Recent Posts

4526

Living Room / Re: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

« Last post by Renegade on October 29, 2012, 01:41 PM »

The FCC is staffed with government bureaucrats...

The ITU/UN is staffed with bankster bureaucrats...

It's debatable which group manages to cause more damage.

On one hand, we have governments that mismanage economies and plunge people into deep poverty.

Than on the other hand we have the banksters that bought and paid for the governments...

Ah... yeah... The banksters win~!

My 110% "take it to the bank" guarantee about who will win the 2012 US Presidential Elections!

Goldman Sachs~!

4527

Living Room / Re: Data Breach Lawsuits

« Last post by Renegade on October 29, 2012, 01:36 PM »

...companies...care...

-SeraphimLabs (October 29, 2012, 11:58 AM)

Hahahahha~! Seeing those 2 words in the same sentence is just hysterical! Next thing we'll "legislator" and "truth" in the same sentence~!

(It was just sitting there... begging for me to poke it~! )

4528

Living Room / Re: Internet freedoms restrained - SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/CETA/PrECISE-related updates

« Last post by Renegade on October 29, 2012, 11:13 AM »

We're back to this thread. I don't even know the name of the item yet! 

http://www.securityw...-un-control-internet

Showdown Set on Bid to Give UN Control of Internet

"WASHINGTON - It is expected to be the mother of all cyber diplomatic battles.

When delegates gather in Dubai in December for an obscure UN agency meeting, fighting is expected to be intense over proposals to rewrite global telecom rules to effectively give the United Nations control over the Internet.

Russia, China and other countries back a move to place the Internet under the authority of the International Telecommunications Union, a UN agency that sets technical standards for global phone calls. "

-----

Backed by Russia and China hmm? Lovely.

-TaoPhoenix (October 29, 2012, 11:07 AM)

From the article:

Mueller said the ITU "already recognizes the sovereign right of nations to restrict communications into and out of the country."

And we're supposed to believe that? From mouths of the same criminals that want to pass worldwide gun control? Huh?

These people are DANGEROUS.

4529

Developer's Corner / Re: In search of a good/cheap credit card payment service provider

« Last post by Renegade on October 29, 2012, 06:10 AM »

I think that this is the kind of decision that you need to weight very carefully, and that any recommendations will be pretty general. You know your exact requirements, so you're really the only one that can decide on the trade-offs with the different systems.

Here are some that I've used, am familiar with, have met the owners/staff, or whatever:

PayPal - Very robust and relatively easy. Lots of third party support out there. I've never had a serious problem with them.
Merchant account - depends...
Digital River - Truckloads of options here for virtually any kind of software related application you can imagine - excellent delivery systems. These are the "big boys" in the software payment ecosystem.
Northstar - Run by a decent fellow
Avantgate - Very nice people to deal with
Worldpay - Geared towards Europe
Plimus - A lot of people recommend this, but I'm not so sure - I've often heard developers asking about if it is down - they could just have had a bad sales day though. Dunno.
etc.

If you need it for a specific country, then do look into local payment systems as there are MANY systems for specific countries, and they often have better service because they've been able to negotiate better agreements with the local banks and finance institutions.

I don't know if that's much of a help.

4530

Living Room / Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?

« Last post by Renegade on October 29, 2012, 01:41 AM »

Ok, back on topic... Just saw this:

http://publicintelli...-terrorist-internet/

431. Public-private partnerships may also provide a forum to promote minimum standards for the secure retention of data by private sector stakeholders and enhance the channels of communication for the provision of information by private sector stakeholders regarding suspicious activities.

i.e. Because it's illegal for the government to do it, private companies will!

More horrors at the link above. Just posting one of the digital atrocities.

Welcome to planet Earth, where every year is 1984!

4531

Living Room / Re: Data Breach Lawsuits

« Last post by Renegade on October 28, 2012, 09:43 PM »

Hmm..."Two attorneys for a prominent law firm" I see. 

Not exactly the most disinterested of parties to be sounding the alarm are they?

