they would subsequently have to prove, or lose credibility Others have alraedy pointed out the absurdity of this statement, so I'm just putting it here again as a reminder of how little you understand.
If they couldn't prove it, not only is everything nice and unlocked (with the issuance of an injunction), but then they become liable for damages. Umm, NO. The Order specifically says that this can't happen. As in: *YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SUE THEM*
But I'll bet you then say "oh, they can't do that - I'll take them to court to have that clause invalidated" _ and suppose a judge agrees with you, and allows you to sue them.. guess what happens then?
They say "oh, because this deals with national security, neither you or your lawyer are allowed to see the evidence we had against you." The judge *MIGHT* be able to see it (if he's very lucky) but you can't - and since you can't see it, how exactly do you refute it, and prove it's false?
How the hell did you get modded informative with that god-awful collection of misunderstandings and poor comprehension of clearly understood concepts?
the ARP standard is unclear enough that it's undefined what the response should be for an ARP request to an unknown destination should be Umm, what?!?!?!
There's nothing unclear about the standard, except when you apply it incorrectly.
To begin with, there is no such thing as an "unknown destination" - if the address is unknown, how the hell do you send a request for it?!?! (You ever call 411 and say "Hi, I need the phone number for someone, but I don't know who they are, where they live, what they do, or anything about them.")
Now, if you're clumsily trying to say "there's no way to answer: what is the MAC address of an IP address that is unassigned", then that's simple - there is no answer (nobody responds, so therefore there is no answer - which means that the IP address is unassigned.)
However, if you're trying to say "what is the MAC address of an IP address that resides on a different network" then the answer is the same - there (again) will only be a reply if a machine with that IP address exists on the network. IP networks are virtual - you can have many different IP networks residing on the same wire. If a machine hears an ARP request for an address that is not on it's network, it just doesn't answer (the inherit assumption is that there is another IP network on the same wire, and the request is ignored.)
ARP doesn't know anything about IP network layout - basically, machines just respond if they hear a request for their IP address.
Theoretically, every packet that you send needs an ARP entry, which means that every packet sent to something that isn't in your machine's ARP table would generate an ARP request. No - every packet you send needs a DESTINATION (either broadcast, unicast, or multicast). Unicast packets (which is what we're talking about here) require a destination MAC address, but these destinations don't have to be resolved using ARP - it's quite possible to have some or all of them in a static table, if you like. However, it looks like you're just confused, because of...
In reality, it seems that your router tends to substitute its own MAC address for non-local ARP entries (since all non-local packets go through the router, you really don't have to know what the real MAC address is) You are confusing IP and Ethernet (802.3, 802.11, etc.) networks. To ethernet, there is no such thing as a "non-local" packet - all packets are local.
When you want to send to an *IP* address that is not on the local link, you look up the IP address for the router(s) to that network, ARP for it (if you don't already know it's MAC address) and send the packet to it - there is no 'substitution' involved. You never ask for the MAC address of the destination IP address, you ask for the MAC address of your router, then send it the packet for forwarding.
In all fairness Hmm... you seem to have an odd definition of fair.
nobody has ever cashed in on Bernstein's security guarentee Only because DJB won't honor it. People have found bugs in his code, but he refuses to acknowlege them.
Dan is polite to me too; so maybe I live in an alternative universe. That would certainly explain your usage of the word "fair".
Are you saying that the UK is a police state? As a citizen of the UK, are you saying that they're not?
My point is that in the big picture of life, it's nothing. Bullshit.
Being arrested, hauled away like a criminal when you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing when there is no evidence that a crime has even been committed is not, in any way, shape or form "nothing".
Most civilized communities have achieved a reasonable balance Bullshit - this has nothing to do with being "civilized"
My point was that the annoyances we experience from the police are a small price to live in a police state. There, fixed that for ya.
Complaining that the police detained you for five hours over an ID issue is like complaining that you have to stop at traffic lights. Last time I checked, traffic lights don't hold you against your will for 5 hours.
Many people enjoy eating the sausage of freedom Ahh - so in order to enjoy freedom, we have to be submit to being locked up when we've done nothing wrong.
Are you *trying* to sound Orwellian? (C'mon - you might have well have said "war is peace".)
Do you really expect Tanenbaum would have had any qualms about letting him fail if Linux had been a class project, with no actual real-world use? I don't think he would've just done so right away without giving Linus a chance, but it would've been mild coercion at best - the "I'm the professor, trust me, I know what's right and wrong, so why don't you change your design now, son, you'll get a better grade that way Umm, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're claiming that Linus was Tannenbaum's student. If so, your understanding is incorrect - Linus was never Tannenbaum's student. (As proof, I offer the infamous debate, in which Tannenbaum wrote "Be thankful you are not my student.")
