No, she didn't. The GP falsely stated that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Wasilla. Palin never said this. In your link, she never said that. She's never said that she could Russia from her house. She did say that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska, and it turns out that is true.
However, in your link, Palin did say that Alaska sits between Russia and Canada. Now, I don't know how well you know your geography, but if you wander over a globe, map or even launch Google Earth, you will see that Alaska really does sit between Canada and Russia.
It's sad when someone says something that is 100% true (and not classified), and gets ridiculed for it by the ignorant.
I smoke. I make under $250,000/yr. My taxes went up. He said they would not.
The estate tax isn't fair!
If you own a family farm valued at $500,000, but makes your family $40,000/yr. When you die, your family will have to sell much of that farm to pay the taxes, cutting your annual family revenue down to $30-35k/yr. Can you live on that? Is it fair?
We're the party of fiscal responsibility!
I would have agreed with this last year. But since the current party has tripled the deficit, it turns out that it's true!
They're not prisoners of war, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply!
Were any of these guys wearing a uniform? No? then the Geneva Convention does not apply. Why is this so hard to understand?
Saudi Arabia didn't have anything to do with 9/11!
The government didn't.
Reagan was a good president!
He was.
9/11 changed everything!
It did!
And the one that really proves my point...
Iraq had something, anything to do with 9/11!
I have never heard a Republican say this, yet it keeps getting repeated over and over as if it's true. And what do you know, many of the exceedingly ignorant and borderline retarded believe it.
The report did come from Faux News, after all. They're not exactly known for their impartiality. When was the last time they reported anything positive about a Democrat? (Other than a story about a Democrat that disagrees with the majority of other Democrats.)
First, your question should be, "Why is Fox News the only media outlet reporting this?"
The last time Fox (the correct spelling) said something positive about a Democrat was probably right around the time that any other news agency said something positive about a Republican.
But let's go ahead and hammer Fox News anyway. Completely ignoring the Freedom of the Press guaranteed by the Constitution, there should not be any opposition to the current administration allowed. All such voices not towing the party line should be shut down immediately.
Plus, do you really think Sarah Palin would've been a better Veep than Biden? She probably would've tried to convince us to move the VP secret hideout to Wasilla, Alaska, because, you know, she can see Russia from there.
I seriously hope you were being sarcastic. I only bring it up not just because of your post, but because so many people actually believe that Sarah Palin actually said that when it was actually Tina Fey. Still, it's another fine example of, "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true."
Unfortunately, Biden is making Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar. Will someone please buy that man a muzzle. I'm truly at a lose when I try to think of anything that man has brought to the ticket. He's been an embarrassment for Obama.
On the bright side, if we let him keep talking, perhaps we will all be told more about what happens at Area 51.
Look on the bright side, at least we don't have Palin in there. Here "lack of experience" would have been so much worse. Granted, she had more experience that Obama himself, but that doesn't matter as long as we have a quality VP in Biden.
(please make sure your sarcasm detector is active when reading the preceding post)
You mean kind of like exposing the identity of an active duty undercover CIA agent? He's got a long way to go before he can top that one.
And who gave away the ID of that "undercover" agent? If you are implying that Cheney had anything to do with it, you are dead wrong. It was Richard Armitage. Although I understand how tempting it is to pin this on the big bad Dick and his staff, it's simply not true. It does make me wonder, however, of the bad stuff that gets falsely pinned to Dick, if the guy is really that bad at all. If people like you falsely accuse Cheney of this well after it has been proven to be false, how much other stuff out there is being pinned on the Bush administration that it had nothing to do with. I could list several more examples, like "Bush banned stem cell research" but don't want to get further off topic. I feel this is worth pointing out as a fine example of "if you repeat a lie over and over, it becomes true."
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
Legitimate mass mailers would require a registration to be placed on an allow list. Of course, spammers need not apply. Licensing fees could even be charged for this list to pay for the program, but that may not be fair.
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Like who? Spammers? If you send less than, say, 10,000 emails a day, you shouldn't have to worry about anything. If you do legitimately send that many emails, see my response to your previous complaint.
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
How many "pipes" are there at US borders? Put filters on all of these.
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Machines that have been zombiefied would be cut off from the web at the router level. They will be allowed back on once their ISP can verify they have been de-zombied.
