In high severity fire regime such as this, where fire spreads from treetop to treetop, there isn’t much evidence that proscribed burning limits wildfire size when the fire weather (high temperatures and high winds) is as extreme as it is up Alberta. In 1988 fire in Yellowstone the fire jumped the Grand Canyon of the…

How on earth can you write a post that long about forest fires and completely leave out the fact that fire prevention measures over the decades have left a ton more fuel for these fires to consume? That fact has orders of magnitude more impact than a couple degrees warmer than seasonal temperatures.

That would absolutely not solve the problem, I hope you are kidding because otherwise you are over simplifying in the extreme.

My issue was with the politically driven climate change mention. I am all for compassion. My house currently has 10 people 4 dogs and 5 cats thanks to this fire.

You fuck off. Due to this forest fire I am the only employed person in a house that now houses 10 people. I am doing more to help this situation than most except for the brave first responders risking their lives. We don’t want or need people mixing climate change comments into this discussion because Fort Mac is a…

Giant forest fires have always happened. Just because people aren’t highlanders and can’t remember that far back besides you know... reading books. Doesn’t mean that we can’t use a little common sense.

Currently this forest fire is about one sixth of the size of the one back in 1910 in the usa. You know from that other climate change induced fire.

I have a question for the class. How do you people take “humiliating porn stars” and see “humiliating women”?

Bug exploit = crime? Personally don't see how this stands up. It's a lesson to the manufacturer to ship a correct system.

Why? It wasn’t worth watching once. ⅓ of the way into the movie, I realized that I had already seen it before several times.

I hear you BROTHER.

Paying back Hulk Hogan.

This bit is very weird. You say that the amount is a drop in the bucket but are comparing 2 different time spans. Then you go on to say in the next part about how it could be exactly the opposite.

Seems like Gawker is playing it legally safe in this article.

Click.

What’s the purpose of this article exactly? I’m confused?

but i believe it’s ending in 9...like 19, 29, or 59...these are not divisible by three even though they have 9 in them.

They actually did find create weaknesses in Tor.

CMU basically put enough computers on tor that peoples ips started just bouncing around CMUs computers and returning to the source again, so CMU was basically able to circumvent TORs ip bouncing by only making clients bounce around their network and following the routes back again. I believe TOR has since fixed this…

That’s not really the issue. The issue is more that a service was hacked at the FBI’s behest (and on the FBI’s dime) to catch someone who merely used that service, and the vulnerability made it so other, non-FBI hackers could use the same vulnerability. It’s effectively firing a nuke into a crowd to catch one criminal.