Can you provide references for your claims? I can't figure out if you don't understand the concept of Marxism or Atheism, but you're clearly confused about something.
What, you don't think drawing a whole bunch of attention to an issue is a good way to deal with it? Now that's crazy talk. If everybody knows about the parties, then of course they'll stop happening; that's common sense.
I'm all for some method for the president to sign bills if he's overseas or can't sign it 'in person' or whatever. This is completely separate from the issue of whether or not the actual signing of the renewal of the bill is a good thing. Sure, maybe faxes or other methods are better, but trying to invalidate the signing over this is a technicality; if the president signed it and confirms that he signed it, the issue should be over. With that said, I'm really disappointed that this bill went through.
This is a perfect example of free market, though. The market should create cafes where people can 'set up shop' and others where no electronics are allowed. There's no "they should do THIS because THAT is wrong" because it's a matter of opinion and both options can be available.
Agreed. Not sure why there needs to be a negative spin on his leaving. He did good things for the company, they had some disagreements, and now he's moving on. That sounds like the story of many of the millions of people who search for new jobs every year.
I agree. So Fringe is moving to Friday? I don't know what day of the week it aired on anyway. I don't know the date and time of almost all of my series recordings, so time slot really isn't an issue to me.
Agreed.
It's kinda like the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The DDoS attacks themselves aren't hurting human rights groups (like the heading leads one to believe), but instead there are people using DDoS attacks to threaten such groups.
Or it's like saying that, "Space shuttle launches harm grizzly bears." If I read that, I'd think there was something going on with space shuttle launches that were damaging to the world's grizzly bear population, when the article just has a bunch of info about a grizzly bear strapped to the nose of a space shuttle doesn't survive the flight.
There are a lot of questions that will probably go unanswered for a long time.
Right now, I'm wondering why 'they' bothered with a DDoS attack anyway. It looks like the information is starting to come out through other sources, and eventually WikiLeaks would get back online and release it as well. Inevitably, the information was going to get leaked, or at least the DDoS attack wasn't going to shut it out forever.
So why the DDoS attack? Knowing that it wouldn't prevent the information from being released, it must be a stall tactic, so what do they have to gain from stalling? Assuming this was orchestrated by the US, why show your hand just to stall? I know there were some questions before about the US's cyber capabilities, so it seems strange to me to launch an attack like this just to buy time.
Not that there isn't a place for business strategy in the video game market, but that quote gave me the chills too. It scares me when the strategy is to overtake markets by creating games to fill those markets instead of making great games that naturally expand into said new markets.
I, for one, miss UO and was not "into the PvP scene" as I think you mean it. Sure, I had a PvP character and a thief as well, but those were for revenge, not the greifing everyone has been talking about. I had two accounts and the whole range of characters. I played with friends that I knew in rl and met more than a few in-game. I joined guilds and ran guilds. I got involved with quests and in-game events. I loved playing UO. I played UO for 6 years until EA took over, banned one of my accounts for dying clothes purple, and started giving out old, rare gifts to newbs (yes, that's how it was spelled when I played UO) which destroyed the value of things I spent years collecting.
I've tried other games, but haven't spent more than a month on a MMO since. Nothing else compares, and I think it's the skill system, not the griefing. Sure, that isn't the point of the summary, but there are plenty of people out there who miss UO for reasons other than PvP. Despite PKs, I would still be playing if it wasn't for EA.
Careful about taking those walks outside, you know the sun gives you cancer right?
Then again, make sure you get enough sunlight or else wind up with vitamin D deficiency among other things.
Make sure you eat healthy foods like eggs and get enough salt or you can have serious health problems.
Avoid eggs and salt as they cause serious health problems.
Coffee is good for you
No it's not.
There's a study for everything. You could worry about all this stuff and spend lots of time trying to prolong your life, and then die in a car accident. You could get lung cancer without ever smoking tobacco or other carcinogens. Stop worrying about all this and enjoy your life, but remember one bit of common sense: moderation. Who knows what will kill us tomorrow, but if you're not doing too much of any one things, odds are in your favor that you won't be the first on the list to go. (And I was totally going to get links for all those studies I listed, then I didn't care anymore)
Way to find a practical way to get healthy... until you get testicular cancer and die.
