the reason i support a gai is not because i think it's ideal. ideally, you tear down the wage system altogether. ideally, you abolish currency.
the reason i support a gai is because it's the fastest way to approximate what life would be like in a post-market society, with the full understanding that i'll never experience that, in my lifetime.
i'm never going to experience communism in my lifetime. but, i might get to a gai, if the situation aligns. so, pragmatically, it makes sense for me to support it, out of self-interest.
but, i'd rather that we didn't have money at all than that they send me a little every month, absolutely.
Saturday, December 21, 2019
it may be the only thing reagan ever said that was actually true, but for all the wrong reasons.
i live on disability; i "need the government", and i know it. but, the reason i need the government is because it's passed all of these laws regarding property rights. reagan was, of course, an advocate of property rights; anarchists consider property to be an impossible abstraction within the confines of an actually free society.
so, i need the government, but i only need the government because the government forces me to need the government, because i don't want to get a pointless job. so long as the government continues to exist and force free-market capitalism on everybody at the end of a gun, i will remain absolutely dependent on it, by design; if it were to cease to exist, i wouldn't need it at all.
what i would need is the support of a free commune that prioritizes the kind of freedom that i value, and allows me to live the kind of lifestyle that i want. and, i'd be happy to help grow some food and clean the toilets, despite refusing to be a wage slave.
anarchism is hard for capitalists to understand, because it really does pull the rug out in just about every way imaginable. but, the basic problem - and it's what anarchists have been saying for centuries - is rooted in the government's enforcement of property with the use of force. if they'd stop policing property, we could live freely without them; so long as they uphold their system of violence with force, we're all enslaved, one way or another.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/17/17675100/suzanne-mettler-government-citizen-disconnect-welfare
i live on disability; i "need the government", and i know it. but, the reason i need the government is because it's passed all of these laws regarding property rights. reagan was, of course, an advocate of property rights; anarchists consider property to be an impossible abstraction within the confines of an actually free society.
so, i need the government, but i only need the government because the government forces me to need the government, because i don't want to get a pointless job. so long as the government continues to exist and force free-market capitalism on everybody at the end of a gun, i will remain absolutely dependent on it, by design; if it were to cease to exist, i wouldn't need it at all.
what i would need is the support of a free commune that prioritizes the kind of freedom that i value, and allows me to live the kind of lifestyle that i want. and, i'd be happy to help grow some food and clean the toilets, despite refusing to be a wage slave.
anarchism is hard for capitalists to understand, because it really does pull the rug out in just about every way imaginable. but, the basic problem - and it's what anarchists have been saying for centuries - is rooted in the government's enforcement of property with the use of force. if they'd stop policing property, we could live freely without them; so long as they uphold their system of violence with force, we're all enslaved, one way or another.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/17/17675100/suzanne-mettler-government-citizen-disconnect-welfare
at
23:45
do i really think the cops are trying to break my computer and keep me off the internet?
maybe it's more likely that they're trying to install some kind of logging software, and keep breaking it by accident, because my image is so broken, already.
i'm speculating. you'd have to ask them. all i know is that my computer is frequently working when i leave and frequently broken when i get home....
maybe it's more likely that they're trying to install some kind of logging software, and keep breaking it by accident, because my image is so broken, already.
i'm speculating. you'd have to ask them. all i know is that my computer is frequently working when i leave and frequently broken when i get home....
at
22:44
so, where am i? what happened?
as noted, i went grocery shopping yesterday afternoon. i left a little before 12:00 and was back around 21:00. so, my computer was off around 10:00. i did a lot of walking yesterday on an empty stomach (i hadn't eaten since tuesday night) and it took a toll on my legs. so, i got something to eat, took a shower and sat down to type, hoping to implement some of the ideas i had thought through regarding the html frontend for the liner notes.
i stated previously that i haven't done any scripting, but that wasn't entirely true; i have taken courses in functional programming, and i was actually unusually good at it. i actually found functional programming to be conceptually easier to understand and work with than object-oriented programming, which is unusual and says something about how i think, in comparison to how others think. it's a sort of a proof that i really am an anarchist to my core being, rather than it being a decision i made as something to identify with, as an adult. i'm more of a concrete thinker and less of an abstract one; i think in terms of very specific and precise details and dwell on those precise details, rather than in terms of lofty principles or generalized concepts, which, in most contexts, i would broadly reject as non-existent. in almost every application and context in reality, generalized concepts and lofty principles have no empirical basis but rather only exist in our minds, and can consequently only lead to confusion and poor outcomes when applied usefully in any conceivable way at all. there is no forest, there are only trees. for that reason, i will almost always reject the application of any sort of generalized knowledge, and will instead look at each situation entirely uniquely, in order to understand the situation as a unique situation, isolated from the situations around it. when i was in school, this tendency would frequently upset my math professors, as i used to prove everything from first principles rather than apply the theorems because i found it easier to work through the specific logic on a case-by-case basis in each precise scenario than apply broad ideas abstractly, which led them to question if i even understood what they were doing, even as i was clearly demonstrating that i did. they were frequently confused as to how a student could make it as clear that they understood the material as i routinely did, yet make it equally clear that they didn't understand how to apply the results of it, which i also did. was i not able to generalize? i ultimately didn't trust the theorems - i felt the need to show everything on a case-by-case basis, instead, to be sure it was actually true. merely citing a theorem struck me as an insufficient way to demonstrate a claim, and i think that is a broader truth to hold to that is more useful in every day life. was it that i couldn't generalize, or was it that i realized that, in truth, generalization is an intellectually invalid process, contrary to the general opinion of historical scholarship? citing theorems is in truth not a good epistemology; your theorem is almost certainly wrong, and attempting to apply it to reality will almost certainly lead to poor outcomes. i did not initially realize any of this, but, at the end of my time studying math, i became cognizant of my identification with a school of mathematics called constructivism, which is an obscure view that rejects much of the platonism underlying the field of mathematics in favour of the requirement of explicit demonstration, every time. i actually prefer the linearity of functional programming and find it easier to follow than the often opaque abstraction of oop, which i'm less adept at understanding. it's just how my brain is wired, but our brains are plastic, and it's consequently a result of experience, and not genes. i've trained myself to think like this. most people would find it difficult to follow the complexity of functional programming and instead prefer the relative simplicity of oop because they've trained themselves (or been trained by the school system) to think in simplified generalizations. we used scheme instead of lisp, but scheme is very similar to lisp and most people would take lisp as their reference point rather than scheme.
as noted, i went grocery shopping yesterday afternoon. i left a little before 12:00 and was back around 21:00. so, my computer was off around 10:00. i did a lot of walking yesterday on an empty stomach (i hadn't eaten since tuesday night) and it took a toll on my legs. so, i got something to eat, took a shower and sat down to type, hoping to implement some of the ideas i had thought through regarding the html frontend for the liner notes.
i stated previously that i haven't done any scripting, but that wasn't entirely true; i have taken courses in functional programming, and i was actually unusually good at it. i actually found functional programming to be conceptually easier to understand and work with than object-oriented programming, which is unusual and says something about how i think, in comparison to how others think. it's a sort of a proof that i really am an anarchist to my core being, rather than it being a decision i made as something to identify with, as an adult. i'm more of a concrete thinker and less of an abstract one; i think in terms of very specific and precise details and dwell on those precise details, rather than in terms of lofty principles or generalized concepts, which, in most contexts, i would broadly reject as non-existent. in almost every application and context in reality, generalized concepts and lofty principles have no empirical basis but rather only exist in our minds, and can consequently only lead to confusion and poor outcomes when applied usefully in any conceivable way at all. there is no forest, there are only trees. for that reason, i will almost always reject the application of any sort of generalized knowledge, and will instead look at each situation entirely uniquely, in order to understand the situation as a unique situation, isolated from the situations around it. when i was in school, this tendency would frequently upset my math professors, as i used to prove everything from first principles rather than apply the theorems because i found it easier to work through the specific logic on a case-by-case basis in each precise scenario than apply broad ideas abstractly, which led them to question if i even understood what they were doing, even as i was clearly demonstrating that i did. they were frequently confused as to how a student could make it as clear that they understood the material as i routinely did, yet make it equally clear that they didn't understand how to apply the results of it, which i also did. was i not able to generalize? i ultimately didn't trust the theorems - i felt the need to show everything on a case-by-case basis, instead, to be sure it was actually true. merely citing a theorem struck me as an insufficient way to demonstrate a claim, and i think that is a broader truth to hold to that is more useful in every day life. was it that i couldn't generalize, or was it that i realized that, in truth, generalization is an intellectually invalid process, contrary to the general opinion of historical scholarship? citing theorems is in truth not a good epistemology; your theorem is almost certainly wrong, and attempting to apply it to reality will almost certainly lead to poor outcomes. i did not initially realize any of this, but, at the end of my time studying math, i became cognizant of my identification with a school of mathematics called constructivism, which is an obscure view that rejects much of the platonism underlying the field of mathematics in favour of the requirement of explicit demonstration, every time. i actually prefer the linearity of functional programming and find it easier to follow than the often opaque abstraction of oop, which i'm less adept at understanding. it's just how my brain is wired, but our brains are plastic, and it's consequently a result of experience, and not genes. i've trained myself to think like this. most people would find it difficult to follow the complexity of functional programming and instead prefer the relative simplicity of oop because they've trained themselves (or been trained by the school system) to think in simplified generalizations. we used scheme instead of lisp, but scheme is very similar to lisp and most people would take lisp as their reference point rather than scheme.
i had an epiphany walking out to get some salami today when i realized i should be approaching this problem less like it's oop and more like it's functional programming, as i worked the logic through during the walk. java is inherently oop, so you wouldn't think to do functional java programming, but the solution became apparent immediately once i did make that shift in mindset.
as mentioned, this is a tricky issue. i'm fighting against the api; i'm asking it to do something it was designed to prevent. in a sense, i'm breaking it. it looks like an easy task, and it would be in any other context, but javascript isn't supposed to be aware of what's happening locally, and it isn't supposed to run without user input. it's supposed to compile remotely. but, as stated, i don't want any of that.
and, no, i don't want to tell people to install some other language, like python. everybody has java; it's baked into the browser. i might have some fun with a lisp-centric browser, though. there was a time when lisp was all over the internet.
if i approach this from a functional programming perspective instead, i should be able to get the right listener to launch on a play error. i was trying to get it to react to the canplay(), which is a haphazard error testing, but it just wouldn't load. i was emulating what the standard pushed down; if you look at the source code in the html5 repository, it must essentially be running a try...catch block in just throwing out the different file types. however, i can't even get it to do that without prompting for a click. it's just the api. it needs some kind of user input.