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam
That's why this is based on the number of emails sent from a particular host. The profitability of spam comes from the raw numbers of emails sent per host. Cut that number to a relatively insignificant amount and the numbers of successfully received spam emails drops significantly, making it much less profitable. The only way around this would be to zombie so many machines that the spammer could spread the number of hosts emailing so that no single host will raise alarms. With 150 billion spam emails sent daily, there is no way that spammers could spread this out far enough without taking a severe hit in the number of messages sent. Which leads to lower profits... wash, rinse, repeat.
(X) Infrastructure costs that are involved in deep packet inspection on the core routers (X) Privacy concerns in letting ISPs perform deep packet inspection on the core routers
Why not just use the same setup the previous administration did to monitor phone calls? If we can pipe all of America's phone calls through a closet at an AT&T building, surely we can set up a few monitoring stations to look for traffic on port 25. Cost could be paid for by the companies that pay so much to fight spam today. With the reduction in web traffic and email data storage, the system would pay for itself many times over.
(X) I don't want the government reading my email
Since the emails are counted instead of read, there would be no privacy concerns.
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
Examples?
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
???
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Not with that attitude!
Seriously though... I'm a geek, but by no means a networking expert. Most of my "solutions" to the problems you've brought up may not work at all, however, if I a mental midget like myself can at least dream up feasible solutions, then surely big boys at Cisco, Time Warner, AT&T, Sun, IBM and the rest backed with government stimulus dollars can surely find a way to secure our networks from within the networks themselves as opposed to the end point. This security by end user crap ain't cutting it.
Would it really require "full layer 7 visibility on the router" to count the number of port 25 messages coming from each host? I would assume the biggest problem would be the memory involved in counting the messages and keeping that count in RAM for each and every host, keeping track of which hosts are blocked by each router and every other router (national database) and securing the system so that some hacker can't get in there and put every Microsoft IP into the black-list.
Still, I don't see these problems as being insurmountable. It also doesn't have to be the routers that do the packet inspection. We could set up machines at various choke-points on the web to take care of this. If we can route every phone conversation through a closet at AT&T for a government spy program, surely we can work this out.
Because spam doesn't work that way anymore. It comes from botnets where each individual zombie only sends one or less messages to the target and need only send out 20 or 30 each day total to still be effective.
First, I wonder about the 20-30 messages a day bit. There are roughly 150 billion spam messages sent daily. There are 6 billion people on the planet. In order for your 20-30 messages a day number to be correct, that would every man, woman, and child on the earth would need a computer and every single one of them would be part of a botnet.
Next, if we are assuming that your 20-30 number is correct, I assume many of these messages are identical or similar enough to be identified. I know I get several repeat messages in my GMail spam box every day. There are only so many routers that lead into the US. Set these up to monitor email traffic (is it port 22? 25? I don't remember)... and look for patterns. If the same email is being sent 20 billion times, you can bet it's spam, block those hosts until they can show they are not longer spamming, even if it's a million machines that are part of the bot-net.
As for domestically generated spam, track them and let local law enforcement hand them.
This will require funding, of course, but if you tax the companies that would benefit from this, they will end up spending less in the long run.
I don't understand why routers can not be programed to limit the number of emails it receives from a single source. For example, if a router detects that 10,000 emails are coming from a particular host, treat that host as if it's perpetrating a DOS attack. Routers can be programmed to ignore DOS attacks, why not use the same tech to block massive spamming?
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
We have the problem of warming temps melting more ice. This means less salty northern waters. As such the 'conveyor' stops running (based on previous theories). This stops the transfer of heat from the tropics to the northern climates which in turn causes a cooling of the northern climates producing more ice. It is indeed a cyclical process so point A leads to point B to point C and back to A in a massive generalization.
My point was that if the conveyor theory is wrong, the 'brake' I described might not exist or only work at a reduced rate, thus allowing more effect from global warming to be experienced.
Thank you. I didn't link "So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames" to mean that it is a cycle.
Still, that's one of the better explanations I've heard. Most are like that moronic "Day After Tomorrow" movie where they say make the argument similar to yours, but skip the last step.
