No, I was thinking of the initial occupation of Boston and the incurring Massacre. That was akin to the Assassination attempt of Ferdinand prior to WWI - not the actual event, per se, but everyone started cleaning their guns at that point.
What we're seeing today in US political life is, quite un-ironically due to the uh establishment of the Tea Party, not that far off what happened leading up to and including the Boston Tea Party.
Rape is one of those situations where the victim is already blamed; now you're having us believe that the victim should be distrusted until proven sore in the nethers, too?
If someone steals my TV, I (and/or the law) has to provide proof that the TV was mine and that it was stolen before a theft charge can be pressed, yes? Same basic burden of proof here - or at least, there should be. But that's usually not how it works; it's almost always on the basis of she-said-she-said, with the victim presumed to be telling the truth regardless.
And I don't know what you mean by the victim already being blamed in situations of rape. Who would be blaming them, and for what? They're reputedly a victim of a crime. Either there's evidence to that effect (sexual assault including penile etc. penetration of the vagina = rape, usually involving severe abrasions or injuries at the minimum) or there is not.
Interesting you should disparage my supposed fictional friends, because I do have friends who were raped in high school, and some who were raped afterwards. One, a man, was raped by an (older) woman. He has sleep narcolepsy and woke up with him sitting in his 'lap' after he'd left the front door unlocked. I've had other friends who were accused of rape after they were caught cheating on their girlfriends, by their girlfriends. This later event is a life-destroying affair, in that it essentially rapes your entire existence: everyone you know is involved, it impacts your current work and future job prospects.
You can't tell me that such a thing is innately less destructive than rape, because it isn't: a rape can be recovered from and it is entirely up to the individual on how to handle it. Even the whiff of suggestion that a man might be a rapist is enough to ruin his life. Hell, even fraudulent (politically motivated) accusations of sexual harassment are often enough to get a man fired, as I have personally experienced. There is no compassion or understanding for that situation, even when the man (aka 'just another sexual predator') has child and a pregnant wife at home to take care of - and my situation pales to what I've seen happen to others.
it's very rare to have a rape claim where there was just no evidence of some type of unlawful coercion.
Not really, as I just indicated in the post you commented on:
Having BTDT and grown up in the 'fundie Christian' subculture, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your disparaging and short-sighted understanding.
There is no exception for rape regarding a ban on abortion because babies, in the Christian worldview, are people - whether they're born or unborn. It is largely an emotional standpoint, but it's because the fetuses are seen as a life. It has nothing to do with denying that females might be sexual aggressors, that they might enjoy sex, or anything like that.
Pregnancy isn't seen as punishment for a moral failing. Coming from a traditional background, pregnancy isn't seen as a punishment at all - it's seen as a rewarding hardship, regardless of how the baby was conceived.
Also, the term 'legitimate rape' has legal precedent, as in "he didn't pull out in time so I retracted consent so it's rape" is not a legitimate rape accusation.
Can you honestly, sincerely think it's a 'war on women'? How are women being persecuted, exactly? In contrast, are there not negative ramifications for men if women are allowed to claim illegitimate rapes?
Now, onto the pregnancy statistics. The theory that rape resulted in few pregnancies was common among conservatives, as TFA states. It came from the amlgamation of two scientific reports. First, studies have shown that female orgasm increases fertility because the vagina draws the sperm up like a conveyer belt as well as opens up the cervix. Second, until just a couple of years ago, rape victims reported orgasms in only 5-20% of cases. A recent study, however, showed that up to 90% of rape victims orgasm -- including those who could not otherwise normally orgasm. Women in previous studies were too ashamed to admit it (and in fact it's the greater psychological trauma than from having been penetrated).
Wow, that's all sorts of fucked up. I'd be curious to see the study details on that; do you have any more information? It blows my mind that the 'rapist stereotype' of rape victims secretly "liking" being raped is actually, in at least one sense, statistically true... well, that blows my mind. Wow.
