Instead of posting the email and laughing at this poor woman, why don't you try to get her help?
How? No, seriously, how? In the US, at least, we've eliminated most avenues for treating all but the most severe forms of mental illness. Right now, homelessness seems to the accepted end-result.
Pointing and laughing or muttering and shaking your head seems to be the only responses now.
I wonder what it is that you read in the Perl community if you haven't heard of Randall Schwartz before. He's probably the most well-known person in the Perl community outside of Larry Wall.
One of Perl's strengths is that oft-repeated phrase -- there's more than one way to do it. But it is also a huge negative, and Perl's greatest weakness.
six? i dont see why people think shes hot. so shes blonde, big deal... boomer's where its at.
I actually thought six was far hotter in the episode where she appears to Gaius without any of her makeup, no perm (long, straight hair in a ponytail), and sweatclothes instead of her skanky gear.
Bingo. The Ewoks were designed as cute, cuddly bears in a primitive village, but given that setup the story treated them fairly realistically and didn't shy away from the consequences of their actions. They had clever tactics to use against the AT-STs, and they were shown getting shot, exploded, writhing in painful death throes, and mourning the newly fallen. Jar-Jar was a similarly silly character, but he was never treated seriously -- just a bunch of pratfalls that pulled you out of the rest of the movie.
Supposedly the new movie was supposed to be televised first and then straight to DVD, and during preparation of the movie Lucas' people said he lit up and said something like "This is so good it needs to be in theaters!".
I don't know that Lucas is "only" in it for the money. The above is exactly what happened with Toy Story 2, yet the difference was that Lucas thought he had a good movie.. but he didn't. The more I look at his newer stuff, the more it's apparent that he simply doesn't have judgment with regards to the quality of his work. He has no one who can tell him "no, this sucks" anymore, and when you surround yourself with yes-men and that's all you ever hear, you begin to believe your own bullshit. While greed may be a big factor, I think a big part of it is just how out of touch Lucas is. He doesn't have the pure, forceful vision, and has no moderating influences.
So, by your thinking, the woman who gets raped because she was in the wrong part of town doesn't deserve any sympathy either, because after all, she should have known better?
Nice straw man.
No, no, it was not a strawman. It was a pretty accurate analogy, just that rape is more extreme than public sexual humiliation. In both cases, the victims should have known better. In both cases, what they were doing was stupid (though in the email case it was certainly -more- stupid). In neither case though were they inviting such.
Leaving yourself open to attack is no justification for the attack. No one here is saying that the victims weren't stupid or they shouldn't have known better.
Hang my head in shame. Exactly. And then I'll try to figure out a way to get you back. Taking a prankster to court is admission of stupidity and powerlessness - a shameful way out and a last resort.
Only... only if you're playing by the rules that the prankster wants you to play by. After all, the trolls' pastimes usually rely on never meeting the victim and remaining safe and untouchable in their anonymous settings. In the prankster's/troll's world, bringing the courts into it is unfair and stupid. In the real world, it's how we solve disputes that come about from breaking the law.
You do not understand Apple. They are a marketing-driven company, to the extent that marketing makes the company decisions. You can't push anything through if they refuse to give their blessing.
Incorrect, grinding is entirely optional. Sure, you must grind to achieve certain things you want (such as a specific item or profession pattern) but there's no grinding at all required to reach the max level. Heck, I reached level 70 by just doing quests and still had three zones I'd never entered before.
A few patches ago the amount of experience required to go from levels 10 to 60 was greatly reduced, and also the quests in that level range gave increased experience as well. All the dungeon and special quest drops were reitemized to be more use as well. As a result the time required to get a new character to the outlands was at least halved, and your character felt more "powerful" at that level than he would have before the changes were made.
I'm just getting tot he high level stuff and it seems to be more along these lines.. why they don't try and improve the older work is beyond me.. that's prolly the number 1 gripe i hear about grinding. UGH WC or SFK again/ "can someone run me thru? i'll pay you gold".
They go after the biggest audience.
How many people are asking for more low-level quest content? I'd actually like a lot more, but I know that I'm in the minority as well. Most people want to have more things to do with their max-level characters. A few patches ago Blizzard added a new quest hub for characters in the mid-30s in Dustwallow Marsh, but other than that.. not much.
Boy, I'd love some more Azerothean zones. I really miss having an active old world.
To me, when they say "security" and "other challenges" you know it's not "security" it's the "other challenges"
Oh, I trust them when they say it's related to "security."
When someone posts an expose of corruption on Wikileaks, that's a breach of "security."
