I've already delved into more detail on this topic elsewhere, so for you I'll just sum up...
If you do not cut back your consumption by 10%, people will die.
Excellent point. Excepting that humans are intelligent creatures, rather than mere animals, and will adapt to nearly any change in climate, you've got something there. Maybe. Probably.
On the other hand, interrupting the balance of the world economy will certainly kill far more, far sooner. Further, inciting violence amongst the least stable parts of the world will likewise kill many, many humans.
So your choice is a false one. You're offering:
A) Cut back 10% and kill people in the very short term vs B) Don't cut back and risk killing many more people in the long term
Note that 'A' is reasonably certain, while 'B' is still up in the air.
Thusly, still not funny.
The 10:10 commercial wasn't saying "comply or die"
Then why was there a button?
People dieing from want is decidedly different from people being murdered. Why depict the latter when you mean to imply the former?
You seem to be seeing things that simply aren't present on the screen.
Look, it's like this: people are going to die due to global warming. This is a fact. If we do not cut back on our CO2 emissions, more people will die.
Whether or not this is a certainty is debatable, but the chance of AGW resulting in loss of human life is magnitudes less than that of reducing dependence on foreign oil. Why?
Thermal Nuclear War.
Those oil-producing places aren't exactly the most stable politically, are they? Causing them to have less money will, certainly, lead to loss of life.
So you explode Ted, which you didn't necessarily have to do, and juxtapose that to the possibility that some humans are screwed either way. Whether we cut back or not, that's a highly unstable situation.
WTF is an Attorney General doing investigating scientists. He's not qualified, and it's not within his mandate.
Isn't this taking the "jury of your peers" thing just a tiny bit too far? What's next, requiring Congress to ride motorcycles before they pass laws about highway safety? Is there no level where an attorney can hire his own experts to independently evaluate scientific data?
This reeks of you wanting them to hide something to me.
Look, this is our planet, our future, and thusly our data. All of it should be completely open to anyone and everyone. Trying to prop up professional barriers between the public and the actual research is just plain wrong. Especially when we're making it into a political, rather than personal, issue.
I'm not aware of the content of the investigation, but if it entails, you know, actually making them back up their claims in a way that every expert would agree, then I fail to see the outrage.
Either people don't understand the comedy (and need jokes explained to them), or they are being offended on purpose.
"Comply or die" is not humorous. This is a controversial issue, and needs to be handled with respect. Let's change the topic, shall we, and we'll see if it remains so hillarious:
A) All those who are citizens raise their hands, now all the illegal aliens...
B) All those who go to church raise their hands, now all the atheists...
C) All those who are jihadists raise their hands, now all the infidels...
Yes, this little "joke" is easily the least intellectual thing any group could have possibly done. The message is clear - comply or die. How they thought it was funny is beyond me. There's no 'whoosh' factor here. This is the sickest, lowest form of a joke that is easily spotted, and disgustingly insulting.
See, it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. When you feel that everyone should cut consumption by 10%, you apparently think it is hilarious to cause those who disagree to explode. When you're not inclined to do so, and feel that this sort of pressure - especially in your workplace - is wholly inappropriate, well it becomes a bit shocking.
Never mind how blatantly idiotic it is to tell everyone to reduce spending by 10% during a global recession. But we're going to take it a step further and laugh at the prospect of murdering the dissidents. HURRAY!
Do note, though, that there are trade-offs. Like how the post above was chiseled onto a small rock which was later tied to a pigeon. Hence the lack of capital letters. They haven't been invented yet.
All the people seem to have gotten out okay. Perhaps they should have tried to rescue their animals? It isn't as if this fire happened in the night while everyone was asleep or something. They were burning their trash at the time, and had time to respond to the fire...
I personally doubt the animals died at all. I suspect this is just like how he 'forgot' to pay the fee - a simple plea for more sympathy.
