That just sounds like punitive damages, which apply in all sorts of criminal offenses that include a civil suit.
For example (and states vary on this) if you shoplift in Arizona the statute says that you have to pay for whatever the price of the good is plus something like $250 (IIRC this law was last revised in the 60's where $250 was worth a lot more; it's just never been updated) and the store keeps whatever you tried to steal. This is, they argue, to help pay for the store's anti-shoplifting measures.
In this case it's also setting an example and/or sending a message to other would be offenders. This isn't an uncommon occurrence for laws that are rarely broken and/or laws that are frequently broken but the perp is rarely caught in order to raise the stakes to discourage others from doing it thinking there's no risk. It's constitutional too.
Except a sit in doesn't make your speech disappear out of the blue as if the gestapo came into the night and swept you away. Your message can still be delivered at a sit in.
A DDoS also does not afford counter-protest.
For example, if you are sitting in just to be obnoxious you still have to answer for it. I recall that chic-fil-a incident where some douche went through a drive-through for no purpose other than to bitch out one of the employees who had nothing to do with what he was protesting. People knew this guy was being more douche than messenger so he saw retribution. He got shouted down on youtube and IIRC fired from his job. Even he himself admitted that what he did was more of an asshole move than what he was protesting.
I don't think jew burning is quite central to the ideology, rather it's just a convenient enemy they needed to create in order to have something to rally the masses against.
Modern politicians do this all the time, though to a much lesser extent. They try to create an irrational fear of their opposition. US Democrats and Republicans are especially bad at this (of the rare times I see commercials, I remember seeing one a while ago showing some guy pushing a granny in a wheelchair off of a cliff, and it was some petty partisan issue, though I don't recall what.)
It could very well be that people do it more just because it's illegal and they want to be rebellious.
Think about smoking. What age group is most likely to start smoking? The one who is legally allowed to or the one who isn't? Which one is most likely to want to quit?
Though to be honest, for oppressive world superpowers the US will probably go down in history as being one of the nicer ones. Used to be that in order to keep the peace, your village had to pay tribute to the local evil empire, and whatever they asked for they received. Today to keep the peace, the US issues foreign aid. Although the US currently the most hated of any in history, I don't think it will stay that way post mortem.
Actually yeah, it was, though a different flavor of socialism than what you're used to.
But to be honest, I think sticking the terms right wing or left wing on these is stupid. It basically implies that there are two major schools of thought to politics when in reality there are many (infinite dare I say, because new ones spring up now and again.) Sure you can stick a compass for any one dimension on a particular ideology (e.g. freedom vs despotism) but you'll often find people traditionally identified as both left and right on either extreme of just about every dimension.
In fact, sticking a right or left label has the same effect as saying there's only one form of socialism. Marxist socialism is working for the betterment of the people, whereas national socialism is working for the betterment of the state (and part of building a strong national identity and pride.) Marxism might stress individual liberties with a collective identity, whereas national socialism is strictly a collective.
At least, this is what these things say on paper. Whether or not they actually do them is a whole other issue (for example, individual liberties never last under Marxism.)
You killed one person or 800'000, you did it, you're guilty of genocide.
Well yes, actually. If we invaded Germany just as the first concentration camp began gassing the first jews, you'd probably see whatever officer was overseeing the operation get tried for crimes against humanity even if no jews had yet died (under the modern rules anyways.)
While I've never been the target of a security breach, (which this isn't by the way, afaik it's a DDoS) I could easily see how the cost to fix something after it's been breached is a lot more expensive than fixing the original hole to begin with.
If you've ever worked on computers that have had a rootkit installed on them, a smart person quickly learns that at that point the system is basically to be untrusted. You really have no idea how exactly the system has been compromised other than maybe via the original attack. There could be who knows what else left over in one of the thousands to millions of binaries that your system now has after the breach was done.
So, what do you do? Well, there tend to be two options: Comb over the entire system to see what has been done and undo it, or the nuclear option of just reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling the OS and everything from scratch. Either way, both of these are much bigger time sinks than simply patching the system to begin with. Those costs go up much higher in a datacenter where multiple different systems have been compromised.
That's also ignoring the fact that if you were a responsible company, you'd offer identity protection services to your customers if their data has been compromised (many companies do this; when monoprice was breached they did this.) That isn't free. And they'll probably never get whoever breached the system to ever fully pay for it anyways (blood from a rock,) but its an expense they have to deal with anyways.