Rapes are also more likely to be reported if there is a pregnancy involved than not for the obvious legal and social protection for an unwanted pregnancy it might bring.
I'm like you in that I don't black out. I've gotten sick a couple times when I was younger, but never have I blacked out, even with > a 5th of whiskey.
I can also drive a race track (and have done so) with that much alcohol in my blood. The only thing that happens to me is nausea and visual distortion at that point, so I don't really understand the "blackout and not remember the night before". I suppose it could happen, but...
That's all fine and great, but some people 'black out' and show no physical signs of being inebriated.
So what happens if she says beforehand that she wants to fuck like bunnies (being as she's naturally uninhibited), you get it on, and then she later (because she's a prude at heart) she decides you raped her. Well, you did stick a dick in, but it wasn't rape. There's no physical harm. It's not uncommon for this kind of thing to result in a rape charge (which is, thankfully, later dismissed because there's no actual evidence of rape other than her word).
I think people are blowing this whole thing out of the water. Maybe a guy does act ungentlemanly towards a woman while having consensual sex and she feels used (after a single night stand). But that doesn't mean rape was committed. In today's system, the burden (and cost) of proving innocence is on the man to prove his innocence in all cases, usually on the basis of just her word. How 'fair' is that? Yes, sex is used as a weapon in this kind of scenario.
Don't be silly. Everyone knows that men are always the responsible party because they're less influenced by alcohol and the predator was in his right mind. And because they're men, they're always the perpetrator of a crime. It's obvious the man was just using the alcohol to ply his victim.
^ something you're more likely to hear in court in 'defense' of a 'rape victim'.
Wow, exaggerate much? Scratch that, make that propagandize much.
A woman is raped... she is forcibly inseminated & the embryo is viable.
If I'm understanding what you're writing here, it directly contradicts what the bill actually proposes - that it would only cover forced rapes/babies resulting from non-consenting sexual intercourse, ie "forceful rape".
she would have no right to seek an abortion of this undesirable pregnancy. Period.
Yes, she would. That's the whole point. She most certainly could get an abortion - just not one paid by the state. See the difference?
I don't necessarily agree with the bill (didn't read it) but you are most certainly wrong.
My father is a 'grey market' buyer and dealer. He buys high-priced used specialized/professional equipment here in the US which is not available overseas at a significant markup. Some of it is 'discontinued' and no longer available new; some of it is simply not and has not been distributed in various countries.
I don't really see this kind of thing as being any different than hawking things on the corner or running a pawn shop. Nobody realistically thinks that $200 TV at the pawn shop is worth the money, but people buy them anyway.
Could you explain for me what the difference is between 'forcible rape' and 'rape'? I'm not sure how someone could rape someone without force; it's consensual otherwise, and requiring the "victim" to be involved.
I suspect the distinction was necessary because "rape" seems to apply to anything up to and including consensual intercourse, and she decides she's had her O and wants to be done.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'd wager a guess there are more men in prison for rapes they did not commit than there are actual rapes which are "under-prosecuted".
Look up the statistics for yourself, as I did recently. Study after study shows that from 10-50%, which a shocking number at the higher end, of rape claims are intentionally fraudulent. That's not even counting "Assange rape" type accusations, but where the "victim" knowingly lied to fuck someone over. I've known people who have been accused of rape where I know they did nothing due to available timeframe and their claims - and they were later exonerated - while out on dates because the woman felt 'uncomfortable' or 'led' by the male. It happens all the fucking time; whether it's a symptom of a high rape rate and the women being predisposed to feeling sexually threatened by anyone male or they're socially conditioned to think all advances from men are rape, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both are a factor.
Do you really think that male contempt for women is so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims out of hand? I'm sorry, but in almost every scenario I'm aware of, the instant male response to rape of an acquaintance is "let's get the torches and pitchforks". I am fairly certain predispositional response is fairly socially broad within the US, and it's universal amongst the police officers I know.
