 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Perhaps Ian should have consulted someone before acting so rash.
>
> Or at least before broadcasting his confession all over the world. ;-)
>
FWIW, I'd frequently get mounds and mounds of attempts against my system
when I was self-hosted... All I could really do was look at the logs and
smile. All of the attempts were directed toward IIS... :-D Fun...
I really couldn't be bothered to do much else. Way too many attempts to
compromise the system to ever get anything done if I reported all of
them, which were probably using other compromised systems anyway.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> FWIW, I'd frequently get mounds and mounds of attempts against my system
> when I was self-hosted... All I could really do was look at the logs and
> smile. All of the attempts were directed toward IIS... :-D Fun...
The ones I got while running a Linux cluster all seemed to be attacking
Apache and PHP, looking for things like phpadmin and such. Only about once
or twice a week or so, always the same pattern but not the same IP blocks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-3-2009 21:39, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Perhaps Ian should have consulted someone before acting so rash.
>
> Or at least before broadcasting his confession all over the world. ;-)
Yes that is sort of what I mean. At least start next time with 'If I was
bothered by ... and I know the IP, would you think it is a good idea...'
even if you have already done it. In the end this is a somewhat
different audience than the usual newsgroup.
Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
us (at least that is how I feel about this) should we take action? My
feeling is that this is not severe enough to justify an action that
would result in invading the privacy of Ian. Nor can we tell anybody
that there is this guy (probably) that has erased a server somewhere on
this world or so he(?) says, probably sometime last week. Not really
specific if you ask me. Still, I would have preferred not to know.
Non-legal problem: how to react to ian within this newsgroup. Nothing
changed as far as I am concerned. Apart from noting the fact that he can
apparently behave like a hothead sometimes. And he has the knowledge and
tools to do nasty things with computers. At least he did not use a gun.
That reminds me: where is Ken?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:17:29 +0100, andrel wrote:
> Some
> indication may be in how long it takes to get the system running again,
> if that is more than a few days, the owner was probably innocent.
That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy. Suppose
the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years of
work lost. Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running backups, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-3-2009 23:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:17:29 +0100, andrel wrote:
>
>> Some
>> indication may be in how long it takes to get the system running again,
>> if that is more than a few days, the owner was probably innocent.
>
> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy.
Indeed, that is what I was thinking, so if they take a long time they
are most probably amateurs who unknowingly left open a door to intruders
(they did, we know that) and let other use their system.
If they reinstall fast they have either good support or are knowing
themselves. I would not take a bet on that, so my guess was that only a
long time before the IP can be pinged would mean something.
Other theories welcome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>
> Haha...I hope they like their nicely wiped system. :-D
>
> I should have just flashed their BIOS with garbage, or upped thier proc and
> RAM voltage to absurd levels...but I'm not *that* mean...
>
So, that's why Google was down recently!
:-o
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy. Suppose
> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years of
> work lost. Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running backups, too.
Heh. I had one contract job I turned down after a day or two of looking at
it. Wistar institute, a famous cancer research place here, had all their
stuff in a DBaseII database on a CP/M machine - Osborne, IIRC. They had a
30meg drive, 29.75 meg full or so, and wanted me to add all kinds of
features. There was years of data in it, and most of the people were dead,
so it would be impossible to replicate.
I asked them when they'd made the last backup, and they said "We've never
managed to make a backup. The system is too unstable to make a whole backup."
OK. I'll just exit out this way, avoiding the rooms with people in full-body
leather coats using tongs to drop test-tubes into lead-lined containers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Yes that is sort of what I mean. At least start next time with 'If I was
> bothered by ... and I know the IP, would you think it is a good idea...'
> even if you have already done it. In the end this is a somewhat
> different audience than the usual newsgroup.
>
> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
> us (at least that is how I feel about this) should we take action?
Reminded me of:
http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I did act rashly; which probably wasn't a good idea. The presence of
malicious tools on the system and lack of much else was to me, a pretty good
indication that I had the right person.
I normally would never retaliate in such a way, and in fact I typically help
people lock their systems down, remove viruses, spyware, etc.. and educate
them as to the proper ways to protect themselves. I'm not exactly "black
hat", more white hat than anything.
I have learned certian things so that I might understand the ways in which I
or my clients may be attacked, so that I may more adequately protect against
such threats.
So such retaliation was pretty out of character for me. I'm not a "bad
person" nor do I engage in unwarranted malevolent behavior.
Looking back, I was wrong.
I will not retaliate in such a way again...apologies to all...
I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.
ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:49C### [at] hotmailcom...
> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
> us
Just one?
;)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2009 4:22 PM, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I will not retaliate in such a way again...
God knows we've all wanted to...
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
> us
Pick your battles. Do you know how many people come through our
drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead
of a driver's license?
It's not worth going further with it.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:25 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal
>> amongst us
>
> Pick your battles. Do you know how many people come through our
> drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead
> of a driver's license?
>
> It's not worth going further with it.
Especially considering the general difficulty with tying a specific
individual to Ian's posts here on the server. Could well have been
someone who hijacked his system and made the claim. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:15:03 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/17/2009 4:22 PM, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> I will not retaliate in such a way again...
>
> God knows we've all wanted to...
Yep, I know I've been tempted, but it was easier just to restrict ssh
access to my machine based on RSA public key authentication rather than
passwords. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy. Suppose
> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years of
> work lost. Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running backups, too.
It would be very foolish to do something important and not make regular
backups. A simple hard drive failure can destroy all of your work at any
moment. Or a power surge (it's not even rare that lightning has fried a
computer so completely that all data has been irreversibly lost). Especially
in the latter case (and tons of others, such as a fire) you can't even rely
on RAID for safekeeping.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[GDS|Entropy] <gds### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Solaris sucks. There aren't many apps that run on it either.
Yeah. Sun has developed this OS for like 3 decades, and there aren't many
apps for it. Just the OS. They have been doing it just for the fun of it.
Sure.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Reminded me of:
> http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif
While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
16 is a very common age of consent in many countries (including many
western ones, including many states of the US, Canada, and many European
countries, eg. Finland).
Such an age difference may be frowned upon, but not necessarily illegal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:01:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> That's not a very good indication; reinstalling an OS is easy. Suppose
>> the system were being used to do cancer research; that could be years
>> of work lost. Of course if it were, they'd *better* be running
>> backups, too.
>
> It would be very foolish to do something important and not make
> regular
> backups. A simple hard drive failure can destroy all of your work at any
> moment. Or a power surge (it's not even rare that lightning has fried a
> computer so completely that all data has been irreversibly lost).
> Especially in the latter case (and tons of others, such as a fire) you
> can't even rely on RAID for safekeeping.
Of course it would, but just because someone's being foolish doesn't make
it OK to hack their system and destroy it because you think they're the
source of problems on your system.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
Unless the country of Georgia has a sports team named "The Tigers", I'm
pretty sure they're in the state of Georgia in the USA. :-)
But I'll grant you it's not obvious without looking really close. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
> Unless the country of Georgia has a sports team named "The Tigers", I'm
> pretty sure they're in the state of Georgia in the USA. :-)
At least this: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm lists 16 as the
age of consent for the state of Georgia, USA.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> At least this: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm lists 16 as the
> age of consent for the state of Georgia, USA.
Heh. I'm not surprised.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-3-2009 2:19, Chambers wrote:
> On 3/17/2009 2:22 PM, andrel wrote:
>> Next legal problem: we now know that we have probably a criminal amongst
>> us
>
> Pick your battles. Do you know how many people come through our
> drive-through window, and present as identification an ID card instead
> of a driver's license?
>
> It's not worth going further with it.
>
I agree, I don't see any reason to act for any of us ATM. It was just a
way to express that there may be other side effects as well if you tell
a group of people something like this. Things may e.g. change when in a
couple of years time someone meets him in person.
Shall we just forget this incident and then in a couple of weeks time
when p.o-t expires we can just pretend this never happened?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-3-2009 0:22, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> I did act rashly; which probably wasn't a good idea. The presence of
> malicious tools on the system and lack of much else was to me, a pretty good
> indication that I had the right person.
I think the most you can do legally is inform the domain owner or ISP
that one of the machines in their network is acting malicious.
Anybody else know something better?
> I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.
This being POV news, a well executed picture might make us forget easier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:19:53 +0100, andrel wrote:
> I think the most you can do legally is inform the domain owner or ISP
> that one of the machines in their network is acting malicious. Anybody
> else know something better?
Agreed. Let the network owner deal with the problem child internally -
generally the best route to go. If they don't, then report them to the
proper authorities.
>> I do hope I can earn your collective trust/respect back.
>
> This being POV news, a well executed picture might make us forget
> easier.
LOL - Too true. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/18/2009 1:07 AM, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez<nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Reminded me of:
>
>> http://imagechan.com/images/4256c6ebf2ec36d11ed68fc71fd34bfb.gif
>
> While definitely pervy, that's not necessarily illegal in his country.
