My earth is relatively flat. Nothing in my personal experience shows me otherwise.
Two things popped into my mind immediately: the horizon and eclipses. I presume you're too busy posting on Slashdot to ever notice those sorts of things. I glanced over your other posts about models, which is something I've thought quite a bit about, myself, and I'd have to slightly agree, but some of this just delves into semantics. The thing about science isn't that it's meant to be taken on faith. For a lot of people, that seems to be the case. I have met many people in my experience who "believe" what they read out of science magazines or Slashdot articles about global warming, theology, and so on, without really understanding the underlying arguments themselves. I think that's a bad thing, although perhaps it is a NECESSARY thing, but that is outside the scope of my post at the moment. Whatever people do or will do in the name of science or its societal popularity, science does create these models of the world which are the best ones that we have, and science itself is the best system we have for arriving at any semblance of truth, despite how philosophically inclined you might be when it comes to objectivism or rationalism or whatever. The mind is the only thing we have.
And science never claims absolute truth, as all facts and theories are probability statements. They may be something on the order of 99% probable, but they are still probability statements, and no real scientist who understand the scientific method would claim otherwise. And when the layperson who has no real comprehension of matters science feels as if he or she has to come to a decision on some important sociological matter, that person does not necessarily have to rely upon a faith system to do so. The scientific method, by its nature, is one of multiply redundant fact checking and review, and to take its observations as virtually "true" in the most human sense of the word is not to be faithful, but to credit the method and its stringent nature with as much probablity as you would its theories about the mechanics of the fundamental forces or whatever you would prefer to substitute for that.
Thus, no one ends up harboring any belief, necessarily, but goes about their lives as though those things are true, because that is the most convincing model that we are likely to arrive at with the tool (science) of understanding that we have been provided (note: this does not imply intentionality) with, and stock is placed in that system because of its rigorous means and its consistency and its accurate predictions accumulated over the years (and its usefulness? I'm not sure). But one is certainly not taking it upon the word of a possibly biased individual or individuals, but valuing an established concept, which is, again, the best we have arrived at and probably will arrive at (I do not see how any system of understanding could surpass science, insofar as contemporary humans are concerned), and accepting the likelihood of its truths and falsities on the basis of its historical record. I think that, as I had warned, I have definitely delved into semantics at this point, and I would not entirely be inclined to disagree with you that still "accepting" such ideas does involve some degree of faith or belief, but I am always willing to play devil's advocate and attempt to muddy the waters for my own benefit (if there is any). To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the answer is, and I've thought a fair deal about the problem. Perhaps that is the answer, after all.
And then Britain with either of them. The order is (if I recall correctly):
United Kingdom
Britain
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
It seems quite confusing to those not really familiar with the situation (and even to some UKers I've talked to), but it wouldn't be if no one ever popularized such confusion in the first place, which makes me curious how it all got started.
This guy gets it, and it's really sad that almost everyone in society would not hesitate to beat people like him over the head if offered the chance to do so without fear of retribution. I really don't understand why most everyone has to be so stupid and illogical; I'm going to guess that a lot of it has to do with the inertia of ancient cultural norms and mores. On the other hand, these things are constantly brainwashed into young minds, driven into the brains of college kids with even more venom, and re-inforced through the public media on a daily basis.
The solution is intellectual integrity and bravery just like that which has been displayed by the parent. Yes, there is objective beauty. No, your opinion is not equal to others. Yes, you can criticize the looks of others even if you irrelevantly have looks to be critical of yourself (and how could you not?). No, it is not hypocrisy; it, in fact, has absolutely as much to do with hypocrisy as your mother (you, the person reading this post, your mother) has to do with being attractive. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest that someone should commit some action that I am guilty of not commiting myself for similar reasons that that person might (although it is confusing to me, personally, why anyone would consider any action, let alone commit one). For instance, if I had said you are fat and you need to start eating less, while I was also fat and munching on Cheetos as I typed that very comment, that might be hypocritical. For me to make an observation about the nature of your appearance is not in itself hypocritical and can not be so, despite the wishful thinking of the everybody's-equal, Obama-loving socialists that our (yes, I am making an assumption that you are a fat, disgusting Amerikanz) educational system has bred.