if i can set the variable to the mp3 array by default and then listen for an error when it tries to play a different file type, i should be able to introduce some adhoc error handling when the error triggers (it will look like an expanded recursion, but i can't recurse because the array is hardcoded, and that's actually the point - it's more like an expanded lisp routine) that checks all of the options and exits when it finds the right one. what i'm imagining doing is really just expanding the built-in error handling by inserting a block of code that handles the error how i want it to, which relies on the ability to write that code functionally, as it exists at run-time, which is not how javascript is supposed to behave (it is how lisp is supposed to behave).
i'm not 100% sure that javascript will do this the same way that lisp or scheme would, but so long as it does, i think it should work.
if not, i'm going to have to ask for the click. so be it.
anyways.
i got out of the shower around midnight and sat down to type, when i went to turn the machine back on to find that same rpcrtremote.dll error. ugh.
we have a pattern here, don't we? it seems to break when i go out. why is that?
why was my chromebook parallel to my bed? it's always perpendicular. always.
as mentioned, this is a tricky issue. i'm fighting against the api; i'm asking it to do something it was designed to prevent. in a sense, i'm breaking it. it looks like an easy task, and it would be in any other context, but javascript isn't supposed to be aware of what's happening locally, and it isn't supposed to run without user input. it's supposed to compile remotely. but, as stated, i don't want any of that.
and, no, i don't want to tell people to install some other language, like python. everybody has java; it's baked into the browser. i might have some fun with a lisp-centric browser, though. there was a time when lisp was all over the internet.
if i approach this from a functional programming perspective instead, i should be able to get the right listener to launch on a play error. i was trying to get it to react to the canplay(), which is a haphazard error testing, but it just wouldn't load. i was emulating what the standard pushed down; if you look at the source code in the html5 repository, it must essentially be running a try...catch block in just throwing out the different file types. however, i can't even get it to do that without prompting for a click. it's just the api. it needs some kind of user input.
if i can set the variable to the mp3 array by default and then listen for an error when it tries to play a different file type, i should be able to introduce some adhoc error handling when the error triggers (it will look like an expanded recursion, but i can't recurse because the array is hardcoded, and that's actually the point - it's more like an expanded lisp routine) that checks all of the options and exits when it finds the right one. what i'm imagining doing is really just expanding the built-in error handling by inserting a block of code that handles the error how i want it to, which relies on the ability to write that code functionally, as it exists at run-time, which is not how javascript is supposed to behave (it is how lisp is supposed to behave).
i'm not 100% sure that javascript will do this the same way that lisp or scheme would, but so long as it does, i think it should work.
if not, i'm going to have to ask for the click. so be it.
anyways.
i got out of the shower around midnight and sat down to type, when i went to turn the machine back on to find that same rpcrtremote.dll error. ugh.
we have a pattern here, don't we? it seems to break when i go out. why is that?
why was my chromebook parallel to my bed? it's always perpendicular. always.
why was my universal power adapter, which i use for my laptop, pulled out of it's socket?
why was my (admittedly dilapidated) converted desk all disheveled, as though somebody had tried to move it?
i have checked the power usage, and there's no obvious spike when i was gone. however, it seems like somebody was down here, probably around the same time that the cops were circling around me at the store. the thought crossed my mind, even then.
what, exactly, can i do besides turn the router off and reimage? i got a start on it before i passed out, and got to finishing it this morning. it took a few tries this time, which is making me wonder what they did. i know that what worked was a three-pass format of the drive, indicating that they may have inserted something in there pretty deeply.
when i got back up, i checked my email and found a response from the oiprd, who were supposed to provide an application record by thursday but are instead offering to redo the review around the question of the arrest. i rejected their request outright. they are continuing to insist on this reductionist perspective, and they're still refusing to consider the pattern of harassment by the officer, which is the actual crux of the complaint. i fully expect that if i were to allow them to conduct a second review, they'd miss every deadline, and i'd either be back in divisional court for delay or in divisional court for review. that strikes me as a pointless waste of time, and i don't want to go through with it - i want the issue dealt with by an actual judge, and i think i should have had the right to get the thing in court from the fucking getgo.
why was my (admittedly dilapidated) converted desk all disheveled, as though somebody had tried to move it?
i have checked the power usage, and there's no obvious spike when i was gone. however, it seems like somebody was down here, probably around the same time that the cops were circling around me at the store. the thought crossed my mind, even then.
what, exactly, can i do besides turn the router off and reimage? i got a start on it before i passed out, and got to finishing it this morning. it took a few tries this time, which is making me wonder what they did. i know that what worked was a three-pass format of the drive, indicating that they may have inserted something in there pretty deeply.
when i got back up, i checked my email and found a response from the oiprd, who were supposed to provide an application record by thursday but are instead offering to redo the review around the question of the arrest. i rejected their request outright. they are continuing to insist on this reductionist perspective, and they're still refusing to consider the pattern of harassment by the officer, which is the actual crux of the complaint. i fully expect that if i were to allow them to conduct a second review, they'd miss every deadline, and i'd either be back in divisional court for delay or in divisional court for review. that strikes me as a pointless waste of time, and i don't want to go through with it - i want the issue dealt with by an actual judge, and i think i should have had the right to get the thing in court from the fucking getgo.
they pointed out that a case was released yesterday that updates dunsmuir, so i had to take a look at it. as mentioned, i don't think the new rules really affect this particular case, but i hope that the outcome isn't a lessening of judicial oversight. the oiprd is a good example of the kind of tribunal that needs serious judicial oversight. it may have statutory powers, but it has no relevant expertise, whatsoever. i poked around a little, and some for-profit style lawyers are claiming they love it, but i'm not sure the reasons they're providing are very well thought through. if their optimism pans out, the result could be an americanizing of the law, which would be deeply catastrophic, for canada. i don't want to be an american. i'm afraid of americans.
so, for example, the language about not needing to check the expertise of the panel is very worrying on the surface (i would strongly support the use of judicial review in scenarios where the tribunal does not have the expertise to rule correctly, and who could argue otherwise?), but so long as the judiciary continues to pull these cases on the basis that the rulings are unreasonable, it might be less of a problem than i'm imagining that it could be. i think the previous precedent is more thorough, but i do acknowledge that there is sometimes a redundancy in worrying about whether the panel did do it right or whether the panel can do it right; if the panel can't do it right, they almost certainly didn't do it right, so this scenario where they don't have the expertise and somehow get the right answer is going to be exceedingly rare. but, the law should be thorough, and if this is a taste of the direction that the court is moving in, there should be some critical essays written about it to try and pull them back from it. there's no purpose in hardcoding logical shortcuts into the law, like that.
frankly, the truth is that it's lazy, and that's maybe the easy way to state what's wrong with the changes they made. there may not be serious, substantive differences, but it's far less rigorous, and it just comes off as lazy and haphazard.
the thing those lawyers wanted to see was a precedent that didn't bother assessing the abilities of the panel, and you can imagine scary outcomes resulting from the judiciary mindlessly deferring to these unqualified juntas "because legislation". the worst case scenario is a perfect algorithm for third-world backwardsness. it's potentially devastating, but only if they actually defer this way (and, my case is actually an example of this, as the judiciary should not be deferring to "members of the community" on issues of law, that would be retarded), and, so long as they continue to defer properly to the reasonableness standard, they really shouldn't.
likewise, abolishing the correctness standard is at first glance a pretty frightening proposition. certiorari is one of the oldest rules that we have. the supreme court should hardly be gutting 2500 year old roman precedent; this is the heart of our legal system, arguably the most important legal precedent that we have, anywhere, ever. certiorari does exist in ontario statute, but this is a part of the "unwritten rules and conventions" in the preamble of the constitution, really. a western legal system would no longer be a western legal system, without it.
however, taking a closer look at it pulls out that they aren't actually doing that. rather, they're just fucking with the language and, in the end, they might even be giving themselves more power, if they no longer have to rely on anything besides a broad and purposefully undefined concept of "reasonableness".
obviously, the judiciary needs a check on it, too - the principle of judicial independence is paramount, but they can't have absolute power. however, i think the balance of power should lie in the courts, and not in these panels and tribunals. i'm in favour of activist judges; what i'm worried about is giving these "independent bodies" too much power. so, i would appear to be directly ideologically opposed to the new chief justice on this matter. and, again this is frustrating, because the guy was put in power by the liberals, and he's carrying through with a reform party style harperist agenda.
so, for example, the language about not needing to check the expertise of the panel is very worrying on the surface (i would strongly support the use of judicial review in scenarios where the tribunal does not have the expertise to rule correctly, and who could argue otherwise?), but so long as the judiciary continues to pull these cases on the basis that the rulings are unreasonable, it might be less of a problem than i'm imagining that it could be. i think the previous precedent is more thorough, but i do acknowledge that there is sometimes a redundancy in worrying about whether the panel did do it right or whether the panel can do it right; if the panel can't do it right, they almost certainly didn't do it right, so this scenario where they don't have the expertise and somehow get the right answer is going to be exceedingly rare. but, the law should be thorough, and if this is a taste of the direction that the court is moving in, there should be some critical essays written about it to try and pull them back from it. there's no purpose in hardcoding logical shortcuts into the law, like that.
frankly, the truth is that it's lazy, and that's maybe the easy way to state what's wrong with the changes they made. there may not be serious, substantive differences, but it's far less rigorous, and it just comes off as lazy and haphazard.
the thing those lawyers wanted to see was a precedent that didn't bother assessing the abilities of the panel, and you can imagine scary outcomes resulting from the judiciary mindlessly deferring to these unqualified juntas "because legislation". the worst case scenario is a perfect algorithm for third-world backwardsness. it's potentially devastating, but only if they actually defer this way (and, my case is actually an example of this, as the judiciary should not be deferring to "members of the community" on issues of law, that would be retarded), and, so long as they continue to defer properly to the reasonableness standard, they really shouldn't.
likewise, abolishing the correctness standard is at first glance a pretty frightening proposition. certiorari is one of the oldest rules that we have. the supreme court should hardly be gutting 2500 year old roman precedent; this is the heart of our legal system, arguably the most important legal precedent that we have, anywhere, ever. certiorari does exist in ontario statute, but this is a part of the "unwritten rules and conventions" in the preamble of the constitution, really. a western legal system would no longer be a western legal system, without it.
however, taking a closer look at it pulls out that they aren't actually doing that. rather, they're just fucking with the language and, in the end, they might even be giving themselves more power, if they no longer have to rely on anything besides a broad and purposefully undefined concept of "reasonableness".
obviously, the judiciary needs a check on it, too - the principle of judicial independence is paramount, but they can't have absolute power. however, i think the balance of power should lie in the courts, and not in these panels and tribunals. i'm in favour of activist judges; what i'm worried about is giving these "independent bodies" too much power. so, i would appear to be directly ideologically opposed to the new chief justice on this matter. and, again this is frustrating, because the guy was put in power by the liberals, and he's carrying through with a reform party style harperist agenda.
it's not as bad as it looks at first; i honestly don't think it will be nearly as substantive as some commenters are suggesting.
i've been at that all afternoon.
now i need to get back to the html frontend; let's hope this new approach works,
what to do about this thing? i've kept the image unmodified from the backup, to see what happens. will it stay stable for a while? a strict reimage doesn't take that long, but how long can i avoid it for?
now i need to get back to the html frontend; let's hope this new approach works,
what to do about this thing? i've kept the image unmodified from the backup, to see what happens. will it stay stable for a while? a strict reimage doesn't take that long, but how long can i avoid it for?
at
22:26
It has been brought to my attention that there has been a new precedent that affects the way that judicial review is interpreted by the divisional court, which is available here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
While it may appear on first glance that this ruling has implications for my case, I do not believe that it does. I am not going to be withdrawing or altering my existing arguments, but I can add the following addendum to clarify my interpretation of the new ruling.
