Please remind me which attack it was where flights with routes completely outside of U.S. airspace suddenly appeared inside the U.S. without crossing any borders.
Say you have 80,000 flights a day in your airspace. Of those, say 70,000 are arriving at or departing from your land. The other 10,000 are only traveling through your airspace. That's 10,000 unvetted potential attack vectors. Implement the new policy and now those are all vetted too.
As for emergencies, how many of those are there each day? And of those, how many are from unvetted flights just passing by? I think we can agree it's not very many. It is much easier to have a protocol in place to handle this handful than to handle 10,000 unvetted flights. In addition, any attack from such a flight will always be coming from outside the borders rather than from within the U.S.–not so of unvetted flyovers.
The original claim was that it was illegal to melt down pennies for their metals. That is true. You claimed it wasn't. The whole defacement tangent is irrelevant to that point. I'm not disputing your definition of defacement.
"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." -- Ayn Rand
I don't know about you, but I have a TV on my dresser and it gives me a great view from my bed. I know from experience (and from mirrored closet doors) that the view back is pretty god damn fantastic too. Not sure I want most strangers to see all that, though. Just the special ones.
We all do, but we're not comparing the value of rights to the cost of a trial directly. There are other variables involved.
If you are more likely than not to be found guilty of a misdemeanor with a $100 fine, would you spend $5,000 (plus time) defending yourself or would you take the $500 plea bargain?
Your metabolism helps determine the number of calories you burn. Exercise burns calories directly and also increases your resting metabolism. Weight is still determined by calories in and calories out. As far as I know, there is nothing specific you can eat that is proven to boost your metabolism. While caffeine seems to have an effect on gene expression when taken in near-lethal amounts and injected directly into muscle, it's current use in diet pills is as an upper, diuretic, and appetite suppressant.
None of this violates the laws of thermodynamics. Although, if it did, The Matrix would suddenly make a lot more sense.
You call that fair? We should all feel sorry for these companies which are facing high demand for their product, but can't make a profit off that demand and continue to charge the other 99% of users who pay for bandwidth they'll never use.
There ought to be a law allowing these guys to sell unlimited plans, but only to people who agree they won't go over the cap!
The victim may have losses that are difficult to document, but no less real. Proving those losses in court could be expensive for victim and perpetrator alike and time-consuming for the court. If a fine is required, it should go to the victim to compensate for any of those types of losses. I see no reason the fine should go to the government.
Fines should be large enough to discourage copyright infringement, but not so large that they encourage lawsuits. If that is not possible, then a fine is not appropriate and some other disincentive should be used.
All governments want to silence their critics. All governments seek to expand their power. Why would you ever give them the power to censor anyone for any reason? Even those bastards who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts had enough sense to have the acts expire during Adams' term so it couldn't be used against them.
Aren't you afraid if you continue to suppress the strawmen that they will rise in revolt against you?
I'm game, though.
Government has done good things, blah blah blah. Nevermind that we have no idea how that money might otherwise have been spent. Blah blah blah, this is fun.
In all browsers, we can reliably abort the underlying request by changing the src= parameter of the frame as soon as we have a reasonable suspicion we're dealing with a cache miss.
In other words, they don't actually download the files. They request the files to see if the browser starts parsing them within a certain time frame (indicating a cached document). Regardless, they abort the request after that time limit and the document is never cached.
If it did download the files as you suggest, the second and subsequent tests would always give the result that all sites had been visited. The OP and others on the page are reporting different behavior.
I'm seeing occassional transient false positives on Firefox and I'm not really certain how that can be the case.
Assuming the OP is seeing repeated false positives, I would guess he is behind a caching proxy that is caching aborted requests and, after repeated attempts, occassionally getting those documents to the browser faster than the tool can abort the request.
Slashdot Mirror
Please remind me which attack it was where flights with routes completely outside of U.S. airspace suddenly appeared inside the U.S. without crossing any borders.
I don't understand your conclusion.
Say you have 80,000 flights a day in your airspace. Of those, say 70,000 are arriving at or departing from your land. The other 10,000 are only traveling through your airspace. That's 10,000 unvetted potential attack vectors. Implement the new policy and now those are all vetted too.
