I was about to post the same exact words. The analysis is completely faulty, based on some incredibly vague and unrelated statistics, and the call to action includes zero verification of those assumptions. Narrowing the US population to the specified profile would probably provide a single hit, but that hit would also almost certainly not be related to the trojan. That's because this is a pure case of garbage in, garbage out.
Err, no. You might have the most likely demographic right, but that's just because they contain the majority of crackers. As for the debt, it is very unlikely someone in that demographic managed to accumulate a lot of debt.
What I'm pretty sure you got completely wrong is the acting alone part. You do not profit of this kind of targeted scheme by working alone. You either have a taskmaster who requested this info, or you know the people who will be able to profit from this info.
Really, nice try, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea who the crackers really are, and how they operate. I don't know em personally either, but I've got enough experience with DSM and psychological profiling to call shenanigans on your assessment.
Pretty much. The story of the goose with the golden eggs comes to mind. There are some people who just don't understand and don't care that they're killing a larger downstream revenue for themselves and everyone else. They just want cash now.
I just wanted to stick my nose into the conversation to vouch for the effort that I know firsthand George put in to creating the image libraries that he sells in various forms.
The problem is that it doesn't matter that George put a lot of work into creating his stuff. Instead, what matters is that he is trying to claim copyright on stuff that is so generic as to be impossible to work around. A hand pointing? A crown? I've seen those around long before George. I'm sure he has clip-art for arrows, and buildings, and all kinds of generic shit that everybody who ever drew a symbol has pretty much drawn before.
My beef with George is that he doesn't care that his stuff isn't unique or even difficult in any sense of the word. He was merely the first to copyright stuff that has been around for a while without copyright, and now wants to extort money from everybody.
Mind you, it's a valid business plan, but it also makes him a money grubbing asshole.
Awesome! One question: you say you swim across open leads. What kind of gear do you wear for that? Normally, getting clothes wet is a death sentence in cold weather. Not to mention that actually going for a swim for more than a few minutes is incredibly tough as well...
...if you didn't see this coming. I don't think anyone believed for a minute that any government worker would idly sit on a data goldmine, and not utilize to its full capability. Which is why the proper response to any request for linking databases or collecting any data outside of that necessary for filing charges is "Are you crazy?"
I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless. Either call or mail your representative, or take it like a good consumer.
I guess we're talking two different kinds of save. One is save as in "save the children!" and the other is save as in "save money". I don't see any reason why reducing the amount a resource is used in one area is a bad thing.
So let me get this right: because there's currently a plan associated with gathering a resource, it is wrong to economize the use of that resource? And that companies deserve protection from becoming obsolete?
I think you have a new calling as lobbyist for buggy-whip makers and whale-bone skirts.
and who is at fault? the ones causing all the trouble over it? or the one shoving it in their face while they'd rather just not know? imo both are just as wrong
Moral relativism at its ugly best. I'm sure those damn jews had it coming too when they kept going to synagogues and insisted on kosher meat at the deli. And that slut in the dress was just asking for that rape.
What gives you the right to tell Microsoft "I've decided that your network isn't going to be family friendly"?/quote. I fail to see why mentioning that you're a lesbian turns Xbox live into something that isn't family friendly. Unless, of course, you think that merely reading the word lesbian could turn your kids into lesbians. Or that you are afraid you might have to answer questions about what a lesbian is. Because really, lesbians are the devil. Literally.
It might be their network, but it shows what they're afraid of. And apparently, that is people who are afraid of lesbians.
Although in defense of French drivers, I've witnessed people get from one end of Paris to the other in 20 minutes. Stuff that takes mere mortals generally an hour. Then again, it involves breaking pretty much every driving law, leaving some pigeons dead on the road and more than one pedestrian seeking refuge on a lamp post. Not something for the faint of heart.
I think the problem is that with CP being such a touchy and emotional issue, cops investigating it, prosecutors prosecuting it and juries deciding on it, will be very tempted to take anything that even remotely looks like CP to BE CP, and make decisions accordingly.
I wish people would be reasonable, but I'm starting to think that's unrealistic.
You're right. ANd it is never too early to slap down a stupid idea, and to make sure that people understand that if they ever do that again, they will lose what they cherish most (reelection).
As a matter of fact I directly discuss the part about climate change requiring "faith" and how much distaste I have for that.
I read that part. However, confidence can be based on a number of things. It can be based on trusting someone who tells you something. It can be based on trusting your eyes seeing something. It can be based on trusting your mind to have properly run a regression and a partial factor correlation. Whether any of these things come into play depends on the availability of resources - whether it is papers, authority figures, raw data, etc.
The good news about the entire Climate Change debate is that everything is online: expert opinions, papers, raw data. The only thing that's tough to get to is the actual instruments. If you do not like the fact that a lot of what you're being told sounds like witnessing, you are free to form your own opinion by looking at all sorts of primary sources. In other words: Climate Change is actually one of the few topics where you do not have to take anything on faith.
I can wait until the argument dies down before taking any explicit actions.