1) Global warming causes ice melt at the poles 2) Currents stop due to no icing at the poles 3) Currents no longer bring warmer water to poles 4) Poles freeze 5) There is no step 5 except to show the catastrophe caused by the poles freezing (??)
But you'll find the average Slashdotter much more heavily invested in Doritos and Bawls than in sex (at least, the varieties that involve other persons).
I find the opposite is true. Sex is like oxygen. When you are getting enough of it, it's not a big deal.
So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.
Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that. This doesn't call that "conclusion" into question; at best it implies we have even less understanding of why the planet is getting hotter, which suggests we need *less* calm, not more. Our temperature measurements aren't wrong, and still remain valid.
Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
OK, so ice melts, the conveyor stops... got it!
This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice , etc.
More ice? WTF?!!? You just said there would be LESS ICE due to ice melting, then you say that will cause THICKER ICE?
Wouldn't this restart the conveyor and return everything to normal?
Shortly after it was discovered that 1Ghz is the frequency at which æther vibrates when it is at rest so once you pass it, you leave a wake of æther behind your time cone.
the fact that people don't understand where it comes from is more important.
People understand that very well.
As in, everything sold by intel in effect passes the cost of this judgment to the people buying the product.
And since people aren't forced to buy Intels products, they can look at less expensive alternatives.
Are you serious? The whole problem is that Intel was paying off computer manufacturers to not carry any competitor's chip (AMD). So if the consumer needed a computer, then yeah, the were forced to purchase Intel's products and there was no other alternative, cheaper or otherwise.
Why not let supply and demand do the trick? Right now the costs on the supply side are distorted by the welfare checks the US government doles out to the oil industry on a regular basis; as I note in another post farther down in the thread, ending that practice would probably cause prices to go up, and certainly would leave a great deal of money for helping out the people who would pay more at the pump. New taxes really aren't necessary for this result.
I agree. Let supply and demand work. However, that means you must free the supply, which is something that has yet to happen.
Great security comes by keeping yourself off the grid of would be attackers. Even the most secure systems can be tapped if somebody wants to bad enough and knows where to find it.
For a Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman, the ability to communicate is just as important as the ability to shoot. The greatest marksman in the world is worthless when he is cut off from his unit and surrounded by enemies that are in constant contact with each other.
So to unplug the network cable from these machines kinda makes them worthless.
There are no free laptops. In order to receive a laptop, children need to give a small monetary donation -- the project coordinators say a dollar or two is sufficient.
Why is the dollar or two necessary to pay? Some kids don't even have enough money to eat properly every day. An extra dollar or two means skipping an (inadequate) meal or two. Why should they have to go hungrier? What's the point of extracting that dollar or two from them? What goes on in South Carolina that pressures the OLPC suppliers to be "adamant" that kids pay a dollar or two they don't have?
I think the idea is to give value to the notebook. Unfortunately, when many people are given something for free, they consider it worthless since they gave nothing of "worth" for it. By asking for something in return, it gives value to the notebook.
However, I do understand your point about a dollar having a much greater value to someone who sees dollars so rarely. With the school lunch program, that dollar could mean the difference between a lunch and 30 minutes of watching others eat. Still, I hope there is enough goodness in humanity that there is some leeway here. I would like to think that if a child truly could not spare a single dollar, that there would be some other method of adding "worth" to these notebooks. I could see something like, "Tell you what son, if you go pick up the trash in the hallway between second and third period, I'll pay the dollar for you." There could also be a charity or "scholarship" drive for these dollars or maybe even, "That last kid gave two dollars. Instead of saying he gave two, we'll say you each gave one. Now go pick up that trash."
Of those sources, only one was valid, and that one was USA Today. NYCLU? Come on! I saw those guys and even talked with a few of them. The one that I remember most was the one that said that the police should not try to prosecute NAMBLA members because their lust for small boys should be considered a "thought crime", even if they act on it.
Now, for the USA Today article. Here is a snippet:
Fiore, 46, was one of 1,806 people arrested here during the four-day gathering last summer. Police used orange netting, plastic handcuffs and city buses to handle the crowd. When Fiore was arrested, she was part of a group chanting slogans against President Bush on the sidewalk across from Macy's. According to police, she resisted arrest, obstructed governmental administration and committed disorderly conduct.