As for emergencies, how many of those are there each day? And of those, how many are from unvetted flights just passing by? I think we can agree it's not very many. It is much easier to have a protocol in place to handle this handful than to handle 10,000 unvetted flights. In addition, any attack from such a flight will always be coming from outside the borders rather than from within the U.S.–not so of unvetted flyovers.
The original claim was that it was illegal to melt down pennies for their metals. That is true. You claimed it wasn't. The whole defacement tangent is irrelevant to that point. I'm not disputing your definition of defacement.
Wrong.
Big Dog motherships (motherdogs, motherbots?)
Bitches, obviously.
"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." -- Ayn Rand
Does it also test the Earth's travelocity?
(I'm so, so sorry. I'm a sick man. I need help.)
I don't know about you, but I have a TV on my dresser and it gives me a great view from my bed. I know from experience (and from mirrored closet doors) that the view back is pretty god damn fantastic too. Not sure I want most strangers to see all that, though. Just the special ones.
D'oh. *$1000 fine.
Preview. What is it?
We all do, but we're not comparing the value of rights to the cost of a trial directly. There are other variables involved.
If you are more likely than not to be found guilty of a misdemeanor with a $100 fine, would you spend $5,000 (plus time) defending yourself or would you take the $500 plea bargain?
As a bodybuilder I take exception to the term "gym rat". We are "gym capybaras" at least.
I got this.
*shakes fist at sky*
Your metabolism helps determine the number of calories you burn. Exercise burns calories directly and also increases your resting metabolism. Weight is still determined by calories in and calories out. As far as I know, there is nothing specific you can eat that is proven to boost your metabolism. While caffeine seems to have an effect on gene expression when taken in near-lethal amounts and injected directly into muscle, it's current use in diet pills is as an upper, diuretic, and appetite suppressant.
None of this violates the laws of thermodynamics. Although, if it did, The Matrix would suddenly make a lot more sense.
In that situation, I always talk about sex. After all, everyone likes sex, so we have that in common.
One order of juevos coming up!
This isn't limited to salmon DNA and they don't have to raise a whole salmon to get the DNA.
You call that fair? We should all feel sorry for these companies which are facing high demand for their product, but can't make a profit off that demand and continue to charge the other 99% of users who pay for bandwidth they'll never use.
There ought to be a law allowing these guys to sell unlimited plans, but only to people who agree they won't go over the cap!
The victim may have losses that are difficult to document, but no less real. Proving those losses in court could be expensive for victim and perpetrator alike and time-consuming for the court. If a fine is required, it should go to the victim to compensate for any of those types of losses. I see no reason the fine should go to the government.
Fines should be large enough to discourage copyright infringement, but not so large that they encourage lawsuits. If that is not possible, then a fine is not appropriate and some other disincentive should be used.
Doesn't necessarily make it right, of course, just not a clear violation of basic human rights.
I thought it was clear, but they showed me the light.
Calling this a "crackpot theory" is just plain naïveté. All of human history, including American history, is rife with this type of corruption.
All speech is political.
All governments want to silence their critics. All governments seek to expand their power. Why would you ever give them the power to censor anyone for any reason? Even those bastards who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts had enough sense to have the acts expire during Adams' term so it couldn't be used against them.
They don't have to block the entire site. There are plenty of moderators around to mod you into oblivion. No government action required.
Aren't you afraid if you continue to suppress the strawmen that they will rise in revolt against you?
I'm game, though.
Government has done good things, blah blah blah. Nevermind that we have no idea how that money might otherwise have been spent. Blah blah blah, this is fun.
It is meant to be non-destructive to the cache.
In other words, they don't actually download the files. They request the files to see if the browser starts parsing them within a certain time frame (indicating a cached document). Regardless, they abort the request after that time limit and the document is never cached.
If it did download the files as you suggest, the second and subsequent tests would always give the result that all sites had been visited. The OP and others on the page are reporting different behavior.
I'm seeing occassional transient false positives on Firefox and I'm not really certain how that can be the case.
Assuming the OP is seeing repeated false positives, I would guess he is behind a caching proxy that is caching aborted requests and, after repeated attempts, occassionally getting those documents to the browser faster than the tool can abort the request.
First: You're not the parent, you're an AC so you're most likely trying to drag me into an annoying trollish argument...
So sayeth the pseudonymous troll with his mighty logic.