Slashdot Mirror

Quite right!

link

Residents of the Capitol Hill neighborhood interviewed the Architect of the Capitol about the plant in 2006. They were informed that the only way to optimizing the plant’s efficiency was to rebuild it. This however, requires an act of Congress.

...and I'm not aware of any such thing having happened just yet. So, simple multiplication gives us, as of the end of 2008 (for sake of simplicity, and leaving open any changes that might have started in 2009) 498 PM2.5, 387 NOx, 2898 SO2, 252 PM10. Again, still measuring in tons here. So, let's just stick with the coal plant. No harm there, right?

Residents of the Capitol Hill neighborhood interviewed the Architect of the Capitol about the plant in 2006. They were informed that the only way to optimizing the plant’s efficiency was to rebuild it. This however, requires an act of Congress.

...and I'm not aware of any such thing having happened just yet. So, simple multiplication gives us, as of the end of 2008 (for sake of simplicity, and leaving open any changes that might have started in 2009) 498 PM2.5, 387 NOx, 2898 SO2, 252 PM10. Again, still measuring in tons here. So, let's just stick with the coal plant. No harm there, right?

Residents of the Capitol Hill neighborhood interviewed the Architect of the Capitol about the plant in 2006. They were informed that the only way to optimizing the plant’s efficiency was to rebuild it. This however, requires an act of Congress.

...and I'm not aware of any such thing having happened just yet. So, simple multiplication gives us, as of the end of 2008 (for sake of simplicity, and leaving open any changes that might have started in 2009) 498 PM2.5, 387 NOx, 2898 SO2, 252 PM10. Again, still measuring in tons here. So, let's just stick with the coal plant. No harm there, right?

It indeed reminds me of my grandfather when he had terminal cancer. But actually, one can live with a body like that: it's called polio. Ever heard of the Goddess Bunny?

by PitaBred (632671)

Kids these days with their high UID's...

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/GNAA

No shit...

(Last time I made a comment like this, there were several replies leading to a 2 digit uid commenting. Can we just jump the gun/shark and get CT in here?)

Kids these days with their high UID's...

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/GNAA

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Noone

Actually this is great too

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Jesus-christ-is-a-lion-get-in-the-car.jpg

How about WHARRGARBL ?

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Icy_Hot_Stuntaz this takes me back!

It's a bit unfair to keep blaming Peter Noone for not implementing features in Subversion. He's a busy man.

He just copypasta'd this Encyclopedia Dramatica (obviously not safe for work, or really, anywhere) entry, but forget to add some breaks.

Wikipedia is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia. The goal is to try to insert misinformation as well as pushing a point of view that is randomly assigned at signup, while preventing any contrary information from being entered by others. Players with similar misinformation will generally form guilds in order to aid one another. Wikipedia players gain more authority as they progress, with "Administrator" and "Double-O Licensed" rankings granting them access to game processes not available to others. While the rules for winning the game are a tightly-kept secret. Wikipedia tends to have terminally boring entries on useless topics like the lives of 17th century rabbis, characteristics of the 57th termite chromosome, and Hollywood films including one or more of the Sesame Street Muppets - in other words, content with no real relevance to anything. It also functions limitedly as a medical journal and criminal resource for retards. A common misconception is that "Wikipedia is never finished." Remember that whenever you come by a Wikipedia article that is boring or filled with poor English skills, that such a refined state of quality did not happen on its own. Each article was forged from the blood of thousands of angsty teenagers edit warring over shit nobody cares about. The only reason anyone ever visits the site is because it's free. Information on Wikipedia topics can generally be found through Google and other forms of reference material, like books. TOW likes to think of themselves as the 21st century's answer to the Library of Alexandria, but, in reality, they fall somewhere closer to the collective scribblings on a truck stop bathroom wall. Indeed, this holds to the standard modus operandi of Wikipedia , that believes presenting obvious fact (e.g. "Wikipedia is never finished") as philosophy garners respect from people who don't fucking care. How the Game Typically Progresses 1. You make edits to articles 2. Your edits get reverted by aspie fucktards 3. You revert them back and they in turn revert again 4. You bicker on the talk page of the article 5. You whine about the aspies on the administrator noticeboards accusing them of being uncivil, they in turn accuse you of assuming bad faith 6. You open a Request for Comment on their behavior 7. You take them to arbitration 8. ??? 9. Jimbo profits Gaining Experience Points * 1 vandal reversion = 1 exp (a vandal is defined as an editor with a different point of view than yours) * 1 legitimate edit to a page = 2 exp * 1 article created (assuming it stays) = 20 exp * 1 Good Article = 100 exp * 1 Featured Article = 200 exp * 1 report to AIV or UAA = 5 exp * 1 page deleted via AfD = 20 exp * 1 page deleted via PROD or CSD = 10exp * 1 support for an Rfa = 20 exp * 1 article with POV or misinformation inserted into = 100 exp * 1 user blocked as a result of drama created = 50 exp Levels Possible * Rollback - 10,000 exp * Administrator - 100,000 exp * Bureaucrat - 500,000 exp * Checkuser or Oversight - Possible after 500,000 exp [plagurgized from http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ (NSFW)]

I'm afraid it all falls in the "I did it for the lulz" category.

