You are making a lot of assumptions here.
At no point did I state that these were MY beliefs or an experience that I'VE had.. You might want to be more careful about who you label as a racist before you know ANYTHING about them.
But you clearly you'd rather make assumptions and jump to conclusions.
Not that you implied this but its a point that should be made.. Men also have to walk the line between assertive and "being a dick". I wish I got paid and treated like the men do in the crazy world of an SJW..
First off, an "upgrade to 10" banner isn't adware. Second, not installing updates is stupid. Especially security updates. Are you familiar with the concept of herd immunity?
Seriously, automatic updates are a problem? You're grasping at straws for excuses not to like something I suspect you haven't even given a fair chance.
How is a forced banner NOT adware?? Remember the days of popup ads on the desktop not just in a web browser.. very similar.
Regarding "not installing updates is stupid", if I want to be stupid that's my choice seeing as I bought the software and hardware that it's running on.
I know I shouldnt bother responding to you.. but despite the fact that they are a large advertising company, and they probably are gathering information on your tendencies, they aren't forcing stupid ads on you. Looking at the main G+ feeds page, or whatever you want to call it, I don't see any ads trying to sell me anything that I "like". Ever notice how when you "like" something on FB, there are immediately links to the left of your page offering you services and pages that are similiar to what you just "liked"? Not on G+.
I guess I don't understand where all this is coming from. You're signing up for a social media site, in which you interact with other people socially. What is the point of using a pseudonym or remaining anonymous, when the whole point of the site is to interact with your friends and acquaintances? How are your friends supposed to find your profile if you are not you? Obviously I'm missing something because lots of people have a problem with this, but I just don't get it.
If you search around you will find a number of groups working to oust LulzSec.
http://lulzsecexposed.blogspot.com/ for one.. they have some "d0x" and a number of chat logs. Having read through the logs myself, there are a couple of people that "speak" for the LulzSec. Though they all seem to have access to the twitter, there are a couple of "main" guys.. and there is definitely 1 or 2 leader figures.
A light and some clicking takes you so far out of the movie that you need to get up and get the manager, thus removing you from the movie experience even more so than if you just ignored it and looked at the screen?
Is no one else concerned with the fact that these guys get to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, and there are no repercussions? I understand the way Anonymous works, it's difficult to track these people down. But you can't tell me that with the recent trend in public hacks that many of them aren't performed by the same group of people.
Anonymous doesn't have any type of real leadership, and there has never been a very active group of core members, it's more or less "hey we're going to attack this site" and then a bunch of basement dwellers rise up and start DDoS'ing. After they get bored they leave and move on.. But many of these recent attacks have seemed more organized than previous Anonymous doings.
Are people not concerned with their actions? I understand that so far they've been doing things that people can agree with "LOLSONYREVIL" "TURKEYCENSORINTERNETS" and blah blah. But the more attention we give them, the bolder they're going to become.. what happens when they decide that they want to fuck with the US or the some major company in the States.. I don't think people will be quite so willing to wave off their actions then.
From my point of view, everyone is discussing the article. Yes, I did RTFA. They stated the three arrested are "leaders of the Spanish section of anonymous." Just because certain people are more active than others doesn't make them leaders. This is just another "tubes" moment where governments have no idea about what goes on in the technological world. The article also stated that no charges have been made, which leads me to believe that this was an order from somewhere high, because someone isn't happy, and wanted to send a message.
The thing with anonymous organizations is that anyone can claim to be in them, create twitter groups, and send out "press releases." Everyone is on topic because the topic is the targeting of the "leadership" of anonymous, in this case the Spanish section, whatever that means.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
If they're more active than others it seems reasonable to think they could be the leaders of the attack.. since you know.. they're doing it..
I feel as though everyone is nit-picking the article over it's wording when it was created by someone not necessarily "in the loop" on the terms of the internet, I don't think you can really hold that against them. They arrested three people that were Spanish and actively taking part in Anonymous's action. Why wouldn't you call it the Spanish section of anonymous? It's a bunch of Spanish guys that live in Spain that are part of Anonymous.. seems like a Spanish part of Anonymous to me..
Why is it that no one is discussing the article, or the implications of the arrests.. everyone is commenting on how you can't name the leader of Anonymous..
