So you are asserting that belt of warm water is not warmer than it would have been without the general increase in global temperature?
Just to be clear: you are saying that because the specific mechanism by which warm water was moved into the region is independent of warming that there is no way that any warming mechanism (such as CO2 emissions, methane release, etc.) is related.
Hmmm... so if a stolen firearm is used in a bank robbery the original theft is irrelevant as long as the original thieves did not transfer it to the bank robbers for that purpose?
While intent might be a useful component of their defense (lack of mens rea) that sort of conscious participation is not meaningful when talking about natural mechanisms.
that isn't a web site thing, its a corporate thing. 30-days is an all-to common scenario. Friend of mine worked in a plant that had a disconnected network (no Internet). They were forced to use "complex" passwords with 30-day expiration and a history of the last twelve. Which was entirely ludicrous: what were they defending against? No one from the outside because it wasn't a connected network. An insider will just use the same post-it note that the user put on the monitor because they can't remember the password of the month.
Of course, what often ends up happening is "P@$$word01" becomes "P@$$word02" becomes "P@$$word03", etc. so on and so forth. For environments that are connected to the Internet this is a serious problem. If an account is compromised the bad guy will have (on average) two weeks of fun. Then when the user changes the password if the bad guy somehow hasn't managed to establish persistence he just does the obvious increment and is back in.
The reality is that passwords don't make for good security -- its about the same as pretending the last four of SSN authenticate an individual or that knowledge of a credit card number means you are an account holder. What is needed is something more, like using a second factor (usually "something you have" in addition to the "something you know").
hmmm.... and I'm sure they post a *large* profit on certain days if you were able to split hairs that finely. But that chart sure looks like they bounce around 0% with no significant profit over any year. So I guess it boils down to the statement of "never" and how frequently that is assessed. If GP is overstating things it isn't by much.
you acknowledge, then dismiss, the most glaringly obvious problem with bit torrent (from a network provider point of view).
Congratulations, but dismissing it doesn't make the problem go away. It does make it look like you have no understanding of the issues involved. Try working at an ISP sometime (or otherwise gain working, practical knowledge).
While you have a sane view of network neutrality, not everyone subscribes to it. The reality is that different protocols have different foot prints and are not all equal. It makes little sense to pretend that they are -- and when you do handle traffic as if each and every packet was equal and equivalent then you get problems.
One example is bit torrent. It is one of the most abusive network protocols in use. It is resource intensive (e.g., routing overhead for 1:1 connections like http are far less than that for peer to peer networks) and inefficient (that is, it takes more packets *and* more bytes to transfer the same amount of data). The gains for the users of it are real (pseudonymity, overcoming limitations of asymmetric ISP connections, difficult to shut down) but they come with a definite price. And that cost is paid by demands on the infrastructure to the detriment of other uses and other users.
Having been in an environment with limited bandwidth and numerous users of p2p (a university) and having access to traffic information I can speak from experience. The demands of bit torrent, left unchecked, choke out other users and usage of the network. Increase your bandwidth and the bit torrent usage will simply expand. With *throttling* of bit torrent in play you can arrive at a happy medium where bit torrent still works and everyone else can enjoy an essentially unlimited Internet.
While I am a strong proponent of network neutrality as you describe it, there is a case to be made for handling packets different based on who is involved (even if the technical details are tricky). For example, all of the users who are pirating Game of Thrones with bit torrent should definitely be throttled, but it is harder to argue that game updates should be throttled to the same extent. To a point this can be handled by detecting differences in protocol (e.g., the World of Warcraft bit torrent updater), but all that does is invite the purveyors of general file sharing software (e.g., uTorrent) to mimic such updaters.
When you get right down to it, the details of what any given approach to network neutrality actually means in practice muddies the water and there is no single best approach. Implementation details will divide those who adhere to the same overall view. Which is why there is so much debate on the subject, even though there are only three basic views. Everything takes on nuances when you actually start to deal with it.
Yes, he is criticized, but it started because he was describing the *real* politic and exposing the (then current) dirty laundry. Why did he do it? Because he was under house arrest following a change in government and wanted to be active again. He was trying to demonstrate that he had political savvy. It wasn't a book for general consumption (no such thing existed at the time anyway), but written for the guy in charge.
Even the best known quotation is done misleadingly. "The ends justify the means" is how it is quoted, but that isn't what he said. Closer (from memory) is, "In any endeavor the end must be considered." Which should be common sense.