That's the problem though. The argument will never truly die down. You still have people believing that the US government is controlled by Aliens, or that Aliens are held at Area 51. You're running a significant risk that by the time you think it is reasonable to take action, it won't matter anymore.
You can choose to wait until the discussion is settled for you, or you can choose to do something about it. It's up to you.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008?
Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.
If you think that the two statements are equivalent.... I'd suggest English remedial and a crash course in scientific philosophy and methodology.
As for your quip about funding - everyone is after money. Which means that it is a completely useless metric to determine the accuracy of a scientific study. Or would you like to prognosticate about the accuracy of economists by looking at who sleeps and who doesn't?
I'd write you off as a kook, but unfortunately, more than just a few people agree with you.
Wow. I mean, really. Wow. No. Really? No one EVER thought of this before. Quick! Send word to NOAA and NASA that they can drop their divining rods and instead use satellites operating in the visible EM wave spectrum! I smell a Nobel prize coming along...
Sometimes, people are truly that retarded that they need to be told to shut up. Sadly, the myth that everyone is a precious jewel with something important to contribute to everything is a.... well, myth.
When people repeatedly misrepresent the same statements or are outright lying, the proper approach is to indeed call them out.
Logic dictates: If their data was wrong under their nose once in a ridiculous manner, it could have been wrong all along or in different ways.
Logic dictates that. However, science requires some support for that theory. If you have evidence that the data is wrong, please present it.
We (rightfully) will want a further look at the data used all along regardless.
Absolutely. Have you done that? No? Well, others have, and found the data to be fine. Now what?
People like me just want confidence that what we are "believing in"
Ah. Now I see what the problem is. You're looking for faith. Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Unless you're looking for confidence intervals, which are available in pretty much every study and from pretty much every scientist ever quoted.
I think the biggest problem with the discussion about Climate Change is that the vast majority of the American population has absolutely no idea how science works or what a scientific statement is. They want the American Idol version of Science, and that's causing problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I was about to post the same exact words. The analysis is completely faulty, based on some incredibly vague and unrelated statistics, and the call to action includes zero verification of those assumptions. Narrowing the US population to the specified profile would probably provide a single hit, but that hit would also almost certainly not be related to the trojan. That's because this is a pure case of garbage in, garbage out.
Err, no. You might have the most likely demographic right, but that's just because they contain the majority of crackers. As for the debt, it is very unlikely someone in that demographic managed to accumulate a lot of debt.
What I'm pretty sure you got completely wrong is the acting alone part. You do not profit of this kind of targeted scheme by working alone. You either have a taskmaster who requested this info, or you know the people who will be able to profit from this info.
Really, nice try, but I'm pretty sure you have no idea who the crackers really are, and how they operate. I don't know em personally either, but I've got enough experience with DSM and psychological profiling to call shenanigans on your assessment.
Pretty much. The story of the goose with the golden eggs comes to mind. There are some people who just don't understand and don't care that they're killing a larger downstream revenue for themselves and everyone else. They just want cash now.
I just wanted to stick my nose into the conversation to vouch for the effort that I know firsthand George put in to creating the image libraries that he sells in various forms.
The problem is that it doesn't matter that George put a lot of work into creating his stuff. Instead, what matters is that he is trying to claim copyright on stuff that is so generic as to be impossible to work around. A hand pointing? A crown? I've seen those around long before George. I'm sure he has clip-art for arrows, and buildings, and all kinds of generic shit that everybody who ever drew a symbol has pretty much drawn before.
My beef with George is that he doesn't care that his stuff isn't unique or even difficult in any sense of the word. He was merely the first to copyright stuff that has been around for a while without copyright, and now wants to extort money from everybody.
Mind you, it's a valid business plan, but it also makes him a money grubbing asshole.
Awesome! One question: you say you swim across open leads. What kind of gear do you wear for that? Normally, getting clothes wet is a death sentence in cold weather. Not to mention that actually going for a swim for more than a few minutes is incredibly tough as well...
Among other things. Add also lots of high-fat foods. If you're going through 10K calories a day, you'll have a hard time living off of dried fruits.
Yes, and stuff costs money. And, uh, some things take more time than others. Any other platitudes you want to enlighten us with?
The cool part is that he gave us tools to analyze the patterns, and tools to optimally use the existing patterns. Good stuff. No need to put it down.
...if you didn't see this coming. I don't think anyone believed for a minute that any government worker would idly sit on a data goldmine, and not utilize to its full capability. Which is why the proper response to any request for linking databases or collecting any data outside of that necessary for filing charges is "Are you crazy?"
I'd also like to point out that facebook groups are the new Internet petitions: completely meaningless. Either call or mail your representative, or take it like a good consumer.
I guess we're talking two different kinds of save. One is save as in "save the children!" and the other is save as in "save money". I don't see any reason why reducing the amount a resource is used in one area is a bad thing.
It's closer to rescuing buggy-whip makers from the automobile, or candle-makers from the sun.
So let me get this right: because there's currently a plan associated with gathering a resource, it is wrong to economize the use of that resource? And that companies deserve protection from becoming obsolete?
