OK, here's what I got with 4 year shift 16x price shift  Can't say I see any short-term similarities, but long-term trend is here. Thanks, it's nice to compare. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be better to compare 2012, 2016 and 2020? Those are the years with halvings. |
|
|
|
Lets start with explaining what a port is.
I always thought that a port is those things that you plug your USB cable into, but I get the sense that I might be wrong.
Arrie, since i owe you a computer lesson, here we go: There are two types of "ports" for input/output: hardware ports (like usb, serial, network...) and ports of software, like a webserver. So to get data in and out over a network, you need at least one port on each of the two computers. With streaming services, you can even broadcast one-to-many through a single port on the streaming server. There are 65535 ports, some of them are standard, or reserved, like http (web, port 80) and https (web secure, port 443). Instead of "program" you refer to a communicating software like web servers as a "service". Remotely identifying which services (software) are running on a remote computer is one of the first steps in preparing an attack. It's like this: 1. identify services 2. identify unsecured services 3. find vulnerabilities of these services (bugs) 4. exploit these bugs and get access. To identify a service, you just connect to the certain port with a tool like "netcat". If there is a response, some bytes or a service header like "...apache http server...", you know that there is this specific software running on the machine, so you can take more steps to find out the version of apache server and look up exploitable vulnerabilities, or even try to find your own, undiscovered bugs to attack the service and possibly gain system wide administrative access. A port scan is just automating this process and scan all 65k ports to identify the "open" ones, put out a list of all open port numbers and header messages. These headers often show the software/service name and version. Hope i'm free of debt now, finally and no one else gave you this lesson before  I absolve you. |
|
|
|
|
Ah, fuck it, there's always something with computers.
FUCK COMPUTERS!!
I'm going to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
Lets start with explaining what a port is.
I always thought that a port is those things that you plug your USB cable into, but I get the sense that I might be wrong.
|
|
|
|
What's a port scan?
Arrie, I am not talking down to you at all, this is genuine advise; if you are going to use the internet you should educate yourself about the basic mechanics of the hazards involved. That's why I'm asking, I can't protect myself if I don't know what to protect me from. |
|
|
|
That site didn't explain what a port scan is, or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
Thermopylae by Constantine P. Cavafy
Honour to those who in their lives
are committed and guard their Thermopylae.
Never stirring from duty;
just and upright in all their deeds,
but with pity and compassion too;
generous whenever they are rich, and when
they are poor, again a little generous,
again helping as much as they are able;
always speaking the truth,
but without rancor for those who lie.
And they merit greater honor
when they foresee (and many do foresee)
that Ephialtes will finally appear,
and in the end the Medes will go through.
|
|
|
|
No I will not read and respond to the report, it takes to long and isn't relevant to the Bolsonaro thing.
It's a trick old as the hills, you throw a report (that you usually haven't read yourself and) out there for your opponents to read hoping they will just throw in the towel.
And the fact that it is published in a reputable magazine, does not mean that it isn't biased.
Reputable periodicals will typically vet studies like this quite intensely. Peer review isn't perfect, but it's far more objective than an NRA sponsored report printed in their house organ or a random blog post on the Daily Stormer. I will respond to the headline though.
So you're sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah nyah"? :-) What are they saying with their report? basically, they are just stating the obvious, People without guns don't commit suicide with guns. Is that even in dispute? The real question is, does it matter? did suicides go down? or did people go on committing suicide with other means? I think you know the answer. People without guns don't have have accidents with guns, again quite a nobrainer, if you own something that you can have an accident with some people are going to have accidents, if that is a knife, car, gun, or anything else really doesn't matter. Accidents happen, what's their point?
And lastly, gun related homicides fell, again, yes so what? that's to be expected, but did homicides fall? or did people just switch weapons? I'm guessing the latter. They just don't like guns and are a using science paper to scare people by stating the obvious. 1) Read it. Check the data. Think and be willing to change your mind if the data is accurate.
2) Cut it out with the strawmen arguments. Focus on one discussion at a time.
Did I say that the data isn't correct? I'm responding to the headline, how is that a strawman argument. Now, on Bolsonaros relaxation of gun laws, his point is that if good citizens have the ability to shoot the bad guys, the bad guys will think twice before trying to rob someone, in the beginning that might very well lead to more gun deaths, as the bad guys are being culled, but that's not a bad thing, it's just according to plan. Sounds great! Got any studies or evidence to back this up, I seem to recall people saying there were plenty of them. I guess Dirty Harry movies would count for something...