-40hz (October 28, 2012, 09:30 PM)

Problem. Reaction. Solution. The Hegelian Dialectic in action.

4532

Living Room / Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?

« Last post by Renegade on October 28, 2012, 09:00 AM »

^^ Give an inch to government, and they'll take a light year.

The current government is working very diligently to flush Canada down the toilet.

The really messed up thing is that while they way infinite power to listen in on Canadians, they're writing legislation in secret, and not letting Canadians know. It's hypocrisy in the extreme.

4533

Living Room / Re: Raising the Bar on Awesomeness - LMGTFY

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2012, 10:54 AM »

(Ring)

Hi Renegade! This is 2010 calling. We've been here for over 2 years! Nice to meet you!

Yours,

LMGTFY

-TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2012, 09:43 AM)

You're welcome for the plug. That will be $12.50. You can pay in DC credits.

4534

Living Room / Raising the Bar on Awesomeness - LMGTFY

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2012, 09:40 AM »

Saw this through a Pirate Bay FB post. And it just bloody rocks!

http://lmgtfy.com/

Got some retard who can't figure out how to look for an answer? THIS is just a way cool way to send a small message.

For example:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=frackin%27+reserve

The animation is just fantastic!

And gotta love the "Was that so hard?"

4535

Living Room / Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2012, 06:26 AM »

Okay, I'll cash in one of my goodwill points on this one.

-TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2012, 03:59 AM)

Cashed.

Okay, I'll cash in one of my goodwill points on this one. I first noticed the source of the article, and it sent an alarm bell in my head, so I spent some time reading the actual case ruling. At issue is what I feel is the much larger theme in all of law of whether courts should (my phrasing coming up) "issue rulings in the spirit of what social decency thinks the law should say", and the more narrow "issue rulings in the sense of what the law does say".

From a historical sense, remember the old Civil War sense called "States Rights"? In one element that's what is going on here too, the downside of States Rights. Basically no one reads actual texts of the state laws until they show up in a court case that goes *against* common decency. I'm in the awful position of saying that the Court might be "technically" correct *because the law has the horrible flaw which produced this result*. So in my view the next thing the activists should do is point at this case to fix the law with enough language that all the parties of this case agree that the outcome would have been what it "should have been". (Maybe something like "When the Recipient of advances has *difficulty communicating*, additional diligence on the part of the Offeror to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the advances were both requested and desired.")

When one of these kinds of cases goes wrong, it would be interesting if someone (some public defense foundation?) triggered a national law review of the exact same case against the laws of all the states in a charts to then see which states have a flaw that should be fixed legislatively.

Whew! No one seems to be saying these Justices are happy about their ruling! My bet is that they saw an even more disastrous loophole lurking if they ruled the other way, and you know that it only takes one bad ruling with a legal shark waiting to find something truly nasty to perpetrate.

-TaoPhoenix (October 27, 2012, 03:59 AM)

I'm not so sure that the courts were technically correct. Maybe.

The fact is that she is severely mentally retarded. Sure, she can kick and scream in protest in situations that she is familiar with. Less familiar situations? Well, who knows. Nothing in the ruling there hit that point. Dunno.

Even if they were technically correct, the jury gets to interpret the law any darn way they want. They get instructions from the judge, but they are under no obligation to follow those directions exactly. The obvious case is actually the opposite, where a jury find someone innocent - it's called jury nullification.

So, what's the opposite of jury nullification? And would that even make sense?

Clips from the ruling

http://www.jud.ct.go...cr/CR307/307CR83.pdf

‘‘The [victim] is a woman with significant disabilities
that affect the manner in which she interacts with others.
She [suffered a brain hemorrhage after being born
three months premature, and her disabilities include]
cerebral palsy, mental retardation and hydrocephalus.
She cannot walk and needs assistance in performing
the activities of daily living. She is nonverbal but communicates
with others by gesturing and vocalizing and
through the use of a communication board.7 To manifest
her displeasure, she can kick, bite and scratch. The
[victim] can also vocalize her feelings by groaning or
screeching.