Of course the administration wants to catch these creeps -- they'd love to parade Bin Laden around the streets and go "We told you we were going to kick his ass!". Sorry, but history disagrees with you - Bush et al. proved it false when they withdrew most of the troops from Afghanistan (where Osama Bin Laden was) to invade Iraq. If they really wanted to catch him, they wouldn't have moved resources away from the search.
As my brother says of the new service economy, "never mind, we'll all sell each other haircuts over the Internet." Your brother isn't Will Durst, is he?:)
At the end of the Reagan administration, I remember Durst saying something along the lines of "our economy will be based on people delivering pizzas to each other."
My stepfather is Cree, and I spend much of my childhood on reserves.
The indian act was supported by chiefs to keep women off their feet and in beds making babies so they could be beaten by their husbands. Look it up, it's true. Women in first nations are fighting for equality (still) but rarely get anywhere because they are (often quite literally) beaten back down. I have to say that I have seen *NO* evidence of this, ever. Not once.
Life on reserves is difficult, and I would say that native people are the most disenfranchised in Canada (to Americans reading this: they get treated with the same respect that black people get treated in the southern states.) However, I have seen no evidence that spousal abuse happens on the scale you claim.
his integrity is beyond your attempts to diminish it *sigh*
I am not questioning his integrity.
I am questioning his *AUTHORITY* on Global Warming.
I am a bit confused at why, with the ability to check who he is, and my insistence that he didn't make the report or anything, you are attacking the messenger rather then the message. You are only confused because you don't understand science or debate. I am neither attacking the messenger or the message - I am attacking your *LACK OF AUTHORITY*
I would say he is pretty much impeachable in his integrity. But we're not discussing his integrity, we're discussing his ability to be an authority on global warming.
I don't know why you keep bringing up his integrity - it has no relevance to this discussion.
Maybe I didn't make my self clear enough. No, you made yourself plenty clear - you have *NO* foundation for any of your substantive arguments.
No, I am not. If that were true, then why would you write this:
"maybe it is because other news outlets are biased and don't want to have their integrity question by every faithful follower of the ultimate religion. Or maybe it is because they are still looking to see what it means. Or maybe it is because they are followers of the true region and don't want to blasphemy it." If you look at that paragraph objectively you must agree that it is political.
When presented the raw data, there is. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's obvious that you have no understanding of science or scientific terminology. Maybe once you've taken some science courses in high school, you might learn a little bit about it - but when you have *DATA*, there is no need for faith.
If I tell you the traffic light at the corner of the intersection near you house is green right now, you have no choice but to check it or believe me. If the view is obstructed, then you have to believe me. It's also completely irrelevant - if you tell me that the traffic light is green, that's not data.
There is a science axiom that says "the plural of anecdote is not data" - I guess that needs to be amended to say that it's not the singular either.
If global warming exists, and it is a problem, a problem caused by man, and man can fix that problem, politicizing it has done more to make it unbelievable then anything else could have. So you finally understand why the anti-global warming camps are set on politicizing it then. Good to see that there's hope for you.
I think before you continue to embarrass yourself, you should learn a bit about the scientific process and take a look at what it is that's being claimed here, and what the repercussions would be if it were true.
Falsifying scientific results is a *HUGE* deal - doing it will almost certainly end any scientists' career, even if the general public never finds out. And when (not if, but when) such falsifications are discovered, the scientist who discovers it would gain a huge amount of credibility.
It boggles the mind to claim that hundreds of scientists are engaged in falsifying data, over a single issue for which they will have no direct gain, and that thousands more are silently going along with it rather than furthering their own careers by exposing it.
it is pointless to argue the creditability of Paul Harvey No - when *you* are using him as the ultimate authority to back up your post, it is imperative that we argue this. If you didn't want to argue the credibility of your authority, why did you present him as a all-knowing paragon of omniscience?
The mentioning of his name was to show it was reported in the news. Lots of false things are reported in the news - that doesn't magically make them true.
I am quite surprised that more news outlets haven't reported it. Maybe that's because the other news outlets investigated where the claims came from, and found that it's bogus? Had this not occurred to you, or are you
Oh man. I can see this isn't going to be fun. Sorry, I was having a bit of fun with you there - I do apologize (really). I do realize that there are other conclusions one can draw from your statements (such as Mr. Harvey being omniscient.)
