I feel like a lot of the apps could be implemented in html though. All you have to realize is that 100% wide clickable areas (like the lists in an android app) are just fine, even though they look weird on a monitor.
So the Democrats support extending all the Bush tax cuts, even for the wealthiest Americans. Democrats support keeping Guantanamo open seemingly forever. Democrats support continuing and expanding the Afghanistan war. etc
You'd say that's a fair portrayal of what Democrats in the whole country want?
You're missing my point -- sure there are/were Republicans who supported it, but so what? Only some of them did and they are the very liberal type anyway. When you say stuff like "back when *the Republicans* loved..." that is casting too wide of a net. All I'm saying.
First of all they didn't have sit ins at dinners. That sat down and tried to be customers! They didn't block others from being customers!
Of course they blocked others from being customers. That was the whole point. They sat in seats until they were served, but they were never served, so the restaurant or store would have no (or fewer) customers that day.
It is also absolutely dumb to expect a company to stand up to the government they need to work under. To use your own words "why go to jail if you don't have too?"
True. So this is a case of fighting unfairness with more unfairness. Maybe that doesn't work, but it's not like it's making the situation worse either.
Which in some ways is even worse than if it were unconstitutional. Now you have poor people who don't want to waste money on insurance... not only still not having insurance... but paying an additional tax that is purely punitive and does them no good at all?
Wow what a wonderful country we will in! Thank God someone is looking out for our well being!
Claiming that the Federal government does not have the ability to tax people for doing something is ridiculous.
Yes clearly since they have the ability to tax people for doing *something*, they have the ability to tax people for doing *anything* and it all comes down to simple logic and math.
So you support that new law to provide a 100% tax deduction for Christians only right?
See, it's not criminalizing non-Christians. It's just making them pay a tax. For something.
For instance, a typical ER visit is in the range of $300-$500. A typical office visit is closer to $150 to $200.
The cost of office visits is averaged down by the millions upon millions of simple annual physicals, cold and flu problems, minor ear aches, cholesterol tests, etc. It seems rather obvious that the place that takes care of gunshots, knife wounds, broken bones, etc is going to have a higher average cost. (Almost) Nobody goes to the ER for a minor issue that takes a few minutes of work and 15 minutes of discussion to clear up. In fact I'm surprised that the disparity is so low.
The real issue is the total cost of medical care period. It doesn't matter how it's delivered.
It's just like Obama's line about how if more people are insured, costs will go down. Please.. average cost per insured will go down because of simple math, but overall health care costs will not go down. Yearly increases in health care costs will not change.
Which Republicans loved it? Maybe Republicans like George Bush who wanted amnesty for illegal immigrants -- a very conservative thought, right?? -- would also support forced health care purchases.
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
This is the same administration that calls illegal immigration "not a crime" so I can totally believe you. Most people who are not lawyers themselves look at the spirit of the law, which is definitely to criminalize failure to get insurance.
Just as the government can say "we give everyone that have children a tax reduction", that same government can say "We give everyone that buys health care, a tax reduction."
I hate this idea that the government can do whatever it wants as long as it's indirect. For instance they can't force states to have certain speed limits but they can cut funding if they don't. I say the government *should not* be doing that, even if in some twisted interpretation of the Constitution it is allowed.
I was replying to hmar, who was talking about purchases driving the creation of more child porn. I wasn't replying to you. Did you reply to me on purpose or did you mean someone else??
Of course it is. If it's just a random attack or vandalism or a temper tantrum, is it purely coincidental that it involves companies that screwed Wikileaks and may have bowed to government pressure in doing so? Why isn't toysrus.com being DDOS'd?
But I'm sure one day that will happen. The response to harmless attacks is to belittle them and not change anything.
You remember what our lovely freedom-loving government and press said to Terry Jones, right? "Publicly burning the Koran is like shouting fire in a crowded theater because people may die from the consequences. It endangers our troops and our security interests. etc etc." (Actually, it was very similar to what is being said about Wikileaks, but that's another issue.) Hell even a US Supreme Court Justice got on board with that sort of criticism.
Now Anonymous doesn't get the respect that terrorists and radical Muslims do. They are "kids" with "temper tantrums" etc. Well okay.. do you know what you are asking for with that?
I'm sure groups like Anonymous will never come to that, because at heart they are good people who don't *want* to go around killing innocent people. It's just sad to me that we as a society negotiate with terrorists and laugh at peaceful people.