I would take it that those are situations that she has been exposed to and understands...

Finally, the prosecutor also presented the testimony
of two physicians, both of whom previously had examined
the victim, regarding their ability to communicate
with her. Jose Reyes, an obstetrician and gynecologist,
testified that when he treated the victim for dermatitis
in her genital area in 2005, he communicated with the
victim through S because he was unable to communicate
with the victim directly. The prosecutor also asked
James Bovienzo, an emergency department physician
who had examined the victim after the alleged sexual
assault, whether he was ‘‘able to discuss matters with
[the victim] while [he was] involved in collecting any
evidence in this case . . . .’’ Bovienzo replied that
‘‘[t]he patient was noncommunicative.’’11

Appears that some situations make her noncommunicative?

The state opposed the motion, arguing that the issue
of physical helplessness and the question of whether the
victim was unable ‘‘to communicate her wishes’’ was
a question of fact for the jury. The trial court denied
the defendant’s motion on the ground that the state had
presented sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be
decided by the jury.

I must say though, that it is better for a court to rule someone innocent after a guilty verdict than to set aside a finding of innocence and rule the defendant guilty.

The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court,
claiming that the state had failed to adduce sufficient
evidence to prove that the victim’s disabilities rendered
her physically helpless within the meaning of § 53a-65
(6). State v. Fourtin, supra, 118 Conn. App. 47. The
defendant argued that the state ‘‘[had] not alleged that,
at the time . . . [he] assaulted the [victim], she was
unconscious, intoxicated, asleep or for some other reason
unable to communicate nonverbally, such as by
kicking, scratching and screeching. The defendant
maintain[ed], therefore, that, even viewing the evidence
at trial in favor of the state, the record [did] not establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that the [victim] was physically
unable to communicate [her] unwillingness to an
act, as § 53a-65 (6) requires.’’ (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Id., 48.

Letter of the law...

Before we can determine whether the state presented
sufficient evidence to prove that the victim was ‘‘physically
helpless,’’ however, we first must consider the
meaning of that statutory term. Because the state’s
claim raises an issue of statutory interpretation, we
exercise a plenary standard of review. E.g., State v.
Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622, 668, 998 A.2d 1 (2010).
Pursuant to General Statutes § 1-2z, we begin our analysis
with ‘‘the text of the statute itself and its relationship
to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering
such relationship, the meaning of such text is
plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or
unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning
of the statute shall not be considered.’’

As a preliminary matter, it bears emphasis that no
one would dispute that the victim is physically helpless
in the ordinary sense of that term. Physical helplessness
under § 53a-65 (6), however, has a highly particularized
meaning that is unrelated to whether a person is physically
able to resist unwanted sexual advances or mentally
able to understand when to resist such advances.
Rather, under § 53a-65 (6), a person is physically helpless
if they are ‘‘unconscious or for any other reason
. . . physically unable to communicate unwillingness
to an act.’’ (Emphasis added.) Our case law, and the
case law of other jurisdictions, makes clear that, under
this definition, even total physical incapacity does not,
by itself, render an individual physically helpless.14

And now brains begin falling out...