$diety LOL WELL THAT CHICK DOES NEED TO GO ONTO A DIET IF YOU KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING MAN Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Um, the point was kind of that you must have installed some sort of ridiculous software in the first place, to warrant bitching about simply providing a link. Normally, opening external software requires user intervention, lacking any kind of exploit. So I'm going to guess that you probably have the Acrobat browser plug-in installed, which would be your own fault. I don't have hardly any browser plug-ins installed and wouldn't want to, least of all that beast. Save to disk, open in Fox-It Reader or SumatraPDF and it's done (or GhostScript, if you like). I can't say whether or not they support all of the leatest and greatest PDF features, since I know next to nothing about PDF, but I haven't had any problems so far. As another poster suggested, you can always revert back to older Acrobat versions if you prefer, but they do seem to be unable to open a lot of recent PDFs.
Most of the people replying to this "joke" failed to point out (many of them making the same mistake themselves) that kilo is repesented by the symbol "k" -- lowercase, not upper. There's a major difference between k[ilo] and K[elvin], just as there is between bits and Bytes.
Not if the link redirects or the server sends a MIME type other than what you'd expect for a PDF extension. But, then again, it would only matter if you had some sort of PDF reading browser plug-in that sucked all the resources out of your system. Any other situation would be a 5 second inconvenience. I don't see the problem.
Unlike you, that doesn't matter to me. I don't care if you are black and hate Jews, or if you are Indian and hate Pakistanis. Same trash.
Well, hating Jews wouldn't have much to do with racism (even if racism meant hating another race, which it doesn't), then, would it? Because Jews are not a race, despite what you've probably been taught in your Jew-run schools. Judaism is a religion. I may or may not be prejudiced toward or against Jews, but that would not make me anything but prejudiced. All the same, you seem to be forgetting that I could be a Pakistani and hate Pakistanis or be white and hate Caucasians or be black and hate Africans or Haitians. Why is that?
The tables have indeed turned and I am loving it. I'm in an interracial marriage and have a mixed kid that couldn't exist if your ilk still ruled the US.
This just goes to show how little integrity you have. I really couldn't care less what sort of marriage you're in (although the fact that you're in a marriage at all goes pretty far to show how unintelligent you really are). As far I'm aware, there is hardly any such thing as a pure bloodline in the current human genetic population. We've had 40,000 generations of interbreedings of the various "races" or what might be construed as a race to someone so inclined to wish the existence of races.
I think that this is entirely contradictory with your original sentiment that you don't care who's who or what's what in regards to race. You quite clearly are insistent on flaunting the nature of your relationship with another person based solely on the tone of their skin. I don't think that constitutes racism, but I'm wondering if it might not by your own line of fallacious reasoning; being philosophically consistent is hard, but someone has to do it, and that's where I come in. You seem to acknowledge that your "mixed kid" might have some properties that any other kid of a "normal" union may either possess or lack. I would have thought it just a lower or higher melanin count. What is it, this thing that your kid has or doesn't have? How old is your child? Is it aware of the way that you think about it? Has it been taught (misinformed) in the same way that you have? Taught that you have the right to not be offended, that some ideas are more or less detestable than others and shouldn't be heard while the others should be heard more?
Isn't the central idea behind all of these lines of thinking -- those such as yours -- that people ought to be more open and accepting of new ideas and information? Barring any political or personal agenda, I think that's what the intent is in the minds of a lot of people. And racism itself is just such an idea. The fact that it may be somehow arguably "wrong" (it can't be morally wrong, unless I'm meeting my first philosophically-argued moral objectivist on the internets [perhaps you are religious -- Jewish? {whoops that was race-ist!!}]) or incorrect doesn't mean that the idea itself doesn't merit discussion, let alone that it somehow automatically warrants detesting and dismissal. That doesn't mean that you have to respect or even entertain said idea, much the same as any idea, but it does mean that the idea itself isn't somehow magically removed from existence and cannot ever be held by any rational, intelligent person (or, if you prefer, [otherwise] rational or intelligent person), and nor does it mean that idea can not be justified, and nor does it mean that the idea should be ignored outright on any basis, up to and including the political and social culture you've assimilated (been indoctrinated with).