An analogy to this, by the way, is leaving your door unlocked during the day while you're home, and some random smartass just walks inside and shits on your couch, and in civil court some judge tells you that he awards you no damages because you should have kept your door locked.
So the best way to discourage a DDoS is to say that the more people you involve in the DDoS, the less punishment you should receive for getting caught?
I can't think of a better way to encourage DDoS participation to be honest.
I don't know about anybody else, but I think a DDoS is a form of censorship. A website provides information, effectively making it speech. Even if it is speech you disagree with, you should let it be. Personally, I hate communism more than just about anything, but I wouldn't ever encourage anybody to DDoS a communist website. (That isn't to say I haven't left them unmolested; I went to one of their forums asking them if they'd still work while I play world of warcraft after one of their members made a long post about how under communism every man could live life as they choose.)
DDoS should absolutely be punished, and it shouldn't matter just how much you participated, rather mens rhea alone (the fact that you wanted it to happen, and that you actively participated in it) should determine punishment. Honestly I have no sympathy for this guy. He thought he was being clever by shutting somebody up just because he didn't like them, and now he has to answer for that. I don't care what this website it was, I don't care if it was a nazi site or some corporation that he felt was destroying his soul, you just don't do it.
Yes, so can we please stop pretending that it is a travesty that few women are interested in IT?
Sure, let them do it if they're interested, but if they aren't interested they don't need to have their noses rubbed into it in high school with the expectation that the gender gap in that particular career field will close.
I could think of a few things. For example, I think it would matter to somebody who wants to target customers that are high impulse buyers. Perhaps demographics known about iOS users can also be applied to them.
I'm sure they do, but probably not on impulse as much as an iOS user would.
As for what a developer or business owner should target first, that depends on their goals and their revenue model. A business for example that offers a no cost to the end user service may want to hit the largest market first, which is easily Android. However a developer who charges a high up front cost for their app may consider iOS. Either that or they may consider Amazon who seems to be doing a better job at getting its Android customers to be paying customers than Play does.
Targeting high impulse buyers isn't the best idea for every revenue model out there. Many things go into it really.
How many people actually do that? To be honest I haven't even heard of anybody doing that, not on XDA or other hacking forums, and they're the ones who would be most likely to.
Furthermore, WHY would they do that? What purpose does it serve?
It does tell you that iOS users are more readily willing to part with their cash, whereas Android users are more thrifty.
As an Android user, that describes me pretty accurately. I don't ever brag about myself except when it comes to finances: I have a very low income yet I have an 850 credit rating and own some very nice things. I buy salvaged title cars that work really well (to me new cars are a total ripoff,) I subscribe to t-mobile and the service is great, and on these same tokens Android makes a lot more fiscal sense: There's really nothing at all I'd gain from switching to iOS other than a smaller number on my ledger.
If someone does end up creating a truly anonymous form of currency or payment then you can be damn sure the main people who will benefit are those who want to pay no taxes or those who want to sell services and products that are illegal.
Because taking away freedoms in order to stop crime is always good, right?
If someone does end up creating a truly anonymous form of currency or payment then you can be damn sure the main people who will benefit are those who want to pay no taxes or those who want to sell services and products that are illegal.
That's a good thing if you ask me. How many innocent bystanders have been killed in the process of exchanging bitcoins for drugs? I'd wager zero. Now compare that with exchanging dollars for drugs. I don't use drugs myself (I'm probably one of few people in the world who can honestly claim I've never done them,) but personally nothing would make me happier than to see services like the silk road completely replace street dealers. It's the very least that can be done to compensate for the problem of prohibition being there in the first place. I'm also all for legalization of prostitution, gambling, and other things that I don't do.
Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong, much as just because its legal doesn't make it right.
I'm sort of wondering what the overall purpose in this competition is. Does the white house want to prove how "good" our education system is? Or is the goal to improve it by trying to get more students into filmography?
Neither of those seems terribly effective. Our education system isn't really that great, and I don't know about anybody else, but from where I sit there doesn't seem to be high prospects of growth in the film industry (it's sort of a saturated market, and quite often people spend more money on their career than they ever bring in from it.)
I probably sound like a broken record when I say this, but our education system should focus more on application rather than theory or art.
Wow I'm modded troll for talking frankly about mental health. I guess that kind of goes to show you just how seriously we take it at least. Even talking about it lands you scorn.
I have experience with it because two of my relatives have been through it (I have literally more than 50 first cousins btw, or at least that's where I stopped counting, and I don't need to talk about probabilities) and it's pretty damn stupid how the system works, at least in the states anyways.