Right, because the alternative (surrendering all control of government to those who know better) is SO much better than a single house burning down while the fire department watches.
Yeppers. Which is why I'm not too disappointed in the outcome. 'Sucks to be him' is certainly valid here, but that's about as far as it goes for me. The alternative, that admittedly would have prevented this situation is not acceptable, because it would come only at the cost of such liberty.
People seem to think that dead soldiers buy us our freedom, and while that's somewhat true, today we're learning that burned-down houses do, too.
That's not actually true, as it lies within the powers of the voters to define what constitutes the common good, as well as the degree to which it is promoted.
Any other interpretation of this clause opens the door to insanity.
I was assuming it would follow standard routes such as an election of vote by representatives, city counsel, etc - therefore, no, it would not be tyranny. Though that may not stop some from perceiving it as such - especially in some parts of Tennessee.
When you look into the story, though, you'll see that these routes were tried. They did not succeed. Fundamentally this is a city fire department we're talking about, that offers county services outside their jurisdiction. There was a political process that attempted to expand it to a county department, but it failed.
So, even in Tennessee, there eventually must be some level where we let them live their own lives. This is my definition of 'liberty'.
The real failure, IMOHO, is the fact the fee is not mandatory.
Except that would be tyranny, wouldn't it? The voters of the district want it the way it presently is, so who are we to override their democracy with our humble opinions? They owe no fealty to public opinion, and are free to set their laws as they would like them to be.
Fire dept and police department services are NOT optional. This isn't a cell phone subscription or some opt in bullshit. These are required services needed to live.
If the voters in that district agreed with you, they would have approved the tax.
Thankfully this is America, where democracy still holds some kind of value, and the actual residents of the county get to decide what their laws say.
To all those who've argued that this doesn't exist, observe - it does. The next time we lock horns in a healthcare or other societal need debate and you say 'do you have to pay for fire protection', DO NOT disagree when I say 'yes, you always do'. Either you pay a fee, or you pay it in taxes up front. In this district, the homeowners are free to decide whether to pay for fire protection or not. Vis-a-vis healthcare, IMO.
Not the point though. Just please pay attention that it can and does exist, by design.
Except now you're making assumptions about the value of the house, vs the value of the insurance on it. It is entirely possible that a 'totaled' home would be of a benefit to the homeowner that exceeds the value of a 'damaged home minus $7500'.
So long as no humans were allowed to die, I think the minimum standard was met.
All that is fine & dandy, but the major problem for the US forces in Afghanistan isn't energy, but a lack of strategy, IMO.
Talibans don't have F-16 nor drones, they don't have solar panels, and they still control over 90% of the country.
Example of bad strategy is fuel trucks crossing the Khyber Pass, historically well-known & pretty well-suited for ambush. Just ask the British who lost an army there in the nineteenth century.
This.
Further, there are as yet zero examples of this type of 'external revolution' being successful. If the people of Afghanistan aren't willing to die in huge quantities to change their government, then it probably isn't going to change. Sure we can come in to their garden and pull weeds a while, but once we go home - what do you suppose will happen again?
It isn't simply a matter of where we move the fuel trucks, but instead it goes even deeper than that. How long do we intend to pour money down this hole? Until our war strategy is greater than 'spend money as fast as possible', I fail to see how improving energy technology is a good idea.
Is a social engineering attack a hack? It sounds like someone called over to EarthLink and got an e-mail password reset. Then, once holding the e-mail account, called over to Network Solutions. This sort of thing wouldn't be difficult at all.
FYI - 'Hacking' never is, never has been, and likely never will be. The kind of amazing tricks you're imagining under that term lie within the realm of security research, espionage, etc. 'Hackers' are, by definition, hobbyists, and hobbyists are generally doing it for the love of the game, for the fun of it, etc. The guys doing the stuff that might actually amaze you are being PAID to do so. Otherwise they'd give it up and move on to something easier, until such time as nothing easier actually exists. So you say that exploiting a social gap isn't '1337' enough to make the grade? How is utilizing a published Windows exploit any better? SQL injection? Nobody buy nobody is divining their own security-breaking code from tiny mystical oracles found at the bottom of Mountain Dew cans.