When someone shares a movie on a P2P network, that's a breach of "security."
When Al-Quaeda posts a terrorist recruitment video on a website in another country, or some people anonymously coordinate a G8 protest on a bulletin board, those are breaches of "security."
A few of those things many people would like to ban or otherwise secure. I think that most people prefer an Internet where not all of those things can be "secured." Yet it's hard to truly eliminate one activity while not making it possible to ban them all.
Don't forget "new coke," which is selling like hotcakes.
People love to make fun of New Coke, but its introduction was one of the best moves the company's made. It ended Coca-Cola's downward slide compared to Pepsi. Removing the old formulation, then reintroducing it as Coke Classic after public dissatisfaction helped propel it back to #1 in the cola wars.
The current internet formed when Microsoft took the TCP/IP stack off BSD (FTP software?) and bolted it onto Windows 95. Microsoft really had no other choice in order to get their products to communicate with UNIX servers. At the time, many security experts rolled their eyes up at the thought of the average user having access to the 'sockets' programming API.
It was more than simply eye-rolling, it was actually a security problem. Back then a fair bit of security on the Internet was based on the notion that your average end-user did not have direct access to low-level sockets. Only the root user, aka sysadmins did.
It's funny, but in a "Monty Python geek" sort of way. Sure, those Holy Grail quotes are funny, but they really lose their luster when told over and over again.
That wasn't his true nature, though (also, I don't think that was Scarecrow, though I could be wrong. I thought it was just some random punk the Joker recruited)./quote>
Nope, it was definitely the Scarecrow. Cillian Murphy even gets a screen credit as "Dr. Johnathan Crane / The Scarecrow." Batman refers to him as an Arkham inmate who got too addled by his own insanity drugs, the fate of the Scarecrow from the previous film.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there possibility we could get a few more buttons to hit at once? Just how many fingers do you think I have?
Hopefully more than four!
Instead of posting the email and laughing at this poor woman, why don't you try to get her help?
How? No, seriously, how? In the US, at least, we've eliminated most avenues for treating all but the most severe forms of mental illness. Right now, homelessness seems to the accepted end-result.
Pointing and laughing or muttering and shaking your head seems to be the only responses now.
I wonder what it is that you read in the Perl community if you haven't heard of Randall Schwartz before. He's probably the most well-known person in the Perl community outside of Larry Wall.
Arguably ./ is one of the reasons perl was so popular.
Mmmm, I think one of the big reasons was the number of high-quality Perl books available from O'Reilly and Associates.
One of Perl's strengths is that oft-repeated phrase -- there's more than one way to do it. But it is also a huge negative, and Perl's greatest weakness.
You missed the memo. They said last year that they replaced all their editors.
BTW, where do you hear this sort of thing? I don't see editorial changes posted as stories, and I don't know where else they'd be published.
I know if a story had been posted about JonKatz's firing, it would have broken records for comments posted. It would have been a huge party.
six? i dont see why people think shes hot. so shes blonde, big deal... boomer's where its at.
I actually thought six was far hotter in the episode where she appears to Gaius without any of her makeup, no perm (long, straight hair in a ponytail), and sweatclothes instead of her skanky gear.
It was like Disney's take on greek mythology...
Hey, I liked Fantasia. Sure, not terribly faithful to the mythology, but it was still poetic.
And at least you got to see some Ewoks die.
Bingo. The Ewoks were designed as cute, cuddly bears in a primitive village, but given that setup the story treated them fairly realistically and didn't shy away from the consequences of their actions. They had clever tactics to use against the AT-STs, and they were shown getting shot, exploded, writhing in painful death throes, and mourning the newly fallen. Jar-Jar was a similarly silly character, but he was never treated seriously -- just a bunch of pratfalls that pulled you out of the rest of the movie.
Supposedly the new movie was supposed to be televised first and then straight to DVD, and during preparation of the movie Lucas' people said he lit up and said something like "This is so good it needs to be in theaters!".
I don't know that Lucas is "only" in it for the money. The above is exactly what happened with Toy Story 2, yet the difference was that Lucas thought he had a good movie.. but he didn't. The more I look at his newer stuff, the more it's apparent that he simply doesn't have judgment with regards to the quality of his work. He has no one who can tell him "no, this sucks" anymore, and when you surround yourself with yes-men and that's all you ever hear, you begin to believe your own bullshit. While greed may be a big factor, I think a big part of it is just how out of touch Lucas is. He doesn't have the pure, forceful vision, and has no moderating influences.