> 16 is a very common age of consent in many countries (including many
> western ones, including many states of the US, Canada, and many European
> countries, eg. Finland).
> Such an age difference may be frowned upon, but not necessarily illegal.
At least in the US, even when the age of consent is under 18 there is
still that pesky little "statutory rape," which states that you have to
be within a certain age range until older.
For instance, even if two 16 year olds can have sex without it being
statutory, that doesn't mean a 16 year old and a 45 year old can.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> For instance, even if two 16 year olds can have sex without it being
> statutory, that doesn't mean a 16 year old and a 45 year old can.
Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
(Also, the way you worded the above paragraph makes it sound like two
15 year olds having sex would be committing statutory rape. Which one
exactly? Or maybe both? ;) )
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
> Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.
Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:58:46 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:31:13 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Are those age limits defined somewhere in the US law?
>
>> Not in federal law, but state by state, I'm sure it is.
>
> Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
Nope. I live in Utah. I suppose they're online.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
> Nope. I live in Utah. I suppose they're online.
I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
know either. They just assume.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:55:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
>
>> Nope. I live in Utah. I suppose they're online.
>
> I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
> know either. They just assume.
Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far
better to err on the side of caution with something like this, lest you
end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY don't
like rapists. From what I hear, people convicted of that - especially
when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the general prison
population.
jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:55:36 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> > Any idea what those laws are in the state of Georgia?
> >
> >> Nope. I live in Utah. I suppose they're online.
> >
> > I bet that most people who assume that this case must be illegal don't
> > know either. They just assume.
> Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far
> better to err on the side of caution with something like this
Hmm, exactly how is it illegal to make an assumption about the legality
of someone's action in a certain country/state?
Ok, maybe if a lawyer did that and he is mistaken, he could get sued for
malpractice or something.
>, lest you
> end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY don't
> like rapists. From what I hear, people convicted of that - especially
> when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the general prison
> population.
And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:42:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far
>> better to err on the side of caution with something like this
>
> Hmm, exactly how is it illegal to make an assumption about the
> legality
> of someone's action in a certain country/state?
It's not illegal to make the assumption. But if you make the assumption
it's "safe" and it's illegal, you aren't going to catch a break - because
ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
> Ok, maybe if a lawyer did that and he is mistaken, he could get sued
> for
> malpractice or something.
We're talking about two different things, I think.
>>, lest you
>> end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY
>> don't like rapists. From what I hear, people convicted of that -
>> especially when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the
>> general prison population.
>
> And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
Welcome to the justice system in the USA....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
> Welcome to the justice system in the USA....
Isn't think kind of true everywhere? :-) Aren't you pretty screwed if you're
wrongly convicted regardless of where you live?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:41:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
>> Welcome to the justice system in the USA....
>
> Isn't think kind of true everywhere? :-) Aren't you pretty screwed if
> you're wrongly convicted regardless of where you live?
Well, yeah, I suppose so. I only have direct experience in dealing with
the justice system in the US, though. I don't know what kind of appeals
process there is in Finland, or Australia, or even in the UK.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, yeah, I suppose so. I only have direct experience in dealing with
> the justice system in the US, though. I don't know what kind of appeals
> process there is in Finland, or Australia, or even in the UK.
I'll grant you that in the US, sex with kids is high on the list of "easy to
get screwed by the justice system." Much easier than, say, car theft. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:29:26 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, yeah, I suppose so. I only have direct experience in dealing
>> with the justice system in the US, though. I don't know what kind of
>> appeals process there is in Finland, or Australia, or even in the UK.
>
> I'll grant you that in the US, sex with kids is high on the list of
> "easy to get screwed by the justice system." Much easier than, say, car
> theft. :-)
Yep, that certainly is true. And then when the perps end up in prison,
their trouble REALLY starts. As I mentioned before, sex offenders
generally do not fare well in prison.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:42:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
> >> Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far, far
> >> better to err on the side of caution with something like this
> >
> > Hmm, exactly how is it illegal to make an assumption about the
> > legality
> > of someone's action in a certain country/state?
> It's not illegal to make the assumption. But if you make the assumption
> it's "safe" and it's illegal, you aren't going to catch a break - because
> ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
It was a rethorical question. I just wanted to point out that I said
nothing about whether it's a good idea to do it or not. My original point
was that people seem to always assume it's illegal without actually knowing
the actual laws of the place.
> > Ok, maybe if a lawyer did that and he is mistaken, he could get sued
> > for
> > malpractice or something.
> We're talking about two different things, I think.
I was just being sarcastic. I apologize.