The civil rights protesters stood up for what was right and a lot of them went to jail.
Different times, different methods. Why go to jail if you don't have to? How does that make your cause more or less noble?
How is the right to eat at a certain restaurant "more just" than the right to publish freely?
Okay if you're right that they are purely in it for the lulz than you may be right, but come on, can't you see through that as a defense mechanism to not feel bad when they fail and not be called out for hypocrisy on other high-horse issues?
I mean seriously. Is it a coincidence that Anonymous is supporting Wikileaks, but not the KKK? Why not DDOS the NAACP in the name of the KKK? That's more lulz worthy if that's REALLY the goal.
Good point. And even that lasts only as long as our resources aren't interesting enough to other countries who are less isolationist. China has desertification problems. Global warming could radically alter food production in the whole world. Maybe one day, without a military or military-industrial complex, we'll be slaves growing food and mining coal (our big natural resources) for China.
It's not that simple. Who is asking for aid? Who asked in WWII? France, after it was taken over? Well then it's part of Germany / under German control, and Germany certainly didn't ask the US to invade.
So you're really saying.. if a part of the population invites you to come in, regardless of the wishes of the establishment, then it's okay.
So in Iraq, the Kurds were happy to have us.
In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance were happy to have us.
You might need more but we're talking about a society-wide definition of broadband. I don't think it's defined by what is needed so much as what is possible and what others (as in other countries) are doing.
It's not really like picketing, where demonstrators are usually standing on on a piece public property and not actively consuming their target's resources. A better analogy would be to continually autodial their phone lines to prevent legitimate service calls from connecting, which at best is harassment.
One person isn't going to bring down Amazon or Paypal so how can you compare it to an autodialer against someone with only one phone line?
Imagine if there was a really obnoxious person who thousands of people spontaneously disliked, all at once. And each one, without an autodialer, called just a few times a day to ask the person to stop being obnoxious. Is that/should that be illegal?
We're not savages for gods sake. We have a justice system in place specifically for the resolution of grievances. This kind of snarky mob justice is ridiculous.
We are savages. And the justice system is often behind the times. But more importantly, the justice system is paralyzed today by logic and philosophy. Every action needs to be justified even if many people think it just makes sense. That can be good and bad.
Its not cute or funny, its not magically OK because its "for a good cause," etc.
It doesn't have to be cute or funny if it's a good cause. When government stops sticking up for some group of people, the people start sticking up for themselves.
I'm glad they are doing meaningful protests like taking the exact websites that they have problems with, and not trying to blow themselves up in Stockholm and take as many innocent people with them as possible.
Just because its not the most direct or violent action they could take (some digital equivalent of breaking windows or throwing petrol bombs) doesn't make it OK.
But the lesson being learned by new generations is that the government basically doesn't give a crap about you, and is only concerned when confronted with violence. We negotiate with the Taliban, we sit at the table and talk with Iran and try to bribe them into not making nuclear bombs... if you're a citizen at home doing a completely non-violent online protest and you've never committed a violent crime in your life, you get thrown in jail. They just aren't scared of you. And other young people don't vote. So..
Why can't bullying be used to preserve free speech? How about if the "bullying" has absolutely no physical component, but is completely electronic, i.e. pure speech itself?
Why do companies have a right to choose their customers? I'm not saying they don't, but what is your philosophical basis for that? I'm sure it leads to all sorts of interesting, unintended situations.
Why do corporations have freedom of association? How about corporations with authorized monopolies, like the power company or the cable company?
To me there's a difference between the type of business where one human is serving another (like a racist self-employed taxi driver who refuses to drive black people around) and one like Amazon hosting where a computer is doing all the work and people are barely involved. Same with Mastercard/Visa/etc.
Also it seems like there's a basic problem with applying free speech to electronic communication. This DDOS presumably isn't just sending random data to certain ports, but making legitimate or semi-legitimate requests to affect CPU/memory as well. It's being done by individuals over recognized protocols and connections that have been paid for by real people. Is that not free speech? Seems like criticism of Anonymous is like criticizing Westboro Baptist Church when they go around yelling at funerals. They're disruptive and abusive.. but so far it's protected.
