700K isn't really that warm for a jet engine (~425 C), what's impressive is that it had been running so cool - 400K is only ~25 degrees above boiling! It is impressive that the Belgians incorporate that kind of data into their radar systems, though.
People dont like smart people. People who intentionally find broken ideas and mechanisms will be dealt with, not glorified and congratulated. Highlighting a security problem means they have to put in the effort to fix what you brought to their attention, or threaten you to STFU.
Sometimes, but I don't think that it's about some smart-person-persecution system. The big problem is that, if somebody points out a security hole, it must be fixed. Even if the hole has been noticed before but was ignored because the odds of exploitation are so remote as to negate the sense in repairing it, once it's been reported it must be addressed - The risk of exploitation is now magnified greatly because of the liability lying on whoever ignores the request - Nobody wants to hear "I told you so" after a security incident. So, if the weakness is ludicrously expensive to fix and very minor, you are correct that it will probably annoy whoever you point it out to. It's not that they don't like you because you're smart, it's because they may have to do something silly or possibly face the consequences of exposed inaction.
If you are smart about security, keep your mouth shut. There's not much you can do, except yourself be a target.
That's kind of messed up. Maybe you've worked in some really dysfunctional places, but just throwing in the towel is doing a disservice to everyone involved. Just be sure you do a critical assessment of what you're suggesting before voicing it formally so that you can be sure that you're really improving things instead of making them worse. Otherwise, like Schneier points out, everyone winds up removing their shoes and throwing away their shampoo as a reaction to a couple of very remote threats.
Solution? Demand that all terrorists wear traditional middle eastern clothing. Even the abortion-clinic and McVeigh types.
It's not fool-proof, I admit -A lot of non-terrorists also wear traditional middle eastern clothing, and some may cry "profiling", but it's a good first step. Then, at security, the screeners can ask anyone in the right mode of dress, "Are you a terrorist?" The ones that say "Yes" are then arrested.
And then I can finally make it through line without taking off my shoes. Flawless.
Life exists here because it formed here. Had it formed on some other planet (and it might have) then it would have formed to suit that environment as if it had been fine tuned for life.
The best phrasing I've heard for that (may have come from a/. sig - I don't recall) was:
Remarking that the earth is perfectly suited to support its inhabitants is like a puddle of water remarking that its pot hole is perfectly contoured to its shape.
The first one. I think the way you responded was condescending. I'm not disabled myself, so I don't personally need "accessible" webpages. But while you are a realist, I am an idealist. I am also Black, Female, self-proclaimed Christian, and a borderline hippie. If you put all of those together, I'm bound to call a realist a jackass for something.
As I said to a previous responder, I may have been overly sarcastic because I found Bogtha's assertion that "Deviation from HTML standards == Hating the handicapped" offensive. I have handicapped friends, but only make the most basic modifications to my lifestyle to accommodate them - I still do not feel insensitive to their needs.
I respect your ideals - In a completely serious manner, thanks for responding. If it wasn't for the friction likely to be caused by the "self-proclaimed Christian" issue, I'd expect that we'd get along in the real world. You're arrogant, stick to your beliefs even when they're obviously not applicable, and honest. I like that - I'm the same way.
Personally, I find idealists too idealistic, but I respect the spirit. I used to describe myself as an idealist before my... Conversion... Corruption... Realization... I'm convinced that I see things more clearly now, but I'm probably not as happy as I was before chopping off my pony-tail (literally). Good luck saving the world - In all seriousness, best wishes.
It takes the same amount of time to code a web page incorrectly as it does to do it right.
Double bullshit. If you code a page "right", then it will render properly in browsers that adhere to the standards (not IE - possibly excepting IE8 as pointed out by another poster) and satisfy the users with standard-adherent browsers. If you code a page custom-tailored to IE, it will render correctly for 90%+ of your user base. Coding it in such a manor to conform to both will take more time/effort than it would take to conform to either.
I think your analogy is a little bit off. You've got a front door with a standard lock, a dead-bolt, two chains, and a huge rock sitting behind it for security. Now you're faced with a decision whether or not to upgrade your dead-bolt to a super-duper-heavy-duty-dead-bolt. But, since your wife leaves the garage door wide open 4 days a week and no amount of persuasion will convince her to stop, the decision not to upgrade seems like a no-brainer.
