There's a big difference between wanting them to die and wanting them to die horribly.
The first one, I guess I can accept the reasoning behind that. The second one baffles me. I'm not sure how my prior comment is a troll but it's all good, I've got karma to burn.
Hmm... Self-driving accomplishes much of the same thing but it doesn't then put 1,000,000+ people in the area all needing services. That's kind of an important aspect. Part of the whole thing is that not everyone that would be on the road is an instigator. There's tourist, journalists, locals, businesses, etc... They've all gotta be dealt with too and there's no way of knowing who did what and who is there to protest vs. those who are there for alternative reasons.
It'd shut that whole area down. Someone mentioned just pushing them away with trucks. The political fallout from *that* would be beyond the pale.
That doesn't sound that bad. My home is in Maine - I am not home currently. My mains electricity is actually my backup. (That's not a joke.) Fiber won't do me much good unless they put it in the ground - they won't. Comcast gets rated worst for customer service on a regular basis in the yearly poll thing that they do.
I'm kind of surprised that you can't get serviced from other ISPs on DSL? The laws (in my area and NC) mean that anyone can do it - and I've found quite a few that have. I have disparate connections and have had more than one ISP at a time. (I was proving a point to my current ISP as they irked me a bit.) At one point, I had a small provider who doesn't even have any physical presence in Maine and, as near as I know, only had a few customers in Maine at all. They had an existing relationship with the telephone company in NH so they were aware of the regulations and had no problem hooking me up. Then I want with Oxford Networks (GWI) and they don't even advertise in my area and all of our communication was done by email.
Every one of my switchovers have been seamless. The network goes out a few days after I get it set up and the outage lasts for about long enough to get a new IP address. That's it. I then double check and call to cancel the old service. As they all send out their own gear, I've never even unboxed some of it. Oddly, they've all sent out their own gear, even when i requested they not do so. I never, ever, use ISP provided gear - a mildly amusing topic for another day. Sometimes they don't even ask for it back. I buy upper-end business class gear or use my own routers, I refuse to use ISP provided gear. Yes, yes that does make them angry. I love DSL for the protections it offers me as a consumer.
I guess, I might be getting fiber by the end of this coming fall. I'll add it but I'll be keeping DSL as my backup. Fiber won't stand up to the weather - we get dozens of trees on the line every year. Dozens... I've seen the copper lines on the ground and still had a pretty decent throughput when I got home. Fiber isn't going to stand up to that and they're not going to invest enough to sink it into the ground. Given how much the ground moves as the frost moves in and out, I'm not actually sure how well it would deal with that.
That's not gonna help with a million of them - at least not quickly. They're gonna have to do something like that - it's going to take a long time and make the clean-up even worse. Then, who's going to pay for it? Many, many of those vehicles will not have been there intentionally. They'd be "innocent victims" so to speak. They were just trying to travel around. It'd be HUGE - many, many miles and will ripple out from there.
They can roll in with heavy equipment but we're talking a million cars AND the political fallout from that - and the expenses associated.
Yup. Can you imagine if they all tried to arrive at 1600 PA Ave - on the same day, at the same time, and if there were a *million* cars? Not 1000, not 1000, but 1,000,000... Yeah... It would be awesome! It'd get some attention. I almost want a reason to protest bad enough to need that sort of intervention just so that I can see the results. It'd shut the city down. I seriously think that it'd shut the city down for at least a month.
I tried to estimate all the available parking and road surface area and then worked from there with very low estimates. The area it fills (with increasing effect as it spreads outwards as there are fewer entry roads) would be huge. The guess of a month is pulled from my ass, however. Where would they even store the vehicles? They can't just punish everyone - who was there for the trip and who was there by happenstance?
It *will* result in getting a message across. You only need a million people to partake. That's a good sized group of people - and I'm sure it'd work with less. It'd take a sizable portion to actually get good results so it's not like just any group of people can do this. They've got to be dedicated and willing to accept some risks so only the true-believer types would do it, so that sort of thing stops people from doing it just because they don't want a new fast food joint in town.
I've also thought about it at the State level. In some or the larger States, it could be rather effective as well. Man, now I kind of hope the next president and co. decide to try to get an amendment to remove the 4th Amendment or something - just so I can see the results of a protest like that. I'm pretty sure if you shut down DC for a month, filling it with many many tons of automobiles, there's not much chance of them still having the temerity to pass such a bill - as pissed as they might be.
The protesters need only make sure that they deliver a clear and consistent complaint and try to control who speaks authoritatively on their behalf. If they can do that, they are going to do quite well. People might even try joining them and that'd result in holy hell breaking lose. They can't remove the cars as fast as people can replace them. If they stop them, they're just adding new sources of gridlock and congestion to an overloaded system.
They're not designed for things like this. We've neither the tools nor infrastructure to handle things like that in a rapid manner. It would be awesome! I am getting kind of old so my time is running out. Maybe I should vote for the worst possible candidates I can find and help this along. I really, really would like to see how that works in reality. So long as they're entirely peaceful protesters, they should be reasonably safe. Don't argue, don't fight, don't yell, and go peacefully if you get arrested. I'm not sure what they could arrest people for.
If it's old, I'd never heard of it before, it just occurred to me as I read it. It might actually be original content. If so, you're welcome to it and can take it with you wherever you go. Consider it yours.
I've never noticed the page to tell the difference and it's really not as good as I'd like - I still see occasional ads and there's no way to refine it beyond that.
(I've got Midori installed - I just had it running a few minutes ago as I was checking a page's display in it.)