> >>, lest you
> >> end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY
> >> don't like rapists. From what I hear, people convicted of that -
> >> especially when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in the
> >> general prison population.
> >
> > And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
> Welcome to the justice system in the USA....
I don't believe being beaten up in prison is part of the justice system.
Not the legal one, at least.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
> > Welcome to the justice system in the USA....
> Isn't think kind of true everywhere? :-) Aren't you pretty screwed if you're
> wrongly convicted regardless of where you live?
I was not referring to being wrongly convicted, but to being beaten in
prison because you made the "wrong" crime.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Since these things vary by state, I just looked up the RCW (state of
Washington):
Apparently, they go by who's older.
If the younger person is less than twelve, and the elder is more than 3
years older, then it's Child Molestation (1st Degree).
If the younger is 12-14, and the elder is more than 3 years older, then
it's Child Molestation (2nd Degree).
If the younger is 15-16, and the elder is more than 3 years older, then
it's Child Molestation (3rd Degree).
If the younger person is 16-17, and the elder is more than 5 years
older, then it's Statutory Rape.
I might have missed some.
So, in the state of Washington, if you're within 3 years then there's no
penalty for it. Once the younger person hits 16, then you've got a 5
year window. At 18, there are no limits.
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> ..damned plebes...
What do you have against plebeians? As I see it, besting a guy at
hacking makes you no more a patriarch than besting you at hammering
would make me John Henry.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 03:09:41 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:42:21 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> >> Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, though, and it's far,
>> >> far better to err on the side of caution with something like this
>> >
>> > Hmm, exactly how is it illegal to make an assumption about the
>> > legality
>> > of someone's action in a certain country/state?
>
>> It's not illegal to make the assumption. But if you make the
>> assumption it's "safe" and it's illegal, you aren't going to catch a
>> break - because ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
>
> It was a rethorical question. I just wanted to point out that I said
> nothing about whether it's a good idea to do it or not. My original
> point was that people seem to always assume it's illegal without
> actually knowing the actual laws of the place.
Sure. But at the same time, you would agree, I think, that it's better
to err on the side of legality, not illegality.
>> > Ok, maybe if a lawyer did that and he is mistaken, he could get
>> > sued for
>> > malpractice or something.
>
>> We're talking about two different things, I think.
>
> I was just being sarcastic. I apologize.
No problem, I actually didn't understand the comment, even with sarcasm
tags in place.
>> >>, lest you
>> >> end up in jail for statutory rape with a bunch of people who REALLY
>> >> don't like rapists. From what I hear, people convicted of that -
>> >> especially when minors are involved - tend not to do very well in
>> >> the general prison population.
>> >
>> > And if you really are innocent and convicted wrongly, tough luck.
>
>> Welcome to the justice system in the USA....
>
> I don't believe being beaten up in prison is part of the justice
> system.
> Not the legal one, at least.
Those who have been in prison (I haven't, but I have family who has been)
describe an entirely different code of conduct between prisoners. There
is a very distinct type of order, and while there are guards who will
keep things from getting too far out of hand, there are things they don't
interfere in either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Shay" <n@n.n> wrote in message news:49c3ab4f$1@news.povray.org...
> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> ..damned plebes...
>
> What do you have against plebeians?
>>[snip]
>
> -Shay
>
Plebe as used here isn't the common proper reference to a plebian, but is
instead derogatory slang of unknown age referring to someone as being a
commoner, of low intelligence, breeding, general ability or social
standing...or all of the above.
Essentially stating that the target is the worthless gutter-dwelling
offspring produced by barely human evolutionary dead-end progenitors.
ian
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-3-2009 5:51, [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
> "Shay" <n@n.n> wrote in message news:49c3ab4f$1@news.povray.org...
>> [GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>>> ..damned plebes...
>> What do you have against plebeians?
>>> [snip]
>> -Shay
>>
>
> Plebe as used here isn't the common proper reference to a plebian, but is
> instead derogatory slang of unknown age
It is derived directly from the Romans, so at least about 22 centuries.
> referring to someone as being a
> commoner, of low intelligence, breeding, general ability or social
> standing...or all of the above.
>
> Essentially stating that the target is the worthless gutter-dwelling
> offspring produced by barely human evolutionary dead-end progenitors.
Perhaps Shay is referring to the possibility that superficially he may
possess all or most of the above qualifications*. That is a bit of a
problem with these kind of international forums, you get all kinds.