I believe the person named 'AmberBlackCat' was obviously offended by your insensitivity to the plight of people with disabilities. And so was I.
That's what I assumed, and I fully expected that some folks wouldn't like it. And, while I find the ADA flawed in some respects, demanding "reasonable accommodation" seems fine. Like I said in a previous post, "When practical, web-admins should make their pages accessible to the handicapped". I believe that and I would certainly appreciate the assistance if I were the one with the disability. I also admit that I may have adopted an overly heartless tone because I think that Bogtha's implication that "Failure to adhere to HTML standards == Not caring about the handicapped" was kind of B.S. I have handicapped friends and neighbors and I'm guessing that they visit roughly monthly - Apart from my immediate family, 2 wheel-chair ridden individuals make up ~10% of the traffic coming into/out of my house. I care about them and make accommodations, but I don't feel that the fact that I don't have ramps or handicap-accessible bathrooms makes me insensitive. [I realize that home != commercial, I'm just tossing an example out.]
But I think that you're inferring insensitivity when I intended only a realistic assessment of the situation. Barring interference from the law and assuming that two businesses are on even ground regarding market share, talent pool, etc, the company that focuses 100% on pleasing 99% of their customer base will succeed over the company that divides its resources to take care of everyone. That holds true even if making a poor business decision is the morally right thing to do.
The ADA may have provisions demanding that sites make themselves handicap accessible, but until those provisions are enforced they mean very little - Loosely enforced provisions do not affect the bottom line. Sad but true.
Also, I didn't know that about IE8 - Thanks for the heads-up. It's always a relief when we see Microsoft do something right.
While I find your counter-argument compelling and well though-out, there are a couple of points that I find unaddressed. Specifically:
1) Do you object because I don't advocate spending exorbitant amounts of resources conforming things that are not naturally handicap-friendly to the handicapped or because my argument is not well thought-out? I.e. is this a difference in opinion or a criticism of my train of logic?
2) "Jackass" is a rather vague term, although it confers the tone perfectly reasonably. Are you implying that I'm a jerk because I rebutted the "What about the handicapped?" assertion or are you calling me a moron? I.e. "asshole" or "dumb as a mule"? Possibly both?
Thank you for your careful consideration of my post and insightful reply.
The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every mass. It is the radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no known force or degeneracy pressure could stop it from continuing to collapse into a gravitational singularity.
Thanks a lot... Before I was peacefully ignorant, but now you've tossed out a perfectly good question and revealed to me yet another topic for my List of Things I Know That I Don't Know...
I wanted pictures of the black holes. Black hole photography can be pretty tricky - None of my pictures ever seem to come out. Just can't seem to get enough exposure on the film...
It costs A to make a web-site that complies to standards, compared to B to hack something together that 'Looks good in Internet Explorer and doesn't seem to crash Firefox or Opera'. A > B.
X fraction of site visitors use IE. Y fraction of people use something else but will stay to shop even if the site looks a little funny. Z fraction of people use something other than IE and will bail out annoyed because of poor rendering. X > Y > Z. (You can argue that Z is possibly greater than Y, but for most cases my guess is Y > Z).
Average profit from someone who stays to shop is M.
If you make a site render well across the board and M * (X + Y + Z) > A, you have a good return (neglecting expenses constant to both choices).
If you tailor your site to IE, only half-acknowledge that other browsers exist, and M * (X + Y + Z) > B, you have a positive return.
Basically, if A - B > M * Z, you hack a site together and ignore the lost sales. Anything else would be bad business. I strongly suspect that this holds true for most sites - If it didn't they would change their practices to recover your lost business.
So, I understand that you feel neglected and I share your frustration that the world is conforming to MS instead of MS conforming to the world. But, assuming that you want to have a successful site as opposed to a failing business that spreads peace and harmony by adhering to web standards, please explain again why my "logic is lame".
How about all the people who use something less popular, e.g. Konqueror?
Web pages will be tailored to suit the bulk of their traffic. Konqueror will learn to display them properly, regardless of adhesion to standards, or fall by the way-side as users get frustrated. It's not fair, it's not right, and it's not changing. Sorry.