I know, personally, the originator and some of the folks who maintain the list. It's all good - if you do the web-of-trust type of thing then I'll "sign their certificate." I extend my trust reputation to them. They're good people and do what they can to maintain a clean list. At the very least, you can easily scan it visually and ensure that nothing is out of place. So long as it doesn't send anything anywhere other than 0.0.0.0 there's not much it can do to actually cause harm.
Now, if they're including things (and they don't) other than IP addresses to the localhost there's a concern. That's not difficult to scan for, just open the file(s) with a plain text editor and page-down until you reach the bottom and watch as it goes by. You will notice anything that doesn't look right because it doesn't match the 0.0.0.0 entry. They use standard tab-widths for entries into the file.
'Tis not only harmless but run by a good group of people (though I've not kept tough) and the majority of them are still involved in some fashion. The actual originator is still involved. There's nothing really horrible that they could do that would cause much harm, not without someone noticing and not without a concerted effort from a whole bunch of other people. Then, probably, they could actually do some evil things like redirecting a popular site to an address other than localhost or redirecting a needed security site to localhost so that you can't reach it. That'd be noticed and, really, they're unlikely to trash their reputation that they've worked this hard to build.
You probably know that BUT there's a less informed group of people who may read and believe the site might be malicious. There has been an increasing number of posts made by people who haven't taken the time to learn to properly understand and use their tools. They may very well believe that the site is malicious - I'd not even be surprised a little bit by such a proclamation.
You can sue anyone for anything. Really, that's largely true. Feel free to try to bring suit against them. You might just as well throw in (and I'm not kidding) the site, the hosting company, your browser's vendor, the person(s) involved in making the site, the hosting company (if applicable), the owners of the data center(s) (if applicable, the person(s) tasked with operating the data center, the ISP(s) involved, and anyone with "security" in their title at any of the above companies/providers.
You're not getting a damned thing but you want to name as many people as possible in your suit. I'm really not kidding about that - name anyone who might even remotely have been able to prevent it up to, and including, anyone who nominally was tasked with the specific area in question (in this case security). You won't even have to pay for a lawyer if you want, you read a few books, spend a little time in the library, and do some online research. You don't even have to do that part, but you should.
You can also sue for anything - pretty much. I mean, you can sue them for a pony or a rainbow. Really... You can sue them for a pink unicorn fart, if you really want to. You just stomp on down, appropriate paperwork and filing fees in hand, and submit your papers to the Clerk of Courts who will, in turn, ensure that they get to a judge. And, I can assure you, they *will* be read by a judge. At that point, one of several things will happen and you'll be able to go from there.
In this case, in particular, you'd probably at least be given a hearing - assuming that you've demonstrated that you have standing.
Have you, personally, been harmed by this or are you just unhappy? If you've not able to show how you've been harmed (most specifically, how a reasonable person would conclude that you have been harmed) then you don't have standing.
Which really brings us to the important place... You can sue for anything but you're not going to get anywhere without showing that you have standing.
Yes, yes it is. Well, at the very least you should practice safe hex and keep a least-privilege point of view with all of your computing activities. This is nothing different.
Why are people allowing more unknown code than necessary to run on their computer? And no, ignorance is no excuse - it's up to the user of the tool to understand how to use it properly. Some personal responsibility is important. Learning to safely use the tools is an essential part of using those tools and there are a whole lot of freely available resources for those who wish to learn about safe tool use.
Blocking ads is a part of safety - given the way in which they are blocked. Allowing third-party content is not a safe practice. Giving other people the ability to control your property means you're giving up control of that property. This is not a binary thing - you can pick and choose whom and how much. It's very much a sliding scale about what you want to do and what risks you're willing to accept to do it.
As I've said countless times, security is a process and not an application. That process includes controlling your tools and knowing how to use them.
I'm certainly not alone. We've been saying this for years. That you pose this as a question, if not being sarcastic, is disturbing. This is Slashdot, we're usually pretty smart and have known this for years. I was using an ad-blocking utility in the mid-1990s. I've used one to this day. I've since learned more and increased my refinement levels and am more selective as I learn.
I'm glad you've finally figured this out. Go grab a copy of uMatrix for your browser. There's even a copy for Firefox now. Stop letting shit in to begin with. Then, when you're done with that, you can add an ad-blocker on top of it.
Why? I don't like what they have to say and, as is known, I'm even part black. It neither bothers me nor does it make me wish death (or even horrific death) on them. There's lots of things that people say and do that I don't particularly like. I don't have to like everything.
If we eliminate things we don't like then, eventually, there will come a time when you're in the group of people that is disliked. You don't think morality stops with just what you want, do you? I can assure you, there are people who don't like the things you say - and want you to die, horribly. If we could all just get a little bit past that sort of thinking, the world might actually be a nicer place - even though we'd still have people trolling like the AC that you responded to.
Hell, as I said, I'm part black and I'm not even the least bit offended by them. No, the word nigger does not offend me - even when used as a pejorative. Hell, if anything, I'm more unhappy (but not wanting them to die horribly) when it is used in a non-pejorative way.
I don't get why you'd want someone to be dead just because you don't like what they are saying. That literally makes no sense to me. None. I've tried to suss it out and reason my way to understanding but humans confuse me. Yeah, they're idiots. Oh well... The world is full of idiots. I can't imagine why I'd want anyone to die horribly. To me, that would make me equally horrible.