The logical conclusion is that there was news about this and he reported it. No - your continued statements about Mr. Harvey's unimpeachability mean that this has much, much more significance than being "just news".
Don't interject you own confusion and distortions to this. I am doing no such thing. I am stating the requirements for an objective person to believe what you are writing.
If Mr. Harvey were on the research team that found the alleged falsification, that would be enough to convince someone that he is authoritative on the subject. Similarly, if he were omniscient, that would also be enough to know that he's not reporting someone else's falsehood. I can't think of anything else that would come close.
If you don't agree with what I said then fine, but i have never seen twisting of words so blatant in all my time dealing with hot button issues on the internet. It's not about agreeing with what you said, it's an attempt to get you to corroborate your statement with something more than "I hearded it on that talk-box, so it gotta be true!"
he has a good deal of integrity and doesn't lend to the political reporting of the news like so many other news outlets do You have proved this statement to be false. His voice is being used as a rallying cry by people to politicize the debate... You're doing it right now.
For all the studies done that conflict and all the questions about which data is more correct and all the leaps of faith we have to take to believe either way Wrong - when presented with data, there is no "leap" needed.
Some people get scammed, Some see the scam coming, while other join the cult. Hmm - does this mean you're beggining to realize that you're being scammed?
I won't even look to see what the study said How can anyone address the "study" when you won't provide a link?
I guess you don't know who paul Harvey is. No, I do know who he is. This isn't about who he is, this is about your claims of who he is, and what he is able to do. You stated that the "study" (I am using quotes because you still refuse to provide any evidence that it even exists) was performed by a "Canadian University". Then you claimed that this was reported by Mr. Harvey. Then you said that Mr Harvey's statements are unimpeachable, and that what he says is the absolute truth.
The logical conclusion to those statements is that you believe Mr Harvey was one of the researchers who performed the "study" - otherwise, how else can his statements be completely true?
The news is this thing were people find out facts that are worthy to the public and reports them. So you're saying that everything that has ever been reported by the news media is pure 100% FACT and they never present anything that could be considered untrue?!??!
Wow. Just - wow.
I bet you don't suggest any other news caster have to be on the research team when they report something about global warming that you like. As I said, my statements were about your comments about Mr. Harvey possessing this god-like ability to know what is true and what isn't, merely by reading a news report.
we have as much faith to believe that as we do the original reports. Faith doesn't enter into it. For all of the *actual* studies done, you can research them and find out for yourself.
You don't want to acknowledge any contradictory study because it violates your religion Excuse me - which study are you referring to? Considering sumdumass said outright that he wasn't going to provide anything to corroborate his claims, there is no study.
If you care to provide a link to support the claims made by sumdumass, I will address them.
Recently a Canadian university release a study on the GHG and the proxy measurements. Translation: "I'm about to use the logical fallacy called 'appeal to authority'"
And no, I'm not going to find a link for this. Translation: "I'm completely full of shit and I know it - I have just made a completely unfounded accusation about a global consipiracy, but I can't provide any corroborating information, nor will I give enough information for anyone else to find anyone to debunk my BS."
I first heard it on Paul Harvy and then it was talked about on a local talk show. And anyone who knows paul harvey, or has listened to him over the years, he doesn't make things up and he doesn't sugarcoat anything.
So you're claiming that Paul Harvey works for "A Canadian University"?
Because how else could he have authoritative knowledge, unless he was part of the research team that discovered this amazing conspiracy?
Or is he perhaps just repeating what someone else told him, and then can't be held accountable when this turns out to be complete bunk?
The other awful Motorola feature is the side button ring mode change on the clamshell phones. While the feature may be on all the Motorola clamshell phones, it doesn't work the same on each..
My v190 requires two buttons to be pressed in sequence, and it makes no sound at all when the type changes (the only indication that it changed is the LCD.)
Yes, the low-batt beep is annoying, but not nearly as much as the Nokia (think of the beep, only *much* louder, at different pitches, and *all the fscking time* instead of once every 3 minutes, and with the LCD backlight flashing on and off.)
If you are No. 1 or No. 2 in your industry, you hate open source. I think if he checked his facts, he might discover that the world's largest computer hardware company absolutely *loves* open source.
It is not playing in the US media because no law was broken when those attorneys were fired. Ahh - that explains why Clinton got hounded for a blowjob - we all know those are illegal!
Of COURSE a hybrid would SHOW a huge MPG rating by that government standard. A total electric would show ~ (infinity) as it produces NO carbon itself. Sorry, are you implying that the test is flawed for hybrids because they have an electric component?