I'm also curious if there's a distinction between an attack involving a botnet where each computer is acting without the consent of its owner, versus one where thousands of people team up and voluntarily join one. Or if there's not even a botnet, but thousands of people clicking refresh on a homepage or leaving garbage comments on a form or whatever. Would you treat all of those as DDOS attacks?
Are you also against civil rights protests that interfered with businesses? Like sit-ins against restaurants that didn't serve black customers?
It's the same kind of thing. The government apparently isn't interested in making companies act fairly to minority customers, and the minority isn't big enough to cause significant damage through passive actions like boycotts. So you're left with vigilante justice or just ignoring it and moving on.
I don't know how I feel about it but I am very curious if people who oppose this DOS attack are also against civil rights sit-ins, which are exactly the same, and being done for the same motivations (even if you don't agree with them).
What is required before this one model can be said to have changed the risk assesment is for all the thousands of other models to incorporate the effect and come up with a combined result that lowers the expected value. This is not impossible but IMHO is highly unlikely.
Fair enough but we're speculating on this one paper, not the entire realm of climate science.
As for the risk of economic harm, numerous reputable economic studies (such as the stern report) have concluded that delaying any action will significantly increase the risk of economic harm. But I'm sure you can find just as many economic studies authoured by lobbyists at right-wing think tanks that say the opposite.
That's interesting wording you chose. The *risk* of economic harm will be increased, but not necessarily the magnitude.
Clearly children should be banned from swimming pools and beaches. Or maybe children should swim alone with no adults present. Children are being exploited.
The statistic that people tend to ignore is that the majority of sexual child abuse is done by the child's parents or some other adult they know, and not for financial gain. So it's not the 19 year old on 4chan posting/downloading child porn that is causing the problem, it's you, your brother in law, your uncle, your work friends, the teachers at your school, etc.
I didn't think snuff films required the murder to be for sexual gratification. If not, then there are plenty of beheading videos from Muslim terrorists. There's also the "Hammer Time" video from the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs in Ukraine, which was made purely for entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm against cannibalism as much as the next man, but in the name of stopping terrorism I support feeding recruits to anybody who will eat them.
I feel like a lot of the apps could be implemented in html though. All you have to realize is that 100% wide clickable areas (like the lists in an android app) are just fine, even though they look weird on a monitor.
So the Democrats support extending all the Bush tax cuts, even for the wealthiest Americans. Democrats support keeping Guantanamo open seemingly forever. Democrats support continuing and expanding the Afghanistan war. etc
You'd say that's a fair portrayal of what Democrats in the whole country want?
You're missing my point -- sure there are/were Republicans who supported it, but so what? Only some of them did and they are the very liberal type anyway. When you say stuff like "back when *the Republicans* loved..." that is casting too wide of a net. All I'm saying.
Civil rights protests where to change laws.
Sure, but they did so by targeting businesses, who were themselves just following the law. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-02-01-sit-ins-civil-rights_N.htm
First of all they didn't have sit ins at dinners. That sat down and tried to be customers!
They didn't block others from being customers!
Of course they blocked others from being customers. That was the whole point. They sat in seats until they were served, but they were never served, so the restaurant or store would have no (or fewer) customers that day.
It is also absolutely dumb to expect a company to stand up to the government they need to work under. To use your own words "why go to jail if you don't have too?"
True. So this is a case of fighting unfairness with more unfairness. Maybe that doesn't work, but it's not like it's making the situation worse either.
Which in some ways is even worse than if it were unconstitutional. Now you have poor people who don't want to waste money on insurance... not only still not having insurance... but paying an additional tax that is purely punitive and does them no good at all?
Wow what a wonderful country we will in! Thank God someone is looking out for our well being!
Claiming that the Federal government does not have the ability to tax people for doing something is ridiculous.
Yes clearly since they have the ability to tax people for doing *something*, they have the ability to tax people for doing *anything* and it all comes down to simple logic and math.
So you support that new law to provide a 100% tax deduction for Christians only right?
See, it's not criminalizing non-Christians. It's just making them pay a tax. For something.
For instance, a typical ER visit is in the range of $300-$500. A typical office visit is closer to $150 to $200.
The cost of office visits is averaged down by the millions upon millions of simple annual physicals, cold and flu problems, minor ear aches, cholesterol tests, etc. It seems rather obvious that the place that takes care of gunshots, knife wounds, broken bones, etc is going to have a higher average cost. (Almost) Nobody goes to the ER for a minor issue that takes a few minutes of work and 15 minutes of discussion to clear up. In fact I'm surprised that the disparity is so low.