But Fiore says she did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech and has challenged the city to prove otherwise in court. So have nearly 200 other protesters whose cases are making their way through the courts five months later.
That "obstructed governmental administration" charge, means that she blocked a bus or delegates. Sorry, but these people had a right to attend the convention, even if she disagreed with their politics.
The part that really got me was when she said, "did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech". That's exactly what these guys would shout as they were fighting the police that were trying to arrest them. I saw one guy get in the face of a delegate members screaming at the top of his lungs, "BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!! YOU WILL PAY FOR THE 100 MILLION DEATHS IN IRAQ!" (Iraq's total population is 20 million, btw). He was arrested because he would not allow the delegates to pass. I saw him do this for at least half an hour before they took him away. What was he yelling as they hauled him off? You guessed it: "My First Amendment rights are being violated! I wasn't doing anything!"
Another quote from the USA Today article:
Protesters who blocked a bus carrying Republican delegates to the Republican National Convention await police transport.
World Bank protests, 2002. It's so bad the GOP is STILL trying to cover their asses from it.
That's one of the most recent ones that stands out, and still has pending court cases.
OK, that's great, but I was not at that protest and was not talking about it. I can not talk about the World Bank Protests since I was not there. I was talking about the Republican National Convention in 2004.
Your post described what you saw with your own eyes, nothing more, and you conclude their behavior was positive based on no real data.
You may want to learn about what happened beyond your immediate line of sight -- people illegally detained and arrested, undercover officers inciting violence etc, officers telling people what they could do then arresting them when they followed instructions. "They pretty much let people do what they wanted" was not true outside your line of sight.
Um.... what I saw with my own eyes IS real data. For that matter, what I saw with my own eyes is MORE valid that what someone heard from someone else. It's too easy to say, "Someone told me that they were just standing there on the corner minding their own bizness and the Gestapo and took them all in." In other words, first person experience carries credibility than third person rumors.
I do not pretend to know everything that happened and only reported what I saw with my own eyes.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen
True, but again, what I SAW carries more weight than what you HEARD. Just because you HEARD it doesn't mean that it happened either. May I also add that this was the most documented protest in history. Not only was every major and local minor media outlet there, but at least one of every three "protesters" had a camera. I have not seen any video of these reported abuses either.
Well that's your problem. You refuse to believe in what you do no understand. Many things that was considered magic in the past have since been explained by science. The idea that the Israelites were provided manna in the desert was considered "magic" by many and therefor impossible. Yet studies have shown that the sap from the tamarisk tree easily fits the description of manna and provides a likely explanation. Many of the plagues of Egypt can be explained by natural occurrences. Even the parting of the Red Sea can be explained by a tsunami. That tsunami could have been caused by an volcano that erupting nearby, at the same time and could have caused many of the plagues. These are scientific explanations for what many have perceived as miracles, or "magic" as you put it. Was it a volcano and tsunami? I can't tell you. But I can guarantee that there is science behind what you call "magic".
Well known scientists like Einstein once claimed that the universe was static and could not have had a beginning. In the name of religion, a priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre worked with recent scientific discoveries to prove that the universe did indeed have a creation. Was the Big Bang "magic"? Two hundred years ago, some would have said the exact same thing you did. The one thing that Georges Lemaitre realized is that God works within the laws of the universe that He created. These universal constants are narrow enough that even the slightest variation of any of them would cause the universe not to exist at all. Is it magic? Read this page and others like for examples of how respected scientists and mathematicians are looking for rational explanations to what you might consider "magic". You don't have to believe it, but you should approach it with an open mind and admit that there is some science behind be belief.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's "magic" and can not exist. On the flip-side, "God did it" is not a valid explanation for things I don't understand. Galileo said it best:
"the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics". --Galileo
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, she did in fact say it.
Stealing link from AC above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg
No, she didn't. The GP falsely stated that Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Wasilla. Palin never said this. In your link, she never said that. She's never said that she could Russia from her house. She did say that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska, and it turns out that is true.
However, in your link, Palin did say that Alaska sits between Russia and Canada. Now, I don't know how well you know your geography, but if you wander over a globe, map or even launch Google Earth, you will see that Alaska really does sit between Canada and Russia.