If so, here's your cluebat: Unless the electric component is bringing in power from outside the system, the test is completely valid, because all the power comes from the gasoline in the tank. Turning the engine into a generator which powers and electric drive-train doesn't change this simple fact.
You'll have someone from the side pulling in front of you because you've left room. And this is a problem why?!?!? Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but there was *already* someone in front of you.
I can't believe how assinine some people are. It's not a fucking race.
Slashdot Mirror
But I'll bet you then say "oh, they can't do that - I'll take them to court to have that clause invalidated" _ and suppose a judge agrees with you, and allows you to sue them.. guess what happens then?
They say "oh, because this deals with national security, neither you or your lawyer are allowed to see the evidence we had against you." The judge *MIGHT* be able to see it (if he's very lucky) but you can't - and since you can't see it, how exactly do you refute it, and prove it's false?
And that will be the end of that. You lose.
How the hell did you get modded informative with that god-awful collection of misunderstandings and poor comprehension of clearly understood concepts? the ARP standard is unclear enough that it's undefined what the response should be for an ARP request to an unknown destination should be Umm, what?!?!?!
There's nothing unclear about the standard, except when you apply it incorrectly.
To begin with, there is no such thing as an "unknown destination" - if the address is unknown, how the hell do you send a request for it?!?! (You ever call 411 and say "Hi, I need the phone number for someone, but I don't know who they are, where they live, what they do, or anything about them.")
Now, if you're clumsily trying to say "there's no way to answer: what is the MAC address of an IP address that is unassigned", then that's simple - there is no answer (nobody responds, so therefore there is no answer - which means that the IP address is unassigned.)
However, if you're trying to say "what is the MAC address of an IP address that resides on a different network" then the answer is the same - there (again) will only be a reply if
a machine with that IP address exists on the network. IP networks are virtual - you can have many different IP networks residing on the same wire. If a machine hears an ARP request for an address that is not on it's network, it just doesn't answer (the inherit assumption is that there is another IP network on the same wire, and the request is ignored.)
ARP doesn't know anything about IP network layout - basically, machines just respond if they hear a request for their IP address. Theoretically, every packet that you send needs an ARP entry, which means that every packet sent to something that isn't in your machine's ARP table would generate an ARP request. No - every packet you send needs a DESTINATION (either broadcast, unicast, or multicast). Unicast packets (which is what we're talking about here) require a destination MAC address, but these destinations don't have to be resolved using ARP - it's quite possible to have some or all of them in a static table, if you like. However, it looks like you're just confused, because of... In reality, it seems that your router tends to substitute its own MAC address for non-local ARP entries (since all non-local packets go through the router, you really don't have to know what the real MAC address is) You are confusing IP and Ethernet (802.3, 802.11, etc.) networks. To ethernet, there is no such thing as a "non-local" packet - all packets are local.
When you want to send to an *IP* address that is not on the local link, you look up the IP address for the router(s) to that network, ARP for it (if you don't already know it's MAC address) and send the packet to it - there is no 'substitution' involved. You never ask for the MAC address of the destination IP address, you ask for the MAC address of your router, then send it the packet for forwarding.
I'm not American, but it saddens me to think of what the US has become.
Being arrested, hauled away like a criminal when you are completely innocent of any wrongdoing when there is no evidence that a crime has even been committed is not, in any way, shape or form "nothing". Most civilized communities have achieved a reasonable balance Bullshit - this has nothing to do with being "civilized"
Are you *trying* to sound Orwellian? (C'mon - you might have well have said "war is peace".)
At the end of the Reagan administration, I remember Durst saying something along the lines of "our economy will be based on people delivering pizzas to each other."
Life on reserves is difficult, and I would say that native people are the most disenfranchised in Canada (to Americans reading this: they get treated with the same respect that black people get treated in the southern states.) However, I have seen no evidence that spousal abuse happens on the scale you claim.
"If there isn't a link, or any other corroborating information whatsoever, then it cannot be addressed."
But nice try.
I am not questioning his integrity.
I am questioning his *AUTHORITY* on Global Warming. I am a bit confused at why, with the ability to check who he is, and my insistence that he didn't make the report or anything, you are attacking the messenger rather then the message. You are only confused because you don't understand science or debate. I am neither attacking the messenger or the message - I am attacking your *LACK OF AUTHORITY* I would say he is pretty much impeachable in his integrity. But we're not discussing his integrity, we're discussing his ability to be an authority on global warming.