The real issue is the total cost of medical care period. It doesn't matter how it's delivered.
It's just like Obama's line about how if more people are insured, costs will go down. Please.. average cost per insured will go down because of simple math, but overall health care costs will not go down. Yearly increases in health care costs will not change.
Which Republicans loved it? Maybe Republicans like George Bush who wanted amnesty for illegal immigrants -- a very conservative thought, right?? -- would also support forced health care purchases.
The clause in question does NOT really criminalize failure to get insurance, it simply requires those that fail to buy a insurance to pay the government cash.
This is the same administration that calls illegal immigration "not a crime" so I can totally believe you. Most people who are not lawyers themselves look at the spirit of the law, which is definitely to criminalize failure to get insurance.
Just as the government can say "we give everyone that have children a tax reduction", that same government can say "We give everyone that buys health care, a tax reduction."
I hate this idea that the government can do whatever it wants as long as it's indirect. For instance they can't force states to have certain speed limits but they can cut funding if they don't. I say the government *should not* be doing that, even if in some twisted interpretation of the Constitution it is allowed.
I was replying to hmar, who was talking about purchases driving the creation of more child porn. I wasn't replying to you. Did you reply to me on purpose or did you mean someone else??
This isn't a civil rights protest.
Of course it is. If it's just a random attack or vandalism or a temper tantrum, is it purely coincidental that it involves companies that screwed Wikileaks and may have bowed to government pressure in doing so? Why isn't toysrus.com being DDOS'd?
But I'm sure one day that will happen. The response to harmless attacks is to belittle them and not change anything.
You remember what our lovely freedom-loving government and press said to Terry Jones, right? "Publicly burning the Koran is like shouting fire in a crowded theater because people may die from the consequences. It endangers our troops and our security interests. etc etc." (Actually, it was very similar to what is being said about Wikileaks, but that's another issue.) Hell even a US Supreme Court Justice got on board with that sort of criticism.
Now Anonymous doesn't get the respect that terrorists and radical Muslims do. They are "kids" with "temper tantrums" etc. Well okay.. do you know what you are asking for with that?
I'm sure groups like Anonymous will never come to that, because at heart they are good people who don't *want* to go around killing innocent people. It's just sad to me that we as a society negotiate with terrorists and laugh at peaceful people.
The civil rights protesters stood up for what was right and a lot of them went to jail.
Different times, different methods. Why go to jail if you don't have to? How does that make your cause more or less noble?
How so?
How is the right to eat at a certain restaurant "more just" than the right to publish freely?
Okay if you're right that they are purely in it for the lulz than you may be right, but come on, can't you see through that as a defense mechanism to not feel bad when they fail and not be called out for hypocrisy on other high-horse issues?
I mean seriously. Is it a coincidence that Anonymous is supporting Wikileaks, but not the KKK? Why not DDOS the NAACP in the name of the KKK? That's more lulz worthy if that's REALLY the goal.
Good point. And even that lasts only as long as our resources aren't interesting enough to other countries who are less isolationist. China has desertification problems. Global warming could radically alter food production in the whole world. Maybe one day, without a military or military-industrial complex, we'll be slaves growing food and mining coal (our big natural resources) for China.
It's not that simple. Who is asking for aid? Who asked in WWII? France, after it was taken over? Well then it's part of Germany / under German control, and Germany certainly didn't ask the US to invade.
So you're really saying.. if a part of the population invites you to come in, regardless of the wishes of the establishment, then it's okay.
So in Iraq, the Kurds were happy to have us.
In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance were happy to have us.
So I guess it's all okay right?
You might need more but we're talking about a society-wide definition of broadband. I don't think it's defined by what is needed so much as what is possible and what others (as in other countries) are doing.
It's not really like picketing, where demonstrators are usually standing on on a piece public property and not actively consuming their target's resources. A better analogy would be to continually autodial their phone lines to prevent legitimate service calls from connecting, which at best is harassment.
One person isn't going to bring down Amazon or Paypal so how can you compare it to an autodialer against someone with only one phone line?
Imagine if there was a really obnoxious person who thousands of people spontaneously disliked, all at once. And each one, without an autodialer, called just a few times a day to ask the person to stop being obnoxious. Is that/should that be illegal?