First of all, let us question where the expertise in the matter is. The premise underlying the new basis of review is that the legislature invested decision making authority in the hands of specialized councils, and the judiciary ought not interfere with that. However, the author of the report in question is a police officer that likely has minimal training, and the review was carried out by a civilian oversight panel of “members of the community”. Meanwhile, the divisional court consists of three learned judges with decades of experience, no doubt, between them. The issue at hand is an interpretation of the criminal code. It would be patently unreasonable for the court to defer to the expertise of the civilian oversight body, in this matter.
Second, let us be clear in understanding that the issue at hand is, in fact, a question of upholding the rule of law. The new ruling is not very specific regarding the question of what is of “central importance to the legal system”, but i think that the premise that the police should uphold the law is of pretty central importance to society, in general. I would propose that this is a situation where the correctness exception ought to apply, and that while the recent ruling does not explicitly list issues of the sort, it does implicitly do so, and this is ultimately an oversight. I would hope that the supreme court would interpret the situation as meeting the grounds for exception that are outlined in the case.
However, my interpretation of the ruling is that it is actually mostly merely a shift in semantics. While the ruling does make it clear that the correctness basis is to be utilized carefully, it also presents a long list of examples where the reasonableness basis is to be used that kind of look a lot like correctness reviews, to me. If the difference is procedural, this strikes me merely as an exercise in political correctness. With all due respect to everybody involved, I did not file this review to get into a semantic debate over whether misapplying Storrey to a hybrid offence would be considered to be incorrect, or merely unreasonable. In all honesty, I am not sure that I entirely understand why something would not be considered to be incorrect if it doesn’t fall into a range of possible outcomes, when that range of possible outcomes has one possibility. Nonetheless, this is the strange Carrolian path that the court has set out for us, as it takes us all down the rabbit hole of political correctness.
I will quote the case, only briefly:
” It is evident that both statutory and common law will impose constraints on how and what an administrative decision maker can lawfully decide: see Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74. For example, an administrative decision maker interpreting the scope of its regulation-making authority in order to exercise that authority cannot adopt an interpretation that is inconsistent with applicable common law principles regarding the nature of statutory powers: see Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2013 SCC 64, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810, at paras. 45-48. Neither can a body instructed by legislation to determine what tax rate is applicable in accordance with an existing tax system ignore that system and base its determination on a “fictitious” system it has arbitrarily created: Montréal (City), at para. 40. Where a relationship is governed by private law, it would be unreasonable for a decision maker to ignore that law in adjudicating parties’ rights within that relationship: Dunsmuir, at para. 74. Similarly, where the governing statute specifies a standard that is well known in law and in the jurisprudence, a reasonable decision will generally be one that is consistent with the established understanding of that standard: see, e.g., the discussion of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. Farwaha, 2014 FCA 56, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 1006, at paras. 93-98.” [@ p. 111]
Again - procedural questions aside, it would seem to be that this is a correctness basis by any other name, but if the court insists on calling it a reasonableness basis instead, then we can do that. It really changes nothing in any meaningful, substantive way - it’s just an issue of semantics, of language.
So, I am still requesting a general certiorari on a correctness basis due to the obvious incompetence of the reviewing body, and claim the court has the expertise, not the panel. But, we can cite the rule of law to get to a correctness basis instead, if insisted upon, and we can run ctrl+H and replace “correctness” with “reasonableness”, in light of para 111, if you insist, too.
I will leave it to the court to sort out my arguments in light of the new precedent.
While it may appear on first glance that this ruling has implications for my case, I do not believe that it does. I am not going to be withdrawing or altering my existing arguments, but I can add the following addendum to clarify my interpretation of the new ruling.
First of all, let us question where the expertise in the matter is. The premise underlying the new basis of review is that the legislature invested decision making authority in the hands of specialized councils, and the judiciary ought not interfere with that. However, the author of the report in question is a police officer that likely has minimal training, and the review was carried out by a civilian oversight panel of “members of the community”. Meanwhile, the divisional court consists of three learned judges with decades of experience, no doubt, between them. The issue at hand is an interpretation of the criminal code. It would be patently unreasonable for the court to defer to the expertise of the civilian oversight body, in this matter.
Second, let us be clear in understanding that the issue at hand is, in fact, a question of upholding the rule of law. The new ruling is not very specific regarding the question of what is of “central importance to the legal system”, but i think that the premise that the police should uphold the law is of pretty central importance to society, in general. I would propose that this is a situation where the correctness exception ought to apply, and that while the recent ruling does not explicitly list issues of the sort, it does implicitly do so, and this is ultimately an oversight. I would hope that the supreme court would interpret the situation as meeting the grounds for exception that are outlined in the case.
However, my interpretation of the ruling is that it is actually mostly merely a shift in semantics. While the ruling does make it clear that the correctness basis is to be utilized carefully, it also presents a long list of examples where the reasonableness basis is to be used that kind of look a lot like correctness reviews, to me. If the difference is procedural, this strikes me merely as an exercise in political correctness. With all due respect to everybody involved, I did not file this review to get into a semantic debate over whether misapplying Storrey to a hybrid offence would be considered to be incorrect, or merely unreasonable. In all honesty, I am not sure that I entirely understand why something would not be considered to be incorrect if it doesn’t fall into a range of possible outcomes, when that range of possible outcomes has one possibility. Nonetheless, this is the strange Carrolian path that the court has set out for us, as it takes us all down the rabbit hole of political correctness.
I will quote the case, only briefly:
” It is evident that both statutory and common law will impose constraints on how and what an administrative decision maker can lawfully decide: see Dunsmuir, at paras. 47 and 74. For example, an administrative decision maker interpreting the scope of its regulation-making authority in order to exercise that authority cannot adopt an interpretation that is inconsistent with applicable common law principles regarding the nature of statutory powers: see Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2013 SCC 64, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 810, at paras. 45-48. Neither can a body instructed by legislation to determine what tax rate is applicable in accordance with an existing tax system ignore that system and base its determination on a “fictitious” system it has arbitrarily created: Montréal (City), at para. 40. Where a relationship is governed by private law, it would be unreasonable for a decision maker to ignore that law in adjudicating parties’ rights within that relationship: Dunsmuir, at para. 74. Similarly, where the governing statute specifies a standard that is well known in law and in the jurisprudence, a reasonable decision will generally be one that is consistent with the established understanding of that standard: see, e.g., the discussion of “reasonable grounds to suspect” in Canada (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) v. Farwaha, 2014 FCA 56, [2015] 2 F.C.R. 1006, at paras. 93-98.” [@ p. 111]
Again - procedural questions aside, it would seem to be that this is a correctness basis by any other name, but if the court insists on calling it a reasonableness basis instead, then we can do that. It really changes nothing in any meaningful, substantive way - it’s just an issue of semantics, of language.
So, I am still requesting a general certiorari on a correctness basis due to the obvious incompetence of the reviewing body, and claim the court has the expertise, not the panel. But, we can cite the rule of law to get to a correctness basis instead, if insisted upon, and we can run ctrl+H and replace “correctness” with “reasonableness”, in light of para 111, if you insist, too.
I will leave it to the court to sort out my arguments in light of the new precedent.
at
18:19
on second thought, i'm going to write an addendum and email it to the interested parties. i'll then mail that to toronto.
the reason i'm doing this is because the ruling actually clarifies my argument.
the reason i'm doing this is because the ruling actually clarifies my argument.
at
17:39
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
at
17:17
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
at
17:01
note, dated to sept 26, 2022.
i am taking posts down due to concerns about back-end editing by governments. one of the posts that made me aware of what was happening was edits to the vavilov sequence of posts from dec, 2019.
this was a real-time/contemporary analysis of a landmark ruling in canada, and that it might be edited to advance the interests of a sitting government is of extreme concern to freedom of thought in this country. this would be an extreme abuse of power, an extreme abuse of technology and severe infringement of several of my basic constitutional and even natural rights as a human being. i'm left with no paper trail, but suspect google could clarify the point on subpoena.
i want to collect the versions of the post i have here for insertion into three (i suppose four) separate archives. i do not want to write this now, as i'm typing into the backend and there's no point. i will need to wait until this is on a more stable system before i attempt to rewrite it again.
---
on aug 11, 2022 i posted the following:
(a) as recovered from email sent to my google account from the blogger ui on aug 11, and collected on sept 26:
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i'm explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
(b) as recovered from the blogger draft post on sept 26:
aug 11
see, i'm baffled by this.
i remember re-writing my dec, 2019 analysis of vavilov when i reposted it in jan, 2022. so, my records of the post for 2019, from 2019, should be different than the post as it exists today, and that should be different than the repost in 2022.
bafflingly, they're all the same, and i don't think any of them were the original post.
that would suggest that:
1) somebody altered the version in my email from 2019, which is dated to 2019
2) somebody then put that edited version in the blog
3) somebody then edited the version in two of my email boxes, which are dated to 2022
4) that version ended up in the 2022 post.
the really baffling thing is that the version dated to 2019 at the blog is the same is in the email. that should not be true - they should be substantively different.
so, i'm going to have to rewrite it, and there's not going to be any note, and i'm not going to concern myself with that. i think i have an absolute right to alter my own writing, that the time stamps are not important and that a footnote that indicates altering the writing is not required.
but, this is exceedingly sophisticated - or i'm just tricking myself, but i'm not just tricking myself. this editor is able to manipulate existing messages in my gmail folder, which means they're hacking it at the server level.
my only tactic is resiliency - i need to keep rewriting these posts, and hope the author gives up.