Just because you think you know what Anonymous is, doesn't mean that everyone else does.. it's easier to say there is a "leader" than to explain what it really is..not to mention that fact that they are doing this to themselves. When they start releasing statements and using Twitter and shit, someone is in charge of those things, hence the "leader" tag.
Lets try talking about the article instead of pretending we're cool enough to know how Anonymous works.
Personally I'm pretty tired of hearing this shit.. at this point is it really even worth the effort? SQL injections? Script-kiddies leeching off of unsecured websites.. this shit happens every day. Any else suspicious about the line "said that the group has more, but can’t copy all of the information it stole." Why can't they copy all the data? Probably because the "hack" wasn't as big as they want everyone to believe.
This looks like an interesting way to control tablets, but this cannot work with desktops and laptops, right? And I refuse to upgrade my desktop to some touch screen bullshit. I work way faster with a keyboard and a mouse, and will not spend my days touching my monitor whenever I want to refresh/.
I still don't think your argument makes much sense because the same can be said for any footballer or any other sports star or any celebrity. I also don't we should necessarily be looking up to any of these people. Especially with the way many of them behave in their private lives.
You might also choose to remember that there were no reports of fraudulent charges on the cards that were involved because the security codes required to use the card were not taken.. just something to keep in mind when you're trying to flame Sony.
If he was the best football player on the planet but played in a dark room, where no one could see him I sincerely doubt he would make the money he has made.
What the hell? That doesn't really make any sense at all. Obviously if he's playing a dark room where no one can see him then he's not going to make money because no one can see him.. and therefore they don't know what he's doing. I could be the best football player in the world, playing in my backyard at home, but I don't make any money because my skills haven't been proved.. you should try a new argument.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to explain? I'm sure you don't but I figured I would ask.
Whose butthurt? Again, you know nothing about me. You sir are the RACIST!!!!! (see how it works?)
Wrong. "All Lives Matter" couldn't possibly be more inclusive for ALL LIVES.
Is either statement wrong? From my stand point 99.9% of people need help with SOMETHING
You are making a lot of assumptions here. At no point did I state that these were MY beliefs or an experience that I'VE had.. You might want to be more careful about who you label as a racist before you know ANYTHING about them. But you clearly you'd rather make assumptions and jump to conclusions.
Earth. You?
I never implied black lives (or any life) doesn't matter, I simply stated "All Lives Matter" ... which they do.
Plenty of women who don't mind being a "bitch" as well
Then why do "Black Lives Matter" supporters respond with NO!!! when confronted with the statement "All Lives Matter"?
Not that you implied this but its a point that should be made.. Men also have to walk the line between assertive and "being a dick". I wish I got paid and treated like the men do in the crazy world of an SJW..
You can backup all your data perfectly fine without iCloud
First off, an "upgrade to 10" banner isn't adware. Second, not installing updates is stupid. Especially security updates. Are you familiar with the concept of herd immunity?
Seriously, automatic updates are a problem? You're grasping at straws for excuses not to like something I suspect you haven't even given a fair chance.
How is a forced banner NOT adware?? Remember the days of popup ads on the desktop not just in a web browser.. very similar. Regarding "not installing updates is stupid", if I want to be stupid that's my choice seeing as I bought the software and hardware that it's running on.
I know I shouldnt bother responding to you.. but despite the fact that they are a large advertising company, and they probably are gathering information on your tendencies, they aren't forcing stupid ads on you. Looking at the main G+ feeds page, or whatever you want to call it, I don't see any ads trying to sell me anything that I "like". Ever notice how when you "like" something on FB, there are immediately links to the left of your page offering you services and pages that are similiar to what you just "liked"? Not on G+.
I guess I don't understand where all this is coming from. You're signing up for a social media site, in which you interact with other people socially. What is the point of using a pseudonym or remaining anonymous, when the whole point of the site is to interact with your friends and acquaintances? How are your friends supposed to find your profile if you are not you? Obviously I'm missing something because lots of people have a problem with this, but I just don't get it.
