4Chan (or more specifically,/b/) is not Anonymous, though they are anonymous. I think that capital A is starting to become the real point of distinction between the two terms.
Honestly though, if Anonymous decided to make Stephanie Meyer their next target, I would not have any problems with it.
Maybe I should hop on IRC and build a case against her...
I'd like to know how you are making the distinction - because a lot of people say that Democracy IS Mob Rule, and those who argue it's seperation would say that Anon's setup is more like Democracy than Mob rule.
Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!
Politicians don't need reasons to clamp down on the internet, they are going to do it either way. Just like they have with airline security, it's gotten worse over the years despite nothing happening after 9/11.
Their antics are at least trying to bring about some change or awareness before the internet gets clamped down. Think about it, some script kiddie in junior high has contributed more to the world situation these past few months than you might ever in your life. If you think they are idiots, why don't you try and stop them for ruining things for you?
The second most successful part of their trolling is convincing people that they're actually some kind of hacker group when 99% (at least) are nothing more than skiddies with no empathy and a healthy dose of misogyny.
In my opinion, I think thats what makes them more dangerous.
You aren't DDOSing enough - you need to branch out from just phones, and try and contact her in a variety of ways. It's like you're only trying to connect on one port. You need to be spamming her inbox, visitting her at work, at home, when she's out at dinner, you need to be leaving love letters EVERYWHERE she might go, you need to be outside her window blaring music from a boombox...
Then maybe we might think more about going to war with everyone if it wasn't predominately poor minorities serving.
Well, MAYBE.
How many US Senators have "Served" In the military? Congressmen as well? Presidential Candidates? You'll find quite a few (though not all) had spent SOME time in the Military, though often never in any sense of real danger. Or at least, that's what Hollywood, Conspiracy theories, and pop culture in general has led me to believe.
That whole idea could backfire because the ones in power could feel as though the law is on their side, and that they wouldn't need to actually justify the wars they wage. At least this way - the military strength can be limitted to those who are poor and not so much the middle class.
I keep watching it over and over again, in its 17 second glory... and I honestly wish I could believe you.
No, I'm almost positive (no pun intended) that this is actually a Rorschach inkblot VIDEO. You see whatever your subconscious is thinking about. Edwin Cartlidge is obviously suffering from the stress of a bad phone lithium ion battery - and when he stumbled across this video thats what he percieved is happening.
For me, I think this is the opening bit to a Frank Miller or James Bond Flick - I can almost hear the rock/Jazz music chime in.
Actually guns are good for all around organizational features.
Just the other day, I opened my drawer to get my VB5 reference book, thought it'd be a great idea to whip up a form using Access 2000 for the database.
I had left my gun in my drawer on top of the book. So when I went to get the book, I had to pick up the gun. I then had a flash of bad memories, from the last time I used VB5, and was overcome with suicidal thoughts. I then realized that I was contemplating suicide, and I already had a gun in my hand, so I quickly put it back on top of the VB Book, closed the drawer, and have vowed never to touch that attrocity ever again.
It really bothers you? How? Please tell me how I've ruined your shopping experience.
Really John? You have to ask that question?
A couple years ago my Father wanted to get out of the Field Technician Business and get into a more desk type job at home, where he could be his own boss kind of stuff. For Christmas he had but ONE request, a semi-luxurious Office Chair. Given that my father could not come to terms with how I dropped out of school and still got a job without that piece of paper, we both have this grudge about things we shouted at each other one day. However, the holidays are about family and I could not help but feel compelled that perhaps fulfilling this one request might mend the broken family that came about as a result of me not finishing that damn technical writing course. (As a side note, I was seriously knee deep in working out Regular Expressions in Perl, how could they possibly expect me to do up a cover letter that made any sense at the same time?)
Anyways, so after discovering this magic bullet to fix all the things that went wrong, I set out to get my father the best Office Chair Canadian money can buy. Having been recently thrown out and banned from Staples, Bestbuy, and Futureshop, for setting the IE Homepage on the display computers to the small local competitor down the street, I had no where to reasonably go but online. I did consider Ikea, but honestly I had enough trouble setting up some shelves with nothing but wooden dowels and an allen key, I did not want to take the risk of them making me set up a complex office chair with nothing but the same.