Do you honestly judge things by whatever the sociological zeitgeist is at the particular time when you're judging things? Using religiosity as an example, for instance: Is not religion as logically erroneous as you may imagine the concept of racism to be? Yet this is a widely practiced and widely accepted thing, and is even culturally "protected" from criticism, in the same way t
I'm simultaneously impressed with your courage and disgusted that I share the same race as you (as in human, not white).
That's good, because I never said I was white, did I? Thus, if racism had anything to do with making assumptions, like so many people seem to [wrongly] think, then you'd be eerily close to that line. Real courage is standing up for ANYTHING that's not accepted by society at large, and that's what I've demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate throughout the course of my life, in spite of silly, naive, and thoughtless reactions like yours.
people like you
Stop it. You're killing me.
The tables have turned, quite unfortunately. The tables have turned from one injustice to another, and you seem to love it. Real courage is standing up to people like you. The fact that you assume I have an employer (oh, imagine that!!) or would ever have an employer is part of what's most amusing about your post; the rest of the drivel with which said post was laden has become mundane to me, as it is almost expected of people with average intelligence (or those who've been put through Western schooling, at the very least [which, in most cases, seems to overlap with the former quite reliably]). That said, there are plenty of like-minded people in control a wide array of businesses, large and small. The fact that you either can't fathom that or want to pretend it isn't true doesn't particularly bode well for your grasp on reality, let alone your intellectual honesty.
And the fact that you think my life is hate-filled shows just how assuming you really are, as well as, ultimately, mis-informed.
The point is you'd have to actually implement a MiM attack
OH NO!!! It's so hard to apt-get install ettercap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Security through obscurity. And not in a good way (security through obscurity is useless as a purely defensive measure, especially when it's your only one).
The number of people who mis-understand SSL on Slashdot is appalling; I keep seeing these threads pop up time and time again. Anyone who thinks self-signed certificates are a good tool for obtaining any form of security beyond that which is afforded by normal plain-text means, in a real, practical environment, does NOT understand SSL. At all. Get off of Slashdot.
Both you and the grandparent are misinformed. All clients which are capable of resolving hostnames have a stub.. gasp.. resolver, which is what this is about. It has nothing to do with caching nameservers. The grandparent is wrong because the original attack requires user interaction in the first place.
The core of the vulnerability has been known for years and years, and was always possible. The new bit is just an interesting spin on it: reduce attack time by averaging over a number of sub-domain queries that you control (e.g. through a web page).
Not close. And why are you putting extra newlines everywhere?
Fuck you, China government. I really would like to say more than just these few words, but the high charges are not affordable.
If only I could be able to write that I disapprove entirely of these high charges, I wouldn't have to be abbreviated and could say if I have been abused or tortured or not. If I could afford to tell if I have been tortured, trust me, I would just say it. Anyway, I will have to sign off now, because I am late for a protest march in Tiananmen Square. I should be back soon. Sorry I had to make this so short. Next time I will see if I can get a discount or not. I will see. Laters. Be Back (??), BlackSlashdot (??).. By the way, I (??) what did you think of the Batman movie? It was awesome. You really should see it, if you get the chance. Heath Ledger was good. I think Oscar for sure, not just out of sympathy. Anyway, I will see you later. Bye bye, Slashdot.
The first "bb" was a mistake, since that is usually meant to mean 'be back.' The second time, he placed a space between the two letters to make it unambiguous; this is what should have done in the first instance, if he had, indeed, intended to mean 'bye bye.'
And I don't know what the "bck" in "bckslashdot" was supposed to be, but you didn't account for it. Your grammar was poor.
