The authors, who work in the Psychology Department of North Carolina State University, crafted a set of four fake dialog boxes. All of them contained the following warning: "The instruction at '0x77f41d24 referenced memory at '0x595c2a4c.' The memory could not be 'read.' Click OK to terminate program." One of the warnings was indistinguishable from the standard Windows XP system dialog, but the remaining three were had a number of warning signs that should tip off users to potential malware.
In all cases, mousing over the "OK" button would cause the cursor to turn into a hand button, behavior more typical of a browser control; all dialogs also had minimize and maximize buttons, while a second added a browser status bar to the bottom of the window. Finally, the most blatant one alternated between black text and a white background and a white-on-black theme. All of these should metaphorically scream, "This is not safe!"
Ah yes, well, not understanding the obvious "metaphor" of course makes one an idiot...
So what does that lying ass bullshit headline make one? And no, you don't get a pass because you ripped it off the article's author, WTF do you think editors do (at other places I mean, here it seems all you do is shove food down your gullet and crank out tripe like this).
"You're gushing over being able to run Vista well on a machine that's priced the same as a Mac."
No he wasn't.
Apart from the crippled Mac mini which barely meets the price point at $599, which Mac can you get for "5 or 600 bucks"?
No, I'm not going to accept the Mac mini, so don't bother unless you find one that is feature comparable to a 600 dollar tower, including expansion slots.
You post a?reply to a mental health professional discussing "emotional an psychological needs", to which I'd reply "so does all the other stuff listed, so you're proving my point".
And as far as my "7 digit ID", I think you should be careful crowing about the fact that you've been posting on a web board longer than I have if you intend to question my socialization.
Or did you not realize your joke was actually on you?
This guy complains that bosses want improved performance for less cost (find a business that doesn't) and then uses that to justify ex-employees being douchebags?
How the fuck is it anyone's responsibility but yours that you're a douchebag?
I don't care how bad management is, you act like an idiot and it's on you, that's what happens when you start wearing the big boy pants.
And just so we're totally clear, customers keep business in business.
"how many people would rather make excuses than improve themselves."
Nothing is yor post rises above the levelof excuse, and most of them are pretty bad excuses at that.
It is kind of funny how you ask "how many people are lazy and make up bullshit excuses for it" over and over and yet don't realize you're trying to justify the laziness.
Because "going on a date" is just another leisure activity, yet you pretend it's some kind of refutation and not just an example of your obliviousness.
So, you mention the anti-loitering laws, but fail to mentio whether they work, and more importantly that the laws protect other citizen's rights, namely customers and property owners.
But who gives a fuck about the rights of people who are actually useful and productive, there are downtrodden residentially challenged citizens to protect! They should absolutely have the right to soil themselves in my doorway and run off my customers...
As to the "free speech zones", I'm so tired of this stupidity.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the argument is "some of the more radical protesting is unsafe to the general public, so we're forced to move the protests to an area we can more effectivley monitor".
Of course it hasn't, your kind always asssumes the worst, despite the fact that if someone, like one of those idiot protesters at the republican convention, sprayed me with urine and feces there sure as fuck would be a murder.
But hell no! Why should we hold idiot citizens who abuse the rights of others to task, especially when the police are such an easy target?
Of course, thinking that way is direct evidence of colossal intellectual laziness, butt who cares! FUCK THE PO-LICE!
"How is airplane & car government funded research"
The US Air Force and CARB, that's how, and we were talking about research, not "firsts", nice try changing the goalposts.
Now, what's next? Well Fermi got his funding from the US Government, so his citizenship is irrelevant, since as you say, we were discussing government funding not place of birth.
Two people on your list aren't from and seemingly got nothing from the UK, so WTF?
Then there's Stringfellow, who got his funding privately and developed very little of any practical ongoing use, and made a dubious "first powered flight" that still gets eye rolls when mentioned.
Last there's Trevithick, who was also seemingly privately funded, and wasn't even the first anyway, William Murdoch beat him to it.
Then there's the fact that most of your list is well outside "the last hundred years"...