We're not savages for gods sake. We have a justice system in place specifically for the resolution of grievances. This kind of snarky mob justice is ridiculous.
We are savages. And the justice system is often behind the times. But more importantly, the justice system is paralyzed today by logic and philosophy. Every action needs to be justified even if many people think it just makes sense. That can be good and bad.
Its not cute or funny, its not magically OK because its "for a good cause," etc.
It doesn't have to be cute or funny if it's a good cause. When government stops sticking up for some group of people, the people start sticking up for themselves.
I'm glad they are doing meaningful protests like taking the exact websites that they have problems with, and not trying to blow themselves up in Stockholm and take as many innocent people with them as possible.
Just because its not the most direct or violent action they could take (some digital equivalent of breaking windows or throwing petrol bombs) doesn't make it OK.
But the lesson being learned by new generations is that the government basically doesn't give a crap about you, and is only concerned when confronted with violence. We negotiate with the Taliban, we sit at the table and talk with Iran and try to bribe them into not making nuclear bombs... if you're a citizen at home doing a completely non-violent online protest and you've never committed a violent crime in your life, you get thrown in jail. They just aren't scared of you. And other young people don't vote. So..
Why can't bullying be used to preserve free speech? How about if the "bullying" has absolutely no physical component, but is completely electronic, i.e. pure speech itself?
Why do companies have a right to choose their customers? I'm not saying they don't, but what is your philosophical basis for that? I'm sure it leads to all sorts of interesting, unintended situations.
Why do corporations have freedom of association? How about corporations with authorized monopolies, like the power company or the cable company?
To me there's a difference between the type of business where one human is serving another (like a racist self-employed taxi driver who refuses to drive black people around) and one like Amazon hosting where a computer is doing all the work and people are barely involved. Same with Mastercard/Visa/etc.
Also it seems like there's a basic problem with applying free speech to electronic communication. This DDOS presumably isn't just sending random data to certain ports, but making legitimate or semi-legitimate requests to affect CPU/memory as well. It's being done by individuals over recognized protocols and connections that have been paid for by real people. Is that not free speech? Seems like criticism of Anonymous is like criticizing Westboro Baptist Church when they go around yelling at funerals. They're disruptive and abusive.. but so far it's protected.
I'm also curious if there's a distinction between an attack involving a botnet where each computer is acting without the consent of its owner, versus one where thousands of people team up and voluntarily join one. Or if there's not even a botnet, but thousands of people clicking refresh on a homepage or leaving garbage comments on a form or whatever. Would you treat all of those as DDOS attacks?
Are you also against civil rights protests that interfered with businesses? Like sit-ins against restaurants that didn't serve black customers?
It's the same kind of thing. The government apparently isn't interested in making companies act fairly to minority customers, and the minority isn't big enough to cause significant damage through passive actions like boycotts. So you're left with vigilante justice or just ignoring it and moving on.
I don't know how I feel about it but I am very curious if people who oppose this DOS attack are also against civil rights sit-ins, which are exactly the same, and being done for the same motivations (even if you don't agree with them).
I wonder if the technology from that story on self-healing solar cells would help with batteries.
What is required before this one model can be said to have changed the risk assesment is for all the thousands of other models to incorporate the effect and come up with a combined result that lowers the expected value. This is not impossible but IMHO is highly unlikely.
Fair enough but we're speculating on this one paper, not the entire realm of climate science.
As for the risk of economic harm, numerous reputable economic studies (such as the stern report) have concluded that delaying any action will significantly increase the risk of economic harm. But I'm sure you can find just as many economic studies authoured by lobbyists at right-wing think tanks that say the opposite.
That's interesting wording you chose. The *risk* of economic harm will be increased, but not necessarily the magnitude.
Clearly children should be banned from swimming pools and beaches. Or maybe children should swim alone with no adults present. Children are being exploited.
The statistic that people tend to ignore is that the majority of sexual child abuse is done by the child's parents or some other adult they know, and not for financial gain. So it's not the 19 year old on 4chan posting/downloading child porn that is causing the problem, it's you, your brother in law, your uncle, your work friends, the teachers at your school, etc.
I didn't think snuff films required the murder to be for sexual gratification. If not, then there are plenty of beheading videos from Muslim terrorists. There's also the "Hammer Time" video from the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs in Ukraine, which was made purely for entertainment.