8:27
this memory of rewriting an old post is specific.
i'm not trying to guess what i wrote in 2019. i explicitly remember opening the document in 2022, altering it and reposting it in 2022. yet, it actually seems like the stored version from 2019 was updated to reflect an alteration in 2022, at some point after i reposted it in jan. that is, it seems like the editor took the post from the repost, altered it and then re-inserted it into my email from 2019.
that's crazy. that's somebody with total control over the google servers, or i'm imagining it. but, i'm not imagining it - and i have no way to demonstrate it.
ugh.
8:30
what would you do when faced with this?
8:32
the idea that is being eradicated from the post is that what vavilov is really about is political correctness.
what vavilov says isn't that the correctness precedent is to be eliminated, so much as that it's rude to question whether somebody is correct or not. a more polite way to question authority is to question their reasonableness. so, if something is factually wrong, the review is to argue that it's unreasonable because it's wrong.
that analysis seems to be threatening to the editors, so it therefore must be absolutely correct.
i'm not going to pretend that i remember exactly what i wrote in december 2019 about the new judicial review precedent, but the edits are always incomplete; they may give me enough of my thoughts to realize there's a conclusion without a premise, and i need to reconstruct the premise. they don't tend to remove entire posts, so much as they take out specific paragraphs, probably thinking i've forgotten, which is of course mostly true.
is this serious? am i crazy?
if i find myself unable to follow my own argument, i have to rewrite it, regardless. i can't prove anything. but, the result is the same either way: i have a conclusion without a premise and need to insert a premise.
keep this in mind, though: this idea that vavilov is really about questioning authority appears to be threatening enough that it must be true.
9:20
aug 12, 2022
this is a rewritten vavilov write-up, dated to today.
am i playing tricks on myself? i have to acknowledge that i might be playing tricks on myself via rationalizing it, too.
========
(this was never posted but left as a draft until it was reposted in the august archive. this post has now been posted to the space this post is in, as a reminder to rewrite the initial post)
8:04
==============
the jan 15, 2022 posts, at 9:27, as i can recover them, are as follows:
(a) from blogger, as recovered on sept 26, 2022 and edited after aug 11, 2022:
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
(edit: this was removed on aug 11, 2022 and should be replaced with the updated version)
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
(b) from email, resent from the blogger ui on jan 17th at 1:42. the email was resent with spaces in the hyperlink, suggesting that i may have reposted it because the initial post wasn't sent due to the existence of the link.
i want to repost my analysis of vavilov from late 2020.
===
we'll talk soon.
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
h t t p s :/ / sc c -c s c . l e x u m .c o m / sc c - c s c / s c c -c s c / e n / i t e m / 1 8 0 7 8 / i n d e x. d o
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong - you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
---
and, if the question is "expertise", let's look at the situation, in context.
the report was written by a police officer that probably has no legal training. the review was done by a civilian oversight body.
i'm asking for a ruling on an interpretation of the criminal code. so, where is the expertise, here? in the oiprd or in the judiciary?
i don't like this ruling, and i don't think it'll last very long. the exceptions for correctness are far too limited. and, if this is the case that opens it back up, so be it.
i will appeal this if i lose.
--
so, yeah.
i'm going to show up in court and yell for twenty minutes that they're FUCKING WRONG.
and, if the judge wants to politely suggest that they're merely "unreasonable", then whatever.
--
it's the ruling i want, not this semantic debate about language.
======
this is the version of this original post from my email, which was dated to dec 21 @ 4:22 but was actually sent on dec 22 at 10:02. i do not believe that i was having difficulty archiving posts at this time, so this is actually a little bit alarming. that post should have been sent from the google ui and dated correctly.
[dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja] 12/21/2019 4:22:00 PM
we'll talk soon,
for now...
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive flip through this might suggest that they've more or less
dismantled the correctness basis of review, but what they're really
doing is redefining correctness issues as reasonableness issues. there
is a slightly different procedural approach, but it should more or
less come out in the wash.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report fucked up it's
use of r. v. storrey, and the result was consequently incorrect, i may
now need to argue that fucking up a precedent the way the report did
lead to an unreasonable outcome. the ruling is really quite bizarre,
in that sense - the supreme court seems to have gone down a sort of a
rabbit hole in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible
for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't
lead to different outcomes.
with a reasonableness review, the court can't ask what the right
answer is, but can only ask what a range of correct answers is. that
means you can't tell a panel that they fucked up and they're wrong -
you can only tell them that the outcome does not follow from the
precedent, and is not in an acceptable range of possibilities. it's
really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more
polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner.
more specifically, in my precise example, the new precedent would
render a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was
reasonable because it cited case law" to be an unreasonable report,
but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the
outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my
argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
see, the thing about a judicial review is that the judge doesn't look
at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z
and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is
just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's
really important is the application record, because that's where the
actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the
error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of
the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an
expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a
constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the
fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or
not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the
court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm
that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or
less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from
scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in
some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
===========
finally, this is the version was left stranded in aug, 2022:
====
this is relevant to me right now:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18078/index.do
a naive analysis of the ruling would suggest that they're dismantling the correctness basis of review, but what they're really doing is redefining correctness reviews as reasonableness reviews. there is a slightly different procedural approach attached to this, but it should more or less come out in the wash.
in a correctness review, the reviewing judge is expected to determine whether the lower body of law (often a panel of non-judges) committed an error of law or not; the issue at law is whether or not the decision is correct. in a reasonableness review, the court can not ask what the correct answer is, it can only ask what a "range" of correct "outcomes" is, whatever that even means. the idea was supposed to be deference to an expert, but the concept has become corrupted via the application of irrational precedents, and has now lost any coherency in application. unfortunately, the legal system in canada has adopted the frightening and backwards idea that facts do not exist, so
so, in a reasonableness review, you can't tell the judge that the panel done fucked up and is fucking wrong like i want to - you can only argue that the outcome is not in an acceptable "range of possibilities". outcomes that are legally, factually or logically wrong may be upheld by the court if the court decides that being wrong is "reasonable". this essentially undoes any concept of law, and instead converts the court into an authoritarian body that is dictating random, arbitrary proclamations, which it gets to self-regulate as "reasonable" or not. it's a complete absence of law, elevated to judicial precedent.
what the new ruling really seems to be saying is that telling somebody they're wrong is impolite, so you have to suggest that they're merely being unreasonable, instead, even if what you're really saying is that they're wrong; being wrong is only meaningful if they're also being unreasonable, so the issue at law becomes whether they're reasonable or not rather than whether they're correct or not.
so, where i may have argued last month that the report was incorrect in it's application of r. v. storrey, i will now need to argue that incorrectly applying a precedent the way the report did led to an unreasonable outcome, instead. it's really exactly the same fucking thing, it's just a whole lot more polite in this bullshit politically correct sort of manner. the ruling is really quite bizarre, in that sense; the supreme court seems to have fallen down a rabbit hole of political correctness in the absence of beverly mclaughlin, who is responsible for a great deal of what has made canada what it is. but, it shouldn't lead to substantively different outcomes.
what the new precedent decides is that being incorrect might be unreasonable.
in my precise example, the new precedent would allow a review that relies on a statement such as "the report was reasonable because it cited case law" to potentially be an unreasonable report, but it won't let the judge explicitly question the correctness of the outcome, because that would be rude. as such, i may want to modify my argument a little bit in terms of the language i'm using.
i'm not going to, though.
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
in a judicial review, the judge doesn't actually look at the precise arguments. i could make an argument about x, y and z and the judge could rule on a, b, c and d instead. most of this is just empty procedural pomp, at this point - the only thing that's really important is the application record, because that's where the actual facts are.
so long as i can get the thing to a fucking judge, she should rule the error of law as unreasonable, even if i'm arguing that the outcome of the report is incorrect.
yeah.
well, welcome to canada. next exit - dark ages, ontario. 50 km.
if i'm going to alter my argument, i'd actually rather argue for an expansion of the rule of law section of the exceptions. this isn't a constitutional question, or at least it isn't one yet. but, the fundamental issue here is whether the rule of law is being upheld or not. i don't want to play these language games. really. i want the court to uphold the rule of law, declare the report wrong and confirm that the arrest was illegal. but, like i say, the judges will more or less ignore what everybody says and do their own analysis from scratch.
so, it looks like a really backwards ruling, but it's just rooted in some weird, pc language and it shouldn't really actually change much
at
16:22
Friday, December 20, 2019
the only other thing i could do is write some actual functions and do some error handling, but that's exactly what i don't want to do.
i should be able to just load the object, and determine if it exists or not, without having to write a fucking book about it.
i should be able to just load the object, and determine if it exists or not, without having to write a fucking book about it.
at
09:45
so, what i'll need to do when i get back is ask: how do i run a local, hardcoded script automatically when the page loads?
can i put it in the header, even?
can i put it in the header, even?
at
09:39
to be clear about the javascript frontend....
when i sat down to do this, the rule was that it had to be self-contained. so, i didn't want to have any *.js files - i wanted everything to be hardcoded into the html. i also didn't want to call any external routines or force the user to have to go online to connect to any websites. i don't want to use any servers at all. this should work when the user is disconnected from the internet altogether. so these are the parameters i'm working with, and i'm not interested in trying to work around them. i didn't even want to use javascript at all, but it's easy enough for the basic script...
i'm able to get all the information i need from the built-in commands, but i can't get the object to load without explicit user input. or, at least, i can't find the right listener. so, the script knows where the file is. it knows how to load it. but, it won't actually load it unless the user clicks something.
what i want the script to do, though, is figure out which file the player needs to load when the user clicks. so, the script has to do something before i get any user input. and, none of the listeners i've tried up to this point want to let me do that - they all get the right pointers in place, and then wait for the user to click.
so, is this possible? well, security risks aside, it's a pretty basic level of functionality. i'm used to programming with an actual compiler; i have minimal experience scripting anything at all. but, if javascript can't do something this simple without calling a bunch of libraries, it's kind of useless, isn't it?
if i conclude, after trying a few more things, that i can't do what i want, then i'll have to prompt the user to tell me what file type they bought. and, you can blame the awkwardness of it on the language.
when i sat down to do this, the rule was that it had to be self-contained. so, i didn't want to have any *.js files - i wanted everything to be hardcoded into the html. i also didn't want to call any external routines or force the user to have to go online to connect to any websites. i don't want to use any servers at all. this should work when the user is disconnected from the internet altogether. so these are the parameters i'm working with, and i'm not interested in trying to work around them. i didn't even want to use javascript at all, but it's easy enough for the basic script...
i'm able to get all the information i need from the built-in commands, but i can't get the object to load without explicit user input. or, at least, i can't find the right listener. so, the script knows where the file is. it knows how to load it. but, it won't actually load it unless the user clicks something.