The trouble with mental health is that there isn't any kind of magic bullet treatment like there can be with just about any other disease.
Usually the best treatments come from medication, and if the person stops taking their medication (this is very often the case, they think they don't need it anymore, especially due to the stigma attached to it which often makes them WANT to stop taking it) then they go back to how they were before, only this time going back on the medication doesn't solve the problem and the psychologist has to keep trying different medications until one works, assuming they can ever find one.
Or they can also come from therapy (depends on the exact condition) and if you keep them in these places until they are "treated", it may as well be a prison sentence. I've seen these places, they very much remind me of a prison: The windows are barred, the doors are all locked and only visitors and/or staff are allowed through them, and visitors can't bring plastic or metal inside. The patients are forced to sit around doing nothing all day long, maybe get to play backgammon with some derp who was born without a personality, or if they're lucky he'll be a nut and somewhat entertaining to talk to.
Hmm...that's an interesting point. You notice some places you go on the internet are very anti-piracy, some pro-piracy, some have this odd middle-ground where you find both views. Slashdot is actually in a strange place of being mostly that last one with a slant towards piracy.
One thing I've noticed though is that the bigger the forum, the more pro-piracy it is. Maybe this is true, maybe this isn't, I'd be interested in seeing data on what effect the size of the crowd has on whether or not the forum is pro-piracy.
Why are we in such a need to kill a practice that is rapidly speeding up the development of the next technology frontier?
Maybe it's just me being obsessed with networking, but I think all of the stuff they've done to shave milliseconds and increase available bandwidth is damn impressive. I'm also damn impressed with what seems to be the world's first layer 7 switch - created for this purpose no less.
Hell, forget development for a second, look at the big pipes that have been added all throughout the world to increase the global network capacity all in the name of making high frequency trading even faster. Sure, it doesn't help the last mile, but what good is the last mile if the backbone is weak? Now we have a very good backbone largely thanks to this.
Don't know about you guys, but I really love what capitalism has done here. Maybe I'm not bothered by it because I don't trade stocks, but even if I did I'm not sure I'd balk about a few cents extra per trade in light of this.
Slashdot Mirror
That just sounds like punitive damages, which apply in all sorts of criminal offenses that include a civil suit.
For example (and states vary on this) if you shoplift in Arizona the statute says that you have to pay for whatever the price of the good is plus something like $250 (IIRC this law was last revised in the 60's where $250 was worth a lot more; it's just never been updated) and the store keeps whatever you tried to steal. This is, they argue, to help pay for the store's anti-shoplifting measures.
In this case it's also setting an example and/or sending a message to other would be offenders. This isn't an uncommon occurrence for laws that are rarely broken and/or laws that are frequently broken but the perp is rarely caught in order to raise the stakes to discourage others from doing it thinking there's no risk. It's constitutional too.
Except a sit in doesn't make your speech disappear out of the blue as if the gestapo came into the night and swept you away. Your message can still be delivered at a sit in.
A DDoS also does not afford counter-protest.
For example, if you are sitting in just to be obnoxious you still have to answer for it. I recall that chic-fil-a incident where some douche went through a drive-through for no purpose other than to bitch out one of the employees who had nothing to do with what he was protesting. People knew this guy was being more douche than messenger so he saw retribution. He got shouted down on youtube and IIRC fired from his job. Even he himself admitted that what he did was more of an asshole move than what he was protesting.
I don't think jew burning is quite central to the ideology, rather it's just a convenient enemy they needed to create in order to have something to rally the masses against.
Modern politicians do this all the time, though to a much lesser extent. They try to create an irrational fear of their opposition. US Democrats and Republicans are especially bad at this (of the rare times I see commercials, I remember seeing one a while ago showing some guy pushing a granny in a wheelchair off of a cliff, and it was some petty partisan issue, though I don't recall what.)
It could very well be that people do it more just because it's illegal and they want to be rebellious.
Think about smoking. What age group is most likely to start smoking? The one who is legally allowed to or the one who isn't? Which one is most likely to want to quit?
Though to be honest, for oppressive world superpowers the US will probably go down in history as being one of the nicer ones. Used to be that in order to keep the peace, your village had to pay tribute to the local evil empire, and whatever they asked for they received. Today to keep the peace, the US issues foreign aid. Although the US currently the most hated of any in history, I don't think it will stay that way post mortem.
Actually yeah, it was, though a different flavor of socialism than what you're used to.