It's sad when someone says something that is 100% true (and not classified), and gets ridiculed for it by the ignorant.
I'll pick a few here:
Teh GAYS are coming to steal yer marriages!!!!11
Never heard this from a Republican
Obama's going to raise your taxes!
I smoke. I make under $250,000/yr. My taxes went up. He said they would not.
The estate tax isn't fair!
If you own a family farm valued at $500,000, but makes your family $40,000/yr. When you die, your family will have to sell much of that farm to pay the taxes, cutting your annual family revenue down to $30-35k/yr. Can you live on that? Is it fair?
We're the party of fiscal responsibility!
I would have agreed with this last year. But since the current party has tripled the deficit, it turns out that it's true!
They're not prisoners of war, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply!
Were any of these guys wearing a uniform? No? then the Geneva Convention does not apply. Why is this so hard to understand?
Saudi Arabia didn't have anything to do with 9/11!
The government didn't.
Reagan was a good president!
He was.
9/11 changed everything!
It did!
And the one that really proves my point...
Iraq had something, anything to do with 9/11!
I have never heard a Republican say this, yet it keeps getting repeated over and over as if it's true. And what do you know, many of the exceedingly ignorant and borderline retarded believe it.
The report did come from Faux News, after all. They're not exactly known for their impartiality. When was the last time they reported anything positive about a Democrat? (Other than a story about a Democrat that disagrees with the majority of other Democrats.)
First, your question should be, "Why is Fox News the only media outlet reporting this?"
The last time Fox (the correct spelling) said something positive about a Democrat was probably right around the time that any other news agency said something positive about a Republican.
But let's go ahead and hammer Fox News anyway. Completely ignoring the Freedom of the Press guaranteed by the Constitution, there should not be any opposition to the current administration allowed. All such voices not towing the party line should be shut down immediately.
Plus, do you really think Sarah Palin would've been a better Veep than Biden? She probably would've tried to convince us to move the VP secret hideout to Wasilla, Alaska, because, you know, she can see Russia from there.
I seriously hope you were being sarcastic. I only bring it up not just because of your post, but because so many people actually believe that Sarah Palin actually said that when it was actually Tina Fey. Still, it's another fine example of, "if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true."
Ahh, the Dem. version of Dan Quayle.
Unfortunately, Biden is making Dan Quayle look like a Rhodes Scholar. Will someone please buy that man a muzzle.
I'm truly at a lose when I try to think of anything that man has brought to the ticket. He's been an embarrassment for Obama.
On the bright side, if we let him keep talking, perhaps we will all be told more about what happens at Area 51.
Look on the bright side, at least we don't have Palin in there. Here "lack of experience" would have been so much worse. Granted, she had more experience that Obama himself, but that doesn't matter as long as we have a quality VP in Biden.
(please make sure your sarcasm detector is active when reading the preceding post)
You mean kind of like exposing the identity of an active duty undercover CIA agent? He's got a long way to go before he can top that one.
And who gave away the ID of that "undercover" agent? If you are implying that Cheney had anything to do with it, you are dead wrong. It was Richard Armitage. Although I understand how tempting it is to pin this on the big bad Dick and his staff, it's simply not true. It does make me wonder, however, of the bad stuff that gets falsely pinned to Dick, if the guy is really that bad at all. If people like you falsely accuse Cheney of this well after it has been proven to be false, how much other stuff out there is being pinned on the Bush administration that it had nothing to do with. I could list several more examples, like "Bush banned stem cell research" but don't want to get further off topic. I feel this is worth pointing out as a fine example of "if you repeat a lie over and over, it becomes true."
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
Legitimate mass mailers would require a registration to be placed on an allow list. Of course, spammers need not apply. Licensing fees could even be charged for this list to pay for the program, but that may not be fair.
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Like who? Spammers? If you send less than, say, 10,000 emails a day, you shouldn't have to worry about anything. If you do legitimately send that many emails, see my response to your previous complaint.
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
How many "pipes" are there at US borders? Put filters on all of these.
(X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
Machines that have been zombiefied would be cut off from the web at the router level. They will be allowed back on once their ISP can verify they have been de-zombied.
