one is evidently guilty of might be, but still...
Maybe I'm being just a goofy non-American here, but I honestly don't understand the point. In the general case, would someone explain to me how this constitutional amendment protects genuinely innocent people?
Yes.
And. So what?
Not having the 5th amendment opens the door to what would basically be torture. I think you want the government doing that less than you want the government to win this case.
Anyway, they can go ASK THE FUCKING NSA about what was transferred between the phones. Oh, right, that wasn't a legal search either. Sometimes the parallel construction doesn't work I guess.
A lot of people have expressed some doubt as to what this word means. So let me explain it to you. Getting "Ubered" means that the old stupid company you work for has been made obsolete by a young forward looking company that is the epitome of the future of the global technology industry. Even though you will probably lose your job, you are secretly happy that this will finally give you the opportunity to realize your dreams of working for the company that "Ubered" you, even if it is just as a poorly paid driving contractor with no benefits, it;s totally the best decision you've ever made.
Getting "Ubered" basically means falling in love all over again. You don't care that your mistress is a criminal. You are willing to travel the ends of the earth to be with her, or at least vote for politicians who will change the law to make her innocent again.
But most of all getting "Ubered" means not resisting this beautifully elegant idiom permeating the English language completely.
You've been "Ubered" and you love it so much all you can think about is getting "Ubered" again and again.
What you are describing is a "disruptive technology" and the term has been around for 30 years.
Bing as a verb is never going to work, as we already have the verb 'to binge', which would have the same written past tense as 'to Bing' and doesn't exactly have a great connotation.
Past tense of "Bing" would be "Bung"
Please, "Ubered", no. Not only no, and also no, but it sounds like a noise I once made in between too many bratwursts with too much mustard and too much sauerkraut, and way way way too much beer. I think the beer was lagered, which would make a sort of onomatopoetic sense, if it led to ubering.
Yes. The word is dumb. Using this particular one seems like a marketing campaign.
Anyway, we already HAVE a term for this phenomena, "disruptive technology" and it's been around since the late 80's.
Just because you fall for some marketing crap, doesn't mean the idea is new...
You know what kind of ads I really hate? The autoplaying video ads that have started appearing on Slashdot. Is there an ad blocker that will kill only those?
Try one of the HOSTS file add blockers.
I don't see any of that on /.
Aside from blocking ads (by whole servers, blacklists of URLs and whatever) browsers need options to simply completely turn off certain behaviors.
I never want my entire browser (or screen) faded out and one object put out front to "sign up" or look at an ad. I don't want my browser to even be able to understand how to do that.
Most people are not happy with a basic living, and will certainly work to supplement it.
You know Switzerland has already implemented a basic income right? Strangely, they have not been plagued by a mass of people quitting their jobs.
The thing about Switzerland is... it's not full of Americans.
Hand out chunks of cash to the "low income" people in the US and you'll have lots more e-Cig shops, liquor stores, weed grow ops, shiny car rims, big subwoofers in cars, lots of brand-new top of the line smart phones used to record for worldstarhiphop.com, more baby mamas, gold grills, donks and whooptys, big screen TVs that let you sign over your check for "a few months" electronically to pay for it, four wheelers with big stereos in the inner city etc.
You won't get people productively buying books for their kids, feeding them fresh vegetables, you won't see new tires on their kids bikes bikes, nor will it go toward fixing their run down houses and fences or getting the two pitbulls chained out back neutered (or socialized for that matter.)
Nobody cares what the Swiss can do besides the Swiss. Your sanctimonious bullshit is the equivalent of a high metabolism high school kid telling some 50 year old with a bad back that losing weight is easy.
People in the US are low income because they are lazy or willingly participate in a culture that glorifies failure.
If you are choosing whether or not to even talk to someone based only on their looks then you are, at the very least, shallow.
He's not looking to make friends, he's looking for dates. Trying to pretend that looks don't matter in romantic/sexual relationships discounts oh about 99.9% of people. Going for nothing but looks is shallow, but it's quite reasonable for looks to be one of a number of factors you take into account up to and including ruling someone out completely.