If you search around you will find a number of groups working to oust LulzSec.
http://lulzsecexposed.blogspot.com/ for one.. they have some "d0x" and a number of chat logs. Having read through the logs myself, there are a couple of people that "speak" for the LulzSec. Though they all seem to have access to the twitter, there are a couple of "main" guys.. and there is definitely 1 or 2 leader figures.
A light and some clicking takes you so far out of the movie that you need to get up and get the manager, thus removing you from the movie experience even more so than if you just ignored it and looked at the screen?
Is no one else concerned with the fact that these guys get to do whatever they want, to whom ever they want, and there are no repercussions? I understand the way Anonymous works, it's difficult to track these people down. But you can't tell me that with the recent trend in public hacks that many of them aren't performed by the same group of people.
Anonymous doesn't have any type of real leadership, and there has never been a very active group of core members, it's more or less "hey we're going to attack this site" and then a bunch of basement dwellers rise up and start DDoS'ing. After they get bored they leave and move on.. But many of these recent attacks have seemed more organized than previous Anonymous doings.
Are people not concerned with their actions? I understand that so far they've been doing things that people can agree with "LOLSONYREVIL" "TURKEYCENSORINTERNETS" and blah blah. But the more attention we give them, the bolder they're going to become.. what happens when they decide that they want to fuck with the US or the some major company in the States.. I don't think people will be quite so willing to wave off their actions then.
Thank you. I would mod this up if I could.
From my point of view, everyone is discussing the article. Yes, I did RTFA. They stated the three arrested are "leaders of the Spanish section of anonymous." Just because certain people are more active than others doesn't make them leaders. This is just another "tubes" moment where governments have no idea about what goes on in the technological world. The article also stated that no charges have been made, which leads me to believe that this was an order from somewhere high, because someone isn't happy, and wanted to send a message. The thing with anonymous organizations is that anyone can claim to be in them, create twitter groups, and send out "press releases." Everyone is on topic because the topic is the targeting of the "leadership" of anonymous, in this case the Spanish section, whatever that means. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
If they're more active than others it seems reasonable to think they could be the leaders of the attack.. since you know.. they're doing it..
I feel as though everyone is nit-picking the article over it's wording when it was created by someone not necessarily "in the loop" on the terms of the internet, I don't think you can really hold that against them. They arrested three people that were Spanish and actively taking part in Anonymous's action. Why wouldn't you call it the Spanish section of anonymous? It's a bunch of Spanish guys that live in Spain that are part of Anonymous.. seems like a Spanish part of Anonymous to me..
Why is it that no one is discussing the article, or the implications of the arrests.. everyone is commenting on how you can't name the leader of Anonymous..
Just because you think you know what Anonymous is, doesn't mean that everyone else does.. it's easier to say there is a "leader" than to explain what it really is..not to mention that fact that they are doing this to themselves. When they start releasing statements and using Twitter and shit, someone is in charge of those things, hence the "leader" tag.
Lets try talking about the article instead of pretending we're cool enough to know how Anonymous works.
Personally I'm pretty tired of hearing this shit.. at this point is it really even worth the effort? SQL injections? Script-kiddies leeching off of unsecured websites.. this shit happens every day. Any else suspicious about the line "said that the group has more, but can’t copy all of the information it stole." Why can't they copy all the data? Probably because the "hack" wasn't as big as they want everyone to believe.
This looks like an interesting way to control tablets, but this cannot work with desktops and laptops, right? And I refuse to upgrade my desktop to some touch screen bullshit. I work way faster with a keyboard and a mouse, and will not spend my days touching my monitor whenever I want to refresh /.
I still don't think your argument makes much sense because the same can be said for any footballer or any other sports star or any celebrity. I also don't we should necessarily be looking up to any of these people. Especially with the way many of them behave in their private lives.
You might also choose to remember that there were no reports of fraudulent charges on the cards that were involved because the security codes required to use the card were not taken.. just something to keep in mind when you're trying to flame Sony.
If he was the best football player on the planet but played in a dark room, where no one could see him I sincerely doubt he would make the money he has made.
What the hell? That doesn't really make any sense at all. Obviously if he's playing a dark room where no one can see him then he's not going to make money because no one can see him.. and therefore they don't know what he's doing. I could be the best football player in the world, playing in my backyard at home, but I don't make any money because my skills haven't been proved.. you should try a new argument.