691–700 of 702 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But then again he hasn't, so what's your point?
But the potential was there. I was providing an all to likely possibility of someone hacking twitter in the way that happened here. Not sure why I have been downvoted for stating something sensible to the question that was asked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you enable javascript. This is exactly equivalent to opening every email attachment you receive. It's absurd this is considered the norm. You can take individual responsibility and disable JS by default. Also, don't visit sites that you disagree with. This is much more ethical than the European choice to bring in people with guns to coerce sites into behaving how they want. It's easy to understand why interna…
People really need to stop suggesting disabling Javascript as a solution. It’s not a solution. First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got hacked? Should have turned off Javascript.” Stop blaming the victim. Browsers come with Javascript turned on by default and many sites expect Javascript will work, so it’s a reasonable expectation that users leave Javascript enabled. Secondly there are a lot of devices tha…
People really need to stop suggesting using condoms as a solution. It’s not a solution.
First, it puts the blame on the victim. “Oh you got an STD? Should have used a condom.” Stop blaming the victim. Birthday suits don't come with condoms by default and many people expect unprotected sex, so it’s a reasonable expectation that people don't wear condoms.
Secondly there are a lot of places that people have SEX (Software EXchange). It’s not convenient to put on condoms in all places. If I used condoms when going to the local glory hole, every dick I sucked that needed a condom would make me stop, go to my bag, find my box of condoms, open one, and put it on him. Then go back to sucking dicks, bust this guy's nut, then go through the hassle of taking the condom off. That’s not a reasonable workflow to even suggest.
Lastly... ah nevermind, I don’t actually want to know if you honestly believe anyone is enforcing sex-after-marriage with a gun. It’s not true in any way but it’s such a ludicrous statement that I honestly don’t even want to hear if you’re being serious or not. For my own mental health I will pretend you’re joking.
I personally lost $6000 dollars, is there any way I could prove that I was a victim and get my crypto back?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The push against "victim blaming" is not about removing any possible role a victim would have in their victimhood. It is about destigmatizing victimhood and not blaming victims for things that are out of their control or that any other reasonable person would do. Let's imagine a situation in which someone breaks into my house and steals my TV. I deserve a decent amount of blame if I left my front door wide open befor…
No. Theft is still theft. The door could be wide open and someone that chooses to go on and steal is just as much a thief as the door breaker. Should we blame women for dressing provocatively if they are raped? Should a murder victim be afforded less justice if they were walking around in a bad neighborhood? A crime isn’t a crime if the potential criminal chooses not to act. The ease of committing the crime should ha…
A woman that goes in a bad neighborhood dressed provocatively and that eventually gets raped, made the mistake of going there in the first place - and honestly speaking, the dress makes no difference. She placed herself in a situation where she is powerless against potential predators, and thus she will go by the predator's rules - because she is forced to do so. That does not mean we should not change this. We should do everything in our power to protect women, and make sure there ARE no such places dangerous for women. Until that happens, to avoid the danger wherever it is is better than rightfully punishing the criminals after the crime happens.
That is not a sexist matter, that goes for countless situations in this world. Women and men alike, or whole other groups are powerless against other people, depending on the situation, and it IS wise to avoid the danger, until we fight to eradicate this powerlessness on each occasion. You can go on despite the dangers to make a statement or in order to contribute to eradicate them, but you know what you are getting into.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's absurd. If someone does something risky, and gets burned,they share some of the blame for it. Even if they accidentally left their front door open, that's still on them. Certainly the burglar deserves the lion's share of the blame for what happened, but there's plenty to spread around. My view is that if a reasonable person would have taken actions that would have avoided the issue in the first place, a person…
Leaving the door open is risky only because there are people who steal around. Not because leaving the door would be risky no matter where you live and who is around. If people locked bikes in garages, people eager to steal bikes would have tools to cut chains in garages. So while it is safer to lock the bike, the blame for stealing goes to whoever stole it.
And remember that "the problem" is that the attackers hijacked the accounts of people using twitter. Twitter had a duty to take adequate measures to protect those accounts, and failed to do so. The victims are the people whose accounts were stolen, and the people who were defrauded by the hijacked accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> load some bitcoin in and short with 100x leverage Sounds like a great way to have a crooked exchange make you insolvent very quickly. Be very careful using any kind of leverage.
If you don’t trust your exchange not to commit that kind of fraud, then you shouldn’t trade on it at all, as there are many ways they could defraud you even if you trade at 1x. There are plenty of. reasons why I wouldn’t recommend trading at 100x, but “the exchange might commit fraud” isn’t at the top. Still, in the described scenario, where you use a scam and market manipulation, 100x seems like a great tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don’t trust your exchange not to commit that kind of fraud, then you shouldn’t trade on it at all, as there are many ways they could defraud you even if you trade at 1x. There are plenty of. reasons why I wouldn’t recommend trading at 100x, but “the exchange might commit fraud” isn’t at the top. Still, in the described scenario, where you use a scam and market manipulation, 100x seems like a great tool.
Are any of those exchanges based out of the USA? And do any of them not allow USA based customers? My concern is if I made a great trade at 100x and then go to transfer bitcoin and they freeze my account saying I need to provide proof of residency or some BS.
But if you were pulling the twitter scam, as I described, you would be risking a few $K on this trade in the hopes for making a million or two, while still being able to do the scam they did. Sure, there are risks (such as being able to withdraw at all after using the twitter hack to manipulate the market), but chances are there are plenty of others who will have shorted too so you’d be part of the noise and wait a week before withdrawing. Its not a perfect plan, but its straightforward with the potential to multiply the scammed money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is lighting crosses on fire terrorism?
Yes, because the whole point of that act is to terrify whoever lives on the property of the cross you're burning
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe most states will charge a 17yo as and adult. Not sure what the feds would do.
i could see this possibly be challenged by courts , possibly up to the supreme court
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because the whole point of that act is to terrify whoever lives on the property of the cross you're burning
Why are people lighting cop cars on fire? Please don't say it's to make an intelligent and nuanced political statement.
None of those things are terrorism