Looking for "dates" is sort of a silly thing to do with this. While looks get both parties in the door for "dating" that quickly falls to a less important trait if it's a relationship. (Hook ups and generally shallow people, it might not. To each his own.)
He should finish the project using porn.
Then sell the functionality to porn sites that can quickly learn what any given user likes in order to serve up / find more of it.
Is teach all Facebook users what the word "empathy" means.
The problem is they DON'T want a better dialogue on security issues. A better dialogue would include things like limits on spying on law abiding citizens and retention limits on recorded data. What they want is to be ignored.
I am a bit puzzled why these two guys bothered to say anything about it at all. They are going to do their damnedest to get more corrupt and spy on everybody and anything the best they can anyway.
The only thing I can think of is they either ARE losing the battle to encryption or are trying to make everybody THINK they are losing the battle so they stop pushing encryption because they've got something right around the corner that can deal with what is in use now.
Complaining about "resistance" to being spied upon by one's own government is dumb. They should be more worried about the radical or two (pick your type) deciding they have had enough.(And, yes, we are going to end up there. Who, what, how, and when is anybody's guess, but we are on that road.) Opening their mouths just increases the chances they'll be targets when that point is reached. It can't possibly help their cause, like people are going to go "golly gee, ok mr corrupt ass FBI director obama lapdog, and mr holier than thou CIA goon, we'll let you look at all our racy iPhone photos in the name of national security!"
The only thing opening their mouths does is prove yet again how arrogant and out of touch they are.
If they said the impact of would knock them out, that's descriptive language. When you talk about kinetic energy over area, that's scientific language. Getting hit by the ball might smack you, stating that the application of kinetic force has a given effect implies that you're speaking of actual physical effects.
It won't knock them out unless they get hit in certain portions of the head. And, in that case, the "less lethal" part of the device has gone wrong as any blow to the head hard enough to knock you out, could also kill you.
Bullets don't knock people down. Bullets barely knock a soda can down. I have fired 9 MM ball ammo right through soda cans and they twitch a bit. I friggin 2 gauge slug won't knock a deer half my weight down and that has about 750 foot pounds of energy, 4-5 times that of a 9 MM bullet. Bullets work by applying lots of force to a small spot not by pushing on something to make it move.
You, you watch too many movies and don't know shit about guns.
The maker of this device, probably does know the physics of the situation but is outright simply LYING.
#blackliesmatter
15 years ago that was every boy. Now you have to be some kind of troubled youth to enjoy killing can with BBs.
I went all over with a BB gun (rifle and pistols) and NEVER ONCE pointed at people in order to get a kick out of scaring them, menacing them or anything like that. Also, when the cops showed up (for whatever reason, never had the neighbors complain about what we were doing with BB guns) we stopped what we were doing, answered questions politely and complied every time.
The difference is not the gun or the BB gun or the airsoft gun. It's the culture, mindeset, intent, and parenting of the person holding it that counts.
Getting shot or not is mostly in the control of the shootee, the shooter is not the driving force (other than being in a profession that is the force part of "authorized force by the state."
Getting confused about which gun shaped handle is in the hand is common place enough as it is. Many (dozens) of people have been shot with real bullets when the officer intended to be firing a Tazer. This is the reason many Tazer holsters are cross-draw now and not just in a second holster on the strong side.
This thing, is going to be fired from the SAME weapon and without a lot besides mental training between it, and real bullets. Follow up shots will come right after when the officer did not intend them. Guaranteed. If it gets used, it will get confused, and people will die over it.
This stupid little tool isn't going to work, it's a minor pain compliance tool attached to a "gonna wipe your ass out" tool where things shouldn't be mixed. It's LESS painful and LESS damaging than an asp or night stick.
The only real benefit is this thing can be just clipped on and takes up less space on the belt, or could just sit in a holder on the dash or something.
The dumbass inventor drags it out and pays to have a big marketing stir about once a year, or whenever police have shot someone and it made a bunch of news.