So there I was, browsing the Amazons and the Ebays of the world over, just trying to find the best price and shipping combination for my buck on Office chairs with reasonable features. However, I noticed a shocking trend. A lot of people who recieved these shipments of Office chairs were horribly mauled and disfigured by what they claim to be a Bobcat. They would not buy again. Now, I know that occaisonally someone likes to post a little joke review here and there. But this was EVERYWHERE. It was like an epidemic. I rationally thought that there must have been some mix up at the factory, or they really should not have put that Office Chair Warehouse right beside the nature reserve.
As such I did not purchase an office chair, but rather settled on a Thelma and Louise DVD. Needless to say, relationships have since worsened, and he has recently ended up in the hospital. He doesn't even want to see me. He thinks I did this to him. Everything is just so messed up, and I had this one perfect opportunity to make everything all better. And I blame you and your ilk for completely ruining my shopping Experience, Christmas, and inadvertantly, the rest of my life.
It depends. Generally if something has a check box that says "I have agreed to the Terms and Conditions listed here" or "I have read and confirm the privacy policy located here" then I usually go and read them to make sure I know what I'm dealing with. I have actually re-read the Steam User Agreement like 5 times now keeping an eye out for any changes, because while I trust Valve to play nice, I don't want to be one of the naive guys who just assumed the policy stayed the same week after week and ended up agreeing to something I haven't read. I used to read the WoW Updates when I played Wow.
But yeah, for the most part, Privacy Policies for the most part tend to be optional reading material, Terms and Conditions are something else. I only bother reading them if there is some (possibly an illusion) of importance based on it. I don't know if it'll hold up in Court, but when there is a checkbox I can say with full certainty that I actually did read and agree to the Policy before hand. And even if they change it - I can say that unless they prompted me with the changes and another checkbox, I didn't agree to it.
The whole "Using our services shows that you acknowledge our policy" is possibly one of the most underhanded tricks in the books and I think it should be outlawed. No - give me some other way to show that I acknowledged the policy. At least at that point you can blame it on my ignorance of not reading up on stuff or being too impatient or whatever, but there are so many reasons why I may not be up to date on the poicy (not informed of achange, wasn't aware there was one, etc) - that simply using it should not constitute agreeing to it. It's as ridiculous as the EULA after you open the box and not being allowed to return it after its open.
What has that go to do with the foundation? It's not even mentioned there. Dare a person have different goals and objectives in his life? I think you're letting bias cloud your judgment. Just throwing the money at a problem does not solve it. Signing a check of a trillion dollars to the African government will just make the situation worse. A foundation is far better.
How is what the foundation doing largely detrimental?
I suppose thats a question of morality.
Where do you fit on the scale if you put money into researching cures, but then patent them and use them to make money?
In one sense, the cure wouldn't have been discovered without the money going into the research. On the other hand, its exploiting those who need the cure and have money, and leaving those without money high and dry.
I don't think Eldavo was suggesting to just up and "give away" the money, but rather that they shouldn't be claiming thats what they are doing when its not what they're doing.
Yeah, you know, at first I agreed with your sentiment.
The problem with corporate masters is that they can easily be switched with bigger assholes than the one you signed on with. Google right now? Yeah, I mean, they're a bit sketch with the way they are collecting all the data and using it for advertising, but as far as I know, they haven't been as invasive or careless about my information as other sites have shown.
Google 10 years from now? Is Eric still going to be running the show? What if we all give up our information to a company who has shown their goodwill and kept their promises, then overnight someone else takes over the company... Suddenly everything you shared earlier is in the hands of someone you might not trust.
So we're at phase 1, the "Hey, check it out" phase. You can expect this to reach a phase 2, the "actually possible" phase, after IPv6 gets implemented, which will then take years to reach phase 3, the "We should really get on that" phase. Phase 4, the "Okay guys this is actually becoming a problem" phase, comes a couple years later and will no doubt be brought up on slashdot a million times over. Phase 5, is still a theoritcal phase, the "Implementation and execution phase" has not yet been observed but we have reason to believe it might happen one day, if we wish upon enough stars.
I don't think I understand what you're saying. Of course there is a distinction in defensive versus offensive weapons, and it is entirely relevant.