But to be honest, I think sticking the terms right wing or left wing on these is stupid. It basically implies that there are two major schools of thought to politics when in reality there are many (infinite dare I say, because new ones spring up now and again.) Sure you can stick a compass for any one dimension on a particular ideology (e.g. freedom vs despotism) but you'll often find people traditionally identified as both left and right on either extreme of just about every dimension.
In fact, sticking a right or left label has the same effect as saying there's only one form of socialism. Marxist socialism is working for the betterment of the people, whereas national socialism is working for the betterment of the state (and part of building a strong national identity and pride.) Marxism might stress individual liberties with a collective identity, whereas national socialism is strictly a collective.
At least, this is what these things say on paper. Whether or not they actually do them is a whole other issue (for example, individual liberties never last under Marxism.)
You killed one person or 800'000, you did it, you're guilty of genocide.
Well yes, actually. If we invaded Germany just as the first concentration camp began gassing the first jews, you'd probably see whatever officer was overseeing the operation get tried for crimes against humanity even if no jews had yet died (under the modern rules anyways.)
While I've never been the target of a security breach, (which this isn't by the way, afaik it's a DDoS) I could easily see how the cost to fix something after it's been breached is a lot more expensive than fixing the original hole to begin with.
If you've ever worked on computers that have had a rootkit installed on them, a smart person quickly learns that at that point the system is basically to be untrusted. You really have no idea how exactly the system has been compromised other than maybe via the original attack. There could be who knows what else left over in one of the thousands to millions of binaries that your system now has after the breach was done.
So, what do you do? Well, there tend to be two options: Comb over the entire system to see what has been done and undo it, or the nuclear option of just reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling the OS and everything from scratch. Either way, both of these are much bigger time sinks than simply patching the system to begin with. Those costs go up much higher in a datacenter where multiple different systems have been compromised.
That's also ignoring the fact that if you were a responsible company, you'd offer identity protection services to your customers if their data has been compromised (many companies do this; when monoprice was breached they did this.) That isn't free. And they'll probably never get whoever breached the system to ever fully pay for it anyways (blood from a rock,) but its an expense they have to deal with anyways.
An analogy to this, by the way, is leaving your door unlocked during the day while you're home, and some random smartass just walks inside and shits on your couch, and in civil court some judge tells you that he awards you no damages because you should have kept your door locked.
So the best way to discourage a DDoS is to say that the more people you involve in the DDoS, the less punishment you should receive for getting caught?
I can't think of a better way to encourage DDoS participation to be honest.
I don't know about anybody else, but I think a DDoS is a form of censorship. A website provides information, effectively making it speech. Even if it is speech you disagree with, you should let it be. Personally, I hate communism more than just about anything, but I wouldn't ever encourage anybody to DDoS a communist website. (That isn't to say I haven't left them unmolested; I went to one of their forums asking them if they'd still work while I play world of warcraft after one of their members made a long post about how under communism every man could live life as they choose.)
DDoS should absolutely be punished, and it shouldn't matter just how much you participated, rather mens rhea alone (the fact that you wanted it to happen, and that you actively participated in it) should determine punishment. Honestly I have no sympathy for this guy. He thought he was being clever by shutting somebody up just because he didn't like them, and now he has to answer for that. I don't care what this website it was, I don't care if it was a nazi site or some corporation that he felt was destroying his soul, you just don't do it.
The alternative is that it is cultural, but the thing is that this is common throughout just about every culture.
Yes, so can we please stop pretending that it is a travesty that few women are interested in IT?
Sure, let them do it if they're interested, but if they aren't interested they don't need to have their noses rubbed into it in high school with the expectation that the gender gap in that particular career field will close.
I could think of a few things. For example, I think it would matter to somebody who wants to target customers that are high impulse buyers. Perhaps demographics known about iOS users can also be applied to them.
I'm sure they do, but probably not on impulse as much as an iOS user would.
As for what a developer or business owner should target first, that depends on their goals and their revenue model. A business for example that offers a no cost to the end user service may want to hit the largest market first, which is easily Android. However a developer who charges a high up front cost for their app may consider iOS. Either that or they may consider Amazon who seems to be doing a better job at getting its Android customers to be paying customers than Play does.
Targeting high impulse buyers isn't the best idea for every revenue model out there. Many things go into it really.
How many people actually do that? To be honest I haven't even heard of anybody doing that, not on XDA or other hacking forums, and they're the ones who would be most likely to.
Furthermore, WHY would they do that? What purpose does it serve?
It does tell you that iOS users are more readily willing to part with their cash, whereas Android users are more thrifty.