How about all the people who must use something that will never be popular, such as people with disabilities? Shall we just say "tough, get off the web"?
Some pages are practical to conform to people with disabilities. Some aren't. When practical, web-admins should make their pages accessible to the handicapped. Adhering to standards may make it easier to tailor specialized browsers for use, but the fact remains that pages will be written to display properly in the most popular browsers and people that write "unpopular" browsers need to conform to that.
I'll tell you what, why don't you volunteer to re-write all of the flash-games on the web so that blind people can play them? When you're done, I'll assign you some music sites that you can re-code for the deaf.
Should we say "Tough, get off the web"? No. We should say "Sorry, but because of your disability there are a lot of things in this world that you'll never be able to enjoy. We'll try to help you enjoy the rest." Sorry if that sounds heartless, but I'm a realist.
As long as they work I don't care.
"Working" is not a property of a website. "Working" is a property of a combination of a website and a browser. You can't say that a website "works", only that it works in particular browsers.
I should have said "as long as they work for me" as in "as long as when I visit them using my browser with my configuration settings under my OS using my I/O devices they behave well enough that I can use them". I thought that I had successfully implied that. Sorry.
Wasting all the money you have on going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan when in fact it was a terrorist organisation and not a single country that attacked you, is pretty dumb.
That is blatantly unfair. We are not wasting all the money we have. We don't have nearly that much money - We're wasting money we don't have.
I think you nailed him - That's a perfect analogy. But, for web sites just like for application users, the target for compliance is not typically the end-user. When I download a new application, I don't care whether it was coded with 'ANSI C compliant' code. I just want it to work properly. When I load a web-page, I don't care if it meets some HTML standard. I just want it to display and function properly in my browser.
'Looks good in Internet Explorer and doesn't seem to crash Firefox or Opera' may not be a standard, but it satisfies the bulk of most web-sites' customers. I'm a FF user and include myself in that group. I realize that sites are tuned for IE because it's the leader and accept that my browser choice and add-ons sometimes make things look a little funny - As long as they work I don't care. I would guess that most visitors feel more or less the same (slashdot standards nazis excepted).
Besides, if most of a web site's traffic is coming from a browser that doesn't support any standard but their own anyway, what motivation do they have to conform?
1) I agree - That was totally unfair. 2) It sucks that you're unfairly stereotyped. 3) Many teenage girls are rational interesting human beings. I empathize with your annoyance at being lumped in with a group that you are obviously not a part of. 4) I just got the new Razor - Have you seen it? It rocks! Wot R U txting on?
Cheers. =)
Disclaimer - I have no idea if there is even a new Razor. I have no use for a cell phone. Get off my lawn!
It was not written with linux program methodology, performance, or usability in mind.
So... Are you using Konqueror, Epiphany, or lynx right now? Because, by the definition you just gave, I don't know of many other options for "Linux-native" browsers...
JW is just jittery because he's afraid you'll work out that he was the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
The identity of the grassy knoll shooter has already been established - It was JFK himself. A man named Lister went back in time because he'd run out of Curries and was seeking out a shop in Dallas. He accidentally spoiled the assassination but, after showing JFK what the world would be like if he were allowed to remain in office (President J. Edgar Hoover being blackmailed by the mafia), Lister persuaded him to come back to the time of the assassination and finish the job.
I'm just assuming the test bot isn't the one that's linked here. I've had better exchanges with Eliza.
It doesn't appear so. TFA says that Elbot was the bot with the 'telephone directory' fetish - If you read the text in the graphic, it appears that Elbot must have very uneven behavior to have fooled 25%. The short chat in that.jpg lacked any cohesion between the author's posts and Elbot's responses.
you sent: You sound rather like Sarah Palin. you received: Did this Palin ever write a telephone book? you sent: I doubt it. Does anyone really write telephone books? I don't suppose you caught the football last night? you received: What a shame. There are many talented authors who waste their energies on prose or run-of-the-mill poetry. But to write a telephone book is highest art!
He's one step ahead of you. Jabberwacky is almost certainly younger than the teenage girl. That's got to look good in court.
Your honor, I concede that the defendant's hardware is only 6 months old, but the first build of his personality dates back to 2005. The defense's argument that we're charging an infant with 'grooming' the victim is ludicrous - The defendant is clearly a full 3 years old.