In State v. Hufford, 205 Conn. 386, 397–99, 533 A.2d
866 (1987), for example, we rejected the state’s claim
that the victim, who was totally physically restrained,
was physically helpless as that phrase is statutorily
defined. In Hufford, the victim allegedly was sexually
assaulted by the defendant, Steven H. Hufford, an emergency
medical technician, while she was being transported
to the hospital by ambulance. Id., 390. Although
the victim was unable to resist the alleged sexual assault
because she was restrained on a stretcher; id., 390,
393; this court rejected the state’s claim that she was
physically helpless because she repeatedly told Hufford
to stop touching her. Id., 398–99. We explained that,
because the victim ‘‘was not unconscious, we [were]
concerned with whether she was physically able to
communicate her unwillingness to the act.’’ Id., 398. We
concluded that the word ‘‘communicate’’ was plain and
unambiguous, and meant ‘‘to make known: inform a
person of . . . speak, gesticulate . . . to convey information.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.
Because the victim in Hufford was able to communicate
her lack of consent to Hufford, the state failed to satisfy
its burden of proving the essential element of physical
helplessness. State v. Hufford, supra, 398–99; see also
People v. Orda, 180 Misc. 2d 450, 454, 690 N.Y.S.2d 822
(1999) (physical helplessness requirement in New York
Penal Law ‘‘is not satisfied by an inability to move one’s
body [when] the victim is able to protest verbally’’);
People v. Morales, 139 Misc. 2d 200, 202, 528 N.Y.S.2d
286 (1988) (‘‘although [the victim, who was paralyzed
from the neck down] was indeed physically helpless in
the ordinary sense of the term, she was not physically
helpless for purposes of the [New York Penal Law]’’).

Rationalization.

The dissent also contends that the jury reasonably could have found that
the victim could not communicate unwillingness to an act on the basis of
the testimony of the physicians who stated that they could not communicate
with the victim during the course of her gynecological examinations. As we
previously explained, however; see footnote 17 of this opinion; the fact that
the physicians could not communicate with the victim does not establish
that the victim was unable to communicate with them by biting, kicking,
scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing if she felt the need to do so.
Because the victim requires a communication board to express herself in
words, it proves nothing that, without the aid of her communication board,
the victim did not attempt to communicate with her physicians.

Anything is possible. I believe the standard though was "reasonable".

 

4536

Living Room / Re: Just for Fun - Cliché Movie Plots

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2012, 02:40 AM »

Not literal enough. There is no actual pouring of Kool-Aid in your plot.

-app103 (October 27, 2012, 02:21 AM)

I kind of figured that I didn't need to write the ending there. Yes - they find the cyanide, make up a batch of kook-aid, and do what they should have done years earlier~!

4537

Living Room / Re: Just for Fun - Cliché Movie Plots

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2012, 02:08 AM »

_{Yes, I do like horror movies. Why do you ask?}

-app103 (October 27, 2012, 01:45 AM)

+1 here~! My favourite genre! A good horror is better than just about anything else. The dystopian genre I'd slot in there as well though.

From your link:

"Put a cork in it." - Ummm... It's porn. Use your imagination. I'm not going there~!

Another from that link:

"Pour the Kool-Aid" - In a world of financial collapse, where infrastructure has been rendered useless, electricity and running water are only memories, a group of Apple fanbois go in search of cyanide as the battery power in their iPads has run out, and they can no longer get their Angry Birds fix...

"Pissing in the wind" - Porn. Set on a sailboat. Golden shower movie. Perhaps some scat.

"Powers of darkness" - Documentary of behind the scenes with lobbyists and their corporate agendas.

"Cheap trick" - Documentary about how politicians prostitute themselves to consolidated capital interests and sell out their constituents. Or more porn.

"Cash cow" - Documentary about how Monsanto has bought the FDA and used it to milk people.

"Dead presidents" - Documentary about how US presidents that try to issue sovereign currency get assassinated.

"Don't go there" - A group of 5 young boys dare each other to go into an abandoned research lab. One after one they go in to "save" the last, until the last two remaining boys (brothers) decide to go get help from their cousin that professes to know the dark arts...

"Drunk as a skunk" - Animated adult comedy about a group of alcoholic animals in the woods that pick on poor Mr. Skunk who doesn't seem to be able to hold down a job, and is rarely ever seen sober anymore. The hero of the story is a bear who shits in the woods, and starts to wipe his ass with all the other animals for being so mean to Mr. Skunk. Suddenly, Mr. Skunk doesn't seem so bad anymore and manages to get a job and sober up.

4538

Living Room / Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?

« Last post by Renegade on October 27, 2012, 01:40 AM »

I'll provide a link to a good article which also provides links to the actual ruling. But please be forewarned this is one of the singularly most disgusting travesties of justice ever perpetuated by a US court. It involves a rape case. And it's one of those stories about judicial interpretation so extreme and completely divorced from any shred of common decency that it boggles the imagination. If you're easily upset - or not comfortable possibly experiencing a brief episode of blind rage like I did - do yourself a big favor and skip this one.