If the answer is you're just pulling this out of your ass, that's fine. It's called bullshitting and people love to do it. Just never, NEVER confuse bullshit with data or try to suggest that bullshit should be taken over data and facts. And the statement "this time it's different" is equally bullshit. Here I'll bullshit with you: I think people should be allowed to own and carry .303 to .50 cal heavy machine guns. Partially because they would be useful to fight off pirates on a seastead, partially because the chance of walking into a mall with one and shooting people is pretty much zero. But that's bullshit, it's not supported by any data. Really. Play with BS all you want, but when you need to make a real decision always follow the data and urge others to follow the data. Otherwise you're just someone's tool. How can I have evidence of something that haven't happened yet? You will have to wait until the laws are in affect and wait until we have sufficient data, I'm just telling you what the plan is. Read and understand what I'm writing instead of just poop words. |
|
|
|
|
Oh, and I had cannelloni again, and guess what, it's still just rolled up lasagna.
|
|
|
|
|
His personality is way too abrasive for me, I have him on ignore.
|
|
|
|
|
So, I got a letter in my mailbox, handwritten, no stamp, obviously delivered by hand, from someone called Mona.
I open it and it starts "My name is Mona, I'm one of Jehovas witnesses in Malmö.
Considering the current situation I choose to write to you instead of visiting you in person..."
Bloody hel, even Jehovas is doing social distancing.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, go on, make him a merit source and get this hole thing over with.
|
|
|
|
Yes, those stats would be interesting to see. I bet JJG would crush all competition. Admittedly, I skip reading some of his most lengthy posts, as I'm just skimming through the new posts quickly due to lack of time. Anyway, my (hopefully in a near future) hat off to you JJG. You are a great contributor to the forum in general and the WO-thread in particular.
And you looked like such a normal person with good judgment, you had promise. |
|
|
|
That report is probably ordered and paid for by some gun hating left wing group who would clutch at any straw to make gun ownership look bad.
I don't have the time to dig for the reports I'm referring to, but you all know that they are out there.
And what's "A major global report" anyway, how does it differ from "a minor local report".
The paper appears to have been published in JAMA, Journal of the American Medical Association. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698492JAMA currently has an Impact Factor of 51.3 (whoah!). For comparison, Science is 40, and Nature is 43. In order to maintain that kind of factor they have to publish pretty well peer-reviewed stuff. So please stop it with the "you all know that they are out there" and either post peer reviewed facts or concede. Reality exists man, I really recommend living by it even when it is at odds with your person opinions/beliefs (as I did with the whole 140mph being safe thing). (Note: A totally fair argument would be "I don't give a fuck if people die, I want my guns!". Use that instead if that's what you really mean) A major global report confirms gun-related homicides, suicides and accidents are falling in Australia after the introduction of anti-gun laws, and that the effect of such tough laws is similar elsewhere. No I will not read and respond to the report, it takes to long and isn't relevant to the Bolsonaro thing. It's a trick old as the hills, you throw a report (that you usually haven't read yourself and) out there for your opponents to read hoping they will just throw in the towel. And the fact that it is published in a reputable magazine, does not mean that it isn't biased. I will respond to the headline though. What are they saying with their report? basically, they are just stating the obvious, People without guns don't commit suicide with guns. Is that even in dispute? The real question is, does it matter? did suicides go down? or did people go on committing suicide with other means? I think you know the answer. People without guns don't have have accidents with guns, again quite a nobrainer, if you own something that you can have an accident with some people are going to have accidents, if that is a knife, car, gun, or anything else really doesn't matter. Accidents happen, what's their point? And lastly, gun related homicides fell, again, yes so what? that's to be expected, but did homicides fall? or did people just switch weapons? I'm guessing the latter. They just don't like guns and are a using science paper to scare people by stating the obvious. Now, on Bolsonaros relaxation of gun laws, his point is that if good citizens have the ability to shoot the bad guys, the bad guys will think twice before trying to rob someone, in the beginning that might very well lead to more gun deaths, as the bad guys are being culled, but that's not a bad thing, it's just according to plan. |
|
|
|
|
You guys do realize that I'm just having fun about the Italian "cooking" though, don't you, although there is some truth to my statement.