The big issue with rape reporting is that not enough is done. Victims don't report the legitimate rapes; that's how it works, psychologically, as I understand it. Fix that problem and the dismissal of rape reports 'out of hand' is likely to diminish due to the fact that the proportion of reported rapes isn't so heavily skewed in favor of false reports.
Yes, I understood your full post. I was hit by it, myself. I doubled under on the course load and got done in 3 years, paying the excess over loans out of pocket to avoid the drastic changes.
There was a short period of time there where, if you were making regular student loan payments (ie $100 here and there) while in school, when you got out, you'd immediately get slammed with CC offers. There was a point in time when I had 3 or 4 different Visa cards, for instance. An unscrupulous person
You're trying to be sarcastically funny, but there's a big difference between your ironic point and today.
TVs became "unrepairable" long after they stopped using tubes. There were TV repairmen well into the 90s (I work with someone who's family did it as a business). So while they eventually became commodity disposable items, there's a crucial difference: that was quite some time after the individual components within the TVs were not prone to frequent failure.
Now, please tell me which components within this $3,000 computer are not still prone to such failures, capable of 5+ years of operation. The ones off the top of my head are:
Ironically, the monitors, which are prone to cables breaking/fraying due to Apple designs, seem to be some of the longest lasting components on a modern laptop (especially the LED displays).
I like this idea, combined with spamd greylisted rate limiting.
You post a message. You get added to a greylist. If you break a certain post rate limit, you go on a blacklist where you remain until your timer counts down to 0 and you're removed from the blacklist; or you increase your counter by attempting subsequent posts.
While on the blacklist and/or greylist, you effectively have your bandwidth throttled/rate limited for the forum communication. It 'fakes' a low bandwidth connection. So in essence, you aren't preventing them from posting, you just make them think "their server sucks" and they move on to another target while making them take more time to send fewer messages (screwing up their 'economy of scale') and requiring more local resources (cpu, ram, etc.) to perform a specific attack.
In my experience, maintaining a forum is more work than maintaining a high traffic/visibility mail system that isn't set up well. Since most spamming is now automated, this probably has a higher likelihood of success. Most spam is also dispersed through exploiting bugs in the framework implementation as well, so it's entirely likely you could end up with 10k accounts, all of which are spammers.
Super Mario Allstars on SNES was just that - a graphical update to all three original SMB games. It was better, graphically.
The game play in this looks like it's a weird mix between the SMB2 and SMB3 Allstars variants. Why does this require a new platform to play? I'd bet that if you were to remove the color elements, the game engine would play fine on an original Gameboy...
Forgive me for interjecting, but: there's an Occupy movement, still? I thought that was sorta like the Oakland riots a couple months ago: just another Bay Area thing which spread wider, but quickly became indistinguishable from the ordinary homeless people in the area.
The Founders - the Jeffersons and Washingtons - who actively pushed for separation from England were in the minority. Something like 1% - I don't know that number to be true in this case, but it would fit historical context and precedent. One out of 100 or so would've been willing to do what's necessary at the local level to peacefully kick the British out.
That 1% just needed a spark to light the tinderbox, so to speak.
Then, when the "Revolution" started - the Redcoats invaded Boston, if I recall correctly, killing many - it lit the tinderbox. That's where your 1/3 of the population came into play: most people, when faced with a binary choice, will make a choice. A minority who can afford neither option try to stay by the sidelines - or profit from both sides. It's kind of like how today you have Gay Rights, with that 1% supporting them in marriage. Most people are still firmly in the "don't give a damn" category, and there is no incentive to them to change things from the status quo. If, say, "marriage" were disenfranchised, then maybe there would be a concensus of support for Gay Marriage.
That's why the 'in' thing to do these days is to keep really good credit throughout college, spend marginally and, upon graduation, have a nest egg to put towards a house to live in for the next 7 years.
Then, put as much if not all of your student loan debt on credit cards and stop paying them.
The attitude throughout most of the world seems to be, "why would I improve it if this is good enough?" whereas in the US, the attitude is, "this can be done better, why would I have to put up with this?"