Shit, I agree with the death penalty (just be honest about it) and I still don't want them to die horribly. No, I want it to be as painless as possible. I'm not really sure what that has to do with it but it seemed salient so I figured I'd add it. It's right up there with wanting people to be raped and beaten in prison or hoping they never get out of jail. No, I hope they get better and they're in jail as punishment and not for additional punishment.
Seriously, explain your reasoning/logic to me - if you can. I've asked others before (in very similar circumstances) and (ironically) gotten replies like, "Fuck you faggot." Yup... From the same person I've asked to explain. So far, not one has ever been able to explain how they reasoned themselves into holding and voicing such a position. It's not like you're the first person to express such views. Others do advocate for censoring them, that's a little more logical than wanting them to die. Others often express a desire to be the person who physically harms the individual, that's even less logical.
The developer version of Opera now has built-in ad blocking. One of the neat things that it includes is the chance to load a page without it and with it, in a side-by-side comparison, and it's rather interesting because it also gives you a loading speed and then shows you the differences.
I've done some playing with it...
Normally, I block ads and scripting that's not from the originating domain. I don't see ads, I don't like ads, I will happily donate (and I often do) to keep a site up if it is looking like they need money. If a site requests that I disable my ad-blocking, I leave. I do not still use the site while blocking ads - I respect their property.
If I allow remote scripts to run and then use the ad-blocking comparison tool with Opera, it tells me that the average site I visit loads from 40 to 50% more quickly. Those are actual load times. I have no idea how much bandwidth is being saved. I usually have a fairly secure operating system so I'm not too worried that it's going to result in malware infections but that's probably a good metric to consider as well.
The gist of this post is that it's just practicing safe hex to block ads. It's not just good to block the ads but it's good to block third party scripts in general. One might go so far as to suggest blocking all of them - which I do, by default. I doubt most people are willing to go through that effort so I'm not going to suggest that everyone try that. I block all third party scripts by default. It does actually eat up some time BUT that time is well spent. I use a whitelist-based approach. I only visit so many sites and I do so with least privilege and then only enable what is needed for functionality and some cosmetics. I then save it and it gets pushed out to other machines that I use - it's actually fairly automated and I use a central repository that I can even access remotely.
I only visit so many sites where I want any additional features. I keep a lot of that stuff from even entering. I've got uMatrix set to, "Holy Shit Batman" mode. I block a lot of stuff and then just whitelist as I go. I even block some stuff on the first-party domain by default. Yup... Even that gets initially whitelisted and added as needed. If I don't need the cookie to function, I don't load it. If I don't need the script to run, I don't load that either. Hell, I've had images disabled by default but, gotta be honest, that kind of sucks.
So no, I don't recommend that folks do that. That's a lot of work - but only at first. After the work is done, it's saved forever and gets pushed out to my other devices so I need only do it once. Somewhere between doing that (or browsing in Lynx) is a viable solution that people should make educated and informed choices about. Security is a process, not an application. It's about trade-offs, pragmatism, and deciding what risks one will take in order to perform the desired task.
Basically, the web's dangerous. Practice safe hex.
It does remind me of my way to absolutely make the government notice a large enough group of unhappy people - without violence. I'll try to make it brief...
Remember the million man march?
Today, we have GPS. Set a date like the day that Congress has its first session or perhaps for the President's Address to the Nation. Set GPS to arrive at PA Ave in DC. Figure out when it will make you arrive there at noon. Everyone try to get to that address, on that date, at noon. Drive your car as close to that destination as possible. Stop car. Get out of the car. Lock doors. Close doors. Go to hotel.
Can you imagine what would happen if a million cars all tried to park on that one street at that one time? All of them arriving at the same time will result in a gridlock that takes weeks to clear. Do not do anything violent. Maybe put a few signs on the car or hang out at the mall every day while they try to get all the cars cleared out.
All of 'em, trying to arrive at once - a million cars PLUS all the cars that are already in the city, and it will be blocked for MILES AND MILES around the city. The entire corridor will be clogged for weeks as it ripples out. They have nowhere to put all those cars. You wouldn't even need a million. However, a million cars - at one time, would gridlock that whole area for a *very* long time. They don't even have the equipment to move the vehicles that quickly, they're not prepared for it.
It's not something a terrorist can do - they don't have a million supporters driving cars. It is something that a passionate group of angry Americans can do. There's no need for a revolution, a civil war, or even a bunch of draconian laws to push until things break. Long before it reaches that point, make yourselves heard. This, this will DEFINITELY get your voices heard. We have about 200 million PRIVATELY OWNED passenger vehicles on the road today. 1:200 people could probably shut that place down for a month, if not longer.
At one point, using the 1,000,000 figure, I tried doing the math based on rough averages of road surface availabilities and the current cars in place - that all had to be estimated. It worked out to about 35 miles in each direction, from the center, being full of cars - before the ripple effect took place. I can't model for that. I imagine that I've much greater tools available for doing so today but, alas, I'm pretty apathetic.
I can assure you - they have no way to deal with something like that in a speedy manner. The protesters needn't be violent. I'm not even sure if it'd be breaking any major laws. It's going to *really* suck for the locals but hopefully they understand. If they put barriers up around the city and refuse entrance, park as close to the barriers as possible and stop. The infrastructure is designed for throughput, not standing. It *will* collapse in a spectacular fashion.
At any rate, that's what your joke reminded me of. Your joke is shorter, I'm stealing it.
No, your reading comprehension is flawed. That's covered with the "strange luck" and is intentionally why I wrote "strange luck." After all, what are the odds of that? Not very high, not very high at all.