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
That's why this is based on the number of emails sent from a particular host. The profitability of spam comes from the raw numbers of emails sent per host. Cut that number to a relatively insignificant amount and the numbers of successfully received spam emails drops significantly, making it much less profitable.
The only way around this would be to zombie so many machines that the spammer could spread the number of hosts emailing so that no single host will raise alarms. With 150 billion spam emails sent daily, there is no way that spammers could spread this out far enough without taking a severe hit in the number of messages sent. Which leads to lower profits... wash, rinse, repeat.
(X) Infrastructure costs that are involved in deep packet inspection on the core routers
(X) Privacy concerns in letting ISPs perform deep packet inspection on the core routers
Why not just use the same setup the previous administration did to monitor phone calls? If we can pipe all of America's phone calls through a closet at an AT&T building, surely we can set up a few monitoring stations to look for traffic on port 25.
Cost could be paid for by the companies that pay so much to fight spam today. With the reduction in web traffic and email data storage, the system would pay for itself many times over.
(X) I don't want the government reading my email
Since the emails are counted instead of read, there would be no privacy concerns.
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
Examples?
(X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
???
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Not with that attitude!
Seriously though... I'm a geek, but by no means a networking expert. Most of my "solutions" to the problems you've brought up may not work at all, however, if I a mental midget like myself can at least dream up feasible solutions, then surely big boys at Cisco, Time Warner, AT&T, Sun, IBM and the rest backed with government stimulus dollars can surely find a way to secure our networks from within the networks themselves as opposed to the end point. This security by end user crap ain't cutting it.
Whats the difference between legitimate listserv messages and spam in your scenario?
Excellent question. Companies that send out legitimate mass emails would need to be added to an "allow-list".
I know, it sux, but the benefit of no spam outweighs the pain of asking legit listserv's to register.
Would it really require "full layer 7 visibility on the router" to count the number of port 25 messages coming from each host? I would assume the biggest problem would be the memory involved in counting the messages and keeping that count in RAM for each and every host, keeping track of which hosts are blocked by each router and every other router (national database) and securing the system so that some hacker can't get in there and put every Microsoft IP into the black-list.
Still, I don't see these problems as being insurmountable. It also doesn't have to be the routers that do the packet inspection. We could set up machines at various choke-points on the web to take care of this. If we can route every phone conversation through a closet at AT&T for a government spy program, surely we can work this out.
Because spam doesn't work that way anymore. It comes from botnets where each individual zombie only sends one or less messages to the target and need only send out 20 or 30 each day total to still be effective.
First, I wonder about the 20-30 messages a day bit. There are roughly 150 billion spam messages sent daily. There are 6 billion people on the planet. In order for your 20-30 messages a day number to be correct, that would every man, woman, and child on the earth would need a computer and every single one of them would be part of a botnet.
Next, if we are assuming that your 20-30 number is correct, I assume many of these messages are identical or similar enough to be identified. I know I get several repeat messages in my GMail spam box every day. There are only so many routers that lead into the US. Set these up to monitor email traffic (is it port 22? 25? I don't remember)... and look for patterns. If the same email is being sent 20 billion times, you can bet it's spam, block those hosts until they can show they are not longer spamming, even if it's a million machines that are part of the bot-net.
As for domestically generated spam, track them and let local law enforcement hand them.
This will require funding, of course, but if you tax the companies that would benefit from this, they will end up spending less in the long run.
I don't understand why routers can not be programed to limit the number of emails it receives from a single source. For example, if a router detects that 10,000 emails are coming from a particular host, treat that host as if it's perpetrating a DOS attack. Routers can be programmed to ignore DOS attacks, why not use the same tech to block massive spamming?
did you miss this part of my post:
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
We have the problem of warming temps melting more ice. This means less salty northern waters. As such the 'conveyor' stops running (based on previous theories). This stops the transfer of heat from the tropics to the northern climates which in turn causes a cooling of the northern climates producing more ice. It is indeed a cyclical process so point A leads to point B to point C and back to A in a massive generalization.
My point was that if the conveyor theory is wrong, the 'brake' I described might not exist or only work at a reduced rate, thus allowing more effect from global warming to be experienced.
Thank you. I didn't link "So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames" to mean that it is a cycle.
Still, that's one of the better explanations I've heard. Most are like that moronic "Day After Tomorrow" movie where they say make the argument similar to yours, but skip the last step.