What's with the popularity of the whole "aliens who're capable of interstellar travel must be super smart" line of reasoning? Aliens are aliens because they're alien. Perhaps they have a particular propensity for understanding physics in a way that we can not, maybe it's just something that they discovered earlier than us (yeah, I understand the 'shoulders of giants'-esque argumentation), or perhaps their nature is to interact with those physics differently (no, I'm not claiming physical subjectivity; you're reading into what I said too much), or maybe they're just Tralfamadorians.
If he won't take your shitty ad hominem and red herring-filled arguments, then I will. I am a racist, and I admit I'd never vote for a stinking nigger. That said, there are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Obama, starting with the ones the GP outlined. Not to mention he has close ties with AIPAC and other lobby groups (OH NO I'M ANTI-SEMITIC!!), voted for telecom immunity, voted to fund the Iraq war time and again until it was near primary time, and on and on and on. Plus he's a fucking socialist. Don't forget that part.
Not really. That's been around for a long time, and was pretty much solved once people stopped using RS.INTERNIC.NET for WHOIS. Unfortunately, the non-assimilated WHOIS we have to put up with for most of the gTLDs today sucks.
That said, not an awful lot of people even have RPF deployed. Certainly nowhere near 100%.
It feels like it's getting there to the blackhats. Ten years ago, my friends and I used to do "smurf" attacks indiscriminately from just about everywhere. It takes more effort than it's worth to find a network that will let you spoof properly anymore, so most people just resort to making lazy DDoS nets -- formerly relegated to high-bandwidth UNIX servers on.edus and the like, but now it's just as well to make use of every little Celeron desktop with a cable modem, since it's so easy to get high numbers of bots.
It looks like Steve Gibson was a bigger idiot than anyone could've imagined. But XP did make it easier to facilitate the growth of a DoS botnet.
In the ruling issued today, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that COPA violates the First Amendment because it is not the most effective way to keep children from visiting adult Web sites.
By the way, someone can still steal your session, depending on how GMail handles them. I don't use GMail, so I don't know. But it would be a lot harder. Without HTTPS, someone can just steal your cookie (there are a variety of ways of doing so that don't necessarily allow for other exploits) and send it to their server. In a scenario where you're using a secure connection, however, an attacker would have to do something a bit more advanced, like XSRF of session ID brute forcing, both of which would be dependent upon a particularly small window of opportunity, and the latter of which would require computation sufficient enough to necessitate a much larger timeframe than is allowed by such a window.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things popped into my mind immediately: the horizon and eclipses. I presume you're too busy posting on Slashdot to ever notice those sorts of things. I glanced over your other posts about models, which is something I've thought quite a bit about, myself, and I'd have to slightly agree, but some of this just delves into semantics. The thing about science isn't that it's meant to be taken on faith. For a lot of people, that seems to be the case. I have met many people in my experience who "believe" what they read out of science magazines or Slashdot articles about global warming, theology, and so on, without really understanding the underlying arguments themselves. I think that's a bad thing, although perhaps it is a NECESSARY thing, but that is outside the scope of my post at the moment. Whatever people do or will do in the name of science or its societal popularity, science does create these models of the world which are the best ones that we have, and science itself is the best system we have for arriving at any semblance of truth, despite how philosophically inclined you might be when it comes to objectivism or rationalism or whatever. The mind is the only thing we have.
And science never claims absolute truth, as all facts and theories are probability statements. They may be something on the order of 99% probable, but they are still probability statements, and no real scientist who understand the scientific method would claim otherwise. And when the layperson who has no real comprehension of matters science feels as if he or she has to come to a decision on some important sociological matter, that person does not necessarily have to rely upon a faith system to do so. The scientific method, by its nature, is one of multiply redundant fact checking and review, and to take its observations as virtually "true" in the most human sense of the word is not to be faithful, but to credit the method and its stringent nature with as much probablity as you would its theories about the mechanics of the fundamental forces or whatever you would prefer to substitute for that.