I've known people who have remodeled their entire house on their own because they didn't like the work the contractor did - sometimes redoing a room twice. Sure, that all comes down to preference, and that's a bit of a destructive personality flaw (in specific terms), but there's a cultural flip side to that, too.
Yep, that's me - a jingoistic sysadmin. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You apparently don't understand the value of a sysadmin. A country with a locomotive which doesn't run, or runs inefficiently, doesn't mean half a shit because the fireman (as locomotive engineers used to be called) isn't doing his job.
Producing them? No. But keeping them running is the sysadmin's job (whether they're network, storage, etc. sysadmins, it doesn't matter). Without your switches, servers, and yes, often overly kludged temporary fixes, the engines of the modern world would screech to a halt. It happens to individual businesses all the time. The traits necessary to be a good sysadmin are not endemic or even culturally common within the US, but they're a hell of a lot more predominant here (and in Europe) than anywhere else.
In the US, a sodbusting peon is a farmer or a rancher with a multi-million dollar operation. That's a family farm, in many cases. But in other countries and throughout the world, they're just sodbusting peons. The mindset (not necessarily the experience) necessary for such feats is what, I have found, is commonly required for a sysadmin: you can do it all, top to bottom, and what you can't do, you can figure out quickly enough - because your livelihood depends on it.
A competent sysadmin is a lot more than someone who just clicks around in Windows. I'm talking about the rare individual who is able to do a full network rollout - switching through racked equipment, desktops, etc. - without much, if any planning (if needbe) because they know their stuff. A competent sysadmin is a maintenance engineer, in essence. The field or specific skillset doesn't matter: it's the ability and drive to quickly assess a problem - and have the ability to find a solution. (I should note that part of the reason why we're better at it is due to immigration: hundreds of years of immigration from poor countries has, if nothing else, given us a preponderance of problem solving ability, I think.)
I've found the recent Lenovo-owned Thinkpad quality to be very hit or miss. Sometimes it's on par with the old IBM quality; sometimes it's far below it.
The biggest difference I've noticed (and found irritating) is the variability of tactile input on their keyboards. IBM's biggest winning laptop feature, IMO, was always the keyboards: superior tactility for a laptop with good travel and even keypresses. Lenovo's products, UltraNav keyboards included, have been all over the field. My preference is for the keyboards found on the X30/X31 and similar models. Lenovo has been messing up the key layout, changing key sizes, and generally making things 'irritating' and non-standard like you'd expect from Toshiba, for no apparent reason.
I really do not look forward to a world without these keyboards. I will probably be looking at the Dell line of laptops which have the keyboard nipple; alas, the quality isn't on par with the old IBMs, either, but it's better than where Lenovo has been taking things.
If VNC is what you want, you don't really know what you want. It's a crap protocol - high bandwidth, low quality, insecure, and slow. There's a reason why everyone's looking for something else.
Spoken like someone who just runs software, they don't test or maintain it for others.
What do you do when you've got to temporarily change the database host for a single system in a cluster? What if you need to test a dev system in a production environment temporarily to verify a bug quickly? There are many valid reasons for (temporarily) using a hosts file. What if you've got an isolated cluster, separate but a necessary component of an environment, and they shouldn't be in DNS? What if you can only access a system you're prepping for deployment by the production hostname due to SSL restrictions?
The sane choice is to repoint the hostname to a different IP. Sure, you could do a split view, but for 2-3 hosts? You could update the zone, but for something you don't want to impact the whole environment (and might actually cause problems in and of itself)?
The hosts file is there for a reason; it is necessary. I can understand why MS is doing what they are, but it's a reactionary security measure to prevent/ reduce malware from working (presumably, though in this case we see that it's only being used to assist in the serving of ads). That certainly does not make it the right choice. Hosts files are a necessary evil.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I was thinking of the initial occupation of Boston and the incurring Massacre. That was akin to the Assassination attempt of Ferdinand prior to WWI - not the actual event, per se, but everyone started cleaning their guns at that point.