Listen, a little nationalistic rivalry is fun, but you've crossed the line into tryiing way too hard.
You need to do a better job choosing your vocabulary, as you're saying "you can't persecxute someone" while simultaneously saying it is ok to "yell back" which is clearly a firm of persecution, just see that Casey Anthony case and the idiots wo are camped oyt outside her parent's house and "persecuting", them.
Second, you say it's ok to yell, but not "abuse them", which seems strange as it would take a particularly novel definition of "abuse" for your statement to have any internal valididty.
Which, to be frank, pretty much sums up your ideas on the subject.
I'm glad you looked it up so you can use it correctly.
Now, reread the thread and do so because you haven't yet. Had you spent more time reading for comprehension and less time cherrypicking quotes, you'd realize that on more than one occasion, he has referred to typesof persecution that are NOT government related, and are irrefutably "speech".
On one thing you are correct, I was not correct about your failure to support your argument being its inherent stupidity. It's clear you're aware of that and it isn't a problem for you.
No, it appears you simply are a disingenuos fuck who will ignore every bit of information that refutes you in order to force that information that agree with you down our throats.
So, yes, on that I was off the mark, I gave you too much credit, you were simply being disingenuous.
Speech and student behavior have been regulated outside of school many times. I guess in this case "new" means "I'm ignorant of it so it is new".
Sorry, but I'm done wasting my time debating things with people who are too ignorant to know the basics of the subject we're discussing, and you fall squarely in that category.
"Actually, that's what they are"
Actually, NOPE. There are reams of court cases that prove you wrong, google some. In the meantime, your proof is conspicuously absent.
Lastly, the framers wrote things didn't they? Or are you really so desperate to come off as witty that you genuinely think writing of dead people don't get debated?
And the fact that the framers dare dead shouldn't be a problem for you, that means they have something in common with your brain.
In short, you're wrong about every point you made, and a dick besides, so blather to someone who doesn't mind humoring the mentally challenged because I'm out of that business.
"It's thoughtless because it renders the term "right" completely and utterly meaningless."
No guy, what's "thoughtless" is acting like it's a restriction on your "rights" when you're forced to take up the "responsibilities" that come with those "rights".
Like you continue doing.
"If exercising a "right" means facing the "consequence" of persecution (particularly, but certainly not limited to, government persecution), then the term "right" is so broad as to be completely useless."
No, it means you don't have any idea what the term "right" means, nothing more.
As to the rest of your post, well, it's kind of stupid to tell me I can't exercise my right to "persecute" someone (which is speech, UH OH!) in response to their speech.
You're saying, whether you realize it or not, that one type of speech is absolute but responses to that speech aren't. That's so wrong it doesn't merit refutation.
"I find it disturbing that every time someone talks about responsibly using free speech, it is in the context of establishing NEW restrictions on what people can say."
Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the case here.
"Question 1: What law did the student break? Just pissing off a principal is not cause enough."
What does it matter, breaking the law is not the only grounds for disciplining the student.
"Question 2: What authority did the principal have to meet out that punishment? Public schools are not lawless zones subject to only the whim of the principal."
Nor are they DMZ's with no power to deal with student behavior outside of their immediate physical confines.
"In your place, I'd be very careful with that line of argument, as it can easily be extended until there is absolutely no free speech."
Talk to the framers of the Constitution, it's their argument, not mine.
It appears they can, and do, and since this is a very famous case I have to wonder why you're discussing this subject when you seem to be ignorant of a very important part of the caselaw around it.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that you're wrong on your facts and, frankly, too ignorant on this subject ot have an intelligent opinion.
Seriously, I'm a professional in this industry and you really sound like a fucking idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
"It was a legitimate question."
No it wasn't Hatta, you logging-out-to-post-as-AC-because-you-just-made-an-ass-of-yourself-by-trolling-a-typo-piece-of-crap.
It's nice to see the quality of your commentary has improved to trolling typos, that's certainly better than what you usually have to say.
Way to improve yourself, keep up the work.
is 540 seconds, which, when written that way, makes you even more pathetic.
And we're STILL laughing at you.
