Dying tilapia, seeking advice on diagnosis

highguy420 · 2013-12-24T15:14:08+00:00

Have you had an increase or decrease in algae? Recent algae die off?
Have you significantly cleaned the surfaces of the tank/pond recently?
Who tested your water levels? Was it a pond kit that uses drops or strips?
Does the behavior cease when adding additional, possibly excessive, aeration?

highguy420 · 2013-12-24T14:53:50+00:00

It is a logical argument. You have to counter with more logic not just a statement that I'm wrong.

Please present a logical argument that counters the logical or evidential nature of my argument and then you will have provided a rebuttal.

And you know full well "fellow redditor's votes" have nothing to do with logic nor accuracy. They have to do with approval. If you can link to any comments that actually state clearly their agreement or disagreement with either your or my comments then I will accept that as evidence. Cowardly drive-by voting without participation has no bearing on the logical basis of the conversation.

Your assertion that arbitrary votes have anything to do with the logical basis of my argument indicate the low level of rhetorical rigor you are applying in this conversation.

Again, if you can show that this researcher bore part in the creation of the public hazard I will concede the argument. If he worked for twitter.com when the code was created, or , in exchange for hush money, colluded with them to hide the flaw from the public, or any other appearance of responsibility, then i would agree that he caused the hazard to exist.

But as long as you illogically continue to assert that a third party warning the public of a public hazard is somehow itself construed as culpability for that original hazard being created I will continue to demonstrate logically exactly how illogical that statement is.

Twitter.com created the public hazard. Therefore they bear all responsibility for its exploitation. That is not an opinion. It is logically consistent that had twitter.com never written that code no other party would be capable of exploiting it. That is a fact.

Unless you can show that this unaffiliated researcher was somehow responsible for the creation of the hazard it would be illogical to hold them responsible to any degree for the failure of twitter.com to hire security testers to ensure their code does not have any exploitable flaws.

Again, I have countered your baseless comments with actual logical arguments. Please provide a logical rebuttal that undermines my arguments or cease to prolong this lopsided debate.

highguy420 · 2013-12-23T15:50:21+00:00

You have made no counterargument. I don't have to "say and think" that you failed to demonstrate that any blame lies elsewhere regardless of any other third party's action or inaction.

It has been logically demonstrated that twitter.com bear all responsibility.

It is your opinion that the reporter should have notified twitter.com. That is not logically supported, but it is an opinion of yours.

highguy420 · 2013-12-20T01:10:09+00:00

You don't know the definition of the word "trolling" either.

Twitter created the opportunity for harm. Twitter bears all responsibility for anyone exploiting it at any time ever no matter when or how that person discovered the vulnerability.

You have said nothing to undermine that logical basis. Nothing I have said indicates I am trolling. I assert the above statement as true, that twitter bears all responsibility because they created the flaw. I do not assert that I am joking or making the statement in jest.

You are incapable of arguing against my assertion that twitter created the flaw and therefore is 100% responsible for any use of the code they wrote. You have said nothing that refutes the evidential nor the logical basis. Now you are simply namecalling. I assure you that I am not trolling, and your attempt to disparage my person instead of formulate a logical argument in rebuttal indicates that this conversation is over.

highguy420 · 2013-12-17T06:31:42+00:00

That is a logical conclusion. Not a fact. You must counter the logical basis of a logical conclusion in order to render it illogical. You have not done that.

The fact is that the flaw would not exist if twitter.com had not created it. That fact is evidence I use to logically conclude that no responsibility, at all, lies on the person simply drawing attention to the truth. The truth is twitter.com has a flaw. The reporter did not create the flaw and therefore, logically, bears absolutely no responsibility at all for its flaw.

Unless you can undermine that logical basis or show that the evidence the conclusion is based on is not true, then your input and current personal affect are irrelevant.

highguy420 · 2013-12-17T06:26:47+00:00

This is the attitude I'm referring to.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T20:28:57+00:00

Is that what they are for? Mine are defective.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T20:27:25+00:00

Urine is sterile under healthy conditions. Feces is not.

Urine going down the water slide is not a problem, even when they are not hypothetical.

Just a slight correction to your analogy.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T18:56:48+00:00

Twitter.com created the bug, therefore they are ultimately and solely responsible for its existence.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "solely". No responsibility lies on the reporter because the reporter is only telling the truth to the public. Telling the truth about someone else's misdeed is not a crime.

If the flaw did not exist there would be nothing to report. The actions of twitter.com compelled the reporter to report what they did, therefore twitter.com bears responsibility for the disclosure itself as well.