*) This is not meant to imply that I think Shay actually is common or
dumb or any of the above. As most of us here, I think, I hold him in
high regard. It is just that I am not sure what my first impression
would be if I met him personally not knowing who he is. Actually I know
I don't know what he looks like, so this may just be a result of a
double prejudice. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[GDS|Entropy] wrote:
>> Plebe as used here <snip> (is) Essentially stating that the
>> target is the worthless gutter-dwelling offspring produced by
>> barely human evolutionary dead-end progenitors.
andrel wrote:
> Perhaps Shay is referring to the possibility that superficially he
> may possess all or most of the above qualifications*.
Hmmmm. Gutter dwelling? Not at the moment, but, sure, been there, done
that. As for my progenitors, they did produce a brother who cat out-geek
(currently pursuing a doctorate in EE) most on this forum.
> That is a bit of a problem with these kind of international
> forums, you get all kinds.
It appears Mr. Entropy is a savage American like myself. In fact, he's
the most savage kind: a "Reb."
Regarding the plebeian thing. What if I were telling the original story?
Say some guy tried to hack my computer, and, for the sake of argument,
let's allow that I knew where the guy lived. I couldn't hack him back; I
wouldn't know where to start. So, in this version, I, unable to
retaliate in kind, instead went to the hacker's house and shoved his
computer sideways up his ass.
If the story went that way, I'd be telling in from jail. I have to play
by your rules and retaliate in a matter that might get me a
finger-wagging on a news-server, but will not likely get me thrown in
jail. And jail is only a small part of the reason I wouldn't shove the
computer up his ass. I wouldn't do it because a little property damage
on his part isn't worth either of us losing teeth and because I don't
want my family to live in a world where people go bashing each other's
heads in over small arguments. I, like most plebeians, *choose* to face
conflict with one arm tied behind my back.
Of course, you don't go around punching people either, but it's likely
not your *best* choice (mine either most of the time). Your best choices
are less-frightening to (and as a result, more tolerated by) society. A
classic example is downloading a CD versus running out of a store with one.
My point? A lot of the bullshit in society happens because we plebeians
*allow* ourselves to get kicked around. Because we, as a whole, have
decided that the cure is worse than the disease. But we can always
change our minds.
> I am not sure what my first impression would be if I met [Shay]
> personally not knowing who he is. Actually I know I don't know
> what he looks like, so this may just be a result of a double
> prejudice. ;)
Recent picture attached. The hat does hide the sloping forehead. :) I
suspect that if you met me, not knowing who I was, you'd not be
surprised to find out.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'point.jpg' (59 KB)
Preview of image 'point.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:38:33 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>Recent picture attached.
Have you lost weight and bulked out?
I think that you posted a photo years ago.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-4-2009 12:38, Shay wrote:
>
> My point? A lot of the bullshit in society happens because we plebeians
> *allow* ourselves to get kicked around. Because we, as a whole, have
> decided that the cure is worse than the disease. But we can always
> change our minds.
At least I got the idea right that you might see yourselves as plebs.
> Recent picture attached.
Looks rather decent to me. Apart from the suggestion that you have just
seen a UFO, perhaps.
> The hat does hide the sloping forehead. :)
Like a Neanderthaler? That is so pre-plebs. ;)
Your visits here seen to be few and far between. I hope you have an
interesting real life.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:38:33 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>
>> Recent picture attached.
>
> Have you lost weight and bulked out?
>
> I think that you posted a photo years ago.
I've posted a few picks over the years, but I'm guessing you mean the
picture where I had a hard time convincing the 150lb (60kilo, 10.7stone)
Europeans on the group that I was (at 185/84/13.2) considered a fairly
skinny American (at least, skinny for >30). I'm the same size as I was
then. I just look stronger in a t-shirt and less bulky in pants that fit.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Your visits here seen to be few and far between. I hope you have an
> interesting real life.
Too!
But I'm trying not to lose track of the friends I made doing POV-Ray.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:20:43 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:38:33 -0500, Shay <n@n.n> wrote:
>>
>>> Recent picture attached.
>>
>> Have you lost weight and bulked out?
>>
>> I think that you posted a photo years ago.
>
>I've posted a few picks over the years, but I'm guessing you mean the
>picture where I had a hard time convincing the 150lb (60kilo, 10.7stone)
>Europeans on the group that I was (at 185/84/13.2) considered a fairly
>skinny American (at least, skinny for >30). I'm the same size as I was
>then. I just look stronger in a t-shirt and less bulky in pants that fit.
>
I seem to remember a photo of you and a mate under an elevated highway or
offshore. ???
I probably am mistaken, I was before in 1989 IIRC :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