Sure, I don't think that runs counter to anything I said - do you?
Well, I suppose you must, given the tone and that you bothered replying.
To demonstrate, I don't think I've seen any disturbing things in the subways in the Boston area nor on the buses. The buses in the area I'm local with at the moment aren't bad at all - or weren't the last time I was on them. I've not been on them at all since I came down here to spend the winter but I've been on them before. I've not been on any of Boston's subways in a few years but I did take a train down to Boston from Portland and that was actually quite nice.
I've been on shitty and good public transport across the globe. The US' isn't that good but that's not really the point of my reply to them either. If you think it is, that means you probably didn't read/understand my post. (The latter of which could be my fault.) No, the point is that they're a liar.
For that to be true, they'd have to have a light side.
I'll mention that I've spent this winter in Florida - up in the panhandle, I've property on the beach in PCB. Now that the college girls have gone back (Panama City Beach is the home of Spring Break and where it all got its start)... Well, let's just say there's a bunch of definitions for light (or perhaps bright) and I'm going to wager there's not a whole lot "light" about a good many of 'em.
Thing is, I don't know how they can get and stay so big. I'm from a bit further up the coast (mostly in NC - to VA range but now reside in NW Maine) and I melt away in the shade. It's not even noon and it's almost 80 - with a "feels like" that's a bit higher and the humidity is going to be 90% tonight. Yeah, I'd melt.
However, I'm still waiting on two more calls and then I'll be out of here - hopefully. I'm going even further south. I'm going to go to Cuba. I've been twice but never officially - I've never been able to get my passport stamped. So, I'm going again before the influx of Americans changes. I'm trying to get the approval expedited and we'll see. I'm not sure how long I'll get to stay but I'm hoping it's for up to a month. I found someone local (two, actually) who can and will fly the missus and I down. She's never been (having only previously left the country to go to Canada) so it's a good place for her to start seeing the world with me.
The only Swahili I know is "Jambo." I used to know some other words but I've long since forgotten and I've not been back to southern Africa in a while. Oh, Jakola. (I have no idea how that's spelled - pronounced ja cool ah.) That means food. Jambo means hello. Hmm... About ten minutes after I send this, I'll remember a few more words.
No, nautical miles are abbreviated as "N" or "N.M." typically. However, I'm not talking about what it is, I'm talking about what the poster probably meant. Unless you're that AC - which seems unlikely, given that you'd basically being saying that you did something wrong only it was not only wrong, your attempted correction would be wrong. As non-meters makes no sense in this case.
Your username is apropos, considering the comment and the PDF located at your link. I was greatly amused and it's about what I was expecting. I've seen another, no idea what it actually was about but I actually think the requesting party believed it might have been about aliens (I kid you not), and it was almost entirely blacked out. Needless to say, the redacted document did, as I recollect, made the interested parties all the more certain of the conspiracy to hide alien/government contact, information, knowledge.
I'm not positive but I seem to recall they requested a document that had something to do with how it would force an acknowledgement of "Area 51" and that the area was not officially confirmed or denied at the time. They were alien hunting types of people - at least that's what my memory is saying. My Google-fu is weak or unable to find a link to either confirm or deny that my memory is valid. (Perhaps there's some sort of alien memory-erasing technology at work? It's cleverly disguised as weed.)
You're free to try any of those things. You mistake the terms freedom and liberty, you're not alone. You're free, for instance, to get a plane and pilot and strap up and do that. You're just going to face a whole bunch of consequences.
I'll try to help you out. This is one of my favorite topics...
I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so. If you try to physically harm me and there is no other recourse available then I have a right to kill you.
The words aren't really synonymous. It is essential, for clear communication, to use them properly - more so given the importance of the subjects. You are, in fact, free to (try to) do any of those things you mentioned. You're not at liberty to do so. However, I'm hoping to go to Cuba today or tomorrow (see my journal and a few other posts) but I'm going in the "people-to-people" type of classification. I'm going "for cultural enrichment." (I've been to Cuba twice but was not able to do so and get my US passport stamped without fear or repercussions.)
Come this fall, you'll be able to go strictly as a tourist. However, you can go now - just say you're going for cultural enrichment. Hell, say you're going to go take pictures for your blog or to show your friends and family. You can pretty much go for any reason you want. We decided to go on Monday, we're almost ready to go now. We're still waiting for approval but I've got some folks working on making it be a bit speedier than most. I've also got means of transport available - though none of them have flown to Cuba before.
I want to go before the rest of the Americans go there and fuck it up. I enjoyed it last time. I already went and wiped out the local department store out of their stock of USB thumb-drives to bring as gifts. I've only been twice before and that's what they've requested I return with - both times. I'm going to try to bring in about 200 of them. (That was all they had.) It'd kind of suck if I'm not allowed to go but I should be approved - I just don't know how long they'll let me stay and won't know until just prior to when I leave - at least not with any certainty. I can do up to a month before I get back, then I've got to go back up north as I have business to attend to.
At any rate, the gist of it is that you're free to do the things you mentioned (or at leas try) but that you're not at liberty to do so. It might seem like a trivial difference but it is not. I'd say it's one of the more important distinctions to be made. "Those who would give up essential liberties..." "Give me liberty or..." "Statue of Liberty." Etc..
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between wanting them to die and wanting them to die horribly.
The first one, I guess I can accept the reasoning behind that. The second one baffles me. I'm not sure how my prior comment is a troll but it's all good, I've got karma to burn.
LOL I know... I know... I was still referring to the P=NP. If P is equal to N×P then N must be 1, i.e. basic algebra. I was solving for N.