Going to your cold war analogy. 100% protection from the opponents missiles, it would be a primarily defensive technology. Whether or not that side gets an offensive advantage isn't relative to the weapon, if you spend all your money on the defense, you have nothing left for the offense, and can't attack. You need to HAVE an offense to even get an offensive advantage from your defensive technology, and in order for that offensive advantage to mean anything, it has to be able to overwhelm your opponents defensive technologies as well! What you propose, "I can stop all of your missiles, so I have no fear of using my own missiles" is not entirely accurate, because not only do I need my own missiles in order to have any offense, I have to be sure that you can't stop my missiles as well. The defensive weapons technology does not improve my offensive weapons technology, just because I can stop all your missiles doesn't make my offensive missiles actually any more effective against your defense.
Onto the next scenario, a Nation occupies another nation and then uses the primarily defensive weapons to hold the area under control. Yes, thats still considered defensive. The original act of claiming the area was the offensive action, placing anything to deter people from reclaiming it back is considered defensive. I don't know why you had trouble making this distinction, but I hope that clarifies. It IS considered defensive - because you are not actually taking anything you don't already have, you have already claimed the area.
You bring up dictators and ne'er dowells but that's all part of morality and not really relevant to the conflict at hand. Yes, if these kinds of defenses were set up EVERYWHERE, it would be an incredibly stable situation, no one would dare attack, no one would dare revolt, and whether or not you agree with Dictator X or Totalitarianist Y is irrelevant to the fact that they would have what they control and could not gain any more control, nor could anyone remove their control. That is pretty dang stable. Yes, the entities in power stay in power, that is considered stability, no matter how unfair you portray it, it is still stability.
Slashdot Mirror
4Chan (or more specifically, /b/) is not Anonymous, though they are anonymous. I think that capital A is starting to become the real point of distinction between the two terms.
Honestly though, if Anonymous decided to make Stephanie Meyer their next target, I would not have any problems with it.
Maybe I should hop on IRC and build a case against her...
I don't follow.
I'd like to know how you are making the distinction - because a lot of people say that Democracy IS Mob Rule, and those who argue it's seperation would say that Anon's setup is more like Democracy than Mob rule.
Their antics just keep giving politicians reasons to clamp down on the internet. Way to go, idiots!
Politicians don't need reasons to clamp down on the internet, they are going to do it either way. Just like they have with airline security, it's gotten worse over the years despite nothing happening after 9/11.
Their antics are at least trying to bring about some change or awareness before the internet gets clamped down. Think about it, some script kiddie in junior high has contributed more to the world situation these past few months than you might ever in your life. If you think they are idiots, why don't you try and stop them for ruining things for you?
The second most successful part of their trolling is convincing people that they're actually some kind of hacker group when 99% (at least) are nothing more than skiddies with no empathy and a healthy dose of misogyny.
In my opinion, I think thats what makes them more dangerous.
Ever so slightly more glassy-eyed.
That's what just happened to my mind.
Yeah but the people who use Debian know they've got it rough enough and don't need to rub it in using Exim.
You aren't DDOSing enough - you need to branch out from just phones, and try and contact her in a variety of ways. It's like you're only trying to connect on one port. You need to be spamming her inbox, visitting her at work, at home, when she's out at dinner, you need to be leaving love letters EVERYWHERE she might go, you need to be outside her window blaring music from a boombox...
Trust me. It works*.
I'd also like to know how any website, ever, on the internet, has ever made any money, whatsoever.
If OpenLeaks publishes anything that offends the US government in the same way then the same thing will happen to them.
Wikileaks already has credibility anyway.
Who will the US Go after I wonder?
Perhaps this leadership will actually remain Anonymous - therefor making it more difficult to run a successful smear campaign.
Then maybe we might think more about going to war with everyone if it wasn't predominately poor minorities serving.
Well, MAYBE.
How many US Senators have "Served" In the military? Congressmen as well? Presidential Candidates? You'll find quite a few (though not all) had spent SOME time in the Military, though often never in any sense of real danger. Or at least, that's what Hollywood, Conspiracy theories, and pop culture in general has led me to believe.
That whole idea could backfire because the ones in power could feel as though the law is on their side, and that they wouldn't need to actually justify the wars they wage. At least this way - the military strength can be limitted to those who are poor and not so much the middle class.
It says you've seen too much of David Lynch's films, which is to say, more than 10 minutes.
I keep watching it over and over again, in its 17 second glory... and I honestly wish I could believe you.