|
|
|
|
thats a simple statement, while almost all simple statements turn out to be false. Brazil got quite a number of gunshot kills per 100.000 nationals. Too low for Nutsonaro? Gunshot kills made by criminals to unarmed citizens who can't defend themselves, That's what he is changing. If you know that you might get shot yourself if you shoot someone, you just might think twice before you shoot. If good people have guns, bad people will hesitate to shoot them = fewer gun kills, how is that so hard for the stupid left to understand. hmmmm The facts and data don't really back that up at all though do they. I've lived in the USA, and I've lived in Australia. Much, much, much less chance of being shot in Australia. That's a cold hard fact, no matter what you want to believe. There is a decent argument to made about the enslaved by tyrants thing. Maybe a lot more gun deaths are worth that. But arguing from a "safer with more guns" perspective is not backed by anything except your feelings. The problem I saw whilst living in the USA, was the people most likely to want a gun, were the people the least likely to have the mental or emotional ability to handle said gun responsibly. I completed a few courses, enough for concealed carry, and the majority of people in my courses couldn't hit a barn from 10 feet. Like not just bad, but fucking terrible. Knowing they owned guns was way more scary than a theoretical "bad guy" You can't compare two very different countries, you numnut. You have to compare the same country before and after. You had much less chance of being shot in Australia before you became collectively stupid and banned guns too. I'm pretty sure that gun deaths didn't change much at all in Australia before and after the ban. There is a lot of research on the issue, and as far as I recall, the verdict is: More guns in the hands of good people = less gun deaths. If you do want to do the country comparison I will raise you Switzerland, where every citizen gets his or hers gun with him home after military service and where they can go in to any gun store and by any gun they damn well please, and yet, a very peaceful country. That report is probably ordered and paid for by some gun hating left wing group who would clutch at any straw to make gun ownership look bad. I don't have the time to dig for the reports I'm referring to, but you all know that they are out there. And what's "A major global report" anyway, how does it differ from "a minor local report". |
|
|
|
A while back I had Cannelloni for the first time in my life, I saw it in the ready foods section and thought I would try it out.
Big disappointment, it tasted exactly like lasagna, I could just as well have bought that.
I think I have figured Italian food out, they only have one dish but they serve it a little bit differently and give it a new name.
Ground meat with tomato sauce between pasta sheets and some cheese sprinkled on top = lasagna
Ground meat with tomato sauce between rolled up pasta sheets and some cheese sprinkled on top = cannelloni
Ground meat with tomato sauce in a heap of shredded pasta sheets with some cheese sprinkled on top = spaghetti
Ground meat with tomato sauce on a flat piece of almost pasta and some cheese sprinkled on top = Pizza
and so on.
I'm not trying any more versions of Italian food ever again.
Don't do that, Arrie, or you'll be missing out on some of the best tasting dishes you can eat... I consider Italian cuisine as the best tasting food in the world. Second best (for me) is Middle Eastern cuisine. On the other side of the scale, the absolute worst has got to be English cuisine. I remember, when I was in the UK for studies, how I was horrified to be served grilled pork steak covered in some sweet jam, I think it was pineapple jam or something like that. The mixing of super sweet foods with normally salty stuff, like meat, is utterly disgusting to me. I had to endure it for 11 years... Now I never said anything about the taste, I said it was a disappointment, the disappointment was that it tasted like lasagna, not that it tasted bad, it didn't it was actually quite good. Pork steak and jam actually sounds good, never had it but I will try it when I get to England, I haven't been there since I was 13 and I didn't particularly like it, I got the impression of old dirty and worn down. I was in London for a week with my parents, so maybe the countryside was beautiful, I don't know. As a grown up I have come to realize that maybe one week in London 46 years ago isn't much to judge a whole country on. And also, as I have watched programs from England, like that guy and his wife from Faulty towers who travel the canals, I have come to slowly change my view, it kind of looks good and pleasing to my eyes now.So I will at some point take a trip to England for a week or so, maybe a pilgrimage (by car) to Walsingham, just for fun, I'm not religious, but it sounded like a fun place to visit in a book I read. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