As an Android user, that describes me pretty accurately. I don't ever brag about myself except when it comes to finances: I have a very low income yet I have an 850 credit rating and own some very nice things. I buy salvaged title cars that work really well (to me new cars are a total ripoff,) I subscribe to t-mobile and the service is great, and on these same tokens Android makes a lot more fiscal sense: There's really nothing at all I'd gain from switching to iOS other than a smaller number on my ledger.
If someone does end up creating a truly anonymous form of currency or payment then you can be damn sure the main people who will benefit are those who want to pay no taxes or those who want to sell services and products that are illegal.
Because taking away freedoms in order to stop crime is always good, right?
If someone does end up creating a truly anonymous form of currency or payment then you can be damn sure the main people who will benefit are those who want to pay no taxes or those who want to sell services and products that are illegal.
That's a good thing if you ask me. How many innocent bystanders have been killed in the process of exchanging bitcoins for drugs? I'd wager zero. Now compare that with exchanging dollars for drugs. I don't use drugs myself (I'm probably one of few people in the world who can honestly claim I've never done them,) but personally nothing would make me happier than to see services like the silk road completely replace street dealers. It's the very least that can be done to compensate for the problem of prohibition being there in the first place. I'm also all for legalization of prostitution, gambling, and other things that I don't do.
Just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong, much as just because its legal doesn't make it right.
I thought the ass-monitor was post operation.
Shows what I know about medicine.
I don't have a pension fund.
If you look at what the internet was before it became commercial, email would take up to four days to get from point a to point b.
Hmm...I must be a celebrity.
I'm sort of wondering what the overall purpose in this competition is. Does the white house want to prove how "good" our education system is? Or is the goal to improve it by trying to get more students into filmography?
Neither of those seems terribly effective. Our education system isn't really that great, and I don't know about anybody else, but from where I sit there doesn't seem to be high prospects of growth in the film industry (it's sort of a saturated market, and quite often people spend more money on their career than they ever bring in from it.)
I probably sound like a broken record when I say this, but our education system should focus more on application rather than theory or art.
Wow I'm modded troll for talking frankly about mental health. I guess that kind of goes to show you just how seriously we take it at least. Even talking about it lands you scorn.
I have experience with it because two of my relatives have been through it (I have literally more than 50 first cousins btw, or at least that's where I stopped counting, and I don't need to talk about probabilities) and it's pretty damn stupid how the system works, at least in the states anyways.
The trouble with mental health is that there isn't any kind of magic bullet treatment like there can be with just about any other disease.
Usually the best treatments come from medication, and if the person stops taking their medication (this is very often the case, they think they don't need it anymore, especially due to the stigma attached to it which often makes them WANT to stop taking it) then they go back to how they were before, only this time going back on the medication doesn't solve the problem and the psychologist has to keep trying different medications until one works, assuming they can ever find one.
Or they can also come from therapy (depends on the exact condition) and if you keep them in these places until they are "treated", it may as well be a prison sentence. I've seen these places, they very much remind me of a prison: The windows are barred, the doors are all locked and only visitors and/or staff are allowed through them, and visitors can't bring plastic or metal inside. The patients are forced to sit around doing nothing all day long, maybe get to play backgammon with some derp who was born without a personality, or if they're lucky he'll be a nut and somewhat entertaining to talk to.
Hmm...that's an interesting point. You notice some places you go on the internet are very anti-piracy, some pro-piracy, some have this odd middle-ground where you find both views. Slashdot is actually in a strange place of being mostly that last one with a slant towards piracy.
One thing I've noticed though is that the bigger the forum, the more pro-piracy it is. Maybe this is true, maybe this isn't, I'd be interested in seeing data on what effect the size of the crowd has on whether or not the forum is pro-piracy.
Why are we in such a need to kill a practice that is rapidly speeding up the development of the next technology frontier?
Maybe it's just me being obsessed with networking, but I think all of the stuff they've done to shave milliseconds and increase available bandwidth is damn impressive. I'm also damn impressed with what seems to be the world's first layer 7 switch - created for this purpose no less.
Hell, forget development for a second, look at the big pipes that have been added all throughout the world to increase the global network capacity all in the name of making high frequency trading even faster. Sure, it doesn't help the last mile, but what good is the last mile if the backbone is weak? Now we have a very good backbone largely thanks to this.
Don't know about you guys, but I really love what capitalism has done here. Maybe I'm not bothered by it because I don't trade stocks, but even if I did I'm not sure I'd balk about a few cents extra per trade in light of this.