I think you have a new calling as lobbyist for buggy-whip makers and whale-bone skirts.
It's only a legitimate reason if posting the equivalent "I'm straight" also gets you banned from XBox Live. Feel free to try it, but I doubt it will.
which overpowers the right of the majority not to be offended by them.
This right here is where you go off the deep-end and become someone who is need of a serious ass-kicking.
Let me bold this for you: there is no right for anyone to not be offended. Now go pay attention in Civics class before I run you off to a gulag.
and who is at fault? the ones causing all the trouble over it? or the one shoving it in their face while they'd rather just not know? imo both are just as wrong
Moral relativism at its ugly best. I'm sure those damn jews had it coming too when they kept going to synagogues and insisted on kosher meat at the deli. And that slut in the dress was just asking for that rape.
What gives you the right to tell Microsoft "I've decided that your network isn't going to be family friendly"?/quote.
I fail to see why mentioning that you're a lesbian turns Xbox live into something that isn't family friendly. Unless, of course, you think that merely reading the word lesbian could turn your kids into lesbians. Or that you are afraid you might have to answer questions about what a lesbian is. Because really, lesbians are the devil. Literally.
It might be their network, but it shows what they're afraid of. And apparently, that is people who are afraid of lesbians.
Although in defense of French drivers, I've witnessed people get from one end of Paris to the other in 20 minutes. Stuff that takes mere mortals generally an hour. Then again, it involves breaking pretty much every driving law, leaving some pigeons dead on the road and more than one pedestrian seeking refuge on a lamp post. Not something for the faint of heart.
I think the problem is that with CP being such a touchy and emotional issue, cops investigating it, prosecutors prosecuting it and juries deciding on it, will be very tempted to take anything that even remotely looks like CP to BE CP, and make decisions accordingly.
I wish people would be reasonable, but I'm starting to think that's unrealistic.
Forget about the life of a device. What about a unique IP for the life of a person? Makes SSN suddenly archaic and innocuous.
You're right. ANd it is never too early to slap down a stupid idea, and to make sure that people understand that if they ever do that again, they will lose what they cherish most (reelection).
As a matter of fact I directly discuss the part about climate change requiring "faith" and how much distaste I have for that.
I read that part. However, confidence can be based on a number of things. It can be based on trusting someone who tells you something. It can be based on trusting your eyes seeing something. It can be based on trusting your mind to have properly run a regression and a partial factor correlation. Whether any of these things come into play depends on the availability of resources - whether it is papers, authority figures, raw data, etc.
The good news about the entire Climate Change debate is that everything is online: expert opinions, papers, raw data. The only thing that's tough to get to is the actual instruments. If you do not like the fact that a lot of what you're being told sounds like witnessing, you are free to form your own opinion by looking at all sorts of primary sources. In other words: Climate Change is actually one of the few topics where you do not have to take anything on faith.
I can wait until the argument dies down before taking any explicit actions.
That's the problem though. The argument will never truly die down. You still have people believing that the US government is controlled by Aliens, or that Aliens are held at Area 51. You're running a significant risk that by the time you think it is reasonable to take action, it won't matter anymore.
You can choose to wait until the discussion is settled for you, or you can choose to do something about it. It's up to you.
Um, didn't they say that there would be NO ICE on the north pole in 2008?
Could the North Pole be ice free this melt season? Given that this region is currently covered with first-year ice, that seems quite possible.
If you think that the two statements are equivalent.... I'd suggest English remedial and a crash course in scientific philosophy and methodology.
As for your quip about funding - everyone is after money. Which means that it is a completely useless metric to determine the accuracy of a scientific study. Or would you like to prognosticate about the accuracy of economists by looking at who sleeps and who doesn't?
I'd write you off as a kook, but unfortunately, more than just a few people agree with you.
Wow. I mean, really. Wow. No. Really? No one EVER thought of this before. Quick! Send word to NOAA and NASA that they can drop their divining rods and instead use satellites operating in the visible EM wave spectrum! I smell a Nobel prize coming along...
Sometimes, people are truly that retarded that they need to be told to shut up. Sadly, the myth that everyone is a precious jewel with something important to contribute to everything is a.... well, myth.
When people repeatedly misrepresent the same statements or are outright lying, the proper approach is to indeed call them out.
[citation needed]
Logic dictates: If their data was wrong under their nose once in a ridiculous manner, it could have been wrong all along or in different ways.
Logic dictates that. However, science requires some support for that theory. If you have evidence that the data is wrong, please present it.
We (rightfully) will want a further look at the data used all along regardless.
Absolutely. Have you done that? No? Well, others have, and found the data to be fine. Now what?
People like me just want confidence that what we are "believing in"
Ah. Now I see what the problem is. You're looking for faith. Science doesn't deal with absolutes. Unless you're looking for confidence intervals, which are available in pretty much every study and from pretty much every scientist ever quoted.
I think the biggest problem with the discussion about Climate Change is that the vast majority of the American population has absolutely no idea how science works or what a scientific statement is. They want the American Idol version of Science, and that's causing problems.