Beats me. It’s very hard to distinguish between someone who is actually bothered by something, and someone who knows that they have to pretend to be bothered by it.
My point, though, and I really really really don’t want to start arguing on the side of a homophobic jackass, is that what we’re really accusing him of is being a homophobic jackass, who also is a politician. And politicians do all sorts of shit where they say things they have to say, even politicians we like and agree with. Also accusing him of being a hypocrite seems both pointless and somewhat overreaching.
A precise four number IP address (e.g. 123.45.78.90) marks and can in theory be traced to a specific machine – the one in your study, say, as opposed to the one Mrs. Bricker uses for her online activity. In practice, routers, WiFi, dynamic ISP addressing, and so on, will not always permit that precise a locator. But it’s not "well, it coulda been somebody in another office in the complex two buildings down with no connection to the Chambliss office at all – it can be tied by what ussenate.gov maps to in the Atlanta area. Hence why the opposing Senator was excluded.
It’s close enough that the RIAA can sue thousands of people for hundreds of thousands of dollars based on nothing but IP address. If this mope had been, say, sharing Liza Minnelli songs, instead of wishing death on a group of people, the RIAA would have no hesitation about getting all up in his grill about it. Lucky for the mope in question he didn’t do something really heinous. :rolleyes:
I do now, because you explained it clearly, with style and humor. Had you not posted this, I probably would have never thought about it from that perspective.
Well done.
Not necessarily true. It all depends on the particular network topology in play here.
For example, suppose the network connectivity for each of the two offices was a NATted router with a short SHCP lease time, using the same ISP. In that case, the Chambliss office’s router would get an IP address one day, and the next day that same address could be assigned to the other office… in much the same way that my neighbor could get an IP address I had last week.
Of course, this is not likely, especially since (apparently) both addresses map to a senate.gov address space. But we don’t know if that’s merely reverse DNS mapping or the addresses were part of the senate.gov IP space.
This is a key question. If the addresses were DHCP assigned, can they reliably associate a DHCP lease to a MAC address? If they can (and from subsequent postings, sounds like they have) then at the very least they have the public-facing IP involved.
Polycarp – like most people, I have an internal private IP space and a NATting router, so while it’s absolutely true that the computer in my study has a distinct IP from the one Mrs. Bricker uses, both of those would show up on any IP log as the same computer, because both use the same router and NAT scheme to reach the outside world.
Unlike most people, I actually have several internal zones for IP; Bricker Jr.'s computer is in his room but hard-wired to a dual-homed Linux box running a white-listing proxy service. He literally cannot get anywhere unless I have white-listed the destination. I also have a wireless AP in that subnet, running WEP. This allows Bricker Jr to use his Nintendo DS to get online for WiFi Pokemon battles without my exposing my entire internal network to the non-security that is WEP encryption.
Okay, now that you’ve proved that you did not ask the question out of a sincere desire for an answer but in order to swoop in and prove your opponent wrong in some way, answer me three questions:
Where in what I said, including the caveat clauses I intentionally included that address the points you made, did I say something in error regarding IP addresses?
Do you, personally, condone Sen. Chambliss’s impugning of Sen. Cleland’s patriotism in the earlier campaign referenced?
Do you believe that it is permissible for someone to express outrage at an alleged perfidious or contemptible action without you going into Defense Attorney Mode and noting that it has not been conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the alleged perpetrator of the action did in fact do it, and not invisible Martians or fairies dancing at the bottom of the garden? In general, breaking news stories state what’s alleged to have happened because there has not yet been time to amass conclusive proof – and yes, it’s occasionally necessary to point that out; witness the Ontario Attorney General story last summer. But I think it’s generally reasonable to be upset at the guy caught leaving the scene of a disastrous explosion with explosives and detonators, not at the hypothetical third party who might have done it instead of him.
If I may be so bold in asking, why did the people of Georgia elect a man whose name is Saxby Chambliss? Why does an old white politician have the name of a black jazz musician?
“Welcome to the Copa Room, Saxby Chambliss and the Blue Notes!”
Max Cleland doesn’t get an extra points from me because his body is a welcome mat. It was his fault that three of his limbs were shot off picking up something strange from the ground when his training told his he shouldn’t have. He and his unit were also behind the lines and he was possibly drunk off of warm budweiser courtesy of the U.S. Military.
I wouldn’t of fought in Vietnam either and would have done anything to get out of it, including the unbearable punishments of either going to Canada or Leavenworth, with me rolling about in bed on sleepless nights thinking which choice would be worse, spending several years in a boring, confined space with the scum of the Earth, or move to a country where the average IQ of the native people hovers about 75.
The whole “Support the Troops” thing is bullshit too and an easy thing to say. Why is the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why are Americans killing people over there? Does the USA have to go bankrupt before they realize that fucking with other people’s countries does not work? Max Cleland’s patriotic duty for himself and mankind was to tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself in the ass, and the he is not going to some strange country to get his body mangled in the shape of a throw pillow.
Saxby and Max can both jump out a window. I’ll even open the window and chunk Max out for free.
It’s not like Cleland picked up an IED. He was getting off a helicopter, when he picked up a grenade that he thought had dropped off his flak jacket. Wrong - it actually fell off the jacket of a private who had not secured it properly to his vest. The grenade was live. Cleland’s orders at the time of the incident were to set up a relay station on a hill.
Well, maybe the term ‘faggot’ is a little derogatory, but I don’t see what’s so bad about that statement. It’s perfectly true, if a little specific. After all, we don’t actually HAVE cell-repair nanites or mind-uploads yet. Until we do, every homosexual’s fate is inevitable.
Since that’s not true, I doubt anything I’ve said has “proved” it.
I was reading a blog entry from the AJC that said they traced the IP address to the “neighborhood” of Chambliss’ office, and that it was also the neighboorhood of another congressional local office (across the Interstate). The combination of those statements led me to question how strong the evidence was for Chambliss’ office.
That’s an extremely legitimate question. And because it seemed possible that there was more evidence, I said, “Tell me that’s not the only evidence…”
Where did I say you did?
Who the fuck cares? Is this thread about an offensive posting from a Chambliss staffer or about every wrong done by Chambliss in his life?
I’ve posted previously on the absurd attacks on Cleland’s service.
Depends. If the only evidence was “in the nioeghborhood,” then, no, it’s not reasonable. But you exercise the fallacy of the excluded middle here, suggesting that the only possibilities are “conclusively proven beyond a shadow of a doubt” or not guilty. How about “evidence too thin to justify any conclusion?”
In this case, there WAS additional evidence.
And in my posting, what I asked for was: additional evidence.
As I understand it, “supporting the troops” has nothing to do with why the troops happen to be deployed to any particular place; that is a matter for the civilian leadership.
“Possibly?” Yes, that’s true. But it is also “possible” that visitors from Ceti Alpha VI used a minature tractor beam to dislodge the grenade.
My question would be: what is the EVIDENCE that anyone was drunk? Answer: none.
While Cleland’s injuries did not come about as a result of enemy action, the fact of the matter is he was in uniform, serving his country, and that service involved walking around where there were explosives. His injuries are the result of his honorable service and it’s absolutely inappropriate to suggest otherwise.