The longer answer is that an IP address alone tells you almost nothing. For example, any competent agent for the NSA is going to use a compromised system in the EU, Russia or China when attacking Chinese targets. Equally, any competent state-sponsored actor in China is going to use a compromised system in the EU, Russia or the US when attacking US targets.
And the remote IP is not necessarily even compromised. Maybe not so much for Chinese IP addresses, but what the bad guys like for the US IP address space are university virtual private networks. Get the password for an account at an EDU then (bounced through a compromised system) connect to that, *then* attack. Some of them will bounce through multiple EDU VPNs.
Another example is the javascript malware that you get to a browser via: injection from privileged position on the network (e.g., NSA), compromised server, advertising, or any other method. The javascript runs in the browser and does its thing. The user's system is effectively compromised and part of a botnet, but closing the brower "cleans" it. There's no requirement to have anything on the file system making antivirus as helpful as some hand sanitizer.
If you have a remote IP address all that you can really say is that packets were routed to you with that as the identified source (in some attacks they don't even have to come from that IP address at all). Who was at the computer? Who was responsible for the packets? That takes a lot more than an IP address to determine.
because, like, there is *such* a *huge* market for Amiga products and there are so many prospecting future developers who want to open it up. Use your head, chump.
My point was that he was automatically distancing himself from the speculative predator by suggesting that such predators are basement dwellers that live 15,000km away. That is known as begging the question and is a logical fallacy. I simply pointed out that there was no reason for such an unknown predator to be living 10km away (ignoring the other assumption that such predators are basement dwellers).
I was not arguing for the general validity of "OMG pedophiles everywhere" that some people are attempting to read into the source of the referenced article, but if we were to be debating that then your presented argument is still silly as it does absolutely nothing to address anything about the argument. It is still a non-sequitur.
For example, a strong argument can be made that abductions, abuse, etc., is nearly always done by someone known to the victim, usually a close relative (or member of the clergy). There are exceptions, such as boy scouts and private schools, but they are (relatively) rare. Even more fringe are the child predators who seek out children to abuse which -- to a very rough approximation -- is similar to the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack. Putting the matter into perspective and addressing concerns and the basis for argument is quite relevant. Non-sequiturs not so much.
The statement "Complete and utter FUD. Has there EVER been a case where a non-family member kidnaps a specific kid based on stuff they found online?" is not true and it sounds like you aren't contesting that, instead trying to change the topic/use semantics.
In what way is a pedophile *not* a child predator?
Now, the article is from Germany, but a point of law for those in the US: if you post something to facebook and someone takes offense it can be labeled as child pornography (hey, not even famous award winning movies are safe, e.g., The Little Tin Drum, why should your personal photographs be any more protected).
I'm sure facebook is lawyered up for this, but technically they would be distributing child pornography. But it gets better: in order to "protect the children" anything or anyone remotely related to the creation or distribution of the illegal product is a criminal. Driving little Johny to the boyscout camp can end up being providing transportation in support of illegal activities.
Child pornography is the kryptonite of legal investigations. In a normal criminal investigation you have to be an authorized investigator, but once child pornography is alleged it requires special authorization. Law enforcement officers who are authorized to investigate crimes against children have, at times, come under scrutiny themselves.
You can't stop living life, but maybe there is some value to privacy afterall...
While I agree the issue is blown out of proportion, what if that random basement dweller lived 10km away? Remember, just because you don't know or see this random person doesn't mean you get to select them as being arbitrarily far away...
While child nudity may not be *inherently* illegal it comes pretty close. Even worse, nudity is not a requirement for something to legally be ruled child pornography. An image need not have any nudity or even provocative poses. What really matters is what the judge is convinced of by the prosecution. *Any* picture including a child is potentially child pornography. Sure, it is easier with nudity or provocative poses, but how it is presented and describe to the court makes a big difference and neither of those characteristics are a requirement.
If you really cared I could dig up specifics, but here in the US there was an abduction and either actual or attempted murder of a juvenile by someone not known to the family and only to the child via online activity. The perpetrator was a criminal who had done this before.
So, no it is not "complete and utter FUD". And, yes, there *has* "EVER been a case".
Now, is this normal? No. The vast majority of abductions are done by a close relative (often the mother or father in custody cases). Are cases like the one I mention above blown out of all proportion? Yes. But they still happen so claiming they don't is wrong.
So Italy doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US? From the linked article, "The Russian Foreign Ministry posted advice of a somewhat different nature on Monday, cautioning people wanted by the United States not to visit nations that have an extradition treaty with it."