Hmm... Self-driving accomplishes much of the same thing but it doesn't then put 1,000,000+ people in the area all needing services. That's kind of an important aspect. Part of the whole thing is that not everyone that would be on the road is an instigator. There's tourist, journalists, locals, businesses, etc... They've all gotta be dealt with too and there's no way of knowing who did what and who is there to protest vs. those who are there for alternative reasons.
It'd shut that whole area down. Someone mentioned just pushing them away with trucks. The political fallout from *that* would be beyond the pale.
Yes, yes that's exactly that.
That doesn't sound that bad. My home is in Maine - I am not home currently. My mains electricity is actually my backup. (That's not a joke.) Fiber won't do me much good unless they put it in the ground - they won't. Comcast gets rated worst for customer service on a regular basis in the yearly poll thing that they do.
I'm kind of surprised that you can't get serviced from other ISPs on DSL? The laws (in my area and NC) mean that anyone can do it - and I've found quite a few that have. I have disparate connections and have had more than one ISP at a time. (I was proving a point to my current ISP as they irked me a bit.) At one point, I had a small provider who doesn't even have any physical presence in Maine and, as near as I know, only had a few customers in Maine at all. They had an existing relationship with the telephone company in NH so they were aware of the regulations and had no problem hooking me up. Then I want with Oxford Networks (GWI) and they don't even advertise in my area and all of our communication was done by email.
Every one of my switchovers have been seamless. The network goes out a few days after I get it set up and the outage lasts for about long enough to get a new IP address. That's it. I then double check and call to cancel the old service. As they all send out their own gear, I've never even unboxed some of it. Oddly, they've all sent out their own gear, even when i requested they not do so. I never, ever, use ISP provided gear - a mildly amusing topic for another day. Sometimes they don't even ask for it back. I buy upper-end business class gear or use my own routers, I refuse to use ISP provided gear. Yes, yes that does make them angry. I love DSL for the protections it offers me as a consumer.
I guess, I might be getting fiber by the end of this coming fall. I'll add it but I'll be keeping DSL as my backup. Fiber won't stand up to the weather - we get dozens of trees on the line every year. Dozens... I've seen the copper lines on the ground and still had a pretty decent throughput when I got home. Fiber isn't going to stand up to that and they're not going to invest enough to sink it into the ground. Given how much the ground moves as the frost moves in and out, I'm not actually sure how well it would deal with that.
That's not gonna help with a million of them - at least not quickly. They're gonna have to do something like that - it's going to take a long time and make the clean-up even worse. Then, who's going to pay for it? Many, many of those vehicles will not have been there intentionally. They'd be "innocent victims" so to speak. They were just trying to travel around. It'd be HUGE - many, many miles and will ripple out from there.
They can roll in with heavy equipment but we're talking a million cars AND the political fallout from that - and the expenses associated.
42
Yup. Can you imagine if they all tried to arrive at 1600 PA Ave - on the same day, at the same time, and if there were a *million* cars? Not 1000, not 1000, but 1,000,000... Yeah... It would be awesome! It'd get some attention. I almost want a reason to protest bad enough to need that sort of intervention just so that I can see the results. It'd shut the city down. I seriously think that it'd shut the city down for at least a month.
I tried to estimate all the available parking and road surface area and then worked from there with very low estimates. The area it fills (with increasing effect as it spreads outwards as there are fewer entry roads) would be huge. The guess of a month is pulled from my ass, however. Where would they even store the vehicles? They can't just punish everyone - who was there for the trip and who was there by happenstance?
It *will* result in getting a message across. You only need a million people to partake. That's a good sized group of people - and I'm sure it'd work with less. It'd take a sizable portion to actually get good results so it's not like just any group of people can do this. They've got to be dedicated and willing to accept some risks so only the true-believer types would do it, so that sort of thing stops people from doing it just because they don't want a new fast food joint in town.
I've also thought about it at the State level. In some or the larger States, it could be rather effective as well. Man, now I kind of hope the next president and co. decide to try to get an amendment to remove the 4th Amendment or something - just so I can see the results of a protest like that. I'm pretty sure if you shut down DC for a month, filling it with many many tons of automobiles, there's not much chance of them still having the temerity to pass such a bill - as pissed as they might be.
The protesters need only make sure that they deliver a clear and consistent complaint and try to control who speaks authoritatively on their behalf. If they can do that, they are going to do quite well. People might even try joining them and that'd result in holy hell breaking lose. They can't remove the cars as fast as people can replace them. If they stop them, they're just adding new sources of gridlock and congestion to an overloaded system.
They're not designed for things like this. We've neither the tools nor infrastructure to handle things like that in a rapid manner. It would be awesome! I am getting kind of old so my time is running out. Maybe I should vote for the worst possible candidates I can find and help this along. I really, really would like to see how that works in reality. So long as they're entirely peaceful protesters, they should be reasonably safe. Don't argue, don't fight, don't yell, and go peacefully if you get arrested. I'm not sure what they could arrest people for.
If it's old, I'd never heard of it before, it just occurred to me as I read it. It might actually be original content. If so, you're welcome to it and can take it with you wherever you go. Consider it yours.
I've never noticed the page to tell the difference and it's really not as good as I'd like - I still see occasional ads and there's no way to refine it beyond that.
(I've got Midori installed - I just had it running a few minutes ago as I was checking a page's display in it.)