Well? He said it was "wrong", and it is. Calling it entertainment doesn't make it less wrong.
"Read all the words."
I suggest you do the same, specifically, the one spelled "w-r-o-n-g".
From the article
"You're gushing over being able to run Vista well on a machine that's
priced the same as a Mac."
No he wasn't.
Apart from the crippled Mac mini which barely meets the price point at $599, which Mac can you get for "5 or 600 bucks"?
No, I'm not going to accept the Mac mini, so don't bother unless you find one that is feature comparable to a 600 dollar tower, including expansion slots.
And nine minutes = you are a loser.
Eat it.
PS we're still laughing at you.
There was no flamebait there.
The only conclusion that makes sense is that you know you're a fucking loser and hate that I drew attention to it.
You post a?reply to a mental health professional discussing "emotional an psychological needs", to which I'd reply "so does all the other stuff listed, so you're proving my point".
And as far as my "7 digit ID", I think you should be careful crowing about the fact that you've been posting on a web board longer than I have if you intend to question my socialization.
Or did you not realize your joke was actually on you?
This guy complains that bosses want improved performance for less cost (find a business that doesn't) and then uses that to justify ex-employees being douchebags?
How the fuck is it anyone's responsibility but yours that you're a douchebag?
I don't care how bad management is, you act like an idiot and it's on you, that's what happens when you start wearing the big boy pants.
And just so we're totally clear, customers keep business in business.
Paraphrasing you
"how many people would rather make excuses than improve themselves."
Nothing is yor post rises above the levelof excuse, and most of them are pretty bad excuses at that.
It is kind of funny how you ask "how many people are lazy and make up bullshit excuses for it" over and over and yet don't realize you're trying to justify the laziness.
Because "going on a date" is just another leisure activity, yet you pretend it's some kind of refutation and not just an example of your obliviousness.
So, you mention the anti-loitering laws, but fail to mentio whether they work, and more importantly that the laws protect other citizen's rights, namely customers and property owners.
But who gives a fuck about the rights of people who are actually useful and productive, there are downtrodden residentially challenged citizens to protect! They should absolutely have the right to soil themselves in my doorway and run off my customers...
As to the "free speech zones", I'm so tired of this stupidity.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the argument is "some of the more radical protesting is unsafe to the general public, so we're forced to move the protests to an area we can more effectivley monitor".
Of course it hasn't, your kind always asssumes the worst, despite the fact that if someone, like one of those idiot protesters at the republican convention, sprayed me with urine and feces there sure as fuck would be a murder.
But hell no! Why should we hold idiot citizens who abuse the rights of others to task, especially when the police are such an easy target?
Of course, thinking that way is direct evidence of colossal intellectual laziness, butt who cares! FUCK THE PO-LICE!
"How is airplane & car government funded research"
The US Air Force and CARB, that's how, and we were talking about research, not "firsts", nice try changing the goalposts.
Now, what's next? Well Fermi got his funding from the US Government, so his citizenship is irrelevant, since as you say, we were discussing government funding not place of birth.
Two people on your list aren't from and seemingly got nothing from the UK, so WTF?
Then there's Stringfellow, who got his funding privately and developed very little of any practical ongoing use, and made a dubious "first powered flight" that still gets eye rolls when mentioned.
Last there's Trevithick, who was also seemingly privately funded, and wasn't even the first anyway, William Murdoch beat him to it.
Then there's the fact that most of your list is well outside "the last hundred years"...
Listen, a little nationalistic rivalry is fun, but you've crossed the line into tryiing way too hard.
"I would imagine...the UK comes up trumps..."
Yes, you would have to imagine that.
I kid I kid! (not really)
"Neun minuten! Du bist ein esel!"
That's my German co-worker, congratulations you're internationally pathetic!
And you sure do wirte a lot for someone who "claims" they're not obsessed...
You need to do a better job choosing your vocabulary, as you're saying "you can't persecxute someone" while simultaneously saying it is ok to "yell back" which is clearly a firm of persecution, just see that Casey Anthony case and the idiots wo are camped oyt outside her parent's house and "persecuting", them.