True, they only named a few of the countries (particularly ones where this has happened), but they did not mention the UK, New Zealand or Australia either. Nor Germany, nor...
well said. If there were deterrent value it would be the obvious risk imposed by keeping a loaded handgun available. That doesn't seem to deter folks sufficiently. Accidents happen, but with something so obviously dangerous like a firearm they shouldn't.
Its basic safety. Things like not putting your finger in the trigger guard unless you are going to shoot. Always keeping the weapon pointed in a safe direction. Always treating it as if it were loaded. Always know whether or not it is loaded, but always treat it as if it were loaded.
Many years ago a new police officer in St. Louis killed himself in his own home while cleaning his weapon. Newly married, his wife asked him if it was loaded and he responded by demonstrating it wasn't via shooting himself in the head. (In that particular case he had a personal side arm that was the same as the issue hand gun -- he somehow got them swapped.)
Firearms should never be within reach of toddlers or young children. Giving them a hand grenade is safer as it takes some strength to remove the pin (don't try to pull it with your teeth unless you like dental work -- that is just for the cinema)
You probably aren't looking for an answer to your question, but here goes:
Prohibition has been tried. It didn't work out well.
But it is more than that: alcohol consumption is about relaxation, guns are about killing.
Now, don't get all bent out of shape and try to distort reality -- guns may have non-killing uses (when I was a teenager I did quite a bit of recreational shooting, I know what its like) but at the end of the day their purpose is for killing. Accept that and understand how you were trying to create a false equivalence. *That* is why people care so much about gun related deaths.
Wait. I can't tell: was GP supposed to be liberal or libertarian. Your statement seems to imply you think GP is liberal, an interesting notion for someone who expressed a libertarian sentiment.
Were you upset by their claim that it was a conservative court that reached a decision that is presented as liberal? Then just ask for a citation. But resorting to an ad hominem just means you don't have an argument.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are asserting that belt of warm water is not warmer than it would have been without the general increase in global temperature?
Just to be clear: you are saying that because the specific mechanism by which warm water was moved into the region is independent of warming that there is no way that any warming mechanism (such as CO2 emissions, methane release, etc.) is related.
Hmmm... so if a stolen firearm is used in a bank robbery the original theft is irrelevant as long as the original thieves did not transfer it to the bank robbers for that purpose?
While intent might be a useful component of their defense (lack of mens rea) that sort of conscious participation is not meaningful when talking about natural mechanisms.
that isn't a web site thing, its a corporate thing. 30-days is an all-to common scenario. Friend of mine worked in a plant that had a disconnected network (no Internet). They were forced to use "complex" passwords with 30-day expiration and a history of the last twelve. Which was entirely ludicrous: what were they defending against? No one from the outside because it wasn't a connected network. An insider will just use the same post-it note that the user put on the monitor because they can't remember the password of the month.
Of course, what often ends up happening is "P@$$word01" becomes "P@$$word02" becomes "P@$$word03", etc. so on and so forth. For environments that are connected to the Internet this is a serious problem. If an account is compromised the bad guy will have (on average) two weeks of fun. Then when the user changes the password if the bad guy somehow hasn't managed to establish persistence he just does the obvious increment and is back in.
The reality is that passwords don't make for good security -- its about the same as pretending the last four of SSN authenticate an individual or that knowledge of a credit card number means you are an account holder. What is needed is something more, like using a second factor (usually "something you have" in addition to the "something you know").
hmmm.... and I'm sure they post a *large* profit on certain days if you were able to split hairs that finely. But that chart sure looks like they bounce around 0% with no significant profit over any year. So I guess it boils down to the statement of "never" and how frequently that is assessed. If GP is overstating things it isn't by much.
you acknowledge, then dismiss, the most glaringly obvious problem with bit torrent (from a network provider point of view).
Congratulations, but dismissing it doesn't make the problem go away. It does make it look like you have no understanding of the issues involved. Try working at an ISP sometime (or otherwise gain working, practical knowledge).
While you have a sane view of network neutrality, not everyone subscribes to it. The reality is that different protocols have different foot prints and are not all equal. It makes little sense to pretend that they are -- and when you do handle traffic as if each and every packet was equal and equivalent then you get problems.