That's been replaced with pages on EncyclopediaDramatica - this was front-page stuff there recently:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Liskula_Cohen

NSFW. And very skanky. And Lulzy.

Anyone who'se been on the internet long enough will recall an argument or two where people got so mad at each other that they start threatening to sue or call the authorities. This is generally kind of funny - because you can sort of picture the look on the face of the cop or lawyer when you call them - "Someone has wilfully tarnished my good name by posting scurrilous insults about me on the Internets! How soon can they be clapped in irons?"

To say this exchange happens once per second in this country is probably dramatically understating it. There are days when it may happen once per second on Slashdot alone. The plain fact is, even as a civil matter, we as a society can very rarely be bothered to go through the difficult process of handling an internet libel, slander or even harassment case.

Yes, you have some theoretical recourse if someone google bombs your name with hate sites that accuse you of being an embezzling pedophile terrorist and feature your photo and home address prominently. For better or worse, even coping with such an extreme example is beyond the means of 99% of Americans - because of time and expense just for a start.

My first reaction to Ms. Cohen's plight is, how on earth is she so lucky and/or special as to be able to face her insulter in court? At least there is a vaguely plausible theory - that she has already been a crime victim and has convinced cops and courts that there may be an ongoing pattern of harassment/violence by an individual. But she is astoundingly privileged among internet insult victims.

And how lucky is she? One apparently needs to go the extremes of Pranket in order to get law enforcement to stir. In other words, 6 or 7 figures of property damage, or things like (no exaggeration, unfortunately) using social engineering to convince fast food employees to strip naked and pee all over each other).

This is the tip of a very large iceberg. Just check out any random Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Seriously. No, really.

Anyone who'se been on the internet long enough will recall an argument or two where people got so mad at each other that they start threatening to sue or call the authorities. This is generally kind of funny - because you can sort of picture the look on the face of the cop or lawyer when you call them - "Someone has wilfully tarnished my good name by posting scurrilous insults about me on the Internets! How soon can they be clapped in irons?"

To say this exchange happens once per second in this country is probably dramatically understating it. There are days when it may happen once per second on Slashdot alone. The plain fact is, even as a civil matter, we as a society can very rarely be bothered to go through the difficult process of handling an internet libel, slander or even harassment case.

Yes, you have some theoretical recourse if someone google bombs your name with hate sites that accuse you of being an embezzling pedophile terrorist and feature your photo and home address prominently. For better or worse, even coping with such an extreme example is beyond the means of 99% of Americans - because of time and expense just for a start.

My first reaction to Ms. Cohen's plight is, how on earth is she so lucky and/or special as to be able to face her insulter in court? At least there is a vaguely plausible theory - that she has already been a crime victim and has convinced cops and courts that there may be an ongoing pattern of harassment/violence by an individual. But she is astoundingly privileged among internet insult victims.

And how lucky is she? One apparently needs to go the extremes of Pranket in order to get law enforcement to stir. In other words, 6 or 7 figures of property damage, or things like (no exaggeration, unfortunately) using social engineering to convince fast food employees to strip naked and pee all over each other).

This is the tip of a very large iceberg. Just check out any random Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Seriously. No, really.

Anyone who'se been on the internet long enough will recall an argument or two where people got so mad at each other that they start threatening to sue or call the authorities. This is generally kind of funny - because you can sort of picture the look on the face of the cop or lawyer when you call them - "Someone has wilfully tarnished my good name by posting scurrilous insults about me on the Internets! How soon can they be clapped in irons?"

To say this exchange happens once per second in this country is probably dramatically understating it. There are days when it may happen once per second on Slashdot alone. The plain fact is, even as a civil matter, we as a society can very rarely be bothered to go through the difficult process of handling an internet libel, slander or even harassment case.

Yes, you have some theoretical recourse if someone google bombs your name with hate sites that accuse you of being an embezzling pedophile terrorist and feature your photo and home address prominently. For better or worse, even coping with such an extreme example is beyond the means of 99% of Americans - because of time and expense just for a start.

My first reaction to Ms. Cohen's plight is, how on earth is she so lucky and/or special as to be able to face her insulter in court? At least there is a vaguely plausible theory - that she has already been a crime victim and has convinced cops and courts that there may be an ongoing pattern of harassment/violence by an individual. But she is astoundingly privileged among internet insult victims.