1) Global warming causes ice melt at the poles
2) Currents stop due to no icing at the poles
3) Currents no longer bring warmer water to poles
4) Poles freeze
5) There is no step 5 except to show the catastrophe caused by the poles freezing (??)
But you'll find the average Slashdotter much more heavily invested in Doritos and Bawls than in sex (at least, the varieties that involve other persons).
I find the opposite is true. Sex is like oxygen. When you are getting enough of it, it's not a big deal.
I live in Texas. It's 105 degrees in the shade. If it gets one degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass!
(with all due respect to Mike Judge)
So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.
Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that. This doesn't call that "conclusion" into question; at best it implies we have even less understanding of why the planet is getting hotter, which suggests we need *less* calm, not more. Our temperature measurements aren't wrong, and still remain valid.
Your "facts" rely on accurate measurements.
Let's see if I understand this correctly:
Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
OK, so ice melts, the conveyor stops... got it!
This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice , etc.
More ice? WTF?!!? You just said there would be LESS ICE due to ice melting, then you say that will cause THICKER ICE?
Wouldn't this restart the conveyor and return everything to normal?
Shortly after it was discovered that 1Ghz is the frequency at which æther vibrates when it is at rest so once you pass it, you leave a wake of æther behind your time cone.
Wow! And here I thought it was 1.21Ghz at 88 MPH.
the fact that people don't understand where it comes from is more important.
People understand that very well.
As in, everything sold by intel in effect passes the cost of this judgment to the people buying the product.
And since people aren't forced to buy Intels products, they can look at less expensive alternatives.
Are you serious? The whole problem is that Intel was paying off computer manufacturers to not carry any competitor's chip (AMD). So if the consumer needed a computer, then yeah, the were forced to purchase Intel's products and there was no other alternative, cheaper or otherwise.
Why not let supply and demand do the trick? Right now the costs on the supply side are distorted by the welfare checks the US government doles out to the oil industry on a regular basis; as I note in another post farther down in the thread, ending that practice would probably cause prices to go up, and certainly would leave a great deal of money for helping out the people who would pay more at the pump. New taxes really aren't necessary for this result.
I agree. Let supply and demand work. However, that means you must free the supply, which is something that has yet to happen.
Great security comes by keeping yourself off the grid of would be attackers. Even the most secure systems can be tapped if somebody wants to bad enough and knows where to find it.
For a Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman, the ability to communicate is just as important as the ability to shoot. The greatest marksman in the world is worthless when he is cut off from his unit and surrounded by enemies that are in constant contact with each other.
So to unplug the network cable from these machines kinda makes them worthless.
Why is the dollar or two necessary to pay? Some kids don't even have enough money to eat properly every day. An extra dollar or two means skipping an (inadequate) meal or two. Why should they have to go hungrier? What's the point of extracting that dollar or two from them? What goes on in South Carolina that pressures the OLPC suppliers to be "adamant" that kids pay a dollar or two they don't have?
I think the idea is to give value to the notebook. Unfortunately, when many people are given something for free, they consider it worthless since they gave nothing of "worth" for it. By asking for something in return, it gives value to the notebook.
However, I do understand your point about a dollar having a much greater value to someone who sees dollars so rarely. With the school lunch program, that dollar could mean the difference between a lunch and 30 minutes of watching others eat. Still, I hope there is enough goodness in humanity that there is some leeway here. I would like to think that if a child truly could not spare a single dollar, that there would be some other method of adding "worth" to these notebooks. I could see something like, "Tell you what son, if you go pick up the trash in the hallway between second and third period, I'll pay the dollar for you." There could also be a charity or "scholarship" drive for these dollars or maybe even, "That last kid gave two dollars. Instead of saying he gave two, we'll say you each gave one. Now go pick up that trash."
There are plenty more I'm sure but don't have the time or energy to look more than this right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007-06.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-06-nyc-protesters_x.htm
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1137
Of those sources, only one was valid, and that one was USA Today. NYCLU? Come on! I saw those guys and even talked with a few of them. The one that I remember most was the one that said that the police should not try to prosecute NAMBLA members because their lust for small boys should be considered a "thought crime", even if they act on it.