Once again we need to remember to do things in moderation. One would think that barbers / stylists would be in better shape than desk jockeys as they are at least walking around all day and moving, yet they can develop major shoulder / back / neck problems from their repetitive tasks. Laborers tend to have shorter lifespans due to the strain it puts on their bodies.
Eat too much junk food, health problems. Drink too much pop, health problems. Drink too much water, health problems.
Moderation, moderation, moderation. (But seriously, congrats on getting the motivation to bike to work every day)
Granted, I did not RTFA, but this story just screams Troll to me. It does little other than start an argument that has been fought many times before. Nothing to see here, move along.
I see what you're saying and don't disagree, but I think there's a better solution that's already being tested: swapping out batteries (the article is old, but it outlines the idea better than other links I found). Why charge your car when you can keep one battery at home on the charge and swap it out with the one in your car? As long as the battery is easily accessible and replaceable, it would should be faster than 10 minutes. I don't see any advantage to fast charging besides not having to get your hands dirty, which may be taken care of by the robots anyway.
If your wife and you are the only ones home and she gets murdered with nobody else around, chances are you're going to get convicted. If you can provide no proof that you were elsewhere or that someone else was there, and they can prove that she was murdered (both postulates are assumed in your statement, and are true in the original case as well), then there exists no reasonable doubt that somebody else could have committed the crime.
No. Just, no. There needs to be more proof to convict someone of murder (and there should need to be more proof for any crime, imo). Where's the murder weapon? The motive? A witness? If you were a juror and the prosecution's only evidence was a lack of any except that the man was home alone with his wife, would you really be comfortable convicting that person of the crime? You're jumping to conclusions, and that's the problem with people taking IP addresses as proof of an individual's actions. There are plenty of ways that IP addresses can be hijacked (I don't feel the need to go into them as they have been listed many times), so more care should be taken before assuming that a person is the same as an IP address.
Well, I'll sort of let you weasel out of it. You're still dancing around the issue. The issue at hand is whether or not IP address alone is enough to identify a person. You sort of agree that it's not, but then try to say that it is: If you have enough good evidence, a court will probably agree that an IP address can identify a person. Clearly, if you have "enough good evidence", then you don't have just an IP address. Sure, if you have email activity during that time, online credit card purchases, and other such things, then you've got a decent chance at identifying someone (of course, there's still a lot of ways that could be someone else, but that's beside the point). IP address alone is not enough, and not enough people, including judges, understand that.
Then I think we agree that IP address are not proof of a person committing a crime. Remember, this was the initial post I was responding to:
IF the person has a home network, then [ip address] only identifies that network. If the person lives alone and only has one computer, it does effectively identify the person.
It doesn't sound like you actually agree with that statement, which was what I was arguing against the whole time.
IP activity itself is evidence that your computer was used (i.e. you were "at the scene of the crime").
And this brings us back to my original point: many people believe this statement to be true, but it is not. Do you really believe your statement, or are you saying that courts believe that? If you truly believe that IP activity is proof that an individual committed some crime, then I really don't know what to say to you that could help you learn enough to understand why you're wrong. If you think that it is evidence for a court case, then you may be right, but you're right because there have been bad decisions in the past made by ignorant judges who don't understand what's really going on.
You're leaving out a rather important step there, namely physical evidence that you were home at the time of the murder. If there's good physical evidence that you were present at the time of the murder, and there's no evidence at all that anyone else was there, the prosecution has a fairly good, though not excellent, case. Since you live there, finding evidence specific to the time of the murder may be difficult, especially if the murder weapon is an item from the house that you've handled frequently (making it easy to explain your fingerprints).
EXACTLY!! Without the physical evidence, being at the scene of the crime does not mean you committed the crime. So why do you think that activity from a certain IP address is enough to prove that an individual committed some act?