I know, personally, the originator and some of the folks who maintain the list. It's all good - if you do the web-of-trust type of thing then I'll "sign their certificate." I extend my trust reputation to them. They're good people and do what they can to maintain a clean list. At the very least, you can easily scan it visually and ensure that nothing is out of place. So long as it doesn't send anything anywhere other than 0.0.0.0 there's not much it can do to actually cause harm.
Now, if they're including things (and they don't) other than IP addresses to the localhost there's a concern. That's not difficult to scan for, just open the file(s) with a plain text editor and page-down until you reach the bottom and watch as it goes by. You will notice anything that doesn't look right because it doesn't match the 0.0.0.0 entry. They use standard tab-widths for entries into the file.
'Tis not only harmless but run by a good group of people (though I've not kept tough) and the majority of them are still involved in some fashion. The actual originator is still involved. There's nothing really horrible that they could do that would cause much harm, not without someone noticing and not without a concerted effort from a whole bunch of other people. Then, probably, they could actually do some evil things like redirecting a popular site to an address other than localhost or redirecting a needed security site to localhost so that you can't reach it. That'd be noticed and, really, they're unlikely to trash their reputation that they've worked this hard to build.
You probably know that BUT there's a less informed group of people who may read and believe the site might be malicious. There has been an increasing number of posts made by people who haven't taken the time to learn to properly understand and use their tools. They may very well believe that the site is malicious - I'd not even be surprised a little bit by such a proclamation.
You can sue anyone for anything. Really, that's largely true. Feel free to try to bring suit against them. You might just as well throw in (and I'm not kidding) the site, the hosting company, your browser's vendor, the person(s) involved in making the site, the hosting company (if applicable), the owners of the data center(s) (if applicable, the person(s) tasked with operating the data center, the ISP(s) involved, and anyone with "security" in their title at any of the above companies/providers.
You're not getting a damned thing but you want to name as many people as possible in your suit. I'm really not kidding about that - name anyone who might even remotely have been able to prevent it up to, and including, anyone who nominally was tasked with the specific area in question (in this case security). You won't even have to pay for a lawyer if you want, you read a few books, spend a little time in the library, and do some online research. You don't even have to do that part, but you should.
You can also sue for anything - pretty much. I mean, you can sue them for a pony or a rainbow. Really... You can sue them for a pink unicorn fart, if you really want to. You just stomp on down, appropriate paperwork and filing fees in hand, and submit your papers to the Clerk of Courts who will, in turn, ensure that they get to a judge. And, I can assure you, they *will* be read by a judge. At that point, one of several things will happen and you'll be able to go from there.
In this case, in particular, you'd probably at least be given a hearing - assuming that you've demonstrated that you have standing.
Have you, personally, been harmed by this or are you just unhappy? If you've not able to show how you've been harmed (most specifically, how a reasonable person would conclude that you have been harmed) then you don't have standing.
Which really brings us to the important place... You can sue for anything but you're not going to get anywhere without showing that you have standing.
How were you, personally, harmed by this?
Yes, yes it is. Well, at the very least you should practice safe hex and keep a least-privilege point of view with all of your computing activities. This is nothing different.
Why are people allowing more unknown code than necessary to run on their computer? And no, ignorance is no excuse - it's up to the user of the tool to understand how to use it properly. Some personal responsibility is important. Learning to safely use the tools is an essential part of using those tools and there are a whole lot of freely available resources for those who wish to learn about safe tool use.
Blocking ads is a part of safety - given the way in which they are blocked. Allowing third-party content is not a safe practice. Giving other people the ability to control your property means you're giving up control of that property. This is not a binary thing - you can pick and choose whom and how much. It's very much a sliding scale about what you want to do and what risks you're willing to accept to do it.
As I've said countless times, security is a process and not an application. That process includes controlling your tools and knowing how to use them.
I'm certainly not alone. We've been saying this for years. That you pose this as a question, if not being sarcastic, is disturbing. This is Slashdot, we're usually pretty smart and have known this for years. I was using an ad-blocking utility in the mid-1990s. I've used one to this day. I've since learned more and increased my refinement levels and am more selective as I learn.
I'm glad you've finally figured this out. Go grab a copy of uMatrix for your browser. There's even a copy for Firefox now. Stop letting shit in to begin with. Then, when you're done with that, you can add an ad-blocker on top of it.
I hope you die horribly.
Why? I don't like what they have to say and, as is known, I'm even part black. It neither bothers me nor does it make me wish death (or even horrific death) on them. There's lots of things that people say and do that I don't particularly like. I don't have to like everything.
If we eliminate things we don't like then, eventually, there will come a time when you're in the group of people that is disliked. You don't think morality stops with just what you want, do you? I can assure you, there are people who don't like the things you say - and want you to die, horribly. If we could all just get a little bit past that sort of thinking, the world might actually be a nicer place - even though we'd still have people trolling like the AC that you responded to.
Hell, as I said, I'm part black and I'm not even the least bit offended by them. No, the word nigger does not offend me - even when used as a pejorative. Hell, if anything, I'm more unhappy (but not wanting them to die horribly) when it is used in a non-pejorative way.
I don't get why you'd want someone to be dead just because you don't like what they are saying. That literally makes no sense to me. None. I've tried to suss it out and reason my way to understanding but humans confuse me. Yeah, they're idiots. Oh well... The world is full of idiots. I can't imagine why I'd want anyone to die horribly. To me, that would make me equally horrible.