Nice straw man.
No, no, it was not a strawman. It was a pretty accurate analogy, just that rape is more extreme than public sexual humiliation. In both cases, the victims should have known better. In both cases, what they were doing was stupid (though in the email case it was certainly -more- stupid). In neither case though were they inviting such.
Leaving yourself open to attack is no justification for the attack. No one here is saying that the victims weren't stupid or they shouldn't have known better.
No, I'm afraid jcr is pretty much spot-on. It's not guilt by association, it's the approval of pretty anti-social troll tactics.
Hang my head in shame. Exactly. And then I'll try to figure out a way to get you back. Taking a prankster to court is admission of stupidity and powerlessness - a shameful way out and a last resort.
Only... only if you're playing by the rules that the prankster wants you to play by. After all, the trolls' pastimes usually rely on never meeting the victim and remaining safe and untouchable in their anonymous settings. In the prankster's/troll's world, bringing the courts into it is unfair and stupid. In the real world, it's how we solve disputes that come about from breaking the law.
The Marketing policy, not the company's policy
You do not understand Apple. They are a marketing-driven company, to the extent that marketing makes the company decisions. You can't push anything through if they refuse to give their blessing.
Incorrect, grinding is entirely optional. Sure, you must grind to achieve certain things you want (such as a specific item or profession pattern) but there's no grinding at all required to reach the max level. Heck, I reached level 70 by just doing quests and still had three zones I'd never entered before.
A few patches ago the amount of experience required to go from levels 10 to 60 was greatly reduced, and also the quests in that level range gave increased experience as well. All the dungeon and special quest drops were reitemized to be more use as well. As a result the time required to get a new character to the outlands was at least halved, and your character felt more "powerful" at that level than he would have before the changes were made.
I'm just getting tot he high level stuff and it seems to be more along these lines.. why they don't try and improve the older work is beyond me.. that's prolly the number 1 gripe i hear about grinding. UGH WC or SFK again/ "can someone run me thru? i'll pay you gold".
They go after the biggest audience.
How many people are asking for more low-level quest content? I'd actually like a lot more, but I know that I'm in the minority as well. Most people want to have more things to do with their max-level characters. A few patches ago Blizzard added a new quest hub for characters in the mid-30s in Dustwallow Marsh, but other than that.. not much.
Boy, I'd love some more Azerothean zones. I really miss having an active old world.
I can't believe no one has posted an "I Dream of GENI" joke yet.
To me, when they say "security" and "other challenges" you know it's not "security" it's the "other challenges"
Oh, I trust them when they say it's related to "security."
When someone posts an expose of corruption on Wikileaks, that's a breach of "security."
When someone shares a movie on a P2P network, that's a breach of "security."
When Al-Quaeda posts a terrorist recruitment video on a website in another country, or some people anonymously coordinate a G8 protest on a bulletin board, those are breaches of "security."
A few of those things many people would like to ban or otherwise secure. I think that most people prefer an Internet where not all of those things can be "secured." Yet it's hard to truly eliminate one activity while not making it possible to ban them all.
Right. Telnet is still commonly used... except for actual telnet logins.
That's not a reinvention, that's a reimplimentation of an existing invention.
Don't forget "new coke," which is selling like hotcakes.
People love to make fun of New Coke, but its introduction was one of the best moves the company's made. It ended Coca-Cola's downward slide compared to Pepsi. Removing the old formulation, then reintroducing it as Coke Classic after public dissatisfaction helped propel it back to #1 in the cola wars.
The current internet formed when Microsoft took the TCP/IP stack off BSD (FTP software?) and bolted it onto Windows 95. Microsoft really had no other choice in order to get their products to communicate with UNIX servers. At the time, many security experts rolled their eyes up at the thought of the average user having access to the 'sockets' programming API.
It was more than simply eye-rolling, it was actually a security problem. Back then a fair bit of security on the Internet was based on the notion that your average end-user did not have direct access to low-level sockets. Only the root user, aka sysadmins did.
It's funny, but in a "Monty Python geek" sort of way. Sure, those Holy Grail quotes are funny, but they really lose their luster when told over and over again.
That wasn't his true nature, though (also, I don't think that was Scarecrow, though I could be wrong. I thought it was just some random punk the Joker recruited)./quote>
Nope, it was definitely the Scarecrow. Cillian Murphy even gets a screen credit as "Dr. Johnathan Crane / The Scarecrow." Batman refers to him as an Arkham inmate who got too addled by his own insanity drugs, the fate of the Scarecrow from the previous film.