I think we're on a different page from Dragon and some of the others. I've been arguing that activity from certain IP addresses isn't enough to prove a certain individual initiated that activity, while they're arguing that all these examples aren't enough to prove that an individual didn't commit a crime. Regardless, I still think the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
Slashdot Mirror
That post is the other guy. I was replying to the troll.
Can you provide references for your claims? I can't figure out if you don't understand the concept of Marxism or Atheism, but you're clearly confused about something.
When they figure out a way to put a condom in a mobile phone, then the wallet will be obsolete.
What, you don't think drawing a whole bunch of attention to an issue is a good way to deal with it? Now that's crazy talk. If everybody knows about the parties, then of course they'll stop happening; that's common sense.
And the Sears / Willis Tower in Chicago is slated to have such windows installed: Chicago Tower Solar Farm
It shows the time in the bottom left. It looks like the majority of the activity took place over 3 hours.
I'm all for some method for the president to sign bills if he's overseas or can't sign it 'in person' or whatever. This is completely separate from the issue of whether or not the actual signing of the renewal of the bill is a good thing. Sure, maybe faxes or other methods are better, but trying to invalidate the signing over this is a technicality; if the president signed it and confirms that he signed it, the issue should be over.
With that said, I'm really disappointed that this bill went through.
Yeah, but if you pay the trolls, it might be a lot cheaper than the legal fees involved with a lawsuit...
I just couldn't help myself.
This is a perfect example of free market, though. The market should create cafes where people can 'set up shop' and others where no electronics are allowed. There's no "they should do THIS because THAT is wrong" because it's a matter of opinion and both options can be available.
Agreed. Not sure why there needs to be a negative spin on his leaving. He did good things for the company, they had some disagreements, and now he's moving on. That sounds like the story of many of the millions of people who search for new jobs every year.
I agree. So Fringe is moving to Friday? I don't know what day of the week it aired on anyway. I don't know the date and time of almost all of my series recordings, so time slot really isn't an issue to me.
Agreed.
It's kinda like the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The DDoS attacks themselves aren't hurting human rights groups (like the heading leads one to believe), but instead there are people using DDoS attacks to threaten such groups.
Or it's like saying that, "Space shuttle launches harm grizzly bears." If I read that, I'd think there was something going on with space shuttle launches that were damaging to the world's grizzly bear population, when the article just has a bunch of info about a grizzly bear strapped to the nose of a space shuttle doesn't survive the flight.
There are a lot of questions that will probably go unanswered for a long time.
Right now, I'm wondering why 'they' bothered with a DDoS attack anyway. It looks like the information is starting to come out through other sources, and eventually WikiLeaks would get back online and release it as well. Inevitably, the information was going to get leaked, or at least the DDoS attack wasn't going to shut it out forever.
So why the DDoS attack? Knowing that it wouldn't prevent the information from being released, it must be a stall tactic, so what do they have to gain from stalling? Assuming this was orchestrated by the US, why show your hand just to stall? I know there were some questions before about the US's cyber capabilities, so it seems strange to me to launch an attack like this just to buy time.
Not that there isn't a place for business strategy in the video game market, but that quote gave me the chills too. It scares me when the strategy is to overtake markets by creating games to fill those markets instead of making great games that naturally expand into said new markets.
I, for one, miss UO and was not "into the PvP scene" as I think you mean it. Sure, I had a PvP character and a thief as well, but those were for revenge, not the greifing everyone has been talking about. I had two accounts and the whole range of characters. I played with friends that I knew in rl and met more than a few in-game. I joined guilds and ran guilds. I got involved with quests and in-game events. I loved playing UO. I played UO for 6 years until EA took over, banned one of my accounts for dying clothes purple, and started giving out old, rare gifts to newbs (yes, that's how it was spelled when I played UO) which destroyed the value of things I spent years collecting. I've tried other games, but haven't spent more than a month on a MMO since. Nothing else compares, and I think it's the skill system, not the griefing. Sure, that isn't the point of the summary, but there are plenty of people out there who miss UO for reasons other than PvP. Despite PKs, I would still be playing if it wasn't for EA.