You're mistaking Chinese people for Gingers. Ginger's don't have souls.
Gingers have souls. They have one freckle for every soul they steal.
The biggest problem with Twitter is censorship.
LOL.
This "censorship" must be really weird. Twitter still contains a cesspool of vicious threats, lies, illegally leaked information, etc. that rivals most other social media combined.
If you got censored on Twitter, it's because they thought you were a terrorist or you shot some poor anchor woman and posted live videos of it. Everything short of that seems to stick around.
If two homosexuals were in an exclusive, monogomous relationship, they wouldn't have to worry about HIV in the first place. Now, the fact that many homosexuals engage in promiscuous sexual behavior, is a major factor in the high transmission rate of HIV among homosexuals.
Now, if you are suggesting that man made drugs allow people to continue engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior in defiance of God, then you have made a point.
While this is true, the AIDS virus has one trick that "breaks through" this type of "protection." Basically, for the behavior to work, the participants would have to have a _lifetime_ monogamy of partners. The time period between infection and sickness/death is very long with the AIDS virus. (Not always, but it can be.)
Because that period is quite long it's quite possible to get infected by one serial monogamy partner and then carry AIDS, get a different partner a decade later and then spread it.
If you look at the marriage patterns of folks like the sanctimonious twatwaffle I quoted above where two, maybe three marriages over the course of fertile years are common... they don't have any more protection than any heterosexual couples with long term partners do. And that's without counting all the adultery going on.
Yes, bath houses and glory holes and IV drugs made a huge impact on how fast it spread. But don't be thinking because you behave like your church says you should that you are protected, because you aren't.
Aside from lots of partners, there's one huge risk factor that makes a big difference in infection rates, anal sex. Refraining from anal sex (even where an infected partner is involved) will drastically reduce risk of transmission.
I read the article all the way through, and it SEEMS like you have to click on the ad in order for it to infect you. They don't specifically come out and SAY this, though. So, is this the case? Does not clicking on ads keep you safe? I thought just having a flash ad download and execute on your machine was enough, or are we not talking about this? There are references to "hardened landing pages" that infect the users, so WTF is up with that?
The funny part is that the malware installed is used to install click-fraud bots on infected machines, so the ad networks and/or end clients themselves are the ones being screwed out of money.
How do you not-click an ad that takes up the entire screen with a transparent hotspot?
please forgive my ignorance, if my prejudice is in any way misguided, but i am under the impression that the attack vector, in actual fact, is flash, as i cannot see how a simple image, or even a "normal" video, could possibly compromise a target machine, whereas i understand adobe is full of holes, deliberate or otherwise.
or, to put it another way, i've never seen a machine compromised, to date, after wiping adobe (hack, spit) from the system.
while i'm at it - am i correct to believe the company was actually responsible for jailing a man, a foreign national, without charges, for well over a year, in direct response to his having exposed the insecurity of an adobe "security" mechanism?
You are forgetting a whole class of those malware attempts (not ads, ads are just a subclass of malware) that masquarade as parts of windows, updates, parts of anti-virus programs, nVidia driver updates, etc. You know, the ones that old people can't quite figure out so they click anyway just to be sure.
You don't need a security hole if you can convince the user the malware is legit and should be installed.
The thing is, that type of festering garbage comes through the SAME ad network as the ads for the newest iPhone
It's getting to the point where I am going to have to teach my parents that nothing ever should be clicked on if it happens while they are web browsing. Sitting there looking at MS Word documents, sure, it's probably legit. On a web site somewhere (doesn't matter which one) then no, not legit and is an infection attempt.
Well, it better be "significant enough" to be the difference in a statewide election. If it's not, or if it's real, then all the research will have done is shown those republicans where they have over saturated some areas and it's time to redraw some lines. My guess, is that's the worst case scenario for the "researcher" and that if it is legit we'll never hear from the again.
Wait. Are you saying it's appropriate to "redraw some lines" based on what party won a district?
Corrupt much?