I don't know why you keep bringing up his integrity - it has no relevance to this discussion. Maybe I didn't make my self clear enough. No, you made yourself plenty clear - you have *NO* foundation for any of your substantive arguments. No, I am not. If that were true, then why would you write this: "maybe it is because other news outlets are biased and don't want to have their integrity question by every faithful follower of the ultimate religion. Or maybe it is because they are still looking to see what it means. Or maybe it is because they are followers of the true region and don't want to blasphemy it." If you look at that paragraph objectively you must agree that it is political. When presented the raw data, there is. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's obvious that you have no understanding of science or scientific terminology. Maybe once you've taken some science courses in high school, you might learn a little bit about it - but when you have *DATA*, there is no need for faith. If I tell you the traffic light at the corner of the intersection near you house is green right now, you have no choice but to check it or believe me. If the view is obstructed, then you have to believe me. It's also completely irrelevant - if you tell me that the traffic light is green, that's not data.
There is a science axiom that says "the plural of anecdote is not data" - I guess that needs to be amended to say that it's not the singular either. If global warming exists, and it is a problem, a problem caused by man, and man can fix that problem, politicizing it has done more to make it unbelievable then anything else could have. So you finally understand why the anti-global warming camps are set on politicizing it then. Good to see that there's hope for you.
I think before you continue to embarrass yourself, you should learn a bit about the scientific process and take a look at what it is that's being claimed here, and what the repercussions would be if it were true.
Falsifying scientific results is a *HUGE* deal - doing it will almost certainly end any scientists' career, even if the general public never finds out. And when (not if, but when) such falsifications are discovered, the scientist who discovers it would gain a huge amount of credibility.
It boggles the mind to claim that hundreds of scientists are engaged in falsifying data, over a single issue for which they will have no direct gain, and that thousands more are silently going along with it rather than furthering their own careers by exposing it.
If Mr. Harvey were on the research team that found the alleged falsification, that would be enough to convince someone that he is authoritative on the subject. Similarly, if he were omniscient, that would also be enough to know that he's not reporting someone else's falsehood. I can't think of anything else that would come close. If you don't agree with what I said then fine, but i have never seen twisting of words so blatant in all my time dealing with hot button issues on the internet. It's not about agreeing with what you said, it's an attempt to get you to corroborate your statement with something more than "I hearded it on that talk-box, so it gotta be true!" he has a good deal of integrity and doesn't lend to the political reporting of the news like so many other news outlets do You have proved this statement to be false. His voice is being used as a rallying cry by people to politicize the debate... You're doing it right now. For all the studies done that conflict and all the questions about which data is more correct and all the leaps of faith we have to take to believe either way Wrong - when presented with data, there is no "leap" needed. Some people get scammed, Some see the scam coming, while other join the cult. Hmm - does this mean you're beggining to realize that you're being scammed?
The logical conclusion to those statements is that you believe Mr Harvey was one of the researchers who performed the "study" - otherwise, how else can his statements be completely true? The news is this thing were people find out facts that are worthy to the public and reports them. So you're saying that everything that has ever been reported by the news media is pure 100% FACT and they never present anything that could be considered untrue?!??!
Wow. Just - wow. I bet you don't suggest any other news caster have to be on the research team when they report something about global warming that you like. As I said, my statements were about your comments about Mr. Harvey possessing this god-like ability to know what is true and what isn't, merely by reading a news report. we have as much faith to believe that as we do the original reports. Faith doesn't enter into it. For all of the *actual* studies done, you can research them and find out for yourself.
If you care to provide a link to support the claims made by sumdumass, I will address them.
So you're claiming that Paul Harvey works for "A Canadian University"?
Because how else could he have authoritative knowledge, unless he was part of the research team that discovered this amazing conspiracy?
Or is he perhaps just repeating what someone else told him, and then can't be held accountable when this turns out to be complete bunk?
My v190 requires two buttons to be pressed in sequence, and it makes no sound at all when the type changes (the only indication that it changed is the LCD.)
Yes, the low-batt beep is annoying, but not nearly as much as the Nokia (think of the beep, only *much* louder, at different pitches, and *all the fscking time* instead of once every 3 minutes, and with the LCD backlight flashing on and off.)
Thanks for your insight.
Of COURSE a hybrid would SHOW a huge MPG rating by that government standard. A total electric would show ~ (infinity) as it produces NO carbon itself. Sorry, are you implying that the test is flawed for hybrids because they have an electric component?
If so, here's your cluebat: Unless the electric component is bringing in power from outside the system, the test is completely valid, because all the power comes from the gasoline in the tank. Turning the engine into a generator which powers and electric drive-train doesn't change this simple fact.
I can't believe how assinine some people are. It's not a fucking race.