...the fact that Jabberwacky held an 11 hour conversation with a teenage girl is pretty astonishing. Obviuosly, a conversation of that nature is going to be all about emotion - not logic, reason or an empirical display of intelligence...
I don't find it nearly as mind-blowing. Have you talked with a teenage girl since you've reached adulthood? It's a conversation only in the sense that there are two people both forming words. Here are a couple of guidelines that are incredibly useful if you want to have a 'conversation' with a teenage girl: 1) Agree with everything. 2) Try to pick up on here tone and answer with either 'Oh that rocks!' or more frequently 'Dude, that sucks!' 3) If she's got a bad situation that can be easily resolved by simple action, avoid giving useful advice. Fixing what's screwed up in her life will limit her supply of drama and any attempt to interfere will be met with hostility and logic that can be most generously described as irrational and most accurately described as delusional. Just ignore the obvious and refer to (1) and (2). (4) All modern trends are immensely cool and will never go out of style. Spending all available income on clothes, make-up, and upgrading your 3-month-old cell phone is perfectly reasonable. The only downside is that her parents won't give her more money or a credit card so that she can have the same things that 'everyone else in her school' has.
Hope that helps. I spent the weekend with my niece and successfully took a short nap while learning all about why everything in her life is so unfair and retaining my status as an understanding uncle. ZZzzzz...
Note: I've found that (1) and (3) are useful for pretty much any emotion-related discussion with the fairer sex. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
It went from 400K to 700K in a matter of seconds.
700K isn't really that warm for a jet engine (~425 C), what's impressive is that it had been running so cool - 400K is only ~25 degrees above boiling! It is impressive that the Belgians incorporate that kind of data into their radar systems, though.
They probably just kicked on the afterburner.
People dont like smart people. People who intentionally find broken ideas and mechanisms will be dealt with, not glorified and congratulated. Highlighting a security problem means they have to put in the effort to fix what you brought to their attention, or threaten you to STFU.
Sometimes, but I don't think that it's about some smart-person-persecution system. The big problem is that, if somebody points out a security hole, it must be fixed. Even if the hole has been noticed before but was ignored because the odds of exploitation are so remote as to negate the sense in repairing it, once it's been reported it must be addressed - The risk of exploitation is now magnified greatly because of the liability lying on whoever ignores the request - Nobody wants to hear "I told you so" after a security incident. So, if the weakness is ludicrously expensive to fix and very minor, you are correct that it will probably annoy whoever you point it out to. It's not that they don't like you because you're smart, it's because they may have to do something silly or possibly face the consequences of exposed inaction.
If you are smart about security, keep your mouth shut. There's not much you can do, except yourself be a target.
That's kind of messed up. Maybe you've worked in some really dysfunctional places, but just throwing in the towel is doing a disservice to everyone involved. Just be sure you do a critical assessment of what you're suggesting before voicing it formally so that you can be sure that you're really improving things instead of making them worse. Otherwise, like Schneier points out, everyone winds up removing their shoes and throwing away their shampoo as a reaction to a couple of very remote threats.
Of course, there are obvious exceptions.
Solution? Demand that all terrorists wear traditional middle eastern clothing. Even the abortion-clinic and McVeigh types.
It's not fool-proof, I admit -A lot of non-terrorists also wear traditional middle eastern clothing, and some may cry "profiling", but it's a good first step. Then, at security, the screeners can ask anyone in the right mode of dress, "Are you a terrorist?" The ones that say "Yes" are then arrested.
And then I can finally make it through line without taking off my shoes. Flawless.
Life exists here because it formed here. Had it formed on some other planet (and it might have) then it would have formed to suit that environment as if it had been fine tuned for life.
The best phrasing I've heard for that (may have come from a /. sig - I don't recall) was:
Remarking that the earth is perfectly suited to support its inhabitants is like a puddle of water remarking that its pot hole is perfectly contoured to its shape.
The first one. I think the way you responded was condescending. I'm not disabled myself, so I don't personally need "accessible" webpages. But while you are a realist, I am an idealist. I am also Black, Female, self-proclaimed Christian, and a borderline hippie. If you put all of those together, I'm bound to call a realist a jackass for something.