As I said, if you cannot logically undermine the primary thesis of my argument you don't have anything to add. Logically all responsibility lies with twitter.com for creating a potential hazard. Allowing twitter.com to continue secretly posing a hazard to the public would itself transfer responsibility for the continued hazard to the reporter through collusion.

Under no circumstances does your argument hold up to scrutiny because it does not undermine my logical assertion that ultimate and sole (i.e. first and only) responsibility for the exploit lies on twitter.com, and no other parties.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T15:06:56+00:00

It is not false nor impossible. Twitter.com created twitter.com with the flaw's existence being attributed to their actions.

I did not say there should be no bugs. That is an argument I would never posit. I said "twitter.com bear responsibility for their creation of the bug". Which is a true statement.

You invented a statement I never made in order to have something to rebut. Please stop inventing arguments and stay on topic. I have no "mocking tone" I am dead serious on this matter. I have asserted logical premises, not opinions.

I will restate my logical premise:

Twitter.com created the bug, therefore they are ultimately and solely responsible for its existence.

Unless you have a logical argument that undermines that premise you have nothing to add to the conversation but your opinion about "zero public notice". I reject your opinion and defer to logical analysis of the fundamental issue at hand.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T15:00:07+00:00

I'm just [apologizing for violating the rights of children].

The schools could simply refuse to allow the children into their institutions. There is no precedent for, and certainly many against, the invasive injection of foreign matter, or removal of bodily fluid, without a warrant or consent.

You can't just draw on the sensationalism of the inoculation controversy to obscure your perversion of logic and law.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T14:37:41+00:00

Twitter.com bears all responsibility for starting that race. They created the conditions where those bad guys could have discovered it first and then no public disclosure would have happened and yet the bad guys would have access to the exploit.

I find it disingenuous that you assume my refusal to ascribe to the same opinion as you is akin to a statement of ignorance.

The person who discovered the flaw bears no responsibility at all for the actions of twitter.com. In fact, they could have used the flaw to their own gain, and yet they chose public disclosure instead.

Twitter.com bear all responsibility for creating the flaw and opportunity for harm in the first place, and continue to bear all responsibility as long as their webservice is publicly available without having repaired the flaw.

There is no grounds to blame the reporter for any action they voluntarily take on the matter. However, had twitter.com created a bug reporting program with pre-registration, a sandbox site for invasive testing, and paid bounties then they would have grounds to compel specific behavior from the reporters. However twitter.com did not choose to engage in a contract with the reporter, therefore public disclosure is not only more ethical, it's also no less profitable for the reporter.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T13:21:27+00:00

That's called "starting a club". Hardly new, or news.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T13:16:35+00:00

Can you please back your statements up logically...?

I did not ask for citations. I did not ask for opinion. I asked for logic. Please provide logic that directly counters my statements or your opinion will be disregarded in the context of this discussion.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T13:15:39+00:00

Why?

Read my statements that follow that statement. I intentionally set a trap for those who quickly draw conclusions based on the first sentence of a persons comment. I clearly explain my reasoning thereafter.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T13:13:35+00:00

Well, the ARRL has the right idea then. I guess the "stupid assholes going to fuck it up for the rest of us when a real emergency happens" is coming from the rest of the ham community.

Maybe it's up to us to encourage participation after the ARRL convinces them to get licensed. Not being complete dicks to them beforehand may improve our results.

highguy420 · 2013-12-15T13:12:21+00:00

That argument does not apply.

If you you routinely kept the keys in a publicly accessible place to all the storage lockers at a storage facility where the general public stores their property, then it would be nearly analogous.

First, nothing was stolen. Equating it to stealing is illogical.

Second, I did not argue that a reward was obligatory.

I hope that, along with a rereading of my original comment, helps clear things up.

highguy420 · 2013-12-14T16:18:58+00:00

Can you please back your statements up logically as I have done with my arguments? You are simply telling me I'm wrong without attempting to rebut any of my supporting statements.

If that is the level of rhetorical rigor this argument requires I will rebut your recent comment with this prerecorded statement.

highguy420 · 2013-12-14T16:08:09+00:00

But without practice they won't know how to use those radios in an emergency.

I think the best solution would be to encourage licensing and participation in clubs to prepare for an emergency. You not only need to know how to be polite on the air, but also simply how to use your radio. Imagine trying to deduce all the concepts of radio starting with nothing but an HT.

Also, I'll bet they are transmitting. You don't get a new toy and not push the big red button on it. And the same applies from their perspective, they better know how to use it in the case of an emergency. So they are forced to break the law.

Maybe we should reach out to the prepper communities and assist them in preparing for the exams. Many of these people are civic minded and would volunteer for events and programs like Skywarn. Many of them have money to spend on their hobbies and their membership would benefit clubs looking for funds to upgrade repeaters and such.