What we're seeing today in US political life is, quite un-ironically due to the uh establishment of the Tea Party, not that far off what happened leading up to and including the Boston Tea Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
A little googling never hurt anyone.
Rape is one of those situations where the victim is already blamed; now you're having us believe that the victim should be distrusted until proven sore in the nethers, too?
If someone steals my TV, I (and/or the law) has to provide proof that the TV was mine and that it was stolen before a theft charge can be pressed, yes? Same basic burden of proof here - or at least, there should be. But that's usually not how it works; it's almost always on the basis of she-said-she-said, with the victim presumed to be telling the truth regardless.
And I don't know what you mean by the victim already being blamed in situations of rape. Who would be blaming them, and for what? They're reputedly a victim of a crime. Either there's evidence to that effect (sexual assault including penile etc. penetration of the vagina = rape, usually involving severe abrasions or injuries at the minimum) or there is not.
Interesting you should disparage my supposed fictional friends, because I do have friends who were raped in high school, and some who were raped afterwards. One, a man, was raped by an (older) woman. He has sleep narcolepsy and woke up with him sitting in his 'lap' after he'd left the front door unlocked. I've had other friends who were accused of rape after they were caught cheating on their girlfriends, by their girlfriends. This later event is a life-destroying affair, in that it essentially rapes your entire existence: everyone you know is involved, it impacts your current work and future job prospects.
You can't tell me that such a thing is innately less destructive than rape, because it isn't: a rape can be recovered from and it is entirely up to the individual on how to handle it. Even the whiff of suggestion that a man might be a rapist is enough to ruin his life. Hell, even fraudulent (politically motivated) accusations of sexual harassment are often enough to get a man fired, as I have personally experienced. There is no compassion or understanding for that situation, even when the man (aka 'just another sexual predator') has child and a pregnant wife at home to take care of - and my situation pales to what I've seen happen to others.
it's very rare to have a rape claim where there was just no evidence of some type of unlawful coercion.
Not really, as I just indicated in the post you commented on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
Having BTDT and grown up in the 'fundie Christian' subculture, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your disparaging and short-sighted understanding.
There is no exception for rape regarding a ban on abortion because babies, in the Christian worldview, are people - whether they're born or unborn. It is largely an emotional standpoint, but it's because the fetuses are seen as a life. It has nothing to do with denying that females might be sexual aggressors, that they might enjoy sex, or anything like that.
Pregnancy isn't seen as punishment for a moral failing. Coming from a traditional background, pregnancy isn't seen as a punishment at all - it's seen as a rewarding hardship, regardless of how the baby was conceived.
Also, the term 'legitimate rape' has legal precedent, as in "he didn't pull out in time so I retracted consent so it's rape" is not a legitimate rape accusation.
Can you honestly, sincerely think it's a 'war on women'? How are women being persecuted, exactly? In contrast, are there not negative ramifications for men if women are allowed to claim illegitimate rapes?
Now, onto the pregnancy statistics. The theory that rape resulted in few pregnancies was common among conservatives, as TFA states. It came from the amlgamation of two scientific reports. First, studies have shown that female orgasm increases fertility because the vagina draws the sperm up like a conveyer belt as well as opens up the cervix. Second, until just a couple of years ago, rape victims reported orgasms in only 5-20% of cases. A recent study, however, showed that up to 90% of rape victims orgasm -- including those who could not otherwise normally orgasm. Women in previous studies were too ashamed to admit it (and in fact it's the greater psychological trauma than from having been penetrated).
Wow, that's all sorts of fucked up. I'd be curious to see the study details on that; do you have any more information? It blows my mind that the 'rapist stereotype' of rape victims secretly "liking" being raped is actually, in at least one sense, statistically true... well, that blows my mind. Wow.
Rapes are also more likely to be reported if there is a pregnancy involved than not for the obvious legal and social protection for an unwanted pregnancy it might bring.