One example is bit torrent. It is one of the most abusive network protocols in use. It is resource intensive (e.g., routing overhead for 1:1 connections like http are far less than that for peer to peer networks) and inefficient (that is, it takes more packets *and* more bytes to transfer the same amount of data). The gains for the users of it are real (pseudonymity, overcoming limitations of asymmetric ISP connections, difficult to shut down) but they come with a definite price. And that cost is paid by demands on the infrastructure to the detriment of other uses and other users.
Having been in an environment with limited bandwidth and numerous users of p2p (a university) and having access to traffic information I can speak from experience. The demands of bit torrent, left unchecked, choke out other users and usage of the network. Increase your bandwidth and the bit torrent usage will simply expand. With *throttling* of bit torrent in play you can arrive at a happy medium where bit torrent still works and everyone else can enjoy an essentially unlimited Internet.
While I am a strong proponent of network neutrality as you describe it, there is a case to be made for handling packets different based on who is involved (even if the technical details are tricky). For example, all of the users who are pirating Game of Thrones with bit torrent should definitely be throttled, but it is harder to argue that game updates should be throttled to the same extent. To a point this can be handled by detecting differences in protocol (e.g., the World of Warcraft bit torrent updater), but all that does is invite the purveyors of general file sharing software (e.g., uTorrent) to mimic such updaters.
When you get right down to it, the details of what any given approach to network neutrality actually means in practice muddies the water and there is no single best approach. Implementation details will divide those who adhere to the same overall view. Which is why there is so much debate on the subject, even though there are only three basic views. Everything takes on nuances when you actually start to deal with it.
too bad I've already posted or I'd've modded you up
You should read Machiavelli. Definitely western.
Yes, he is criticized, but it started because he was describing the *real* politic and exposing the (then current) dirty laundry. Why did he do it? Because he was under house arrest following a change in government and wanted to be active again. He was trying to demonstrate that he had political savvy. It wasn't a book for general consumption (no such thing existed at the time anyway), but written for the guy in charge.
Even the best known quotation is done misleadingly. "The ends justify the means" is how it is quoted, but that isn't what he said. Closer (from memory) is, "In any endeavor the end must be considered." Which should be common sense.
The short answer is no.
The longer answer is that an IP address alone tells you almost nothing. For example, any competent agent for the NSA is going to use a compromised system in the EU, Russia or China when attacking Chinese targets. Equally, any competent state-sponsored actor in China is going to use a compromised system in the EU, Russia or the US when attacking US targets.
And the remote IP is not necessarily even compromised. Maybe not so much for Chinese IP addresses, but what the bad guys like for the US IP address space are university virtual private networks. Get the password for an account at an EDU then (bounced through a compromised system) connect to that, *then* attack. Some of them will bounce through multiple EDU VPNs.
Another example is the javascript malware that you get to a browser via: injection from privileged position on the network (e.g., NSA), compromised server, advertising, or any other method. The javascript runs in the browser and does its thing. The user's system is effectively compromised and part of a botnet, but closing the brower "cleans" it. There's no requirement to have anything on the file system making antivirus as helpful as some hand sanitizer.
If you have a remote IP address all that you can really say is that packets were routed to you with that as the identified source (in some attacks they don't even have to come from that IP address at all). Who was at the computer? Who was responsible for the packets? That takes a lot more than an IP address to determine.
because, like, there is *such* a *huge* market for Amiga products and there are so many prospecting future developers who want to open it up. Use your head, chump.
Hmmm... did Snowden release these? Why are you blaming him?
Voting for someone does not mean that one supports their future actions.
way to go with the non-sequitur.
My point was that he was automatically distancing himself from the speculative predator by suggesting that such predators are basement dwellers that live 15,000km away. That is known as begging the question and is a logical fallacy. I simply pointed out that there was no reason for such an unknown predator to be living 10km away (ignoring the other assumption that such predators are basement dwellers).
I was not arguing for the general validity of "OMG pedophiles everywhere" that some people are attempting to read into the source of the referenced article, but if we were to be debating that then your presented argument is still silly as it does absolutely nothing to address anything about the argument. It is still a non-sequitur.
For example, a strong argument can be made that abductions, abuse, etc., is nearly always done by someone known to the victim, usually a close relative (or member of the clergy). There are exceptions, such as boy scouts and private schools, but they are (relatively) rare. Even more fringe are the child predators who seek out children to abuse which -- to a very rough approximation -- is similar to the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack. Putting the matter into perspective and addressing concerns and the basis for argument is quite relevant. Non-sequiturs not so much.
The statement "Complete and utter FUD. Has there EVER been a case where a non-family member kidnaps a specific kid based on stuff they found online?" is not true and it sounds like you aren't contesting that, instead trying to change the topic/use semantics.