And how lucky is she? One apparently needs to go the extremes of Pranket in order to get law enforcement to stir. In other words, 6 or 7 figures of property damage, or things like (no exaggeration, unfortunately) using social engineering to convince fast food employees to strip naked and pee all over each other).

This is the tip of a very large iceberg. Just check out any random Encyclopedia Dramatica page. Seriously. No, really.

I expect Yahoo Answers can help out with the first question, at least... http://encyclopediadramatica.com/How_is_babby_formed%3F

Laugh all you want. At least IE has broad developer support.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_Of_The_Internet

Umm...
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Lhc#Safe_Particle_Reactor_Is..._Safe.3F

How would YOU know "noone would be happy in the end"? Hell the man just made some bad 60s pop and now he gets blamed for everything!

We at least need a partial disclosure of David Gerard with the hopes that in the future we get a rejection of submissions that include childish remarks like: "Well, at least they're not Microsoft."

For one thing, David is good friends with Roy Schestowitz, the mastermind behind Boycott Novell among other things. This site also happens to be the feeding ground for everyone's favorite Slashdot troll: Twitter. You'll find David making comments in both places and even going to far as to drop in the IRC chat room on rare occasions.

When he isn't trolling Slashdot to drop links to his website or editing Wikipedia to keep it free of people he can label as "shills", David is also responsible for shock sites such as lemonparty(dot)org (homosexual images) and other disgusting things he apparently thinks are funny. You might find that hard to believe without the proper context. Take a look at this unofficial collection of pictures. Yes, that is a man wearing leather pants standing next to a huge red-haired beast. Assholes like David are the kind of people that turn Slashdot into something the rest of us don't like.

Hear hear. I don't care if somebody was selling an illegal or legal book on it. If copies of things I've purchased that are deemed unacceptable for any reason can be removed without my consent, DO NOT WANT.

You know, this guy.

I'd just like to point you to a few links explicitly discouraging users from taking illegal actions against this:

ED Article Excerpts:
"1. DON'T FUCK WITH THE LAW- We want to first make use of the rights we have, censorship is violating our rights."
"Acting like an idiot and trying to DDoS them will only end with you being persecuted (and/or prosecuted), and your actions being used as a justification."
"This battle is one we have to fight legally..."
"DO NOT RAGE ON THESE PHONE NUMBERS, SIMPLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ISSUE!"

Insurgen Article
Excepts:
"Acting like a retard and trying to DDoS them will only end in them going [A QUOTE]"
"Don't try to DDoS or do ANYTHING illegal or legally ambiguous to AT&T. This is a corporation with more resources, manpower, and preparation than anything you script kiddies have ever dealt with. You will be caught and prosecuted. Go through legal channels and reverse this using legitimate means."

Those are just the ones in the windows I have open.

Obviously there is no way to force someone not to do something, but the intentions are to solve this without any "damages".

Thanks,
Smark
SpectralCoding

As of 1am CST, it looks like the block is beginning to be lifted : http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AT%26T_Blocks_4chan#THIS_JUST_IN I can confirm access to img.4chan.org open from the Austin/South Texas area now, whereas it wasn't about an hour ago.

"GPP doesn't mention what level of risk there is with having a weee pc from being stolen"

Maybe I'm alone here, but I would just like to say I do not want your data. I don't think anyone does. I've bought many a used drive, PC and laptop and I've never ever tried to recover data from them (even though I know how) to see what the previous owner was up to. Frankly I didn't care and was too concerned with my own data, and if I were to steal someone's laptop I think I'd probably do the same.

Unless you're smuggling government secrets or you're pedobear (pedobear video) your data will probably be wiped clean by whoever steals it so they can use it or resell it.

"Play World of Warcraft? Show off your main character!"

Artist's Rendering!

If you are a linux user you deserve your penis to be covered in bees

Also MS willl come out with its replacement for , the ActiveX video plug in so firefox can fuck off.

Peter Noone, formerly of the band Herman's Hermits, gets blamed for everything. Apparently gives a shit.

Don't forget the Grinman.

Encyclopedia Dramatica "article" and Flash (*shudder*) animation.

it freaks out the normal people.

Don't you mean "mundanes"?

Well, about their affection to underage girls... I think this picture makes it pretty clear:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8b/Akihabara_Rail_Mechanophilia.jpg
Inspired by this very sick and NSFAnything image:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Akihabara.jpg
Sorry, but I think, whoever did this image, deserves to rot in hell. (Yes, nobody got hurt. But: Seriously?? WTF!)