I'm like you in that I don't black out. I've gotten sick a couple times when I was younger, but never have I blacked out, even with > a 5th of whiskey.
I can also drive a race track (and have done so) with that much alcohol in my blood. The only thing that happens to me is nausea and visual distortion at that point, so I don't really understand the "blackout and not remember the night before". I suppose it could happen, but...
That's all fine and great, but some people 'black out' and show no physical signs of being inebriated.
So what happens if she says beforehand that she wants to fuck like bunnies (being as she's naturally uninhibited), you get it on, and then she later (because she's a prude at heart) she decides you raped her. Well, you did stick a dick in, but it wasn't rape. There's no physical harm. It's not uncommon for this kind of thing to result in a rape charge (which is, thankfully, later dismissed because there's no actual evidence of rape other than her word).
I think people are blowing this whole thing out of the water. Maybe a guy does act ungentlemanly towards a woman while having consensual sex and she feels used (after a single night stand). But that doesn't mean rape was committed. In today's system, the burden (and cost) of proving innocence is on the man to prove his innocence in all cases, usually on the basis of just her word. How 'fair' is that? Yes, sex is used as a weapon in this kind of scenario.
Don't be silly. Everyone knows that men are always the responsible party because they're less influenced by alcohol and the predator was in his right mind. And because they're men, they're always the perpetrator of a crime. It's obvious the man was just using the alcohol to ply his victim.
^ something you're more likely to hear in court in 'defense' of a 'rape victim'.
Wow, exaggerate much? Scratch that, make that propagandize much.
A woman is raped... she is forcibly inseminated & the embryo is viable.
If I'm understanding what you're writing here, it directly contradicts what the bill actually proposes - that it would only cover forced rapes/babies resulting from non-consenting sexual intercourse, ie "forceful rape".
she would have no right to seek an abortion of this undesirable pregnancy. Period.
Yes, she would. That's the whole point. She most certainly could get an abortion - just not one paid by the state. See the difference?
I don't necessarily agree with the bill (didn't read it) but you are most certainly wrong.
There's no need to justify these things, IMO.
My father is a 'grey market' buyer and dealer. He buys high-priced used specialized/professional equipment here in the US which is not available overseas at a significant markup. Some of it is 'discontinued' and no longer available new; some of it is simply not and has not been distributed in various countries.
I don't really see this kind of thing as being any different than hawking things on the corner or running a pawn shop. Nobody realistically thinks that $200 TV at the pawn shop is worth the money, but people buy them anyway.
Could you explain for me what the difference is between 'forcible rape' and 'rape'? I'm not sure how someone could rape someone without force; it's consensual otherwise, and requiring the "victim" to be involved.
I suspect the distinction was necessary because "rape" seems to apply to anything up to and including consensual intercourse, and she decides she's had her O and wants to be done.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'd wager a guess there are more men in prison for rapes they did not commit than there are actual rapes which are "under-prosecuted".
Look up the statistics for yourself, as I did recently. Study after study shows that from 10-50%, which a shocking number at the higher end, of rape claims are intentionally fraudulent. That's not even counting "Assange rape" type accusations, but where the "victim" knowingly lied to fuck someone over. I've known people who have been accused of rape where I know they did nothing due to available timeframe and their claims - and they were later exonerated - while out on dates because the woman felt 'uncomfortable' or 'led' by the male. It happens all the fucking time; whether it's a symptom of a high rape rate and the women being predisposed to feeling sexually threatened by anyone male or they're socially conditioned to think all advances from men are rape, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both are a factor.
Do you really think that male contempt for women is so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims out of hand? I'm sorry, but in almost every scenario I'm aware of, the instant male response to rape of an acquaintance is "let's get the torches and pitchforks". I am fairly certain predispositional response is fairly socially broad within the US, and it's universal amongst the police officers I know.
The big issue with rape reporting is that not enough is done. Victims don't report the legitimate rapes; that's how it works, psychologically, as I understand it. Fix that problem and the dismissal of rape reports 'out of hand' is likely to diminish due to the fact that the proportion of reported rapes isn't so heavily skewed in favor of false reports.