As I said to a previous responder, I may have been overly sarcastic because I found Bogtha's assertion that "Deviation from HTML standards == Hating the handicapped" offensive. I have handicapped friends, but only make the most basic modifications to my lifestyle to accommodate them - I still do not feel insensitive to their needs.
I respect your ideals - In a completely serious manner, thanks for responding. If it wasn't for the friction likely to be caused by the "self-proclaimed Christian" issue, I'd expect that we'd get along in the real world. You're arrogant, stick to your beliefs even when they're obviously not applicable, and honest. I like that - I'm the same way.
Personally, I find idealists too idealistic, but I respect the spirit. I used to describe myself as an idealist before my... Conversion... Corruption... Realization... I'm convinced that I see things more clearly now, but I'm probably not as happy as I was before chopping off my pony-tail (literally). Good luck saving the world - In all seriousness, best wishes.
Cheers.
It takes the same amount of time to code a web page incorrectly as it does to do it right.
Double bullshit.
If you code a page "right", then it will render properly in browsers that adhere to the standards (not IE - possibly excepting IE8 as pointed out by another poster) and satisfy the users with standard-adherent browsers. If you code a page custom-tailored to IE, it will render correctly for 90%+ of your user base. Coding it in such a manor to conform to both will take more time/effort than it would take to conform to either.
Standards compliant != IE compliant
IE compliant != Everyone compliant
You play to your market base, not to what's right. The only exception is when the market objects in a voice loud enough to affect stock price.
I think your analogy is a little bit off. You've got a front door with a standard lock, a dead-bolt, two chains, and a huge rock sitting behind it for security. Now you're faced with a decision whether or not to upgrade your dead-bolt to a super-duper-heavy-duty-dead-bolt. But, since your wife leaves the garage door wide open 4 days a week and no amount of persuasion will convince her to stop, the decision not to upgrade seems like a no-brainer.
I believe the person named 'AmberBlackCat' was obviously offended by your insensitivity to the plight of people with disabilities. And so was I.
That's what I assumed, and I fully expected that some folks wouldn't like it. And, while I find the ADA flawed in some respects, demanding "reasonable accommodation" seems fine. Like I said in a previous post, "When practical, web-admins should make their pages accessible to the handicapped". I believe that and I would certainly appreciate the assistance if I were the one with the disability. I also admit that I may have adopted an overly heartless tone because I think that Bogtha's implication that "Failure to adhere to HTML standards == Not caring about the handicapped" was kind of B.S. I have handicapped friends and neighbors and I'm guessing that they visit roughly monthly - Apart from my immediate family, 2 wheel-chair ridden individuals make up ~10% of the traffic coming into/out of my house. I care about them and make accommodations, but I don't feel that the fact that I don't have ramps or handicap-accessible bathrooms makes me insensitive. [I realize that home != commercial, I'm just tossing an example out.]
But I think that you're inferring insensitivity when I intended only a realistic assessment of the situation. Barring interference from the law and assuming that two businesses are on even ground regarding market share, talent pool, etc, the company that focuses 100% on pleasing 99% of their customer base will succeed over the company that divides its resources to take care of everyone. That holds true even if making a poor business decision is the morally right thing to do.
The ADA may have provisions demanding that sites make themselves handicap accessible, but until those provisions are enforced they mean very little - Loosely enforced provisions do not affect the bottom line. Sad but true.
Also, I didn't know that about IE8 - Thanks for the heads-up. It's always a relief when we see Microsoft do something right.
While I find your counter-argument compelling and well though-out, there are a couple of points that I find unaddressed. Specifically:
1) Do you object because I don't advocate spending exorbitant amounts of resources conforming things that are not naturally handicap-friendly to the handicapped or because my argument is not well thought-out? I.e. is this a difference in opinion or a criticism of my train of logic?
2) "Jackass" is a rather vague term, although it confers the tone perfectly reasonably. Are you implying that I'm a jerk because I rebutted the "What about the handicapped?" assertion or are you calling me a moron? I.e. "asshole" or "dumb as a mule"? Possibly both?
Thank you for your careful consideration of my post and insightful reply.
Cheers.