what i want the script to do, though, is figure out which file the player needs to load when the user clicks. so, the script has to do something before i get any user input. and, none of the listeners i've tried up to this point want to let me do that - they all get the right pointers in place, and then wait for the user to click.
so, is this possible? well, security risks aside, it's a pretty basic level of functionality. i'm used to programming with an actual compiler; i have minimal experience scripting anything at all. but, if javascript can't do something this simple without calling a bunch of libraries, it's kind of useless, isn't it?
if i conclude, after trying a few more things, that i can't do what i want, then i'll have to prompt the user to tell me what file type they bought. and, you can blame the awkwardness of it on the language.
at
09:30
i actually think it's time we put the (doubting) t'mas back in christmas.
we don't need another odin post this year. there's too many, already.
i got paid today, but i'm still sick and i'm probably not doing anything this year at all except catching up on the work i've been putting off for too long.
as of today, the oiprd is predictably late on their response to the appeal. i have sent them an email and will call the divisional court on monday to follow up.
for today, i actually need to get some groceries. and, i could be inside for the bulk of the next month...
we don't need another odin post this year. there's too many, already.
i got paid today, but i'm still sick and i'm probably not doing anything this year at all except catching up on the work i've been putting off for too long.
as of today, the oiprd is predictably late on their response to the appeal. i have sent them an email and will call the divisional court on monday to follow up.
for today, i actually need to get some groceries. and, i could be inside for the bulk of the next month...
at
09:13
this is actually kind of tricky.
i know what i need to do, but it just won't load the file. it knows the path. i'm telling it to load. it won't do it...
it's because i'm trying to force it do it on pageload. if i was reacting to any kind of user input at all, it would be easy.
so, i could set it up so that the user tells me what file they're using, but i don't actually want to do that. i want the javascript to be able to figure it out.
so, i think it's best if i try to take a nap and come at it fresh in the morning.
the smoke down here this evening has been horrific.
the smoke down here this evening has been horrific.
at
04:00
on second thought, i had tricked myself with a boolean with that. that object isn't reading that variable at all; my testing was built around a false positive.
as mentioned previously, i'm not interested in doing error handling or writing a complicated script. i want this to be very, very simple and clean, so i need to find the right bit.
if i could get it to read the type attribute, but it doesn't want do that, either.
i'm sure there's an easy answer. i need to figure that out by the end of the night.
at
00:10
Thursday, December 19, 2019
i'm kind of paranoid about posting from the other laptop. at least if this chromebook gets dirtied up, i can just reset it. it's easy enough for now....
the last thing i had to do to before i could republish the html player to the inri000 page was to make sure that the front end works for all of the different file types. i thought maybe i could check to see what's sitting in the directory, but that breaks the standards - it's a security risk, and i guess i can understand that. so, i specifically can't do that. by design.
it turns out that the easiest workaround is just to set a bit in the src controls. i'll explain a bit better.
so, i posted the thing here, initially:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2019/11/im-going-to-post-last-update-to-this.html
my html5 control was initially this:
//this is the html5 control
so, i posted the thing here, initially:
http://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2019/11/im-going-to-post-last-update-to-this.html
my html5 control was initially this:
//this is the html5 control
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player"src="first track">your browser sucks</audio>
it is standard to expand that a little to take into account different file types:
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<source src="first track in flac" type="audio/flac">your browser sucks</source>
<source src="first track in mp3" type="audio/mp3">your browser sucks</source>
.
.
.
</audio>
the documentation claims this is designed to maximize browser compatibility. for me, it's designed to maximize file type variability. i want the frontend to work, regardless of what the user has purchased. so, by adding in the extra code for each file type, the browser can find the right file in the directory.
but, that only works for the first file in the list. i still have a hardcoded array in the actual script that specifies what the file type is, namely:
var nextsrc = [list of file paths]
if i hardcode it to mp3, it won't work for the listener that bought a flac download. i want it to know what is what, but i'm blindside by the api.
all you need to do is this to start:
but, that only works for the first file in the list. i still have a hardcoded array in the actual script that specifies what the file type is, namely:
var nextsrc = [list of file paths]
if i hardcode it to mp3, it won't work for the listener that bought a flac download. i want it to know what is what, but i'm blindside by the api.
all you need to do is this to start:
<audio autoplay controls style="width:500px;height:50px" id="Player">
<source src="first track in flac" type="audio/flac" t=0>your browser sucks</source>
<source src="first track in mp3" type="audio/mp3" t=1>your browser sucks</source>
.
.
.
</audio>
so, we will now have a unique value of t for each type.
and this to finish in the script:
if (t=0){var nextsrc = [list of flac paths]}
if (t=0){var nextsrc = [list of flac paths]}
else if (t=1){var nextsrc = [list of mp3 paths]}
.
.
.
i have tested this in firefox and it seems to be fine.
so, i now have a template for every other release, and i should be able to push forwards.
so, i now have a template for every other release, and i should be able to push forwards.
at
22:50
ok, so i'm up and ready to get on this for a bit.
there's clearly somebody smoking upstairs, right now, so i'm going to have to turn the fan back on for the night. i thought i was feeling better, but it's got me hacking again.
i'm wondering if that's actually what happened, if his smoking upstairs triggered my bronchitis. there's a reason i don't smoke inside: my mom severely damaged my lungs when i was a kid. i had a puffer for years. there were times when the teacher asked me to sit outside. it's a serious, longstanding problem, and it's worse in the winter. i really, really can't be around indoor smoking or indoor smokers, as a result of the severe damage my mother did to me when i was a child.
the way this is going to work is that i'm going to disconnect from the internet now and stay offline until i get the liner notes done for the november/13 releases. i'll hop back on for a bit after that.
i don't know how long i'll be up for, but, for the next few days at least, i'm not at all interested in trying to figure this out. i will just reimage immediately after. the first reboot. i need to get through this.
so, that's task #1....
there's clearly somebody smoking upstairs, right now, so i'm going to have to turn the fan back on for the night. i thought i was feeling better, but it's got me hacking again.
i'm wondering if that's actually what happened, if his smoking upstairs triggered my bronchitis. there's a reason i don't smoke inside: my mom severely damaged my lungs when i was a kid. i had a puffer for years. there were times when the teacher asked me to sit outside. it's a serious, longstanding problem, and it's worse in the winter. i really, really can't be around indoor smoking or indoor smokers, as a result of the severe damage my mother did to me when i was a child.
the way this is going to work is that i'm going to disconnect from the internet now and stay offline until i get the liner notes done for the november/13 releases. i'll hop back on for a bit after that.
i don't know how long i'll be up for, but, for the next few days at least, i'm not at all interested in trying to figure this out. i will just reimage immediately after. the first reboot. i need to get through this.
so, that's task #1....
at
19:51
again: the chrome os does not have the software i need to finish the project i'm working on. that's not an actual option. i need a windows machine with internet access.
at
16:11
i'm just about ready to try this one more time, and here's the deal - i'm essentially bored and fed up with this. i need to get some actual work done, now. this has been going on for weeks.
so, if this doesn't work, i'm going to copy the files i need over to the pc, put the laptop aside for a bit, and do the work i need to do offline.
i will need to get the laptop working again before i can upload anything. but, i'm sick of fighting with this and desperately want to move on.
at
16:10
on third thought, it seems like the 32 bit and 64 bit directories are reversed in windows 7.
i don't remember them telling me that during vista training.
it can't be the problem, though, after all.
it's actually a little bit relieving, because i was worried my drive was fried.
at
15:23
other than a bad file directory, i guess the other answer is that somebody wrote a bad script. i got the files out of the winsxs...
i'm very tired all of a sudden :(.
need coffee...
at
15:06
hrmmn.
i'm not sure yet, i have to test some more, but it seems like the identically named files ended up in the wrong folders - the 32 bit version ended up in the 64 bit folder and the 64 bit version ended up in the 32 bit folder,
my best guess is that this would have to do with a corrupted file directory. it's making me wonder.
i can try to swap it and see what happens.
at
15:03
now, here's a bizarre problem.
it comes up with an error in rpcrtremote.dll, which i can't get a straight answer on. it looks like a file network admins would use to call the rpc. but, the internet thinks it has to do with windows update. mmmmhmmm.
if i just delete the file, i get to the logon screen, but the keyboard is unresponsive and i can't ctrl-alt-del to get in. i'm using a ps/2 keyboard that clearly works just fine. that would suggest to me that there's some kind of corrupted ps/2 driver, but that's almost a contradiction in terms - ps/2 is so basic...that's why i use it....
i'm going to try another format and just reboot a few times and see what happens.
at
14:31
yeah.
the active directory api is pretty important, it turns out. i need it for:
1) the security tab in windows explorer.
2) to even open regedit.
3) to let the mmc load the gpedit.msc module
so, the whole "you don't need the gui. just do it in the registry." argument is actually unsustainable, in the face of regedit's need for the api.
now, if i was designing this, i'd undo that. there's some logic in using the active directory api to call the group policy editor, and it's at least efficient to use it for the security tab. but, if i really, really want to disable this, i shouldn't lose access to the registry as a result of it. you essentially can't use windows without access to the registry. that makes the core functionality impossible to rip out of the os.
but, i'm not designing this, and i'm kind of stuck.
but, i'm not designing this, and i'm kind of stuck.
hopefully, i can still disable the drivers. and, maybe i can alter the security descriptor on the api, so only the precise users that need to use it can use it.
it's enough to make you want to move to linux, it really is.
at
13:30
turns out pelosi is proud of the democrats for representing the moral majority.
ugh.
listen - they had to do this. there was no choice. but, this is just so much cringe, and that's exactly why they should have avoided this.
somebody tell her she has a d beside her name. yeesh.
i've repeatedly pointed out that trump has this inspector gadget quality to him, where his buffoonery often works out in his favour, by accident. i'm not about to assign him any tactical brilliance, here. but, somehow, the president just got impeached, and it's the house leader making me want to vomit.
at
13:00
we used to think the best way to save lives was to ban drugs and allow for responsible gun ownership, as self-defense.
now, some people think we should ban guns and allow for responsible drug use.
maybe we should stop pretending that supply side economics has much to tell us about saving lives?
personally, i don't plan on doing heroin any time soon, whether it's legal or not. and, i don't have any plans to play with guns any time soon, either.
maybe the focus should be on reducing demand.
at
12:50
all of this functionality to control computers remotely via windows is not a bug, it's a feature.
and, it is, actually, because you're supposed to be running an image on a network, and the security work is supposed to be done by the router. i've taken the courses. yes, i'm taking the piss, but it is actually true.