Thus, no one ends up harboring any belief, necessarily, but goes about their lives as though those things are true, because that is the most convincing model that we are likely to arrive at with the tool (science) of understanding that we have been provided (note: this does not imply intentionality) with, and stock is placed in that system because of its rigorous means and its consistency and its accurate predictions accumulated over the years (and its usefulness? I'm not sure). But one is certainly not taking it upon the word of a possibly biased individual or individuals, but valuing an established concept, which is, again, the best we have arrived at and probably will arrive at (I do not see how any system of understanding could surpass science, insofar as contemporary humans are concerned), and accepting the likelihood of its truths and falsities on the basis of its historical record. I think that, as I had warned, I have definitely delved into semantics at this point, and I would not entirely be inclined to disagree with you that still "accepting" such ideas does involve some degree of faith or belief, but I am always willing to play devil's advocate and attempt to muddy the waters for my own benefit (if there is any). To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the answer is, and I've thought a fair deal about the problem. Perhaps that is the answer, after all.
And I suppose that I could be even wrong for conflating Great Britain with de facto Britain, although I didn't intend any such error.
And then Britain with either of them. The order is (if I recall correctly):
United Kingdom
Britain
England
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
It seems quite confusing to those not really familiar with the situation (and even to some UKers I've talked to), but it wouldn't be if no one ever popularized such confusion in the first place, which makes me curious how it all got started.
This guy gets it, and it's really sad that almost everyone in society would not hesitate to beat people like him over the head if offered the chance to do so without fear of retribution. I really don't understand why most everyone has to be so stupid and illogical; I'm going to guess that a lot of it has to do with the inertia of ancient cultural norms and mores. On the other hand, these things are constantly brainwashed into young minds, driven into the brains of college kids with even more venom, and re-inforced through the public media on a daily basis.
The solution is intellectual integrity and bravery just like that which has been displayed by the parent. Yes, there is objective beauty. No, your opinion is not equal to others. Yes, you can criticize the looks of others even if you irrelevantly have looks to be critical of yourself (and how could you not?). No, it is not hypocrisy; it, in fact, has absolutely as much to do with hypocrisy as your mother (you, the person reading this post, your mother) has to do with being attractive. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest that someone should commit some action that I am guilty of not commiting myself for similar reasons that that person might (although it is confusing to me, personally, why anyone would consider any action, let alone commit one). For instance, if I had said you are fat and you need to start eating less, while I was also fat and munching on Cheetos as I typed that very comment, that might be hypocritical. For me to make an observation about the nature of your appearance is not in itself hypocritical and can not be so, despite the wishful thinking of the everybody's-equal, Obama-loving socialists that our (yes, I am making an assumption that you are a fat, disgusting Amerikanz) educational system has bred.
$diety LOL WELL THAT CHICK DOES NEED TO GO ONTO A DIET IF YOU KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING MAN Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Um, the point was kind of that you must have installed some sort of ridiculous software in the first place, to warrant bitching about simply providing a link. Normally, opening external software requires user intervention, lacking any kind of exploit. So I'm going to guess that you probably have the Acrobat browser plug-in installed, which would be your own fault. I don't have hardly any browser plug-ins installed and wouldn't want to, least of all that beast. Save to disk, open in Fox-It Reader or SumatraPDF and it's done (or GhostScript, if you like). I can't say whether or not they support all of the leatest and greatest PDF features, since I know next to nothing about PDF, but I haven't had any problems so far. As another poster suggested, you can always revert back to older Acrobat versions if you prefer, but they do seem to be unable to open a lot of recent PDFs.
Most of the people replying to this "joke" failed to point out (many of them making the same mistake themselves) that kilo is repesented by the symbol "k" -- lowercase, not upper. There's a major difference between k[ilo] and K[elvin], just as there is between bits and Bytes.
Not if the link redirects or the server sends a MIME type other than what you'd expect for a PDF extension. But, then again, it would only matter if you had some sort of PDF reading browser plug-in that sucked all the resources out of your system. Any other situation would be a 5 second inconvenience. I don't see the problem.