-40hz (October 26, 2012, 10:04 PM)

Seems to me like the only remaining questions for any semblance of justice would be to pick which of the 4 judges gets lynched first, and whether they get lynched before or after the "defendant".

What can one possibly say when their government and judicial branches of government so horribly betray the public trust?
How can anyone reasonably be expected to have any respect for the "law" when it has become so horribly twisted like this?
How is it that we are under any kind of moral obligation to support this "authority" (i.e. surrender our power) when they sit idly by and watch the weak get raped, literally and metaphorically?

...experiencing a brief episode of blind rage like I did...

-40hz (October 26, 2012, 10:04 PM)

I think I'm over rage now. I very rarely flip out anymore. Instead, I just cry.

4539

Living Room / Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2012, 09:00 PM »

Then there was the woman who got arrested because she protested the TSA patting down her daughter. I won't even bother with a link because a 12 second search will pull it up if anyone wants yet more depressing news. Basically the headline speaks for itself.

-TaoPhoenix (October 26, 2012, 08:51 PM)

I saw that. Shameful. It's now criminal to protect your children from child molesters. Sick.

4540

Living Room / Re: Selling Something? Go to Jail! That's copyright infringement... :-/

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2012, 04:48 PM »

The idea of stripping fortune 500 companies of IP rights make sense.

Laws are *supposed* to protect *people*, which right now they don't.

Corporations are not people. They are legal fictions. They are ideas. Allowing them to own IP is the same as allowing an idea to own an idea.

Rights are for people. There's a reason they're often called "human rights".

4541

Living Room / Re: The Free Videos Thread

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2012, 06:41 AM »

Here's a very fun YouTube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart

I expect that a few people have seen some of her videos. They're all about math in one way or another, and extremely entertaining.

In a new video she creates a hexaflexagon and fills it like a burrito, so it's "flex mex":

4542

Living Room / Re: Selling Something? Go to Jail! That's copyright infringement... :-/

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2012, 02:51 AM »

Yeah but there's a problem with that:

Antitrust.

This kind of law would absolutely crush a large portion of the US Economy, as well as making it outright impossible for anyone to start a new business.

-SeraphimLabs (October 24, 2012, 09:25 PM)

Well, some things aren't patented, so you could still sell those. Farmers would be safe as they could still sell their produce, like corn and soy... Ooops. Nope. Nix that. Owned by Monsanto.

Well, at least you could still be a lumberjack. Surely that'd be OK... Oops... Nix that. Trees are owned by Syngenta.

Yep. Looks like we're completely hosed.

-Renegade (October 24, 2012, 10:34 PM)

I actually have on my desk a genuine innovation, the prototype of a device I came up with a few years back that is currently undergoing a gradual R&D process whenever I can spare time and money to tinker with it more. My employer already signed off, all rights to this invention belong to me alone.

The current test type is focused on what was originally intended to be a proof of concept model, which it more than achieved successfully.

Since then I've been attempting to actually make it function properly, which would make the rights to this design worth a fortune.

But a law like this? In order to mass produce this device once the design is corrected, I would have to buy raw materials from which to make them. Those raw materials would be processed into components and assembled.

Except I would then have to sell those materials again as part of the finished product.

Hey wait you can't do that

Oh look at that. It is no longer possible to sell ANYTHING at all unless you gathered the raw materials with your own hands, because at some point along the line goods would have had to exchange hands more than once.

This law would actually be beyond unreal- it would mean a COMPLETE national economic shutdown because not only could you not sell things you bought from someone else, but you couldn't manufacture your own without having access to your own supplies of raw materials.

Even the brass that is trying to push this law wouldn't be immune to it's consequences. Apple would have to buy oil wells from which to refine plastic, and their own chipmaking facilities to make their own hardware. They wouldn't be allowed to sell their products if they contained materials that were bought from someone else, or used somebody else's designs in any way.