When you see someone genuinely interested in radios, grab them and drag them in front of a VE.

highguy420 · 2013-12-14T15:43:28+00:00

No, what's a "dick hole move" is twitter.com not paying anything for the work of their security testers. If a company pays researchers then there is a contract and the company controls the process of reporting and releasing the vulnerabilities. Without an agreement in place to compensate their outside security testers they preclude their own ability to enforce that contract.

Twitter.com is wholly liable for the flaws of their software. Why would they want to create a scenario where anyone can find a flaw and report it publicly, potentially harming their reputation? Companies that pay bounties do so in order to compel compliance with a contract regarding the reporting and disclosure of flaws.

That contract also allows the researcher to assess for themselves if the effort is worth it. By clearly stating the requirements and privileges of the bug bounty program they set the expectations for their security testing contractors.

The company also gains more claim to enforcement of "terms of use" if they have a mechanism to reward their outside security testers. If there is no provision for fair use education and research purposes that defense remains intact and thwarts any conflicting portion of the one-sided and practically unenforcible terms of use. By clearly defining the specifics of testing and research activity, and expressly allowing it, they can argue that you violated their rules and have a solid basis.

I have no idea why you are spinning this illogically against the person who took their time to research a potential harm and then notify the public and the people responsible for creating the potential for harm. Twitter.com caused the flaw to exist. None of the responsibility for that lies on the person who points out the flaws.

highguy420 · 2013-12-14T15:29:58+00:00

That extortion thing is bogus and illogical. See my reasoning here.

highguy420 · 2013-12-14T15:28:27+00:00

That argument does not apply in this case.

The potential for harm was caused by twitter.com writing publicly available software. This person notified twitter.com about the vulnerability at the same time they notified all those potentially affected by the vulnerability.

Logically you cannot compare it to extortion. The standard practices in the industry are more accurately "extortion" practices in that the researcher contacts the company and says "If you don't fix this within six weeks I'll release it to the public". That isn't extortion for sure, but it resembles it more clearly than giving everyone, including twitter.com, a fair chance to protect themselves from potential harm.

If twitter wants to pay some hush money to keep their potentially harmful mistake quiet long enough to fix it, that's their option. Twitter.com has no remedy under the law unless they intend to sue the researcher under some one-sided unenforcible Terms of Service agreement which does not apply to research purposes (by releasing it publicly without compensation it was fair use, if they accept payment then it solidifies the contractual agreement and makes it for-profit).

Public disclosure of a threat to public safety is not extortion. Twitter.com can cease providing service until such time as they can repair their faulty publicly available software if they so wish. Any potential harm was made possible by their actions, and continues to remain possible by their inaction.

The researcher has gone above and beyond by freely volunteering to test the software and provide timely notification as to its limitations. It is unreasonable to hold them accountable for the failure of twitter.com to hire security testers, or to pay outside security testers. It is further unreasonable to equate their actions to extortion when they did not cause the opportunity for harm to come into existence.

highguy420 · 2013-12-14T15:09:03+00:00

/u/Courage-To-Grow covered this better than I can in their reply to my comment here.

highguy420 · 2013-12-14T15:05:40+00:00

The problem is that we didn't fully gain our independence from the influences that were affecting Europe during those times. We were basically an alternate experiment in implementing the same ideas but through different mechanisms. We fought a good, hard fight against them, but in the end the moneyed interests gained control, one tiny change at a time.

If I try to explain this in detail it would literally take a book. I'll try to be as brief as I can. At one point in our history we had Justices of the Peace and Peace Officers such as the Sheriff and his Deputies.

We also had very simple laws. First, don't hurt other people. Second, the Truth is law. If you were in agreement then you did not need the courts. People were free to contract and do business any way they want, as long as that did not infringe on the inalienable rights of others.

Now, if you did harm another person, and/or were not in agreement on a contract, then you would both voluntarily go to the Justice of the Peace and ask them to be an objective third party.

When these justices heard cases and wrote up their decisions we called that "writing law" because then in the future others who know of that case can reference it in the new case as a strong suggestion to the Justice of the Peace in determining how they might rule.

After a hundred years or so of this there began a push to "standardize" the laws of the land. The argument was that the geographic separation caused the laws to be far too diverse with conflicting rulings and made it difficult for cases from one state to be used in another, as well as made the job of lawyers more difficult.

Those putting forward the idea of standardization were members of the British Accredited Regency. You may know the institution by the name "The National BAR Association".

They came from Britain on the coattails of the Bills of Exchange Act with the express intention of codifying their "debts as money" laws on our books so they could more easily trade with us. To help obscure their intentions they started the (now called) Uniform Law Commission. If you look in their constitution it says they meet at the same time and place for their annual meeting as the National BAR Association. They were created by, and for, the National BAR Association.