Yes, I understood your full post. I was hit by it, myself. I doubled under on the course load and got done in 3 years, paying the excess over loans out of pocket to avoid the drastic changes.
There was a short period of time there where, if you were making regular student loan payments (ie $100 here and there) while in school, when you got out, you'd immediately get slammed with CC offers. There was a point in time when I had 3 or 4 different Visa cards, for instance. An unscrupulous person
You're trying to be sarcastically funny, but there's a big difference between your ironic point and today.
TVs became "unrepairable" long after they stopped using tubes. There were TV repairmen well into the 90s (I work with someone who's family did it as a business). So while they eventually became commodity disposable items, there's a crucial difference: that was quite some time after the individual components within the TVs were not prone to frequent failure.
Now, please tell me which components within this $3,000 computer are not still prone to such failures, capable of 5+ years of operation. The ones off the top of my head are:
* storage
* memory
* power supply
* charge inverter
* battery
* keyboard
Ironically, the monitors, which are prone to cables breaking/fraying due to Apple designs, seem to be some of the longest lasting components on a modern laptop (especially the LED displays).
I like this idea, combined with spamd greylisted rate limiting.
You post a message. You get added to a greylist. If you break a certain post rate limit, you go on a blacklist where you remain until your timer counts down to 0 and you're removed from the blacklist; or you increase your counter by attempting subsequent posts.
While on the blacklist and/or greylist, you effectively have your bandwidth throttled/rate limited for the forum communication. It 'fakes' a low bandwidth connection. So in essence, you aren't preventing them from posting, you just make them think "their server sucks" and they move on to another target while making them take more time to send fewer messages (screwing up their 'economy of scale') and requiring more local resources (cpu, ram, etc.) to perform a specific attack.
In my experience, maintaining a forum is more work than maintaining a high traffic/visibility mail system that isn't set up well. Since most spamming is now automated, this probably has a higher likelihood of success. Most spam is also dispersed through exploiting bugs in the framework implementation as well, so it's entirely likely you could end up with 10k accounts, all of which are spammers.
Super Mario Allstars on SNES was just that - a graphical update to all three original SMB games. It was better, graphically.
The game play in this looks like it's a weird mix between the SMB2 and SMB3 Allstars variants. Why does this require a new platform to play? I'd bet that if you were to remove the color elements, the game engine would play fine on an original Gameboy...
Welcome to The Whole Point, brought to you by anarchist OWS types who want to see people die.
Forgive me for interjecting, but: there's an Occupy movement, still? I thought that was sorta like the Oakland riots a couple months ago: just another Bay Area thing which spread wider, but quickly became indistinguishable from the ordinary homeless people in the area.
You're talking about two different things.
The Founders - the Jeffersons and Washingtons - who actively pushed for separation from England were in the minority. Something like 1% - I don't know that number to be true in this case, but it would fit historical context and precedent. One out of 100 or so would've been willing to do what's necessary at the local level to peacefully kick the British out.
That 1% just needed a spark to light the tinderbox, so to speak.
Then, when the "Revolution" started - the Redcoats invaded Boston, if I recall correctly, killing many - it lit the tinderbox. That's where your 1/3 of the population came into play: most people, when faced with a binary choice, will make a choice. A minority who can afford neither option try to stay by the sidelines - or profit from both sides. It's kind of like how today you have Gay Rights, with that 1% supporting them in marriage. Most people are still firmly in the "don't give a damn" category, and there is no incentive to them to change things from the status quo. If, say, "marriage" were disenfranchised, then maybe there would be a concensus of support for Gay Marriage.
That's why the 'in' thing to do these days is to keep really good credit throughout college, spend marginally and, upon graduation, have a nest egg to put towards a house to live in for the next 7 years.
Then, put as much if not all of your student loan debt on credit cards and stop paying them.
Pretty much.