that's what i was saying about buying fancy routers. if you want a safe windows pc, there's no way around it - you have to wall yourself off. you'll never lock people out using local security; the os is designed for easy access by network admins. it's entirely on purpose.
that's why i spend so much time cutting all of the functionality out of the machine, and why i'm stuck dealing with all of these bluescreens and hangs.
i actually think i've been dealing with some passive hacking for a rather long time. up until recently, i was able to mostly deal with it. but, they've picked it up, and have become somewhat relentless.
i just need to reiterate that there is no purpose to this besides distracting me, but because i'm spending so much time waiting, the thing that's suffering is the art. i am continuing to find time to rant, because i'm spending hours watching bytes fly across the screen.
i actually think i've been dealing with some passive hacking for a rather long time. up until recently, i was able to mostly deal with it. but, they've picked it up, and have become somewhat relentless.
i just need to reiterate that there is no purpose to this besides distracting me, but because i'm spending so much time waiting, the thing that's suffering is the art. i am continuing to find time to rant, because i'm spending hours watching bytes fly across the screen.
these kinds of tactics have never been successful, at any point in history. all i actually want is the time and resources to finish my discography, and i really think it's time for people to start caving, in looking at universal incomes more seriously.
a universal income will not stop me from ranting on the internet. but, nothing is going to accomplish that. what a universal income will do, though, is change my perspectives, as i'm ranting.
writers write. artists create. you can no more shut me up than you can convert a tiger to vegetarianism; it's what i am, and what i'll be until i keel over. but, if i had less things to complain about..
a universal income will not stop me from ranting on the internet. but, nothing is going to accomplish that. what a universal income will do, though, is change my perspectives, as i'm ranting.
writers write. artists create. you can no more shut me up than you can convert a tiger to vegetarianism; it's what i am, and what i'll be until i keel over. but, if i had less things to complain about..
at
12:31
while i do stand in solidarity with the secularist aspects of the iranian left, my primary concern is standing up for the rights of canadians.
at
12:09
so, i had to sleep early this morning - that wasn't optional. and, i've been experimenting with a few things in the image, which has slowed me down.
i've decided that i'm staying in this weekend to catch up, regardless.
have i learned anything profound? the answer is "not really". the one thing i was able to figure out is that the virus or hacker has found a way to disable the group policy via the active directory.
i've decided that i'm staying in this weekend to catch up, regardless.
have i learned anything profound? the answer is "not really". the one thing i was able to figure out is that the virus or hacker has found a way to disable the group policy via the active directory.
i may be coming up against a contradiction, though. what i want to do is disable the active directory so they can't use it to disable the security features. i don't think it's likely that i'll be able to completely lock something like that down - so long as it exists, there's a potential to break into it. it simply shouldn't exist. but, you have to understand that windows is stupid, like this, because it's designed for office use. there might not be a way to disable the active directory without breaking the local file structure. so, what i'm trying to figure out is that happy medium, where the functionality to control the pc from a distance is removed, but the local functionality continues to exist. i may end up disappointed...
i also accidentally deleted the winsxs folder on my pc. oops. i was planning on reinstalling this machine relatively soon anyways, so we can just leave a half-install in place for now. i'm just going to reinstall on top of the existing directory, and run the wipe script.
i really, really, really wanted to do some work this week. i'd actually like to apologize to future audiences for the amount of time i'm wasting with this, but i can't do as much as i'd like to about it. i'm living through an era defined by heavy-handed police state tactics that the law hasn't really caught up to yet. we don't have the kind of police oversight that we will hopefully have in the future, so they're essentially allowed to run roughshod over everybody's rights, because we don't have an effective system of checks in place. i promise you that whatever they're doing here is being done without any kind of convincing probable cause, and without getting any kind of warrant. if this ever becomes clear to me, i'm going to drag them through court to try to get the laws changed, but, for right now, in this dark period where we haven't adjusted to the technology yet, the cops are essentially allowed to get away with doing whatever they want, without even having to ask anybody first. it's going to require decades worth of legal action and other hard work to get a proper systems of checks in place.
for right now, all i can do is struggle against this system of oppression the best way that i'm able to.
once i get up and check my email, i'm going to have to keep myself offline for a while to catch up. i might even have to continue to use this chromebook to post and to check things online. there's no way around it.
for right now, all i can do is struggle against this system of oppression the best way that i'm able to.
once i get up and check my email, i'm going to have to keep myself offline for a while to catch up. i might even have to continue to use this chromebook to post and to check things online. there's no way around it.
at
11:41
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
i am feeling better, absolutely.
rather than constant coughing and raw throats, it's more like periods of hacking. it's still bad, but it's better.
rather than constant coughing and raw throats, it's more like periods of hacking. it's still bad, but it's better.
my sense of smell is coming back, and there's an odour, but it's not here yet, and i'm not sure how to describe what i'm smelling. the sewer has mostly cleared out, i think. now, i'm wondering if i'm getting some exhaust from the gas heater, or maybe burning the pipes. it seems to get worst when i run the hot water. i turned the temperature way up to fight the bacteria in the tank and never turned it down....maybe i could give that a try.....but i also kind of like the increased supply of hot water.
what next, then?
i'm going to take a nap. and get to reimaging after 19:00.
what next, then?
i'm going to take a nap. and get to reimaging after 19:00.
at
17:14
but, just to finish my thought...
honestly?
those hip-hop fans probably don't want me around, either. i don't bother showing up because i don't really like the artform, but i know they'd actually largely rather i don't show up.
again, i don't want to paint with too broad brushes. but, trans people get killed in detroit relatively frequently, actually. my disinterest in it aside, that's not the best scene for me to hover around - they wouldn't want me around, and i might actually get hurt.
at
17:01
ok, so we have an unlikely solstice party on saturday night that it probably makes no sense to go to. it's an info line. it depends entirely on where it is, and how i'm feeling, and last minute updates to the forecast.
very low likelihood.
same thing for next saturday, and on new years, i'm essentially not scratching them out yet, because i might change my mind. but it's almost certain that i'm in for the rest of the year, at least.
the weather down here, at the southernmost tip of canada, is actually not that bad for the next two weeks. there's a cold snap that clears out tomorrow night, and then we should be mostly above freezing until new year's day.
it's starting to look like a timid winter here, actually. it's still too early. but, an early spring is looking more and more likely...
i'm just south of the jetstream, though. even toronto is experiencing something rather different right now. i think that even london is getting hit, right now.
very low likelihood.
same thing for next saturday, and on new years, i'm essentially not scratching them out yet, because i might change my mind. but it's almost certain that i'm in for the rest of the year, at least.
the weather down here, at the southernmost tip of canada, is actually not that bad for the next two weeks. there's a cold snap that clears out tomorrow night, and then we should be mostly above freezing until new year's day.
it's starting to look like a timid winter here, actually. it's still too early. but, an early spring is looking more and more likely...
i'm just south of the jetstream, though. even toronto is experiencing something rather different right now. i think that even london is getting hit, right now.
at
16:57
why don't i go see hip-hop shows, though?
well, i'd challenge the premise just a little. i saw actress not that long ago. it's rare, though.
stated tersely, i think hip-hop is boring. that's the flat out reality - it's slow-moving, musically simplistic and, usually, boring as fuck.
but, you'll also notice that i almost never go to macho rock or metal shows, either, because i have some issues with the misogyny in the music. i don't go to see these like pro-capitalist guitarists like ted nugent, either. and, broadly speaking, i don't like the politics promoted by most hip-hop. even when it's acceptable on a political level, it's still a pretty bro-ish genre of music.
so, let's be clear about the reasons:
1) musically, i find almost all hip-hop to be boring. there are rare counter-examples, but it usually ends up being instrumental music, like burial.
2) politically, i find most hip-hop to be drastically lacking. it's staunchly pro-capitalist, and it's usually pretty broish.
so, if i don't like the way it sounds, and i don't like the ideas it's disseminating, what exactly would my interest in the genre be?
don't misunderstand me - i'd like to keep an open mind. if you think there's a hip-hop artist i'd love, suggest it to me. i've dabbled in some of the anticon stuff, and it's at least politically closer to what i want, even if it doesn't get close to what i need, musically.
but, it's not a young genre, anymore. in fact, it's probably mostly already run it's course - the best hip-hop is probably behind us. and, almost none of it has been good enough to excite me.
you'll see me at jazz concerts, and you'll see me at techno concerts. but, you'll almost never see me at an opera, and you'll almost never see me at a hip-hop show, either.
we can't all like everything, and hip-hop's in the list of things that doesn't do much for me.
well, i'd challenge the premise just a little. i saw actress not that long ago. it's rare, though.
stated tersely, i think hip-hop is boring. that's the flat out reality - it's slow-moving, musically simplistic and, usually, boring as fuck.
but, you'll also notice that i almost never go to macho rock or metal shows, either, because i have some issues with the misogyny in the music. i don't go to see these like pro-capitalist guitarists like ted nugent, either. and, broadly speaking, i don't like the politics promoted by most hip-hop. even when it's acceptable on a political level, it's still a pretty bro-ish genre of music.
so, let's be clear about the reasons:
1) musically, i find almost all hip-hop to be boring. there are rare counter-examples, but it usually ends up being instrumental music, like burial.
2) politically, i find most hip-hop to be drastically lacking. it's staunchly pro-capitalist, and it's usually pretty broish.
so, if i don't like the way it sounds, and i don't like the ideas it's disseminating, what exactly would my interest in the genre be?
don't misunderstand me - i'd like to keep an open mind. if you think there's a hip-hop artist i'd love, suggest it to me. i've dabbled in some of the anticon stuff, and it's at least politically closer to what i want, even if it doesn't get close to what i need, musically.
but, it's not a young genre, anymore. in fact, it's probably mostly already run it's course - the best hip-hop is probably behind us. and, almost none of it has been good enough to excite me.
you'll see me at jazz concerts, and you'll see me at techno concerts. but, you'll almost never see me at an opera, and you'll almost never see me at a hip-hop show, either.
we can't all like everything, and hip-hop's in the list of things that doesn't do much for me.
at
15:53
so, what do i even do today then?
something i can do on the chromebook is take advantage of the faster facebook, in order to clear out the rest of the month.
i don't actually know when i get paid this month, other than that it's soon. i'm hoping for friday morning, but might have to wait until saturday. and, the fourth business day before christmas is actually tomorrow.
i don't plan to go anywhere as of right now, but let's see.
i don't plan to go anywhere as of right now, but let's see.
at
12:15
so, something is happening that is going to severely harm the bourgeois left in this country, and i'm torn on what the right reaction is.
"you get what you pay for.", you say.
if i search for something like "canadian politics" at google news, i realize that the following sites have paywalls:
- the globe and mail
- the globe and mail
- the toronto star
....whereas the following do not:
- the sun franchises
so, i'm getting right-wing garbage for free, and have to pay for more thoughtful journalism.