Amazing, I almost want to see this happen now.

-SeraphimLabs (October 25, 2012, 11:56 AM)

Hahahah~!

I love that line of logic! Thing is, it's pretty much solid. There's little to be debated or argued.


The idea that ideas can be owned is just silly. If you tell someone an idea, you just gave it to them. And it's not possible for them to "give it back to you".

Here's an idea:

A flying ninja panda bear with laser eyes and a bad case of flatulence.

Reading it duplicates the idea along. And I've lost nothing. I still have that idea. It's a pretty nifty property of ideas - you can give them away, and you still have them!

Restricting ideas is bizarre. I'm not sure if I want to say it's immoral (like Richard Stallman), though I'm still debating that with myself. Not sure.


This whole sale of copyrighted stuff can only end in idiocy as we're starting from a flawed premise, so logical contradictions are bound to crop up.

4543

Living Room / Re: People Turning on Trolls?

« Last post by Renegade on October 26, 2012, 01:41 AM »

Kind of off topic, but since a few people liked that Diefenbaker quote, here are a couple others that I particularly love:

As long as there is a drop of blood in my body they won't stop me from talking about freedom.

-John Diefenbaker

We do not convert people to think our way by pouring bombs upon them, day after day and week after week.

-John Diefenbaker

The first there reminds me of a couple others by Wilfrid Laurier:

Nothing will prevent me from continuing my task of preserving at all cost our civil liberty.

-Wilfrid Laurier

Canada is free and freedom is its nationality.

-Wilfrid Laurier

There are a few more quotes from Canadian Prime Ministers, but my all time favourite is:

NSFW quote from a Canadian Prime Minister

Fuck off.

-Pierre Elliot Trudeau

Anyone ever hear of "the Trudeau salute"?   Hint: It doesn't involve your thumb.

4544

Living Room / Re: DRONE - web video series

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2012, 11:41 PM »

The effects were pretty badass and the moral grey zones were really neat. I just felt that the story felt a bit flat and uninspired. But overall, pretty noice

-p3lb0x (October 25, 2012, 01:25 PM)

I find that most first seasons of TV shows are kind of like that. They need time to "find their pace".

It's kind of tough to do a huge amount of plot/character development in a short film. It's also a bit tough to give an AI a lot of character.

It seems to me that the short is kind of a pilot for something else.

4545

General Software Discussion / Re: Help With A Solution?

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2012, 07:23 AM »

Sounds like a very fun problem to solve!

Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment. I'm just goofing off (surfing DC when I should be polishing a presentation script), and I know that for me to get it done and properly tested is more time than I have.

However, you might want to search for "move files with regular expression". I had a quick look there, and the problem looks to be fairly common. You might find an answer that exactly fits what you need.

I think a trouble spot might be in file vs. path. Not sure exactly though. But it's one thing to watch.

4546

General Software Discussion / Re: CentOS Administration Tool Recommendations?

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2012, 07:09 AM »

´WebMin´ is the name of the software you´re looking for. Administer practically your whole serever with a web interface.

-Shades (October 25, 2012, 06:41 AM)

I looked at that very quickly before, and I got the impression that Webmin was about the same as Plesk or CPanel.

Am I mistaken there?

4547

General Software Discussion / CentOS Administration Tool Recommendations?

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2012, 03:17 AM »

Hello All.

I'm looking for recommendations for tools to help administrate a CentOS server.

I'm switching over from the Windows world (dark side?), where you can pretty much be nearly braindead and still manage a server pretty easily. So yes, I like GUI tools. I am just short on time, and want to get things done ASAP, and not have to bother with the learning curve - I can catch up on that after I figure out the tools.

Some of the things I'd like to do:

* Administer nitty-gritty details for web sites, e.g. IP addresses
* Admin email, e.g. IP addresses
* Admin FTP, e.g. set open ports to other than 21
* Run nginx and Apache in parallel
* Something to replace remote desktop ** Could be a web based admin tool?

