The power companies always win this game. They'll find reasons to increase rates even with demand down. Even more so, as the global population increases, fewer people will be living in their own houses - and fewer will have roofs to install rooftop solar on to.

That is debatable at the very least (although it would help if I knew for sure which call you were talking about). Regardless, the difference is between bringing attention to someone who chased down and killed an unarmed kid versus destroying the career of a politician simply because he was enthusiastic to be campaigning.

Being as the person who killed someone got off scot-free while the politician saw his entire career go up in smoke, you can't say that the after effects were in any way comparable either.

OK, so words do not have meanings. Thank you for the clarification, now I know how to read this JE as well.

Two spineless cowards hit my comment with overrated today. That puts the mod total to 34 and the apparent score at (+3, Insightful)

You stated that your new hero

Would that mean that he opposed the beloved Federalist Papers that the tea party clings so dearly to? If he was opposed to the Federalist Papers, then that wouldn't seem to make him much of a supporter of "republicanism" as we know it today, would it?

We have Kennedy, Houston, and are building one in New Mexico. It is not at this point clear if the commercial guys are going to want to launch from the government facilities; should we take this as a suggestion that NASA is anticipating the construction of another commercial spaceport in the US somewhere?

Being as the GOP presented a candidate who was demonstrably less conservative than President Lawnchair, we should be surprised that anyone from the republican party bothered to show up to vote at all. It seems that the selection of Mittens was done just to get rid of him; too bad that doesn't seem to be working out very well for you.

More to the point, Ginsburg just announced she will not be retiring any time soon. And you know that the conservative justices certainly aren't going to leave when the POTUS isn't from the GOP. Hence the only way a vacancy would come up would be if one of them up and died, but that wouldn't matter anyways as there is no way anyone he would nominate would ever be voted on before the 2016 election.

In other words, you are just parroting another conspiracy theory that is rooted in the opposite of reality.

Tell me how that was in any way less realistic than the conspiracy theory you just presented?

Nomination from who? Obama will never be able to place another justice on SCOTUS, even if the court is obliterated by an asteroid during its next session (most likely your friends would claim that Obama and other Iluminati lobbed the asteroid personally from Kenya and another investigation would ensue).

That is an even less rational conspiracy theory than most of your others.

Being as that was (at least) a double hypothetical situation, the question you raised about it is pointless. Might as well ask why Obama also lobbed that asteroid when he could have just as well used the nuclear football and used the ensuing situation to claim eternal power as supreme ruler of all mankind.

Well, being as the Senate will have to confirm a replacement for him before he will leave, you might not see the end of him until after a new president is inaugurated in 2017. He could end up in very elite company, serving out a full 8 years - and the last two-plus of them will be as a result of your friends who pride themselves in not doing their jobs.

I knew the moderations were still coming in. Now 6 more:

• 1 flamebait
• 1 troll
• 2 underrated
• 1 insightful
• 1 informative

Total now at 32, and a current apparent score of +5, Insightful.

My allegation towards you is that you have not read the article that you are complaining about. I did not see any evidence of you linking to it or any other Times article that you actually read. Being as you like to brag about not reading so many things, the most reasonable assumption is that you have not read the article you are trying to claim to be a case of "journalistic malpractice". If you would like to present a case for you having read it, then say something about it that demonstrates a deeper understanding than what one could get by skimming a summary of it from townhall.com.

This is very, very, simple here. You do not have a leg to stand on for leveling an allegation of "malpractice" when you are discussing text that you have not read.

It appears that the attempt has ended (unsuccessfully, of course). It has now been a bit more than an hour since their last attempt.

Final tally 7,752 unique attempts via ssh. The last 8 attempts were all done with a username of " " (one empty space). Total elapsed time 7 hours 40 minutes. This averages to roughly one attempt every 3.5 seconds. There are some other interesting bits to this that I might share later once I finish parsing the logs to my satisfaction.

They also tried the user "test" 542 times; not sure yet if that is the name they tried the most (they only tried "root" 274 times) or not.

I can predict what people will say:

• Change the port number that you use for ssh
• Use a tarpit or a honeypot
• Blacklist the IP address (or the entire country)

Similarly I can predict what their ISP will do:

• Nothing

At this point the attack is still ongoing. It seems like they started with just a list of common names - including 274 attempts as rot - and then eventually went to an A-Z list. We're back to the "m" names; most recently "manuel"