- the sun franchises
so, i'm getting right-wing garbage for free, and have to pay for more thoughtful journalism.
"you get what you pay for.", you say.
well, ok. but, there is absolutely no possibility that i'm going to pay for a subscription to the toronto star, which is not that thoughtful. if it's worth something more than the sun, it's not worth a whole lot more than it.
it's maybe consistent with the bourgeois left's full embrace of neo-liberalism - you plebs now have to pay for your own propaganda, and if you won't pay for it then i guess you'll have to escape it. scary threats from the bourgeoisie, folks.
hey, they always said that capitalism would cave in on itself, right?
the liberal party can't have every one of the two or three soft-left papers in this country behind a paywall, that will annihilate them in a matter of months.
it's maybe consistent with the bourgeois left's full embrace of neo-liberalism - you plebs now have to pay for your own propaganda, and if you won't pay for it then i guess you'll have to escape it. scary threats from the bourgeoisie, folks.
hey, they always said that capitalism would cave in on itself, right?
the liberal party can't have every one of the two or three soft-left papers in this country behind a paywall, that will annihilate them in a matter of months.
at
12:02
so, what are the timelines?
- the application was sent to the respondent on the 16th. she has 35 days to respond, which gives her until jan 20th to respond. in a real sense, i can do very little before then.
- however, if i get no reaction, i will file for a request for deferral immediately on the 21st, as i do believe that it is proper to allow for the legality of the arrest to be determined, beforehand.
- if i get a response sooner than that, i'll file for deferral sooner than that
- i'll have to apply to reopen the case within 60 days of the divisional court ruling, unless i (or they) appeal it.
- i will also need to file a reply to the response within 21 days of receiving it, if i receive one. i will, however, want to do this asap.
- i will then get a confirmation of hearing, eventually.
- it will presumably be a good ways out when i get it, more than 50 days, because i will need to start producing documents 45 days before the hearing. the cops are going to love my access request when it comes, but this means i won't have to worry about it until at least early in the year.
and, i think that's what i needed to know.
so, i'm waiting for a reply or non-reply before i ask for a deferral.
- the application was sent to the respondent on the 16th. she has 35 days to respond, which gives her until jan 20th to respond. in a real sense, i can do very little before then.
- however, if i get no reaction, i will file for a request for deferral immediately on the 21st, as i do believe that it is proper to allow for the legality of the arrest to be determined, beforehand.
- if i get a response sooner than that, i'll file for deferral sooner than that
- i'll have to apply to reopen the case within 60 days of the divisional court ruling, unless i (or they) appeal it.
- i will also need to file a reply to the response within 21 days of receiving it, if i receive one. i will, however, want to do this asap.
- i will then get a confirmation of hearing, eventually.
- it will presumably be a good ways out when i get it, more than 50 days, because i will need to start producing documents 45 days before the hearing. the cops are going to love my access request when it comes, but this means i won't have to worry about it until at least early in the year.
and, i think that's what i needed to know.
so, i'm waiting for a reply or non-reply before i ask for a deferral.
at
11:31
hrmmn.
30 days, apparently.
---------
Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:
- deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;
- proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;
- deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;
- decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.
-------------
i *think* i need to wait for her to update an address because i don't have consent to email her anything. and, if she doesn't update the address, or reply at all, she's essentially forfeiting her right to be served.
at
10:42
i should be back up on the laptop by the morning.
for now, i'm going to spend the next 9 hours or so sorting through this here on the chromebook:
http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/hrto/Practice%20Directions/HRTO%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html
for now, i'm going to spend the next 9 hours or so sorting through this here on the chromebook:
http://www.sjto.gov.on.ca/documents/hrto/Practice%20Directions/HRTO%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.html
and making sure i understand what the next steps are.
at
10:05
yeah, it came up but the firewall is dismantled, like it was before.
so, that's what this thing does, whatever it is:
1) somehow installs via firefox
2) there is a hard reboot, at some point
3) uses windows update to install some kind of active directory service
4) shuts down my firewall, from the active directory
and, i don't know what it does after that.
i'm not interested in undoing what got done. rather, as mentioned, i'm going to format the machine and put the clean copy in. but, i'm going to make a few tweaks, and we'll see if it helps or not.
given that it seems to be the active directory that they're using, dismantling the active directory seems to be the best thing to try next.
obviously, i'd rather the attacks just stop, but i'm not a network person. i have no academic background and no experience doing networking in any context, whatsoever, at all. i have a math degree, not a computer science degree, and what i did study in school that was computer-related was 100% programming. as the only reason i did it was to get a job, all i know is what they taught me. so, i don't know anything about networking, i don't know anything about hardware and i don't even know anything about smart phones. not only am i not really very interested in computer science, but i'm not even really that interested in technology, in general, except in the context of sound recording. it took me until 2017 to buy a smart phone, and i've only turned it on a handful of times. i made a mistake, and i realized it a long time ago. remember: i spent my last years at carleton studying law, actually.
i have more work experience doing windows troubleshooting, and that's the part of this that i'll actually be able to figure out. i'm far more likely to succeed in locking the machine down locally than i am to win some kind of war with some gamers. in context, the smart thing for me to do here is to recognize my ignorance and play to my strengths.
i don't have the money to buy expensive routers, either, which might be what the issue actually comes down to.
so, i actually don't think i'm capable of blocking the attacks at a network level, and if that's what somebody is expecting then they'll be sorely disappointed. i would need to ask for somebody's help to do that, so i'm throwing that out there - if anybody wants to take some of those servers down, please do it.
rather, i'm going to focus on eliminating the functionality, locally. in the end, whomever is doing this - be it the cops or somebody trying to "pwn" that kid in new york - will probably still be able to hack into the machine. i probably won't be able to stop that. but, hopefully, they won't be able to do anything when they get in.
or, we can keep reinstalling every couple of days until they got bored and find somebody else to bother.
given that it seems to be the active directory that they're using, dismantling the active directory seems to be the best thing to try next.
obviously, i'd rather the attacks just stop, but i'm not a network person. i have no academic background and no experience doing networking in any context, whatsoever, at all. i have a math degree, not a computer science degree, and what i did study in school that was computer-related was 100% programming. as the only reason i did it was to get a job, all i know is what they taught me. so, i don't know anything about networking, i don't know anything about hardware and i don't even know anything about smart phones. not only am i not really very interested in computer science, but i'm not even really that interested in technology, in general, except in the context of sound recording. it took me until 2017 to buy a smart phone, and i've only turned it on a handful of times. i made a mistake, and i realized it a long time ago. remember: i spent my last years at carleton studying law, actually.
i have more work experience doing windows troubleshooting, and that's the part of this that i'll actually be able to figure out. i'm far more likely to succeed in locking the machine down locally than i am to win some kind of war with some gamers. in context, the smart thing for me to do here is to recognize my ignorance and play to my strengths.
i don't have the money to buy expensive routers, either, which might be what the issue actually comes down to.
so, i actually don't think i'm capable of blocking the attacks at a network level, and if that's what somebody is expecting then they'll be sorely disappointed. i would need to ask for somebody's help to do that, so i'm throwing that out there - if anybody wants to take some of those servers down, please do it.
rather, i'm going to focus on eliminating the functionality, locally. in the end, whomever is doing this - be it the cops or somebody trying to "pwn" that kid in new york - will probably still be able to hack into the machine. i probably won't be able to stop that. but, hopefully, they won't be able to do anything when they get in.
or, we can keep reinstalling every couple of days until they got bored and find somebody else to bother.
at
09:51
so, it seems like the thing that's being installed is related to the active directory.
there's a consistency at play, here.
so, let's try to delete the active directory drivers and go from there.
if the machine doesn't come back up after this reboot, i'm going to leave it off and do the tribunal research this afternoon, then reimage tonight.
there's a consistency at play, here.
so, let's try to delete the active directory drivers and go from there.
if the machine doesn't come back up after this reboot, i'm going to leave it off and do the tribunal research this afternoon, then reimage tonight.