Second, you say it's ok to yell, but not "abuse them", which seems strange as it would take a particularly novel definition of "abuse" for your statement to have any internal valididty.
Which, to be frank, pretty much sums up your ideas on the subject.
I'm glad you looked it up so you can use it correctly.
Now, reread the thread and do so because you haven't yet. Had you spent more time reading for comprehension and less time cherrypicking quotes, you'd realize that on more than one occasion, he has referred to typesof persecution that are NOT government related, and are irrefutably "speech".
On one thing you are correct, I was not correct about your failure to support your argument being its inherent stupidity. It's clear you're aware of that and it isn't a problem for you.
No, it appears you simply are a disingenuos fuck who will ignore every bit of information that refutes you in order to force that information that agree with you down our throats.
So, yes, on that I was off the mark, I gave you too much credit, you were simply being disingenuous.
It appears you just learned speech has consequences... :p
Speech and student behavior have been regulated outside of school many times. I guess in this case "new" means "I'm ignorant of it so it is new".
Sorry, but I'm done wasting my time debating things with people who are too ignorant to know the basics of the subject we're discussing, and you fall squarely in that category.
"Actually, that's what they are"
Actually, NOPE. There are reams of court cases that prove you wrong, google some. In the meantime, your proof is conspicuously absent.
Lastly, the framers wrote things didn't they? Or are you really so desperate to come off as witty that you genuinely think writing of dead people don't get debated?
And the fact that the framers dare dead shouldn't be a problem for you, that means they have something in common with your brain.
In short, you're wrong about every point you made, and a dick besides, so blather to someone who doesn't mind humoring the mentally challenged because I'm out of that business.
"Strawman"
This claim makes it clear you don't know what a strawman is.
"The persecution he's talking about..."
Was never clarified, so while we appreciate the opinion, Great Karnak, declaring it emphatically doesn't change the fact that it's your opinion.
Lastly, you claim it's not speech, then completley fail to give any argument as to why.
mostly, I suspect, because it is speech and the claim that it isn't is too stupid to merit discussion.
"It's thoughtless because it renders the term "right" completely and utterly meaningless."
No guy, what's "thoughtless" is acting like it's a restriction on your "rights" when you're forced to take up the "responsibilities" that come with those "rights".
Like you continue doing.
"If exercising a "right" means facing the "consequence" of persecution (particularly, but certainly not limited to, government persecution), then the term "right" is so broad as to be completely useless."
No, it means you don't have any idea what the term "right" means, nothing more.
As to the rest of your post, well, it's kind of stupid to tell me I can't exercise my right to "persecute" someone (which is speech, UH OH!) in response to their speech.
You're saying, whether you realize it or not, that one type of speech is absolute but responses to that speech aren't. That's so wrong it doesn't merit refutation.
"I find it disturbing that every time someone talks about responsibly using free speech, it is in the context of establishing NEW restrictions on what people can say."
Then I suppose it's a good thing that's not the case here.
"Question 1: What law did the student break? Just pissing off a principal is not cause enough."
What does it matter, breaking the law is not the only grounds for disciplining the student.
"Question 2: What authority did the principal have to meet out that punishment? Public schools are not lawless zones subject to only the whim of the principal."
Nor are they DMZ's with no power to deal with student behavior outside of their immediate physical confines.
"In your place, I'd be very careful with that line of argument, as it can easily be extended until there is absolutely no free speech."
Talk to the framers of the Constitution, it's their argument, not mine.
Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
It appears they can, and do, and since this is a very famous case I have to wonder why you're discussing this subject when you seem to be ignorant of a very important part of the caselaw around it.
"Are you still obsessing over this, even after the weekend?"
No, I'm not replying within ten minutes to say I'm not obsessed with replying like you did.
" Is your life that boring?"
No, because I'm not replying within ten minutes to say I'm not obsessed with replying like you did.
"Sad."
Thanks for signing your post.
None of which has anything to do with the fact that you're wrong on your facts and, frankly, too ignorant on this subject ot have an intelligent opinion.
Seriously, I'm a professional in this industry and you really sound like a fucking idiot.