Careful about taking those walks outside, you know the sun gives you cancer right?
Then again, make sure you get enough sunlight or else wind up with vitamin D deficiency among other things.
Make sure you eat healthy foods like eggs and get enough salt or you can have serious health problems.
Avoid eggs and salt as they cause serious health problems.
Coffee is good for you
No it's not.
There's a study for everything. You could worry about all this stuff and spend lots of time trying to prolong your life, and then die in a car accident. You could get lung cancer without ever smoking tobacco or other carcinogens. Stop worrying about all this and enjoy your life, but remember one bit of common sense: moderation. Who knows what will kill us tomorrow, but if you're not doing too much of any one things, odds are in your favor that you won't be the first on the list to go. (And I was totally going to get links for all those studies I listed, then I didn't care anymore)
Way to find a practical way to get healthy... until you get testicular cancer and die.
Once again we need to remember to do things in moderation. One would think that barbers / stylists would be in better shape than desk jockeys as they are at least walking around all day and moving, yet they can develop major shoulder / back / neck problems from their repetitive tasks. Laborers tend to have shorter lifespans due to the strain it puts on their bodies. Eat too much junk food, health problems. Drink too much pop, health problems. Drink too much water, health problems.
Moderation, moderation, moderation. (But seriously, congrats on getting the motivation to bike to work every day)
Granted, I did not RTFA, but this story just screams Troll to me. It does little other than start an argument that has been fought many times before. Nothing to see here, move along.
I see what you're saying and don't disagree, but I think there's a better solution that's already being tested: swapping out batteries (the article is old, but it outlines the idea better than other links I found). Why charge your car when you can keep one battery at home on the charge and swap it out with the one in your car? As long as the battery is easily accessible and replaceable, it would should be faster than 10 minutes. I don't see any advantage to fast charging besides not having to get your hands dirty, which may be taken care of by the robots anyway.
No. Just, no. There needs to be more proof to convict someone of murder (and there should need to be more proof for any crime, imo). Where's the murder weapon? The motive? A witness? If you were a juror and the prosecution's only evidence was a lack of any except that the man was home alone with his wife, would you really be comfortable convicting that person of the crime? You're jumping to conclusions, and that's the problem with people taking IP addresses as proof of an individual's actions. There are plenty of ways that IP addresses can be hijacked (I don't feel the need to go into them as they have been listed many times), so more care should be taken before assuming that a person is the same as an IP address.
Well, I'll sort of let you weasel out of it. You're still dancing around the issue. The issue at hand is whether or not IP address alone is enough to identify a person. You sort of agree that it's not, but then try to say that it is: If you have enough good evidence, a court will probably agree that an IP address can identify a person. Clearly, if you have "enough good evidence", then you don't have just an IP address. Sure, if you have email activity during that time, online credit card purchases, and other such things, then you've got a decent chance at identifying someone (of course, there's still a lot of ways that could be someone else, but that's beside the point). IP address alone is not enough, and not enough people, including judges, understand that.
It doesn't sound like you actually agree with that statement, which was what I was arguing against the whole time.
Thanks, that was cute.
And this brings us back to my original point: many people believe this statement to be true, but it is not. Do you really believe your statement, or are you saying that courts believe that? If you truly believe that IP activity is proof that an individual committed some crime, then I really don't know what to say to you that could help you learn enough to understand why you're wrong. If you think that it is evidence for a court case, then you may be right, but you're right because there have been bad decisions in the past made by ignorant judges who don't understand what's really going on.
EXACTLY!! Without the physical evidence, being at the scene of the crime does not mean you committed the crime. So why do you think that activity from a certain IP address is enough to prove that an individual committed some act?
I think we're on a different page from Dragon and some of the others. I've been arguing that activity from certain IP addresses isn't enough to prove a certain individual initiated that activity, while they're arguing that all these examples aren't enough to prove that an individual didn't commit a crime. Regardless, I still think the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.