Well, about their affection to underage girls... I think this picture makes it pretty clear:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8b/Akihabara_Rail_Mechanophilia.jpg
Inspired by this very sick and NSFAnything image:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:Akihabara.jpg
Sorry, but I think, whoever did this image, deserves to rot in hell. (Yes, nobody got hurt. But: Seriously?? WTF!)

The "Porn" entry bring down the whole Wikipedia site in the first hour.

It's already begun... (sauce [nsfw])

You sir, knocked my socks clean off. I had previously flagged you as a foe because I thought you were a world class prick, but you actually stood up and called "bullshit" for what it was. I'd like to add to your fine observations.

Everyone take an extra look at the submission. Specifically, David Gerard. Notice the spin he adds by using "hideously encumbered". Sleazy, huh? Wonder where he learned that trick? Turns out David is good friends with Roy Schestowitz and Twitter, all of whom regularly contribue to everyone's favorite flame-bait website, BoycottNovell. Fine, honest folks there. What's worse, when David isn't advertising his websites on Slashdot with wanna-be Onion News articles, he's a regular editor on Wikipedia.

Quit arguing the hypothetical merits of a body or people that I already challenged the integrity of and either count one of the points I made or troll somewhere else.

Fuck dude, I told you they were in error, pointed to where the error was, showed how they ignored the original complaint, the treaty and instead made their own complaint up without provocation and ignored the plain English text of the treaty in order to make their ruling. Hell, their ruling didn't even consider the argument made. No one ever made the argument that their ruling supported, otherwise it would have been documented before it got to arbitration and during the arbitration. It simply wasn't there. They went looking for something they couldn't find and took it out of context, ignored the treaty and made a ruling based on their desire not any fact presented.

You sound just like my niece when she was 7 years old in 2004 and she attempted to tell me that there was only 26 amendments to the US constitution because that's what her teacher said and she went to school to be a teacher. I had to go to school and show her teacher that they slipped one in all the way back in 1992 in order for her to correct what she had taught the class. You are this naive 7 year old refusing to look at the evidence that is there in plain English and availible to anyone concerned. But worse yet, you instead- trust someone you don't even know, never heard of before their boondoggle, who can be showed to be in error by a simple look at the evident and fact at hand.

There is a word for you too, Fucktard Fucktards do not simply defy common sense, they are pathologically incapable of recognizing the obvious, that even mirrors fail them. Go ahead and try the test on that page.

The historical reality is that an internationally constituted body with considerable subject matter expertise and domain knowledge has heard multiple arguments from both parties, along with appeals and arbitration arguments, and has rendered a decision that has been tested and accepted by all sides in the dispute.

Ed "sumdumass" Lolington's fictional reality is that they, a random slashdot poster, claim to possess superior legal understanding of the argument and issues, and that their judgement alone constitutes the entirety of a more correct analysis of the argument.

There's a word for this.

Now it seems that not only are you severely challenged mentally in this conversation

Let's see. Who do I trust more? An Ed Lolington random wannabe on the internet whose first recourse is to hurl childish insults, or the decisions of several rounds of hearings, arbitration, and appeals of an international legal body with representation from around the world and across the political spectrum?

You lose. Sorry.

Upon reflection, the servers are not based in the US. The DNS resolvers are not based in the US. The depository banks are not based in the US. The players, however, are based in the US, and are exercising their freedom to trade internationally. The US is now intervening to retard the transfer of capital with very little in the way of excuses other than "Do what we say, not what we do" to its citizens.

Do you work for a US casino?

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Cheyenne_Cherry

Anonymous hates people, but loves cats (as evidenced by Caturday and the entire "lolcats" phenomena). Their most recent target is the evil Cheyenne Cherry, who put a kitten in an oven and roasted it alive. Anonymous went through a lot of effort to get as much info as possible, but jumped the gun at first. The NY Daily News reported a 75-yo retiree with a similar name had her phone number posted, and the result? "They're all saying, 'You'll burn in hell,' 'Who the hell do you think you are?'" Bernadette Cherry, 72, said of the 75 calls from cat lovers."

I think its somewhere in the ebaums code:

Anonymous is Legion.
Anonymous does not forgive.
Anonymous does not forget.

Noone stole their identity?

Only if you want to end up like 1guy1jar.

Are you seriously comparing the Salem witch trials to convicting somebody who admitted to possessing illustrated child porn? You're really defending the creepy pedophile and his child porn comics?

Creepy anime nerds like this are why comic fans continue to be stereotyped. Because the stereotype is often true in hilarious ways.

I much prefer Shitwaffles

Rule 34 strikes again...

Well, yeah. But, loking at the rules, I should think that from 27-36 all stem from 34.

I mean, 27 through 33 starts with the quest for porn, and always have. ;-)

Cheers