Shut up, nerd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron-volt#As_a_measurement_of_mass
Well, hating Jews wouldn't have much to do with racism (even if racism meant hating another race, which it doesn't), then, would it? Because Jews are not a race, despite what you've probably been taught in your Jew-run schools. Judaism is a religion. I may or may not be prejudiced toward or against Jews, but that would not make me anything but prejudiced. All the same, you seem to be forgetting that I could be a Pakistani and hate Pakistanis or be white and hate Caucasians or be black and hate Africans or Haitians. Why is that?
This just goes to show how little integrity you have. I really couldn't care less what sort of marriage you're in (although the fact that you're in a marriage at all goes pretty far to show how unintelligent you really are). As far I'm aware, there is hardly any such thing as a pure bloodline in the current human genetic population. We've had 40,000 generations of interbreedings of the various "races" or what might be construed as a race to someone so inclined to wish the existence of races.
I think that this is entirely contradictory with your original sentiment that you don't care who's who or what's what in regards to race. You quite clearly are insistent on flaunting the nature of your relationship with another person based solely on the tone of their skin. I don't think that constitutes racism, but I'm wondering if it might not by your own line of fallacious reasoning; being philosophically consistent is hard, but someone has to do it, and that's where I come in. You seem to acknowledge that your "mixed kid" might have some properties that any other kid of a "normal" union may either possess or lack. I would have thought it just a lower or higher melanin count. What is it, this thing that your kid has or doesn't have? How old is your child? Is it aware of the way that you think about it? Has it been taught (misinformed) in the same way that you have? Taught that you have the right to not be offended, that some ideas are more or less detestable than others and shouldn't be heard while the others should be heard more?
Isn't the central idea behind all of these lines of thinking -- those such as yours -- that people ought to be more open and accepting of new ideas and information? Barring any political or personal agenda, I think that's what the intent is in the minds of a lot of people. And racism itself is just such an idea. The fact that it may be somehow arguably "wrong" (it can't be morally wrong, unless I'm meeting my first philosophically-argued moral objectivist on the internets [perhaps you are religious -- Jewish? {whoops that was race-ist!!}]) or incorrect doesn't mean that the idea itself doesn't merit discussion, let alone that it somehow automatically warrants detesting and dismissal. That doesn't mean that you have to respect or even entertain said idea, much the same as any idea, but it does mean that the idea itself isn't somehow magically removed from existence and cannot ever be held by any rational, intelligent person (or, if you prefer, [otherwise] rational or intelligent person), and nor does it mean that idea can not be justified, and nor does it mean that the idea should be ignored outright on any basis, up to and including the political and social culture you've assimilated (been indoctrinated with).
Do you honestly judge things by whatever the sociological zeitgeist is at the particular time when you're judging things? Using religiosity as an example, for instance: Is not religion as logically erroneous as you may imagine the concept of racism to be? Yet this is a widely practiced and widely accepted thing, and is even culturally "protected" from criticism, in the same way t
That's good, because I never said I was white, did I? Thus, if racism had anything to do with making assumptions, like so many people seem to [wrongly] think, then you'd be eerily close to that line. Real courage is standing up for ANYTHING that's not accepted by society at large, and that's what I've demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate throughout the course of my life, in spite of silly, naive, and thoughtless reactions like yours.
Stop it. You're killing me.
The tables have turned, quite unfortunately. The tables have turned from one injustice to another, and you seem to love it. Real courage is standing up to people like you.
The fact that you assume I have an employer (oh, imagine that!!) or would ever have an employer is part of what's most amusing about your post; the rest of the drivel with which said post was laden has become mundane to me, as it is almost expected of people with average intelligence (or those who've been put through Western schooling, at the very least [which, in most cases, seems to overlap with the former quite reliably]). That said, there are plenty of like-minded people in control a wide array of businesses, large and small. The fact that you either can't fathom that or want to pretend it isn't true doesn't particularly bode well for your grasp on reality, let alone your intellectual honesty.