In short, the movie 'Hackers' bears zero resemblance on reality.
"The ends justify the means, and those who use violence while working towards justice are never wrong." This is a very human position, and is very normal. It also has several well known flaws.
Your analogy doesn't account for the true nature of the crime, though, and this alone illustrates how it will never, ever, ever be effective in stopping spam.
If we want it to stop, we need to attach a cost to it. We could, for example, severely punish those who respond to spam ads. Or we could automatically bankrupt any company proven to willingly contract with a spammer. Or, finally, we could insist on 'postage' for our internet traffic, thereby limiting the volume of the crap we receive by virtue of the free market.
We'll never do any of that, though, so I fail to see the point of likening this to autos. You ought to liken it to stealing imaginary unicorns, as those are just as limitless and have precisely as few protections.
They might. He didn't change any of the passwords, just guessed them, though
Look, I understand that you like the guy, but you're fabricating facts:
By "take over" I mean that I would guess the password for the email account, gain access to the email account, change the user information, change the password, add a new signature, and create a "vacation message" that would automatically be sent in reply to any message the account received from that moment forward.
Not that it matters. One could reasonably argue that by allowing them to stay open, he is accepting the responsibility for any further actions done via those accounts. Also he's unduly taxing servers to spread his agenda. He is, in effect, sending forum admins spam from compromised accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Have a look at 'Salad Days'. Mass mutilation on an epic scale. See what happens if you play tennis? Scary.
I see. And which political message does 'Salad Days' exhibit?
Or are you somehow equating every possible topic for a skit involving gore?
I've already delved into more detail on this topic elsewhere, so for you I'll just sum up...
If you do not cut back your consumption by 10%, people will die.
Excellent point. Excepting that humans are intelligent creatures, rather than mere animals, and will adapt to nearly any change in climate, you've got something there. Maybe. Probably.
On the other hand, interrupting the balance of the world economy will certainly kill far more, far sooner. Further, inciting violence amongst the least stable parts of the world will likewise kill many, many humans.
So your choice is a false one. You're offering:
A) Cut back 10% and kill people in the very short term
vs
B) Don't cut back and risk killing many more people in the long term
Note that 'A' is reasonably certain, while 'B' is still up in the air.
Thusly, still not funny.
The 10:10 commercial wasn't saying "comply or die"
Then why was there a button?
People dieing from want is decidedly different from people being murdered. Why depict the latter when you mean to imply the former?
You seem to be seeing things that simply aren't present on the screen.
Look, it's like this: people are going to die due to global warming. This is a fact. If we do not cut back on our CO2 emissions, more people will die.
Whether or not this is a certainty is debatable, but the chance of AGW resulting in loss of human life is magnitudes less than that of reducing dependence on foreign oil. Why?
Thermal Nuclear War.
Those oil-producing places aren't exactly the most stable politically, are they? Causing them to have less money will, certainly, lead to loss of life.
So you explode Ted, which you didn't necessarily have to do, and juxtapose that to the possibility that some humans are screwed either way. Whether we cut back or not, that's a highly unstable situation.
And it's still not funny.
Newbie.
WTF is an Attorney General doing investigating scientists. He's not qualified, and it's not within his mandate.
Isn't this taking the "jury of your peers" thing just a tiny bit too far? What's next, requiring Congress to ride motorcycles before they pass laws about highway safety? Is there no level where an attorney can hire his own experts to independently evaluate scientific data?
This reeks of you wanting them to hide something to me.
Look, this is our planet, our future, and thusly our data. All of it should be completely open to anyone and everyone. Trying to prop up professional barriers between the public and the actual research is just plain wrong. Especially when we're making it into a political, rather than personal, issue.