I'm currently using Plesk, but it seems to be limited in some areas that I'd like to deal with, e.g. No way to decide what web server runs a site, or what email server is used, etc.

So, any recommendations are welcome.

4548

General Software Discussion / Re: Interesting Phishing Email - Seen This?

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2012, 02:51 AM »

You do not have to hack any one's account to get a list of names and corresponding email address.
Just look at the mails forwarded to you or your friend. The geek in us use 'bcc' but the rest of the world will fill the 'to' with loads of addresses.

-anandcoral (October 25, 2012, 02:02 AM)

I know that's not it. Thing is, his name is A B C D, and he uses B D in real life, but uses A C on Facebook, which is what I saw in the phishing email, so I KNOW that it's from Facebook somehow. I'm just not sure HOW that information got collected from Facebook.

4549

Living Room / Re: Don't You Want to be "Safe"?

« Last post by Renegade on October 25, 2012, 01:42 AM »

...the same nutjobs that were trying to get laws passed in the US have begun to take their issues to the UN- likely on the reasoning of global network, global police.

If any of this actually goes through we're screwed, or going to see a global realignment.

-SeraphimLabs (October 24, 2012, 04:00 PM)

Psychotics gotta be psychotics.

Increased concentration of power always results in the same thing, every time - mass graves.

Also, because the UN has effectively global authority, the same nutjobs that were trying to get laws passed in the US have begun to take their issues to the UN- likely on the reasoning of global network, global police.

If any of this actually goes through we're screwed, or going to see a global realignment.

-SeraphimLabs (October 24, 2012, 04:00 PM)

The UN has global jurisdiction

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

Says the UN.

- but little actual authority.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

Because the have no legitimate authority anywhere. They are unelected... sigh... I'll skip it.

Unless you count resolutions that are routinely flouted and ignored as authority.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

Got to ask about whose best interests are served sometimes.

But that's not surprising. When it was set up,

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

It was financed by bankers. Who paid for the UN land where they are now?

there was concern that it not become the world's new governmental body,

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

A very worrisome thing, even now.

so the permanent member veto powers were incorporated into the charter making it very easy for certain "more equal" members to block anything the UN attempts to accomplish.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

Some animals are more equal than others.

Simple fact is unless you have your own nukes or standing army under your direct control, your authority is largely symbolic.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

Sigh... pretty much bang on. The only other consideration is size and scope...

Even now the UN has to petition its members for ad hoc expeditionary and "peacekeeping" forces

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

Nice euphemism there~!

Some fun searches include things like "UN sex scandal", "UN troops rape", "UN murder", etc. etc.

on those extremely rare occasions it is able to get a resolution for direct action passed by the assembly.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

Doesn't stop them from coming up with all sorts of Trojan horses though. e.g. Agenda 21 and ICLEI. 

I always thought of the UN as something much like a high school's Student Council.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

You are far more positive about them than I am.

It has all the trappings of democratically elected representative body. But it exists only by leave of the school administration and it has no real authority. It's free to debate and petition and resolve what it will. But everybody knows that the faculty (i.e. the members of the Security Council) and the School Board (i.e. the permanent members of same) call the shots.

-40hz (October 24, 2012, 06:07 PM)

As an organization that proudly includes many others, e.g. Lucifer Publishing (renamed Lucis Trust), got to be pretty happy that they don't have any real authority.

While we might joke about things like voting for Cthulhu, these people are serious about that kind of thing. Lucifer? Really? You just can't make this stuff up.

4550

Living Room / Re: DOTCOM saga - updates

« Last post by Renegade on October 24, 2012, 11:36 PM »

I actually didn't mean you... I meant him.  And from what I've seen, you're only alternative until you become an alternative.  There's just no way to get to that level playing that game without becoming who you're playing against.

-wraith808 (October 24, 2012, 11:05 PM)

And I thought I was cynical!

I would like to think that it is possible to get there without becoming them. See - I do have a few optimistic tendencies~!