at
08:07
Dec/18/2019 08:03:34
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::64309 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:03:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:35.245.73.108:47300 dst::990 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:03:13
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:03:12
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::23389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.118.37.99:42846 dst::2988 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::8800 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:50
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3362 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:103.102.59.150:60567 dst::1433 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::10005 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:36
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::53333 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::55552 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:58
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.105:42318 dst::2781 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:41
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::43390 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:37.49.231.163:53964 dst::50802 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:12
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4019 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:12
Drop ICMP packet from WAN src:195.251.255.69:8 dst::0 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::6666 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::16046 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.18:42666 dst::2817 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:24
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33905 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:15
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::36544 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:04
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.134.179.241:52582 dst::3370 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:59:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:89.248.160.193:51105 dst::9163 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:59:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:86.127.101.48:46338 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:59:00
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.151:46134 dst::33925 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:58
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::63870 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:46.72.221.251:56886 dst::5555 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:48
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::10012 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.92:47253 dst::17000 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:08
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::25480 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:57:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3357 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:57:23
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::18979 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:57:02
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:162.62.26.7:46966 dst::1200 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.157:46658 dst::3394 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::44442 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:50
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4407 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.151:46134 dst::4563 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::55210 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:23
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::53389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::14504 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::51881 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:45
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.54:44290 dst::59387 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:44
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.232.30.130:40445 dst::1018 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:198.108.67.102:55265 dst::6505 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.190:54346 dst::63389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:35
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:208.86.212.84:5172 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:33
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::29205 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:55
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.52:42543 dst::49025 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:45
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.90:41581 dst::10589 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::16813 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::14887 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.143.221.55:57489 dst::13389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.246:42790 dst::2911 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.90:41581 dst::2220 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:05
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.18:42666 dst::2844 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:52:41
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::47925 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:52:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3365 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:52:25
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:51.91.212.81:37657 dst::8181 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:112.3.27.138:62609 dst::3306 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::43539 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:33
Drop ICMP packet from WAN src:71.6.232.8:8 dst::0 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:15
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:144.91.80.182:52323 dst::8443 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:10
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::15147 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::40122 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:53
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::22129 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::44449 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::36100 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:44
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::15621 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3303 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.247:59599 dst::50001 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:81.22.45.25:41601 dst::8899 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:13
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3318 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:05
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.156.73.17:59305 dst::12479 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:02
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:89.248.168.176:45441 dst::9527 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:48:50
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:77.247.109.82:5098 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:48:31
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:124.227.119.143:35806 dst::1433 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:47:50
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::15260 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:47:42
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.247:59599 dst::33889 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:47:38
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:223.204.15.97:44711 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.161:46898 dst::5005 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:42
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::57777 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:35
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:94.102.56.181:46454 dst::6130 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4037 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::5018 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33339 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:193.29.13.20:41120 dst::9296 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:14
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:31.14.40.166:55433 dst::3702 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::17487 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::52222 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:20
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.105:42318 dst::2775 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.247:59599 dst::3394 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:56
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::46666 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::41955 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3363 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::11114 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::6864 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:01
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::23022 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33991 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:38
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::683 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.158:46722 dst::5536 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:13
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.246:42790 dst::2920 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:55
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::43478 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:35
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:159.203.201.177:47761 dst::15134 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:25
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.139.189.206:31170 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:40:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::22183 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:40:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::56896 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:56
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.232.30.130:40445 dst::3333 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:1.54.145.70:7257 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:3.214.49.140:443 dst::63224 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::13333 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.118.37.99:42846 dst::2965 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.157:46658 dst::3137 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:33
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::3396 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:184.105.247.208:41331 dst::389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.105:42318 dst::2784 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.152:46175 dst::4043 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.157:46658 dst::4057 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:36
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::59583 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:01
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.156:46634 dst::2473 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::56904 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.161:46898 dst::50005 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::47777 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:19
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::13399 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:17
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::17747 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:58
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::25555 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::38888 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:56
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.246:42790 dst::2924 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::30159 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:17
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33990 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:35:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::63241 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:43
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::24296 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:41
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.158:46722 dst::5335 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:83.97.20.46:47815 dst::53 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:14
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:176.31.131.255:5068 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::18372 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:04
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:139.59.123.163:32767 dst::8545 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:00
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::10731 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::59717 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.63.194.115:42154 dst::48915 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:44
DHCP lease IP 192.168.0.100 to jessica-PC 00-1f-16-d4-07-de
Dec/18/2019 07:33:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.154:46228 dst::3000 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::64444 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:38
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.164.72.72:52776 dst::638 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:31
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::24624 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:28
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:216.218.206.94:49631 dst::6379 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::3366 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3402 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.154:46228 dst::25000 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33997 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:31
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::54444 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3342 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:16
Drop ICMP packet from WAN src:46.234.125.89:8 dst::0 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:80.82.78.20:41080 dst::37377 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:10
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::33276 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.92:47253 dst::5389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:37
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:51.159.59.241:56107 dst::37810 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::20471 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.56.80.46:23452 dst::8089 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:219.70.74.28:42823 dst::5555 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.18:55362 dst::8797 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:77.247.108.77:49934 dst::5038 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:44
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:89.248.168.217:53386 dst::999 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.156.73.25:52265 dst::50868 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:190.137.32.196:31755 dst::60001 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:222.112.107.46:32767 dst::8545 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::60372 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:08
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:125.75.128.231:59363 dst::1433 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:06
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:192.99.10.122:32767 dst::8545 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:27:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::53390 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:27:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.27:44411 dst::4222 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:44
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::50137 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:35
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.156:46634 dst::2372 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:193.29.13.20:41120 dst::4012 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3366 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:16
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:164.132.183.200:12351 dst::3690 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:12
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:185.53.88.10:5124 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:25:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:101.23.113.123:57498 dst::8080 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:25:03
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.143:42598 dst::37032 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:24:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:103.86.200.5:54094 dst::9001 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:24:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4038 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:24:03
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::55557 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::39228 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:48
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::593 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.54:44290 dst::59386 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:30
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::18504 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.232.30.130:40445 dst::43389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::55550 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:16
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.151:46134 dst::10021 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.134.179.240:52652 dst::3389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.159:46744 dst::6511 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::36103 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::17692 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33335 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:02
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::35691 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:00
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.32:40320 dst::57000 Rule: Default deny
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::64309 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:03:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:35.245.73.108:47300 dst::990 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:03:13
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:03:12
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::23389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.118.37.99:42846 dst::2988 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::8800 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:50
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3362 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:103.102.59.150:60567 dst::1433 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::10005 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:36
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::53333 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:02:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::55552 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:58
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.105:42318 dst::2781 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:41
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::43390 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:37.49.231.163:53964 dst::50802 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:12
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4019 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:12
Drop ICMP packet from WAN src:195.251.255.69:8 dst::0 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:01:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::6666 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::16046 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.18:42666 dst::2817 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:24
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33905 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:15
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::36544 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 08:00:04
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.134.179.241:52582 dst::3370 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:59:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:89.248.160.193:51105 dst::9163 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:59:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:86.127.101.48:46338 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:59:00
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.151:46134 dst::33925 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:58
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::63870 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:46.72.221.251:56886 dst::5555 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:48
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::10012 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.92:47253 dst::17000 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:58:08
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::25480 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:57:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3357 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:57:23
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::18979 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:57:02
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:162.62.26.7:46966 dst::1200 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.157:46658 dst::3394 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::44442 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:50
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4407 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.151:46134 dst::4563 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::55210 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:56:23
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::53389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::14504 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::51881 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:45
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.54:44290 dst::59387 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:55:44
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.232.30.130:40445 dst::1018 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:198.108.67.102:55265 dst::6505 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.190:54346 dst::63389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:35
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:208.86.212.84:5172 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:54:33
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::29205 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:55
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.52:42543 dst::49025 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:45
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.90:41581 dst::10589 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::16813 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::14887 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.143.221.55:57489 dst::13389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.246:42790 dst::2911 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.90:41581 dst::2220 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:53:05
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.18:42666 dst::2844 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:52:41
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::47925 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:52:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3365 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:52:25
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:51.91.212.81:37657 dst::8181 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:112.3.27.138:62609 dst::3306 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::43539 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:33
Drop ICMP packet from WAN src:71.6.232.8:8 dst::0 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:15
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:144.91.80.182:52323 dst::8443 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:51:10
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::15147 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::40122 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:53
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::22129 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::44449 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:50:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::36100 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:44
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::15621 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3303 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.247:59599 dst::50001 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:81.22.45.25:41601 dst::8899 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:13
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3318 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:05
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.156.73.17:59305 dst::12479 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:49:02
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:89.248.168.176:45441 dst::9527 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:48:50
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:77.247.109.82:5098 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:48:31
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:124.227.119.143:35806 dst::1433 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:47:50
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::15260 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:47:42
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.247:59599 dst::33889 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:47:38
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:223.204.15.97:44711 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.161:46898 dst::5005 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:42
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::57777 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:35
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:94.102.56.181:46454 dst::6130 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:46:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4037 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::5018 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33339 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:193.29.13.20:41120 dst::9296 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:45:14
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:31.14.40.166:55433 dst::3702 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::17487 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::52222 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:20
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.105:42318 dst::2775 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.247:59599 dst::3394 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:44:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:56
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::46666 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::41955 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3363 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::11114 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::6864 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:43:01
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::23022 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33991 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:38
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::683 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:14
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.158:46722 dst::5536 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:42:13
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.246:42790 dst::2920 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:55
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::43478 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:35
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:159.203.201.177:47761 dst::15134 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:41:25
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.139.189.206:31170 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:40:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::22183 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:40:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::56896 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:56
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.232.30.130:40445 dst::3333 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:1.54.145.70:7257 dst::23 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:3.214.49.140:443 dst::63224 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::13333 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.118.37.99:42846 dst::2965 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:40
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.157:46658 dst::3137 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:33
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::3396 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:39:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:184.105.247.208:41331 dst::389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.105:42318 dst::2784 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.152:46175 dst::4043 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.157:46658 dst::4057 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:36
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::59583 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:38:01
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.156:46634 dst::2473 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::56904 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.161:46898 dst::50005 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::47777 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:19
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::13399 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:37:17
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::17747 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:58
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::25555 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::38888 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:56
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.246:42790 dst::2924 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::30159 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:36:17
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33990 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:35:52
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::63241 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:43
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::24296 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:41
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.158:46722 dst::5335 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:83.97.20.46:47815 dst::53 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:14
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:176.31.131.255:5068 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::18372 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:04
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:139.59.123.163:32767 dst::8545 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:34:00
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::10731 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::59717 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.63.194.115:42154 dst::48915 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:44
DHCP lease IP 192.168.0.100 to jessica-PC 00-1f-16-d4-07-de
Dec/18/2019 07:33:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.154:46228 dst::3000 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::64444 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:33:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:95.216.96.235:50002 dst::35460 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:38
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.164.72.72:52776 dst::638 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:31
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::24624 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:28
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:216.218.206.94:49631 dst::6379 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.139:52264 dst::3366 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3402 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:32:07
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.154:46228 dst::25000 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33997 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:31
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::54444 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3342 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:16
Drop ICMP packet from WAN src:46.234.125.89:8 dst::0 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:80.82.78.20:41080 dst::37377 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:31:10
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::33276 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.92:47253 dst::5389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:37
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:51.159.59.241:56107 dst::37810 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:32
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::20471 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:30:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.56.80.46:23452 dst::8089 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:219.70.74.28:42823 dst::5555 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:54
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.18:55362 dst::8797 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:77.247.108.77:49934 dst::5038 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:44
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:89.248.168.217:53386 dst::999 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:29:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.156.73.25:52265 dst::50868 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:49
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:190.137.32.196:31755 dst::60001 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:39
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:222.112.107.46:32767 dst::8545 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:21
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::60372 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:08
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:125.75.128.231:59363 dst::1433 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:28:06
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:192.99.10.122:32767 dst::8545 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:27:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::53390 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:27:18
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.175.93.27:44411 dst::4222 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:44
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::50137 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:35
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.156:46634 dst::2372 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:27
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:193.29.13.20:41120 dst::4012 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:22
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::3366 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:16
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:164.132.183.200:12351 dst::3690 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:26:12
Drop UDP packet from WAN src:185.53.88.10:5124 dst::5060 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:25:46
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:101.23.113.123:57498 dst::8080 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:25:03
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:92.119.160.143:42598 dst::37032 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:24:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:103.86.200.5:54094 dst::9001 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:24:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.111.65:45392 dst::4038 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:24:03
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::55557 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:57
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::39228 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:48
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::593 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:37
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.54:44290 dst::59386 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:30
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::18504 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:29
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.232.30.130:40445 dst::43389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.197.149:43442 dst::55550 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:16
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.151:46134 dst::10021 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:23:11
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.134.179.240:52652 dst::3389 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:59
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:45.136.108.159:46744 dst::6511 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:51
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::36103 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:47
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::17692 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:26
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.153.196.240:48363 dst::33335 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:02
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.176.27.182:47634 dst::35691 Rule: Default deny
Dec/18/2019 07:22:00
Drop TCP packet from WAN src:185.209.0.32:40320 dst::57000 Rule: Default deny
at
08:04
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)