No, I'm almost positive (no pun intended) that this is actually a Rorschach inkblot VIDEO. You see whatever your subconscious is thinking about. Edwin Cartlidge is obviously suffering from the stress of a bad phone lithium ion battery - and when he stumbled across this video thats what he percieved is happening.
For me, I think this is the opening bit to a Frank Miller or James Bond Flick - I can almost hear the rock/Jazz music chime in.
What about you guys? What do YOU see?
Actually guns are good for all around organizational features.
Just the other day, I opened my drawer to get my VB5 reference book, thought it'd be a great idea to whip up a form using Access 2000 for the database.
I had left my gun in my drawer on top of the book. So when I went to get the book, I had to pick up the gun. I then had a flash of bad memories, from the last time I used VB5, and was overcome with suicidal thoughts. I then realized that I was contemplating suicide, and I already had a gun in my hand, so I quickly put it back on top of the VB Book, closed the drawer, and have vowed never to touch that attrocity ever again.
This happens about twice a season.
Because /gif/ has never, and never will, post a single immoral or illegal animated gif, by anyones standards.
It really bothers you? How? Please tell me how I've ruined your shopping experience.
Really John? You have to ask that question?
A couple years ago my Father wanted to get out of the Field Technician Business and get into a more desk type job at home, where he could be his own boss kind of stuff. For Christmas he had but ONE request, a semi-luxurious Office Chair. Given that my father could not come to terms with how I dropped out of school and still got a job without that piece of paper, we both have this grudge about things we shouted at each other one day. However, the holidays are about family and I could not help but feel compelled that perhaps fulfilling this one request might mend the broken family that came about as a result of me not finishing that damn technical writing course. (As a side note, I was seriously knee deep in working out Regular Expressions in Perl, how could they possibly expect me to do up a cover letter that made any sense at the same time?)
Anyways, so after discovering this magic bullet to fix all the things that went wrong, I set out to get my father the best Office Chair Canadian money can buy. Having been recently thrown out and banned from Staples, Bestbuy, and Futureshop, for setting the IE Homepage on the display computers to the small local competitor down the street, I had no where to reasonably go but online. I did consider Ikea, but honestly I had enough trouble setting up some shelves with nothing but wooden dowels and an allen key, I did not want to take the risk of them making me set up a complex office chair with nothing but the same.
So there I was, browsing the Amazons and the Ebays of the world over, just trying to find the best price and shipping combination for my buck on Office chairs with reasonable features. However, I noticed a shocking trend. A lot of people who recieved these shipments of Office chairs were horribly mauled and disfigured by what they claim to be a Bobcat. They would not buy again. Now, I know that occaisonally someone likes to post a little joke review here and there. But this was EVERYWHERE. It was like an epidemic. I rationally thought that there must have been some mix up at the factory, or they really should not have put that Office Chair Warehouse right beside the nature reserve.
As such I did not purchase an office chair, but rather settled on a Thelma and Louise DVD. Needless to say, relationships have since worsened, and he has recently ended up in the hospital. He doesn't even want to see me. He thinks I did this to him. Everything is just so messed up, and I had this one perfect opportunity to make everything all better. And I blame you and your ilk for completely ruining my shopping Experience, Christmas, and inadvertantly, the rest of my life.
Does anyone ever actually read a privacy policy?
It depends. Generally if something has a check box that says "I have agreed to the Terms and Conditions listed here" or "I have read and confirm the privacy policy located here" then I usually go and read them to make sure I know what I'm dealing with. I have actually re-read the Steam User Agreement like 5 times now keeping an eye out for any changes, because while I trust Valve to play nice, I don't want to be one of the naive guys who just assumed the policy stayed the same week after week and ended up agreeing to something I haven't read. I used to read the WoW Updates when I played Wow.
But yeah, for the most part, Privacy Policies for the most part tend to be optional reading material, Terms and Conditions are something else. I only bother reading them if there is some (possibly an illusion) of importance based on it. I don't know if it'll hold up in Court, but when there is a checkbox I can say with full certainty that I actually did read and agree to the Policy before hand. And even if they change it - I can say that unless they prompted me with the changes and another checkbox, I didn't agree to it.