Schwarzschild radius:
The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is a characteristic radius associated with every mass. It is the radius for a given mass where, if that mass could be compressed to fit within that radius, no known force or degeneracy pressure could stop it from continuing to collapse into a gravitational singularity.
Thanks a lot... Before I was peacefully ignorant, but now you've tossed out a perfectly good question and revealed to me yet another topic for my List of Things I Know That I Don't Know...
I wanted pictures of the black holes. Black hole photography can be pretty tricky - None of my pictures ever seem to come out. Just can't seem to get enough exposure on the film...
It's simple economics.
It costs A to make a web-site that complies to standards, compared to B to hack something together that 'Looks good in Internet Explorer and doesn't seem to crash Firefox or Opera'. A > B.
X fraction of site visitors use IE. Y fraction of people use something else but will stay to shop even if the site looks a little funny. Z fraction of people use something other than IE and will bail out annoyed because of poor rendering. X > Y > Z. (You can argue that Z is possibly greater than Y, but for most cases my guess is Y > Z).
Average profit from someone who stays to shop is M.
If you make a site render well across the board and M * (X + Y + Z) > A, you have a good return (neglecting expenses constant to both choices).
If you tailor your site to IE, only half-acknowledge that other browsers exist, and M * (X + Y + Z) > B, you have a positive return.
Basically, if A - B > M * Z, you hack a site together and ignore the lost sales. Anything else would be bad business. I strongly suspect that this holds true for most sites - If it didn't they would change their practices to recover your lost business.
So, I understand that you feel neglected and I share your frustration that the world is conforming to MS instead of MS conforming to the world. But, assuming that you want to have a successful site as opposed to a failing business that spreads peace and harmony by adhering to web standards, please explain again why my "logic is lame".
How about all the people who use something less popular, e.g. Konqueror?
Web pages will be tailored to suit the bulk of their traffic. Konqueror will learn to display them properly, regardless of adhesion to standards, or fall by the way-side as users get frustrated. It's not fair, it's not right, and it's not changing. Sorry.
How about all the people who must use something that will never be popular, such as people with disabilities? Shall we just say "tough, get off the web"?
Some pages are practical to conform to people with disabilities. Some aren't. When practical, web-admins should make their pages accessible to the handicapped. Adhering to standards may make it easier to tailor specialized browsers for use, but the fact remains that pages will be written to display properly in the most popular browsers and people that write "unpopular" browsers need to conform to that.
I'll tell you what, why don't you volunteer to re-write all of the flash-games on the web so that blind people can play them? When you're done, I'll assign you some music sites that you can re-code for the deaf.
Should we say "Tough, get off the web"? No. We should say "Sorry, but because of your disability there are a lot of things in this world that you'll never be able to enjoy. We'll try to help you enjoy the rest." Sorry if that sounds heartless, but I'm a realist.
As long as they work I don't care.
"Working" is not a property of a website. "Working" is a property of a combination of a website and a browser. You can't say that a website "works", only that it works in particular browsers.
I should have said "as long as they work for me" as in "as long as when I visit them using my browser with my configuration settings under my OS using my I/O devices they behave well enough that I can use them". I thought that I had successfully implied that. Sorry.
Wasting all the money you have on going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan when in fact it was a terrorist organisation and not a single country that attacked you, is pretty dumb.
That is blatantly unfair. We are not wasting all the money we have. We don't have nearly that much money - We're wasting money we don't have.
I think you nailed him - That's a perfect analogy. But, for web sites just like for application users, the target for compliance is not typically the end-user. When I download a new application, I don't care whether it was coded with 'ANSI C compliant' code. I just want it to work properly. When I load a web-page, I don't care if it meets some HTML standard. I just want it to display and function properly in my browser.
'Looks good in Internet Explorer and doesn't seem to crash Firefox or Opera' may not be a standard, but it satisfies the bulk of most web-sites' customers. I'm a FF user and include myself in that group. I realize that sites are tuned for IE because it's the leader and accept that my browser choice and add-ons sometimes make things look a little funny - As long as they work I don't care. I would guess that most visitors feel more or less the same (slashdot standards nazis excepted).
Besides, if most of a web site's traffic is coming from a browser that doesn't support any standard but their own anyway, what motivation do they have to conform?
The FCC should just mandate a switch to IPv6, if the US leads, the rest of the world tends to follow.
