4. Backdoor deliberately designed into equipment almost immediately exploited by hackers, check.

Let's not stop there. It can further be said that most torrent sites meet both of these criteria. They can be useful for finding perfectly legitimate, non-infringing material, and those that actively promote infringement don't tend to last very long.

And the protocol itself can be said even more to have legitimate uses. Many sources of open-source software allow downloading via BitTorrent.

EFF and prior legal precedent say that there is no established right of copyright to actors in films... regardless of whether they appear there voluntarily or not.

The actor's role is different; it is that of an employee or contractor.

Your list of plugins, as also your installed fonts, are public because sites can use that information to display information to you.

Was that good design? Probably not. But it was well-intended.

Absurd, yes.

Incorrect, yes.

Fear-mongering? Very definitely NO.

As you point out (and as I pointed out elsewhere), Panopticlick is superior. But it paints a far WORSE picture than this site does.

So, "fear-mongering"? No. False sense of security? Maybe.

Yes, you're unique like everyone else... but you are unique TO everyone else... you show up as uniquely you. And that is the important point.

I was only "wrong" to those who didn't get the point. Ahem.

Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. The relevant and only important point is that that is the name they gleefully adopted and decided to call themselves.

Whether some news guy thought you were a hero or a villain if far less important than what you go around for the rest of your life calling yourself. And that was the flattering name they decided to call themselves.

I'm not trying to put them down. People of that era did some great things. But "greatest generation"? Hardly.

First, the simplest of script blockers completely prevented the home page from loading at all.

Second, when I allowed the site in my script blocker, it was slow as hell to load.

But Third, and more to the point: EFF's Panopticlick has been around for a long time now, and it's far better.

I wrote "evidence", doofus. You do know what "evidence" means, yes? A public statement by an organization is not evidence. It's an opinion.

I am well aware that organizations have been making such public statements. But that isn't evidence. If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? But then I know why you didn't: you have shown yourself to be the Prince of straw-man arguments.

I am not in a position to answer "why" they might have done so. But the fact that they did is not itself evidence of anything. Consensus is not science.

http://web.stanford.edu/~moore...

I found that in 30 seconds. Why couldn't you?

I have little doubt that if I spent more time, I could find many more.

The actual fact is that for all of history, more deaths attributable to climate have been due to cold rather than warm. This is a statistic that is also just about as easy to find.

Yes, really.

Yes, they commit fewer violent crimes. They have fewer unplanned pregnancies because of what they were TAUGHT by past generations. They are more educated because their parents and grandparents ensured that they would be; that is not an "accomplishment" of their own.

But what about other things? What about the fact that they have been attempting to make the same political and economic mistakes made by their grandparents and great-prandparents? (I'm referring here to socialism and fascism.)

And "tolerance"? Are you fucking joking? What passes for "tolerance" today is political correctness. Any attempts at dissent are greeted with personal and rather vicious attacks. "My view of 'tolerance', or I will attack you" is not real tolerance, it is the opposite. It is hypocrisy masquerading as tolerance.

WHOOOOSH!!!

The whole point was that it isn't about man or woman, Republican or Democrat, but about the character of the PERSON running for office.

I know a little bit about Hillary Clinton. And she -- individually, personally, and regardless of what party she is affiliated with -- is a rotten lowlife excuse for a human being.

I don't think that argument holds water. Is cash "shady" because it can be used for illegal purposes?

And perhaps not so sadly, it is quite possible -- I think even likely -- that Igw did not do so because he recognized that you were spewing nonsense.

I suggest you learn what "800 milli-timecubes" means. I doubt you will be pleased.

This is one of the rare times I will deign to respond to your nonsense any longer.

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed.

This is so fucking simple it is almost a tautology. As I have pointed it out to you before.

Since this is a simple statement of conservation of energy, it is up to YOU to disprove it, and you have not. If you disagree, then point out where the other energy is coming from or going. We have already established that there is no NET radiative energy input to the sphere from the surrounding cooler walls.