In what way is a pedophile *not* a child predator?
Now, the article is from Germany, but a point of law for those in the US: if you post something to facebook and someone takes offense it can be labeled as child pornography (hey, not even famous award winning movies are safe, e.g., The Little Tin Drum, why should your personal photographs be any more protected).
I'm sure facebook is lawyered up for this, but technically they would be distributing child pornography. But it gets better: in order to "protect the children" anything or anyone remotely related to the creation or distribution of the illegal product is a criminal. Driving little Johny to the boyscout camp can end up being providing transportation in support of illegal activities.
Child pornography is the kryptonite of legal investigations. In a normal criminal investigation you have to be an authorized investigator, but once child pornography is alleged it requires special authorization. Law enforcement officers who are authorized to investigate crimes against children have, at times, come under scrutiny themselves.
You can't stop living life, but maybe there is some value to privacy afterall...
family, or members of the clergy. Strangers are a real stretch. It happens, but it is pretty rare.
While I agree the issue is blown out of proportion, what if that random basement dweller lived 10km away? Remember, just because you don't know or see this random person doesn't mean you get to select them as being arbitrarily far away...
While child nudity may not be *inherently* illegal it comes pretty close. Even worse, nudity is not a requirement for something to legally be ruled child pornography. An image need not have any nudity or even provocative poses. What really matters is what the judge is convinced of by the prosecution. *Any* picture including a child is potentially child pornography. Sure, it is easier with nudity or provocative poses, but how it is presented and describe to the court makes a big difference and neither of those characteristics are a requirement.
If you really cared I could dig up specifics, but here in the US there was an abduction and either actual or attempted murder of a juvenile by someone not known to the family and only to the child via online activity. The perpetrator was a criminal who had done this before.
So, no it is not "complete and utter FUD". And, yes, there *has* "EVER been a case".
Now, is this normal? No. The vast majority of abductions are done by a close relative (often the mother or father in custody cases). Are cases like the one I mention above blown out of all proportion? Yes. But they still happen so claiming they don't is wrong.
So Italy doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US? From the linked article, "The Russian Foreign Ministry posted advice of a somewhat different nature on Monday, cautioning people wanted by the United States not to visit nations that have an extradition treaty with it."
True, they only named a few of the countries (particularly ones where this has happened), but they did not mention the UK, New Zealand or Australia either. Nor Germany, nor...
A good thing you weren't surprised by a determined child (hint, it isn't going to happen the way you would do it). You failed at gun safety. Next.
Yeah, you go you anonymous coward with your Desert Eagle strapped and ready to go! W00t! Go guns! Kill kill kill. moron.
well said. If there were deterrent value it would be the obvious risk imposed by keeping a loaded handgun available. That doesn't seem to deter folks sufficiently. Accidents happen, but with something so obviously dangerous like a firearm they shouldn't.
Its basic safety. Things like not putting your finger in the trigger guard unless you are going to shoot. Always keeping the weapon pointed in a safe direction. Always treating it as if it were loaded. Always know whether or not it is loaded, but always treat it as if it were loaded.
Many years ago a new police officer in St. Louis killed himself in his own home while cleaning his weapon. Newly married, his wife asked him if it was loaded and he responded by demonstrating it wasn't via shooting himself in the head. (In that particular case he had a personal side arm that was the same as the issue hand gun -- he somehow got them swapped.)
Firearms should never be within reach of toddlers or young children. Giving them a hand grenade is safer as it takes some strength to remove the pin (don't try to pull it with your teeth unless you like dental work -- that is just for the cinema)
You probably aren't looking for an answer to your question, but here goes:
Prohibition has been tried. It didn't work out well.
But it is more than that: alcohol consumption is about relaxation, guns are about killing.
Now, don't get all bent out of shape and try to distort reality -- guns may have non-killing uses (when I was a teenager I did quite a bit of recreational shooting, I know what its like) but at the end of the day their purpose is for killing. Accept that and understand how you were trying to create a false equivalence. *That* is why people care so much about gun related deaths.
Wait. I can't tell: was GP supposed to be liberal or libertarian. Your statement seems to imply you think GP is liberal, an interesting notion for someone who expressed a libertarian sentiment.
Were you upset by their claim that it was a conservative court that reached a decision that is presented as liberal? Then just ask for a citation. But resorting to an ad hominem just means you don't have an argument.
Your sig line is insightful. Too bad you don't understand it.