That's exactly what I thought at the time, but in the end, corrupt management embezzled all the profits and CHAMP went under. Plus, you know, there aren't that many places that will look kindly on that sort of an entry on a resume...
Hehe, yeah, just a little joke. In reality, we had a state of the art integrated membership, document management, inventory, and point of sales system, hosted on a server with encrypted hard drives, in a locked and booby trapped closet, with hidden kill switches placed in strategic locations around the club, at foot level so we could kick them if the cops threw us up against the wall. Stoned or not, it was some of my best work.:)
Heh, I was only partly serious. The boom did weed out some of the codemonkeys, of course, but you only need to look at thedailywtf.com to see there are still some real idiots in our profession.
Thanks for the laugh. That wasn't Lanier. Jaron takes himself so seriously that he would never write anything tongue in cheek about himself. He's an elitist poseur
How old were you in 1995, if you don't mind my asking?
You don't need to use the quotes, it really was the same Internet. Windows 95 came out in... 1995. In 1995, I was using Linux at home, and Novell Netware at work. Yes, AOL was still around. Yes, there were still 14.4k modems and 80386 processors. They didn't run at 386MHZ. The most common modems ran at 28.8Kbps and 33.6Kbps. The most common microprocessor was the 80486.
Yes, this guy was wrong about the Internet, but so were the many more commentators who took the opposite view, that the Internet would fundamentally change all aspects of human society and behavior.
Get off your fucking high horse you anti social misfit. If I want to be pedantic I'm going to be pedantic and whiny little bitches like you sure aren't going to stop me.
"My link reproduces..." yeah, yeah, whatever. Put it in the comment. Woulda taken you five extra seconds to write "Just take one of the most famous graphs, by Charles Minard..."
But the real issue here is that your attempt at cleverness falls totally fucking flat. You do realize that in that graph, time reverses for the lower line, right? Time goes right to left for the retreat, dumbass. Meaning, 'obfuscation by entrenched special interests' is going DOWN over time, is that what you are trying to say? Idiot.
God damn you are clueless. Every time you get it in your head to fuck with me, I make you look like an idiot. Why do you continue to insist on playing that game, when you know you will lose, every single time.
Pft, you didn't make it clear in your comment that the graph was not by Tufte. Anyone following the link will see that it's by Minard, but this is Slashdot. "Following the link," "reading the story" and even "reading the summary" are not common practices here.
Tufte may have used that graph, but Charles Joseph Minard made it, way back in 1869. Minard was an early pioneer in data visualization, and Tufte says that particular graph "may well be the best statistical graphic ever drawn."
This is Chuck Norris we're talking about. He just tosses the nuke at the mosquito, he doesn't need to be in orbit. About all a nuke would do is give Chuck a nice tan.
Those are both practical and sensible ideas I support fully. No other product comes with such freedom from responsibility for the manufacturer. In any other discipline, engineers can be held personally liable for the failures of their products. Safety and reliability are taught as first principles, not afterthoughts.
Re:This explains a lot.
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 1
Totally off topic, Starbuck's CEO has flat out stated they aren't in the coffee business, they are in the dairy business. They make their coffee taste like such crap, the only way you can drink it is as a caramel frapamochachino loaded with milk. "Coffee" being just one of the many flavors you can buy with Starbuck's milk products.
No, you fucking plebeian. Bennet Hasselton has two last names, and both of them are extra snooty, therefore you will read all of Bennet Hasselton's exquisitely crafted prose and you will like it. A genius like this is doing us all a service by sharing his wisdom, so get out a spoon and eat that shit up.
You actually recommend using more than one ninja? Do you not understand the Inverse Ninja Law? It's pretty simple. Watch any martial arts film. A single ninja, by himself, will kick the ass of anyone less than Chuck Norris. However, a group of ninjas will always be defeated. There is a conservation of Ninjutsu at work, the more ninjas, the less power each of them have. If you want the job done right, send only one ninja.
And, too be very clear, there are two issues under discussion, and it doesn't pay to confuse the two. The first is, 'Should we have some kind of coordinated response to malware, with mandatory scanning and quarantining of infected computers.' This is a political question.
The second question is, 'How should we do that?' That is a technical question. Issues that you may have with a given technical implementation are simply uninformed. Not being snarky here, because no one is informed, the proposal itself is vague on the technical details. So, all your technical challenges to the idea are a waste of time.
I've countered your challenges to the first question, which boils down to 'Nobody is competent until proven competent, and nobody has done this before, therefore, the government is not competent to do this.' I've provided examples of government competence in related technical areas. Sure, you haven't accepted those arguments, but you also haven't successfully rebutted them.
But I've got to be honest with you here, I've been playing devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of a good argument. I don't really feel very strongly either way. You could be right, this could be a colossal waste of time, or lead to even worse things. Or it could work like the polio vaccine worked, and we could be done with spam, viruses, and malware forever. I really don't know.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly what I thought at the time, but in the end, corrupt management embezzled all the profits and CHAMP went under. Plus, you know, there aren't that many places that will look kindly on that sort of an entry on a resume...
"But... if you can't trust the Governments of the world, who can you trust?"
FIFY
YEAH! I know it by heart! You got a problem with that?
No sir! Anyone who will admit to knowing Yahoo Serious by heart is a tougher hombre than I.