Shit, I agree with the death penalty (just be honest about it) and I still don't want them to die horribly. No, I want it to be as painless as possible. I'm not really sure what that has to do with it but it seemed salient so I figured I'd add it. It's right up there with wanting people to be raped and beaten in prison or hoping they never get out of jail. No, I hope they get better and they're in jail as punishment and not for additional punishment.
Seriously, explain your reasoning/logic to me - if you can. I've asked others before (in very similar circumstances) and (ironically) gotten replies like, "Fuck you faggot." Yup... From the same person I've asked to explain. So far, not one has ever been able to explain how they reasoned themselves into holding and voicing such a position. It's not like you're the first person to express such views. Others do advocate for censoring them, that's a little more logical than wanting them to die. Others often express a desire to be the person who physically harms the individual, that's even less logical.
The developer version of Opera now has built-in ad blocking. One of the neat things that it includes is the chance to load a page without it and with it, in a side-by-side comparison, and it's rather interesting because it also gives you a loading speed and then shows you the differences.
I've done some playing with it...
Normally, I block ads and scripting that's not from the originating domain. I don't see ads, I don't like ads, I will happily donate (and I often do) to keep a site up if it is looking like they need money. If a site requests that I disable my ad-blocking, I leave. I do not still use the site while blocking ads - I respect their property.
If I allow remote scripts to run and then use the ad-blocking comparison tool with Opera, it tells me that the average site I visit loads from 40 to 50% more quickly. Those are actual load times. I have no idea how much bandwidth is being saved. I usually have a fairly secure operating system so I'm not too worried that it's going to result in malware infections but that's probably a good metric to consider as well.
The gist of this post is that it's just practicing safe hex to block ads. It's not just good to block the ads but it's good to block third party scripts in general. One might go so far as to suggest blocking all of them - which I do, by default. I doubt most people are willing to go through that effort so I'm not going to suggest that everyone try that. I block all third party scripts by default. It does actually eat up some time BUT that time is well spent. I use a whitelist-based approach. I only visit so many sites and I do so with least privilege and then only enable what is needed for functionality and some cosmetics. I then save it and it gets pushed out to other machines that I use - it's actually fairly automated and I use a central repository that I can even access remotely.
I only visit so many sites where I want any additional features. I keep a lot of that stuff from even entering. I've got uMatrix set to, "Holy Shit Batman" mode. I block a lot of stuff and then just whitelist as I go. I even block some stuff on the first-party domain by default. Yup... Even that gets initially whitelisted and added as needed. If I don't need the cookie to function, I don't load it. If I don't need the script to run, I don't load that either. Hell, I've had images disabled by default but, gotta be honest, that kind of sucks.
So no, I don't recommend that folks do that. That's a lot of work - but only at first. After the work is done, it's saved forever and gets pushed out to my other devices so I need only do it once. Somewhere between doing that (or browsing in Lynx) is a viable solution that people should make educated and informed choices about. Security is a process, not an application. It's about trade-offs, pragmatism, and deciding what risks one will take in order to perform the desired task.
Basically, the web's dangerous. Practice safe hex.
I like that! I'm gonna borrow it.
It does remind me of my way to absolutely make the government notice a large enough group of unhappy people - without violence. I'll try to make it brief...
Remember the million man march?
Today, we have GPS.
Set a date like the day that Congress has its first session or perhaps for the President's Address to the Nation.
Set GPS to arrive at PA Ave in DC.
Figure out when it will make you arrive there at noon.
Everyone try to get to that address, on that date, at noon.
Drive your car as close to that destination as possible.
Stop car.
Get out of the car.
Lock doors.
Close doors.
Go to hotel.
Can you imagine what would happen if a million cars all tried to park on that one street at that one time? All of them arriving at the same time will result in a gridlock that takes weeks to clear. Do not do anything violent. Maybe put a few signs on the car or hang out at the mall every day while they try to get all the cars cleared out.
All of 'em, trying to arrive at once - a million cars PLUS all the cars that are already in the city, and it will be blocked for MILES AND MILES around the city. The entire corridor will be clogged for weeks as it ripples out. They have nowhere to put all those cars. You wouldn't even need a million. However, a million cars - at one time, would gridlock that whole area for a *very* long time. They don't even have the equipment to move the vehicles that quickly, they're not prepared for it.
It's not something a terrorist can do - they don't have a million supporters driving cars. It is something that a passionate group of angry Americans can do. There's no need for a revolution, a civil war, or even a bunch of draconian laws to push until things break. Long before it reaches that point, make yourselves heard. This, this will DEFINITELY get your voices heard. We have about 200 million PRIVATELY OWNED passenger vehicles on the road today. 1:200 people could probably shut that place down for a month, if not longer.
At one point, using the 1,000,000 figure, I tried doing the math based on rough averages of road surface availabilities and the current cars in place - that all had to be estimated. It worked out to about 35 miles in each direction, from the center, being full of cars - before the ripple effect took place. I can't model for that. I imagine that I've much greater tools available for doing so today but, alas, I'm pretty apathetic.
I can assure you - they have no way to deal with something like that in a speedy manner. The protesters needn't be violent. I'm not even sure if it'd be breaking any major laws. It's going to *really* suck for the locals but hopefully they understand. If they put barriers up around the city and refuse entrance, park as close to the barriers as possible and stop. The infrastructure is designed for throughput, not standing. It *will* collapse in a spectacular fashion.
At any rate, that's what your joke reminded me of. Your joke is shorter, I'm stealing it.
No, your reading comprehension is flawed. That's covered with the "strange luck" and is intentionally why I wrote "strange luck." After all, what are the odds of that? Not very high, not very high at all.