The whole "Using our services shows that you acknowledge our policy" is possibly one of the most underhanded tricks in the books and I think it should be outlawed. No - give me some other way to show that I acknowledged the policy. At least at that point you can blame it on my ignorance of not reading up on stuff or being too impatient or whatever, but there are so many reasons why I may not be up to date on the poicy (not informed of achange, wasn't aware there was one, etc) - that simply using it should not constitute agreeing to it. It's as ridiculous as the EULA after you open the box and not being allowed to return it after its open.
I spent a lot of my childhood playing video games. You guys have way more exciting lives than I do.
What has that go to do with the foundation? It's not even mentioned there. Dare a person have different goals and objectives in his life? I think you're letting bias cloud your judgment. Just throwing the money at a problem does not solve it. Signing a check of a trillion dollars to the African government will just make the situation worse. A foundation is far better.
How is what the foundation doing largely detrimental?
I suppose thats a question of morality.
Where do you fit on the scale if you put money into researching cures, but then patent them and use them to make money?
In one sense, the cure wouldn't have been discovered without the money going into the research. On the other hand, its exploiting those who need the cure and have money, and leaving those without money high and dry.
I don't think Eldavo was suggesting to just up and "give away" the money, but rather that they shouldn't be claiming thats what they are doing when its not what they're doing.
Especially if it is as you say, anywhere near 5-6% per year, it takes 16-20 years to meet the amount they could have originally donated!
That's pretty much another generation...
Yeah, you know, at first I agreed with your sentiment.
The problem with corporate masters is that they can easily be switched with bigger assholes than the one you signed on with. Google right now? Yeah, I mean, they're a bit sketch with the way they are collecting all the data and using it for advertising, but as far as I know, they haven't been as invasive or careless about my information as other sites have shown.
Google 10 years from now? Is Eric still going to be running the show? What if we all give up our information to a company who has shown their goodwill and kept their promises, then overnight someone else takes over the company... Suddenly everything you shared earlier is in the hands of someone you might not trust.
And there goes the neighbourhood.
Exactly!
I hope, one day, I have enough money to test out the "Race Car on a Train" Theory - to overturn General Relativity.
So we're at phase 1, the "Hey, check it out" phase. You can expect this to reach a phase 2, the "actually possible" phase, after IPv6 gets implemented, which will then take years to reach phase 3, the "We should really get on that" phase. Phase 4, the "Okay guys this is actually becoming a problem" phase, comes a couple years later and will no doubt be brought up on slashdot a million times over. Phase 5, is still a theoritcal phase, the "Implementation and execution phase" has not yet been observed but we have reason to believe it might happen one day, if we wish upon enough stars.
I don't think I understand what you're saying. Of course there is a distinction in defensive versus offensive weapons, and it is entirely relevant.
Going to your cold war analogy. 100% protection from the opponents missiles, it would be a primarily defensive technology. Whether or not that side gets an offensive advantage isn't relative to the weapon, if you spend all your money on the defense, you have nothing left for the offense, and can't attack. You need to HAVE an offense to even get an offensive advantage from your defensive technology, and in order for that offensive advantage to mean anything, it has to be able to overwhelm your opponents defensive technologies as well! What you propose, "I can stop all of your missiles, so I have no fear of using my own missiles" is not entirely accurate, because not only do I need my own missiles in order to have any offense, I have to be sure that you can't stop my missiles as well. The defensive weapons technology does not improve my offensive weapons technology, just because I can stop all your missiles doesn't make my offensive missiles actually any more effective against your defense.
Onto the next scenario, a Nation occupies another nation and then uses the primarily defensive weapons to hold the area under control. Yes, thats still considered defensive. The original act of claiming the area was the offensive action, placing anything to deter people from reclaiming it back is considered defensive. I don't know why you had trouble making this distinction, but I hope that clarifies. It IS considered defensive - because you are not actually taking anything you don't already have, you have already claimed the area.
You bring up dictators and ne'er dowells but that's all part of morality and not really relevant to the conflict at hand. Yes, if these kinds of defenses were set up EVERYWHERE, it would be an incredibly stable situation, no one would dare attack, no one would dare revolt, and whether or not you agree with Dictator X or Totalitarianist Y is irrelevant to the fact that they would have what they control and could not gain any more control, nor could anyone remove their control. That is pretty dang stable. Yes, the entities in power stay in power, that is considered stability, no matter how unfair you portray it, it is still stability.