I'm not aware of the content of the investigation, but if it entails, you know, actually making them back up their claims in a way that every expert would agree, then I fail to see the outrage.
Either people don't understand the comedy (and need jokes explained to them), or they are being offended on purpose.
"Comply or die" is not humorous. This is a controversial issue, and needs to be handled with respect. Let's change the topic, shall we, and we'll see if it remains so hillarious:
A) All those who are citizens raise their hands, now all the illegal aliens...
B) All those who go to church raise their hands, now all the atheists...
C) All those who are jihadists raise their hands, now all the infidels...
I'm still not seeing the humor.
Yes, this little "joke" is easily the least intellectual thing any group could have possibly done. The message is clear - comply or die. How they thought it was funny is beyond me. There's no 'whoosh' factor here. This is the sickest, lowest form of a joke that is easily spotted, and disgustingly insulting.
See, it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. When you feel that everyone should cut consumption by 10%, you apparently think it is hilarious to cause those who disagree to explode. When you're not inclined to do so, and feel that this sort of pressure - especially in your workplace - is wholly inappropriate, well it becomes a bit shocking.
Never mind how blatantly idiotic it is to tell everyone to reduce spending by 10% during a global recession. But we're going to take it a step further and laugh at the prospect of murdering the dissidents. HURRAY!
stop upgrading to shittier technology.
Do note, though, that there are trade-offs. Like how the post above was chiseled onto a small rock which was later tied to a pigeon. Hence the lack of capital letters. They haven't been invented yet.
All the people seem to have gotten out okay. Perhaps they should have tried to rescue their animals? It isn't as if this fire happened in the night while everyone was asleep or something. They were burning their trash at the time, and had time to respond to the fire...
I personally doubt the animals died at all. I suspect this is just like how he 'forgot' to pay the fee - a simple plea for more sympathy.
Right, because the alternative (surrendering all control of government to those who know better) is SO much better than a single house burning down while the fire department watches.
Yeppers. Which is why I'm not too disappointed in the outcome. 'Sucks to be him' is certainly valid here, but that's about as far as it goes for me. The alternative, that admittedly would have prevented this situation is not acceptable, because it would come only at the cost of such liberty.
People seem to think that dead soldiers buy us our freedom, and while that's somewhat true, today we're learning that burned-down houses do, too.
That's not actually true, as it lies within the powers of the voters to define what constitutes the common good, as well as the degree to which it is promoted.
Any other interpretation of this clause opens the door to insanity.
Except that would be tyranny, wouldn't it?
I was assuming it would follow standard routes such as an election of vote by representatives, city counsel, etc - therefore, no, it would not be tyranny. Though that may not stop some from perceiving it as such - especially in some parts of Tennessee.
When you look into the story, though, you'll see that these routes were tried. They did not succeed. Fundamentally this is a city fire department we're talking about, that offers county services outside their jurisdiction. There was a political process that attempted to expand it to a county department, but it failed.
So, even in Tennessee, there eventually must be some level where we let them live their own lives. This is my definition of 'liberty'.
The real failure, IMOHO, is the fact the fee is not mandatory.
Except that would be tyranny, wouldn't it? The voters of the district want it the way it presently is, so who are we to override their democracy with our humble opinions? They owe no fealty to public opinion, and are free to set their laws as they would like them to be.
Fire dept and police department services are NOT optional. This isn't a cell phone subscription or some opt in bullshit. These are required services needed to live.
If the voters in that district agreed with you, they would have approved the tax.
Thankfully this is America, where democracy still holds some kind of value, and the actual residents of the county get to decide what their laws say.
To all those who've argued that this doesn't exist, observe - it does. The next time we lock horns in a healthcare or other societal need debate and you say 'do you have to pay for fire protection', DO NOT disagree when I say 'yes, you always do'. Either you pay a fee, or you pay it in taxes up front. In this district, the homeowners are free to decide whether to pay for fire protection or not. Vis-a-vis healthcare, IMO.
Not the point though. Just please pay attention that it can and does exist, by design.
Except now you're making assumptions about the value of the house, vs the value of the insurance on it. It is entirely possible that a 'totaled' home would be of a benefit to the homeowner that exceeds the value of a 'damaged home minus $7500'.
So long as no humans were allowed to die, I think the minimum standard was met.
All that is fine & dandy, but the major problem for the US forces in Afghanistan isn't energy, but a lack of strategy, IMO.
Talibans don't have F-16 nor drones, they don't have solar panels, and they still control over 90% of the country.
Example of bad strategy is fuel trucks crossing the Khyber Pass, historically well-known & pretty well-suited for ambush. Just ask the British who lost an army there in the nineteenth century.
This.
Further, there are as yet zero examples of this type of 'external revolution' being successful. If the people of Afghanistan aren't willing to die in huge quantities to change their government, then it probably isn't going to change. Sure we can come in to their garden and pull weeds a while, but once we go home - what do you suppose will happen again?
It isn't simply a matter of where we move the fuel trucks, but instead it goes even deeper than that. How long do we intend to pour money down this hole? Until our war strategy is greater than 'spend money as fast as possible', I fail to see how improving energy technology is a good idea.
Yes. The oil's a gushing over there in Afghanistan, isn't it?
Oil, opium, same song, just a different verse of it.
Is a social engineering attack a hack? It sounds like someone called over to EarthLink and got an e-mail password reset. Then, once holding the e-mail account, called over to Network Solutions. This sort of thing wouldn't be difficult at all.
FYI - 'Hacking' never is, never has been, and likely never will be. The kind of amazing tricks you're imagining under that term lie within the realm of security research, espionage, etc. 'Hackers' are, by definition, hobbyists, and hobbyists are generally doing it for the love of the game, for the fun of it, etc. The guys doing the stuff that might actually amaze you are being PAID to do so. Otherwise they'd give it up and move on to something easier, until such time as nothing easier actually exists. So you say that exploiting a social gap isn't '1337' enough to make the grade? How is utilizing a published Windows exploit any better? SQL injection? Nobody buy nobody is divining their own security-breaking code from tiny mystical oracles found at the bottom of Mountain Dew cans.
In short, the movie 'Hackers' bears zero resemblance on reality.
"The ends justify the means, and those who use violence while working towards justice are never wrong." This is a very human position, and is very normal. It also has several well known flaws.
Hey, I'm with you. I got kicked out of the Tea Party Network for pointing out that there was no way in hell Obama would ask Hillary to sit on SCOTUS.
Placed from the Soviet Union on which forum? One hosted in Thailand, perhaps?
Your analogy doesn't account for the true nature of the crime, though, and this alone illustrates how it will never, ever, ever be effective in stopping spam.
If we want it to stop, we need to attach a cost to it. We could, for example, severely punish those who respond to spam ads. Or we could automatically bankrupt any company proven to willingly contract with a spammer. Or, finally, we could insist on 'postage' for our internet traffic, thereby limiting the volume of the crap we receive by virtue of the free market.
We'll never do any of that, though, so I fail to see the point of likening this to autos. You ought to liken it to stealing imaginary unicorns, as those are just as limitless and have precisely as few protections.
They might. He didn't change any of the passwords, just guessed them, though
Look, I understand that you like the guy, but you're fabricating facts:
By "take over" I mean that I would guess the password for the email account, gain access to the email account, change the user information, change the password, add a new signature, and create a "vacation message" that would automatically be sent in reply to any message the account received from that moment forward.
Not that it matters. One could reasonably argue that by allowing them to stay open, he is accepting the responsibility for any further actions done via those accounts. Also he's unduly taxing servers to spread his agenda. He is, in effect, sending forum admins spam from compromised accounts.