Sure, I don't think that runs counter to anything I said - do you?
Well, I suppose you must, given the tone and that you bothered replying.
To demonstrate, I don't think I've seen any disturbing things in the subways in the Boston area nor on the buses. The buses in the area I'm local with at the moment aren't bad at all - or weren't the last time I was on them. I've not been on them at all since I came down here to spend the winter but I've been on them before. I've not been on any of Boston's subways in a few years but I did take a train down to Boston from Portland and that was actually quite nice.
I've been on shitty and good public transport across the globe. The US' isn't that good but that's not really the point of my reply to them either. If you think it is, that means you probably didn't read/understand my post. (The latter of which could be my fault.) No, the point is that they're a liar.
For that to be true, they'd have to have a light side.
I'll mention that I've spent this winter in Florida - up in the panhandle, I've property on the beach in PCB. Now that the college girls have gone back (Panama City Beach is the home of Spring Break and where it all got its start)... Well, let's just say there's a bunch of definitions for light (or perhaps bright) and I'm going to wager there's not a whole lot "light" about a good many of 'em.
Thing is, I don't know how they can get and stay so big. I'm from a bit further up the coast (mostly in NC - to VA range but now reside in NW Maine) and I melt away in the shade. It's not even noon and it's almost 80 - with a "feels like" that's a bit higher and the humidity is going to be 90% tonight. Yeah, I'd melt.
However, I'm still waiting on two more calls and then I'll be out of here - hopefully. I'm going even further south. I'm going to go to Cuba. I've been twice but never officially - I've never been able to get my passport stamped. So, I'm going again before the influx of Americans changes. I'm trying to get the approval expedited and we'll see. I'm not sure how long I'll get to stay but I'm hoping it's for up to a month. I found someone local (two, actually) who can and will fly the missus and I down. She's never been (having only previously left the country to go to Canada) so it's a good place for her to start seeing the world with me.
The only Swahili I know is "Jambo." I used to know some other words but I've long since forgotten and I've not been back to southern Africa in a while. Oh, Jakola. (I have no idea how that's spelled - pronounced ja cool ah.) That means food. Jambo means hello. Hmm... About ten minutes after I send this, I'll remember a few more words.
But, you're right. It probably was Fox. ;-)
No, nautical miles are abbreviated as "N" or "N.M." typically. However, I'm not talking about what it is, I'm talking about what the poster probably meant. Unless you're that AC - which seems unlikely, given that you'd basically being saying that you did something wrong only it was not only wrong, your attempted correction would be wrong. As non-meters makes no sense in this case.
As for a reference for the N.M, as you're likely to not believe me, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That page will also tell you a bit about Knots, they're entirely different things.
Your username is apropos, considering the comment and the PDF located at your link. I was greatly amused and it's about what I was expecting. I've seen another, no idea what it actually was about but I actually think the requesting party believed it might have been about aliens (I kid you not), and it was almost entirely blacked out. Needless to say, the redacted document did, as I recollect, made the interested parties all the more certain of the conspiracy to hide alien/government contact, information, knowledge.
I'm not positive but I seem to recall they requested a document that had something to do with how it would force an acknowledgement of "Area 51" and that the area was not officially confirmed or denied at the time. They were alien hunting types of people - at least that's what my memory is saying. My Google-fu is weak or unable to find a link to either confirm or deny that my memory is valid. (Perhaps there's some sort of alien memory-erasing technology at work? It's cleverly disguised as weed.)
You're free to try any of those things. You mistake the terms freedom and liberty, you're not alone. You're free, for instance, to get a plane and pilot and strap up and do that. You're just going to face a whole bunch of consequences.
I'll try to help you out. This is one of my favorite topics...
I am free to kill you, I am not at liberty to do so. If you try to physically harm me and there is no other recourse available then I have a right to kill you.
The words aren't really synonymous. It is essential, for clear communication, to use them properly - more so given the importance of the subjects. You are, in fact, free to (try to) do any of those things you mentioned. You're not at liberty to do so. However, I'm hoping to go to Cuba today or tomorrow (see my journal and a few other posts) but I'm going in the "people-to-people" type of classification. I'm going "for cultural enrichment." (I've been to Cuba twice but was not able to do so and get my US passport stamped without fear or repercussions.)
Come this fall, you'll be able to go strictly as a tourist. However, you can go now - just say you're going for cultural enrichment. Hell, say you're going to go take pictures for your blog or to show your friends and family. You can pretty much go for any reason you want. We decided to go on Monday, we're almost ready to go now. We're still waiting for approval but I've got some folks working on making it be a bit speedier than most. I've also got means of transport available - though none of them have flown to Cuba before.
I want to go before the rest of the Americans go there and fuck it up. I enjoyed it last time. I already went and wiped out the local department store out of their stock of USB thumb-drives to bring as gifts. I've only been twice before and that's what they've requested I return with - both times. I'm going to try to bring in about 200 of them. (That was all they had.) It'd kind of suck if I'm not allowed to go but I should be approved - I just don't know how long they'll let me stay and won't know until just prior to when I leave - at least not with any certainty. I can do up to a month before I get back, then I've got to go back up north as I have business to attend to.
At any rate, the gist of it is that you're free to do the things you mentioned (or at leas try) but that you're not at liberty to do so. It might seem like a trivial difference but it is not. I'd say it's one of the more important distinctions to be made. "Those who would give up essential liberties..." "Give me liberty or..." "Statue of Liberty." Etc..
Any number multiplied by itself is zero.
So, now you're saying Republicans are fat?