Exactly.
Listen up world! We've decided that you all should be using miles, feet, inches, Fahrenheit, and gallons. Please upgrade your silly metric system.
1) I agree - That was totally unfair.
2) It sucks that you're unfairly stereotyped.
3) Many teenage girls are rational interesting human beings. I empathize with your annoyance at being lumped in with a group that you are obviously not a part of.
4) I just got the new Razor - Have you seen it? It rocks! Wot R U txting on?
Cheers. =)
Disclaimer - I have no idea if there is even a new Razor. I have no use for a cell phone. Get off my lawn!
I've done some research and it appears that out of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain and Sarah Palin none of them bothered to vote on it.
OK... Palin's my least favorite from that list. But blaming her for not voting on that bill is more than a little unfair.
You do realize that she's neither a senator nor a representative, right?
What other people do is not my concern.
Crack dealers tell themselves the same thing when they break the law.
Note - I'm in no way implies that piracy == drug dealing. But helping people act unethically and then disavowing any personal responsibility is crap.
It was not written with linux program methodology, performance, or usability in mind.
So... Are you using Konqueror, Epiphany, or lynx right now? Because, by the definition you just gave, I don't know of many other options for "Linux-native" browsers...
JW is just jittery because he's afraid you'll work out that he was the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
The identity of the grassy knoll shooter has already been established - It was JFK himself. A man named Lister went back in time because he'd run out of Curries and was seeking out a shop in Dallas. He accidentally spoiled the assassination but, after showing JFK what the world would be like if he were allowed to remain in office (President J. Edgar Hoover being blackmailed by the mafia), Lister persuaded him to come back to the time of the assassination and finish the job.
Am I the only one who watches BBC documentaries?
I'm just assuming the test bot isn't the one that's linked here. I've had better exchanges with Eliza.
It doesn't appear so. TFA says that Elbot was the bot with the 'telephone directory' fetish - If you read the text in the graphic, it appears that Elbot must have very uneven behavior to have fooled 25%. The short chat in that .jpg lacked any cohesion between the author's posts and Elbot's responses.
you sent: You sound rather like Sarah Palin.
you received: Did this Palin ever write a telephone book?
you sent: I doubt it. Does anyone really write telephone books? I don't suppose you caught the football last night?
you received: What a shame. There are many talented authors who waste their energies on prose or run-of-the-mill poetry. But to write a telephone book is highest art!
Can you spot Elbot?
He's one step ahead of you. Jabberwacky is almost certainly younger than the teenage girl. That's got to look good in court.
Your honor, I concede that the defendant's hardware is only 6 months old, but the first build of his personality dates back to 2005. The defense's argument that we're charging an infant with 'grooming' the victim is ludicrous - The defendant is clearly a full 3 years old.
...the fact that Jabberwacky held an 11 hour conversation with a teenage girl is pretty astonishing. Obviuosly, a conversation of that nature is going to be all about emotion - not logic, reason or an empirical display of intelligence...
I don't find it nearly as mind-blowing. Have you talked with a teenage girl since you've reached adulthood? It's a conversation only in the sense that there are two people both forming words. Here are a couple of guidelines that are incredibly useful if you want to have a 'conversation' with a teenage girl:
1) Agree with everything.
2) Try to pick up on here tone and answer with either 'Oh that rocks!' or more frequently 'Dude, that sucks!'
3) If she's got a bad situation that can be easily resolved by simple action, avoid giving useful advice. Fixing what's screwed up in her life will limit her supply of drama and any attempt to interfere will be met with hostility and logic that can be most generously described as irrational and most accurately described as delusional. Just ignore the obvious and refer to (1) and (2).
(4) All modern trends are immensely cool and will never go out of style. Spending all available income on clothes, make-up, and upgrading your 3-month-old cell phone is perfectly reasonable. The only downside is that her parents won't give her more money or a credit card so that she can have the same things that 'everyone else in her school' has.
Hope that helps. I spent the weekend with my niece and successfully took a short nap while learning all about why everything in her life is so unfair and retaining my status as an understanding uncle. ZZzzzz...
Note: I've found that (1) and (3) are useful for pretty much any emotion-related discussion with the fairer sex. YMMV.