And the fact that you think my life is hate-filled shows just how assuming you really are, as well as, ultimately, mis-informed.
OH NO!!! It's so hard to apt-get install ettercap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Security through obscurity. And not in a good way (security through obscurity is useless as a purely defensive measure, especially when it's your only one).
The number of people who mis-understand SSL on Slashdot is appalling; I keep seeing these threads pop up time and time again. Anyone who thinks self-signed certificates are a good tool for obtaining any form of security beyond that which is afforded by normal plain-text means, in a real, practical environment, does NOT understand SSL. At all. Get off of Slashdot.
Both you and the grandparent are misinformed. All clients which are capable of resolving hostnames have a stub .. gasp .. resolver, which is what this is about. It has nothing to do with caching nameservers. The grandparent is wrong because the original attack requires user interaction in the first place.
The core of the vulnerability has been known for years and years, and was always possible. The new bit is just an interesting spin on it: reduce attack time by averaging over a number of sub-domain queries that you control (e.g. through a web page).
The first "bb" was a mistake, since that is usually meant to mean 'be back.' The second time, he placed a space between the two letters to make it unambiguous; this is what should have done in the first instance, if he had, indeed, intended to mean 'bye bye.' And I don't know what the "bck" in "bckslashdot" was supposed to be, but you didn't account for it. Your grammar was poor.
What's with the popularity of the whole "aliens who're capable of interstellar travel must be super smart" line of reasoning? Aliens are aliens because they're alien. Perhaps they have a particular propensity for understanding physics in a way that we can not, maybe it's just something that they discovered earlier than us (yeah, I understand the 'shoulders of giants'-esque argumentation), or perhaps their nature is to interact with those physics differently (no, I'm not claiming physical subjectivity; you're reading into what I said too much), or maybe they're just Tralfamadorians.
If he won't take your shitty ad hominem and red herring-filled arguments, then I will. I am a racist, and I admit I'd never vote for a stinking nigger. That said, there are plenty of better reasons not to vote for Obama, starting with the ones the GP outlined. Not to mention he has close ties with AIPAC and other lobby groups (OH NO I'M ANTI-SEMITIC!!), voted for telecom immunity, voted to fund the Iraq war time and again until it was near primary time, and on and on and on. Plus he's a fucking socialist. Don't forget that part.
Not really. That's been around for a long time, and was pretty much solved once people stopped using RS.INTERNIC.NET for WHOIS. Unfortunately, the non-assimilated WHOIS we have to put up with for most of the gTLDs today sucks.
It feels like it's getting there to the blackhats. Ten years ago, my friends and I used to do "smurf" attacks indiscriminately from just about everywhere. It takes more effort than it's worth to find a network that will let you spoof properly anymore, so most people just resort to making lazy DDoS nets -- formerly relegated to high-bandwidth UNIX servers on .edus and the like, but now it's just as well to make use of every little Celeron desktop with a cable modem, since it's so easy to get high numbers of bots.
It looks like Steve Gibson was a bigger idiot than anyone could've imagined. But XP did make it easier to facilitate the growth of a DoS botnet.
It shouldn't be that difficult for your car to have the appearance of running at 420mph while you're under the influence of certain substances.
wut
Except that it says "Posting an $11.34 electric bill (roughly 3% of previous months)" and not '(roughly 3% of the previous month\'s bill).'
I am not sure what is meant, though.
So don't type it.
By the way, someone can still steal your session, depending on how GMail handles them. I don't use GMail, so I don't know. But it would be a lot harder. Without HTTPS, someone can just steal your cookie (there are a variety of ways of doing so that don't necessarily allow for other exploits) and send it to their server. In a scenario where you're using a secure connection, however, an attacker would have to do something a bit more advanced, like XSRF of session ID brute forcing, both of which would be dependent upon a particularly small window of opportunity, and the latter of which would require computation sufficient enough to necessitate a much larger timeframe than is allowed by such a window.