Now, for the USA Today article. Here is a snippet:
Fiore, 46, was one of 1,806 people arrested here during the four-day gathering last summer. Police used orange netting, plastic handcuffs and city buses to handle the crowd. When Fiore was arrested, she was part of a group chanting slogans against President Bush on the sidewalk across from Macy's. According to police, she resisted arrest, obstructed governmental administration and committed disorderly conduct.
But Fiore says she did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech and has challenged the city to prove otherwise in court. So have nearly 200 other protesters whose cases are making their way through the courts five months later.
That "obstructed governmental administration" charge, means that she blocked a bus or delegates. Sorry, but these people had a right to attend the convention, even if she disagreed with their politics.
The part that really got me was when she said, "did nothing other than exercise her right to free speech". That's exactly what these guys would shout as they were fighting the police that were trying to arrest them. I saw one guy get in the face of a delegate members screaming at the top of his lungs, "BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!! YOU WILL PAY FOR THE 100 MILLION DEATHS IN IRAQ!" (Iraq's total population is 20 million, btw). He was arrested because he would not allow the delegates to pass. I saw him do this for at least half an hour before they took him away. What was he yelling as they hauled him off? You guessed it: "My First Amendment rights are being violated! I wasn't doing anything!"
Another quote from the USA Today article:
Protesters who blocked a bus carrying Republican delegates to the Republican National Convention await police transport.
World Bank protests, 2002. It's so bad the GOP is STILL trying to cover their asses from it.
That's one of the most recent ones that stands out, and still has pending court cases.
OK, that's great, but I was not at that protest and was not talking about it. I can not talk about the World Bank Protests since I was not there. I was talking about the Republican National Convention in 2004.
Your post described what you saw with your own eyes, nothing more, and you conclude their behavior was positive based on no real data.
You may want to learn about what happened beyond your immediate line of sight -- people illegally detained and arrested, undercover officers inciting violence etc, officers telling people what they could do then arresting them when they followed instructions. "They pretty much let people do what they wanted" was not true outside your line of sight.
Um.... what I saw with my own eyes IS real data. For that matter, what I saw with my own eyes is MORE valid that what someone heard from someone else. It's too easy to say, "Someone told me that they were just standing there on the corner minding their own bizness and the Gestapo and took them all in." In other words, first person experience carries credibility than third person rumors.
I do not pretend to know everything that happened and only reported what I saw with my own eyes.
Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen
True, but again, what I SAW carries more weight than what you HEARD. Just because you HEARD it doesn't mean that it happened either. May I also add that this was the most documented protest in history. Not only was every major and local minor media outlet there, but at least one of every three "protesters" had a camera. I have not seen any video of these reported abuses either.
Well that's your problem. You refuse to believe in what you do no understand. Many things that was considered magic in the past have since been explained by science. The idea that the Israelites were provided manna in the desert was considered "magic" by many and therefor impossible. Yet studies have shown that the sap from the tamarisk tree easily fits the description of manna and provides a likely explanation. Many of the plagues of Egypt can be explained by natural occurrences. Even the parting of the Red Sea can be explained by a tsunami. That tsunami could have been caused by an volcano that erupting nearby, at the same time and could have caused many of the plagues. These are scientific explanations for what many have perceived as miracles, or "magic" as you put it. Was it a volcano and tsunami? I can't tell you. But I can guarantee that there is science behind what you call "magic".
Well known scientists like Einstein once claimed that the universe was static and could not have had a beginning. In the name of religion, a priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre worked with recent scientific discoveries to prove that the universe did indeed have a creation. Was the Big Bang "magic"? Two hundred years ago, some would have said the exact same thing you did. The one thing that Georges Lemaitre realized is that God works within the laws of the universe that He created. These universal constants are narrow enough that even the slightest variation of any of them would cause the universe not to exist at all. Is it magic? Read this page and others like for examples of how respected scientists and mathematicians are looking for rational explanations to what you might consider "magic". You don't have to believe it, but you should approach it with an open mind and admit that there is some science behind be belief.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it's "magic" and can not exist. On the flip-side, "God did it" is not a valid explanation for things I don't understand. Galileo said it best:
"the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the language of mathematics". --Galileo
God works within His own laws.