The attitude throughout most of the world seems to be, "why would I improve it if this is good enough?" whereas in the US, the attitude is, "this can be done better, why would I have to put up with this?"
I've known people who have remodeled their entire house on their own because they didn't like the work the contractor did - sometimes redoing a room twice. Sure, that all comes down to preference, and that's a bit of a destructive personality flaw (in specific terms), but there's a cultural flip side to that, too.
Yep, that's me - a jingoistic sysadmin. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You apparently don't understand the value of a sysadmin. A country with a locomotive which doesn't run, or runs inefficiently, doesn't mean half a shit because the fireman (as locomotive engineers used to be called) isn't doing his job.
Producing them? No. But keeping them running is the sysadmin's job (whether they're network, storage, etc. sysadmins, it doesn't matter). Without your switches, servers, and yes, often overly kludged temporary fixes, the engines of the modern world would screech to a halt. It happens to individual businesses all the time. The traits necessary to be a good sysadmin are not endemic or even culturally common within the US, but they're a hell of a lot more predominant here (and in Europe) than anywhere else.
In the US, a sodbusting peon is a farmer or a rancher with a multi-million dollar operation. That's a family farm, in many cases. But in other countries and throughout the world, they're just sodbusting peons. The mindset (not necessarily the experience) necessary for such feats is what, I have found, is commonly required for a sysadmin: you can do it all, top to bottom, and what you can't do, you can figure out quickly enough - because your livelihood depends on it.
A competent sysadmin is a lot more than someone who just clicks around in Windows. I'm talking about the rare individual who is able to do a full network rollout - switching through racked equipment, desktops, etc. - without much, if any planning (if needbe) because they know their stuff. A competent sysadmin is a maintenance engineer, in essence. The field or specific skillset doesn't matter: it's the ability and drive to quickly assess a problem - and have the ability to find a solution. (I should note that part of the reason why we're better at it is due to immigration: hundreds of years of immigration from poor countries has, if nothing else, given us a preponderance of problem solving ability, I think.)
I've found the recent Lenovo-owned Thinkpad quality to be very hit or miss. Sometimes it's on par with the old IBM quality; sometimes it's far below it.
The biggest difference I've noticed (and found irritating) is the variability of tactile input on their keyboards. IBM's biggest winning laptop feature, IMO, was always the keyboards: superior tactility for a laptop with good travel and even keypresses. Lenovo's products, UltraNav keyboards included, have been all over the field. My preference is for the keyboards found on the X30/X31 and similar models. Lenovo has been messing up the key layout, changing key sizes, and generally making things 'irritating' and non-standard like you'd expect from Toshiba, for no apparent reason.
I really do not look forward to a world without these keyboards. I will probably be looking at the Dell line of laptops which have the keyboard nipple; alas, the quality isn't on par with the old IBMs, either, but it's better than where Lenovo has been taking things.
Why was this modded informative?
If VNC is what you want, you don't really know what you want. It's a crap protocol - high bandwidth, low quality, insecure, and slow. There's a reason why everyone's looking for something else.
Spoken like someone who just runs software, they don't test or maintain it for others.
What do you do when you've got to temporarily change the database host for a single system in a cluster? What if you need to test a dev system in a production environment temporarily to verify a bug quickly? There are many valid reasons for (temporarily) using a hosts file. What if you've got an isolated cluster, separate but a necessary component of an environment, and they shouldn't be in DNS? What if you can only access a system you're prepping for deployment by the production hostname due to SSL restrictions?
The sane choice is to repoint the hostname to a different IP. Sure, you could do a split view, but for 2-3 hosts? You could update the zone, but for something you don't want to impact the whole environment (and might actually cause problems in and of itself)?
The hosts file is there for a reason; it is necessary. I can understand why MS is doing what they are, but it's a reactionary security measure to prevent/ reduce malware from working (presumably, though in this case we see that it's only being used to assist in the serving of ads). That certainly does not make it the right choice. Hosts files are a necessary evil.