Hehe, yeah, just a little joke. In reality, we had a state of the art integrated membership, document management, inventory, and point of sales system, hosted on a server with encrypted hard drives, in a locked and booby trapped closet, with hidden kill switches placed in strategic locations around the club, at foot level so we could kick them if the cops threw us up against the wall. Stoned or not, it was some of my best work. :)
Heh, I was only partly serious. The boom did weed out some of the codemonkeys, of course, but you only need to look at thedailywtf.com to see there are still some real idiots in our profession.
I'm pretty sure that I was head of IT for a non-profit medical marijuana club in San Francisco.
Where is this wonderful meritocracy you live in, and can I move there?
Does that mean we just crack open the fetuses and suck out the stem cells?
Thanks for the laugh. That wasn't Lanier. Jaron takes himself so seriously that he would never write anything tongue in cheek about himself. He's an elitist poseur
How old were you in 1995, if you don't mind my asking?
You don't need to use the quotes, it really was the same Internet. Windows 95 came out in... 1995. In 1995, I was using Linux at home, and Novell Netware at work. Yes, AOL was still around. Yes, there were still 14.4k modems and 80386 processors. They didn't run at 386MHZ. The most common modems ran at 28.8Kbps and 33.6Kbps. The most common microprocessor was the 80486.
Yes, this guy was wrong about the Internet, but so were the many more commentators who took the opposite view, that the Internet would fundamentally change all aspects of human society and behavior.
I eagerly await their Playmobile recreation of the scene.
http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
Those are just terms of endearment, like your initial use of the word jackass.
You could just mark me as a foe. But I do actually like you when you aren't being whiny. Grow a thicker skin, man, this is the Internet.
Get off your fucking high horse you anti social misfit. If I want to be pedantic I'm going to be pedantic and whiny little bitches like you sure aren't going to stop me.
"My link reproduces..." yeah, yeah, whatever. Put it in the comment. Woulda taken you five extra seconds to write "Just take one of the most famous graphs, by Charles Minard..."
But the real issue here is that your attempt at cleverness falls totally fucking flat. You do realize that in that graph, time reverses for the lower line, right? Time goes right to left for the retreat, dumbass. Meaning, 'obfuscation by entrenched special interests' is going DOWN over time, is that what you are trying to say? Idiot.
God damn you are clueless. Every time you get it in your head to fuck with me, I make you look like an idiot. Why do you continue to insist on playing that game, when you know you will lose, every single time.
Pft, you didn't make it clear in your comment that the graph was not by Tufte. Anyone following the link will see that it's by Minard, but this is Slashdot. "Following the link," "reading the story" and even "reading the summary" are not common practices here.
Tufte may have used that graph, but Charles Joseph Minard made it, way back in 1869. Minard was an early pioneer in data visualization, and Tufte says that particular graph "may well be the best statistical graphic ever drawn."
Yes, they would, but what you fail to realize is that the six other ninjas aren't dead, they are pining for the fjords.
Holy crap. They should call it diabetes in a cup.
This is Chuck Norris we're talking about. He just tosses the nuke at the mosquito, he doesn't need to be in orbit. About all a nuke would do is give Chuck a nice tan.
Those are both practical and sensible ideas I support fully. No other product comes with such freedom from responsibility for the manufacturer. In any other discipline, engineers can be held personally liable for the failures of their products. Safety and reliability are taught as first principles, not afterthoughts.
Totally off topic, Starbuck's CEO has flat out stated they aren't in the coffee business, they are in the dairy business. They make their coffee taste like such crap, the only way you can drink it is as a caramel frapamochachino loaded with milk. "Coffee" being just one of the many flavors you can buy with Starbuck's milk products.
Gee, can't we just send Chuck Norris? Wouldn't that be the definitive solution?
Like nuking a mosquito is a definitive solution.
No, you fucking plebeian. Bennet Hasselton has two last names, and both of them are extra snooty, therefore you will read all of Bennet Hasselton's exquisitely crafted prose and you will like it. A genius like this is doing us all a service by sharing his wisdom, so get out a spoon and eat that shit up.
You actually recommend using more than one ninja? Do you not understand the Inverse Ninja Law? It's pretty simple. Watch any martial arts film. A single ninja, by himself, will kick the ass of anyone less than Chuck Norris. However, a group of ninjas will always be defeated. There is a conservation of Ninjutsu at work, the more ninjas, the less power each of them have. If you want the job done right, send only one ninja.
And, too be very clear, there are two issues under discussion, and it doesn't pay to confuse the two. The first is, 'Should we have some kind of coordinated response to malware, with mandatory scanning and quarantining of infected computers.' This is a political question.
The second question is, 'How should we do that?' That is a technical question. Issues that you may have with a given technical implementation are simply uninformed. Not being snarky here, because no one is informed, the proposal itself is vague on the technical details. So, all your technical challenges to the idea are a waste of time.
I've countered your challenges to the first question, which boils down to 'Nobody is competent until proven competent, and nobody has done this before, therefore, the government is not competent to do this.' I've provided examples of government competence in related technical areas. Sure, you haven't accepted those arguments, but you also haven't successfully rebutted them.
But I've got to be honest with you here, I've been playing devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of a good argument. I don't really feel very strongly either way. You could be right, this could be a colossal waste of time, or lead to even worse things. Or it could work like the polio vaccine worked, and we could be done with spam, viruses, and malware forever. I really don't know.