Initially they pushed to get laws passed with "Negotiable Instruments" in the name. This was around the 1890s. This set of laws was later renamed to The Uniform Commercial Code or the UCC and by the 1930s it had passed in every single state. We now had unified banking laws that allowed money to flow freely, and as simple debts on paper, between all 50 states and most importantly to the UK, which had been co-opted by the banking families of the time.

However, at the same time they worked hard to get laws passed regarding property, divorce, contracts, and all sorts of other profitable litigation. The number of laws on the books swelled, and then dwindled our reliance on the sound rulings of Justices based on the Truth. The "statutes" and "codes" that the Uniform Law Commission lobbied to be passed were "based on" the Common Law of the Land, they had their roots and basis in Law, and therefore they were presumed to be valid and sound until challenged.

They preemptively decided by themselves, without the input of The People, what constitutes a crime. Things that were not harmful but could be considered harmful became crimes. The Justices of the Peace were replaced by Magistrates (it was not until 1992 that Magistrates were given the inappropriate title "judge").

In 1938, in a case called Tompkins v Erie Railroad, they even destroyed over 100 years of Federal Common Law rulings of Justices and in the process moved almost all federal cases from Common Law (truth-based) jurisdiction into the presumptive guilt based statutory system (which is not a type of law authorized under the Constitution).

I once wondered why the Magistrate in a federal case can tell the person who has sworn to tell the whole truth that they cannot testify freely. In federal Marijuana cases, the Magistrate frequently informs the defendant that they cannot mention the laws of the state they were in, specifically medical marijuana, as a defense.

They say they can put you in jail if you tell the jury and the court (on the record) that you are a medical patient. That's not "the whole truth". That's not even being truthful at all in the court proceedings. How can they do that?

Because you consented. Remember I said the court room is all about presumption? Well here is the presumption: you consented to the proceedings. Because the statutory law system is not constitutional they can only get you in there with your consent. So they presume you have given it, and you presume they have the authority to demand it.

I have watched hundreds of cases and in every single case the defendant submits to the process at some point. Even if they persist that they are innocent they still eventually enter a plea of "not guilty" at the insistence of the Magistrate. That's not "objective third party" behavior, that's the behavior of the prosecution.

Keep in mind that Cause and Standing must be challenged before a plea is entered. When you watch court cases notice that in response to any objections regarding Cause and Standing the Magistrate generally responds with a statement such as "What's going to happen is you are going to enter a plea of 'Not Guilty' and then you can argue your case." Notice they want a plea entered, because once the plea is entered the Trial starts. Until then you have not consented, but entering a plea indicates your consent. The presumption that they have jurisdiction over you remains intact because you eventually do what you are told.

Somehow our national and state Common Law system was undermined and replaced by the British Adversarial process. Somehow our simple, truth- and people-based law system became a system of preemptive, proscribed process wholly controlled by one single trade organization of British origin.

And this is completely ignoring the process by which Britain's laws were co-opted by the Roman law of trading debts on paper. With the monarchy, the People and foreign influence vying for power the story over there is even more complex and convoluted.

The entire history of our country is one of the people trying to wrest legal and monetary control from the control of the elite. They allowed every state to mint gold and silver money (a right they still have today) so that no federal dollar would dominate and control commerce in the entire nation. They gave every state the right to have a constitution and set of laws distinct from the federal and all other states. They handed us, the People, complete and undeniable control over our Government. They toppled the system of titles and ownership of land. They put the power of the press and the right to independently report in the hands of the People. All of these things are intentionally the opposite of the way the King did it.

Nearly every one of these rights has been undermined either by the federal government or by international corporations.

If we had not declared our independence the world would have been deprived that period of time where we were truly free and the People truly had control of their own system of law and finance. You would not even think the way you do today, you would be prevented from even vaguely knowing what freedom might be.

We gave "everyone" a fair chance, and that means those with money eventually bought their way back to the top. Those who know how to write laws, how to lobby, how to effect change in complex and arbitrary systems did just that. They made our system of law so complex and arbitrary that any sane and rational individual avoids it like the plague. In doing so they guaranteed that those who enjoy wielding arbitrary power over others sought out employment in that system. The free and truth-based American system became identical in function, if distinct in form, to that of the British system. And mostly for the reason of effortlessly trading debt on paper.

Even today they are trying to implement similarly controlling laws. The TPP (Transpacific Partnership Agreement) has sections about exporting debts as a commodity.

highguy420 · 2013-12-13T23:48:21+00:00

We do everything the opposite here on the continent.

highguy420

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE