I was under the impression that although the concept is fairly simple (smash a bunch of uranium together very fast, and it goes supercritical), the tolerances are so tight that it's very difficult to accomplish that electronically/mechanically. If it isn't exactly right, it just melts down spectacularly rather than detonating properly.
I don't know - maybe he's really got it, but I suspect more likely he'd just contaminate a few hundred square miles with radioactive materials if he ever tried building one and testing it.
(offtopic: damn slashdot eats comments in IE. I tried posting a minute ago using the Ajax post form and clicking "preview" just made my comment disappear and I had to retype the whole thing. Is it too much to ask that this website at least WORKS? This isn't nuclear engineering.)
Sure you do - unless you're just really forgetful. We haven't changed them at all in the past zillion years (which is more than you can say for your metre).
What did he do wrong? He trusted someone. Apparently, that's so idiotic and inconceivable that it makes him the one who's at fault.... The lesson here appears to be, if you're capable of scamming people online, then you deserve the money and your victims are morons.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Even the bit about you deserving the money - at least more than the people you scammed. You also deserve to get caught, but that's beside the point.
What's next? Blaming rape victims for not bringing pepper spray on a blind date?
To be fair the analogy should be more like "blaming rape victims for going on blind dates in deserted parks at 11 PM and not at least bringing pepper spray".
I guess the study that was written about in NY Times last year wasn't far off the mark.
I especially like their last bit:
"The implications are hardly superficial. Low empathy is associated with criminal behavior, violence, sexual offenses, aggression when drunk and other antisocial behaviors."
No, correlation is not causation. Not even when the New York Times says so.
The <i> tag has been deprecated for quite a while now. Use the <em> tag instead.
Slashdot apparently felt like enforcing the switch... although the old D1 comment posting page still says that <i> is an allowed HTML tag. (Granted, I don't think they maintain the D1 pages much.)
Ok... time for a bad analogy to rule all other bad analogies, and in the darkness bind them...
Toyota gives all of its prospective customers handy little ink pens that help them write checks and stuff like that. Ford notices that some of its customers are wearing these Toyota souvenir pens in their pockets when they walk into Ford's showroom to ask about the specs and prices on some Ford vehicles. Ford thinks nothing much of it at first. However, Ford starts noticing that when they go over to the Toyota dealership to inquire about similar vehicles, they get suspiciously similar specs and prices quoted to them. Very suspiciously similar. Ford suspects that the pens might really be bugged so that Toyota can rig their specs and prices to compete with Ford, but of course they have no proof of this... yet.
To see if Toyota is really stealing their information, Ford sends a few of its employees under-cover. First they visit the Toyota dealership and pick up some of the souvenir pens. Then they come into Ford dealership showrooms and ask to have some EPA specs and prices on flying carpets and broomsticks. Playing along with this, the Ford dealers quote some fake specs and prices. Eventually they go over to the Toyota dealership, asking about flying carpets and broomsticks. Rather than the Toyota dealers responding "lol what?", suddenly, Toyota is giving them the same fake specs and prices for the nonexistent items...
It is unauthorized access. Unauthorized remote root access by Sony to a PS3 that belongs to an end-user who never gave them permission to do whatever it is they needed remote root for.
Oh, you may say it's in the EULA, but whether or not that holds up in court is another matter. They can't just put whatever they want in the fine print and expect it to be contractually binding. Their EULA could say somewhere in the fine print that Sony had remote access to root your firstborn's backdoor, but that wouldn't be a legal contract...
There is no current owner of fish.co, so plenty.of.fish could buy it.
But why would they want to? They have nothing to do with fish, even! It's only part of their name because it's a figure of speech!
I find the notion that you should lump together a bunch of unrelated websites under the same "fish" domain name simply because they all wanted to use that as the last word in their website's address to be completely nonsensical.
Second, it's not cyber-squatting if you're selling a subdomain
It is cyber squatting if somebody registers the "fish.co" domain in the hopes that somebody comes along who wants to rent a subdomain. And a subdomain heirarchy of unrelated sites, as you described it, is just waiting for someone to come along and do just that.
Third, why would there be any track of hits?
Why wouldn't there? Just make all your subdomain renters include your tracking script in their page, hosted on its very own little subdomain of the same domain. Or even if you don't track them, you just happen to hear a story about them on Slashdot and figure "you know, maybe I'm not charging them enough..."
in line with the notion of a domain heirarchy to encourage even-handed reselling of subdomains
I'm all for subdomains, when it makes logical sense. Having a whole bunch of state websites under *.state.us.gov would make sense. Putting plenty.of.fish on the same domain as swedish.fish makes no sense. None.
Hell, just take a look at the Google results for websites whose names end in "fish.com". Aquarium supplies, some ska-punk band, mechanical contractors, a botique, the dating site... strange bedfellows, indeed!
The main benefit of having it done like this is that whoever owns fish.co can resell names from that without conflicting with their own site.
Then the owner of "fish.co" notices that "plenty.of.fish.co" is getting a ton of hits, and decides the fee just quadrupled for the "plenty.of." subdomain he's been renting to you...
Oh really? Then, explain how Obama went from biracial kid from broken home being raised by his grandparents to "community organizer"/lawyer to senator to president.
Slashdot Mirror
I was under the impression that although the concept is fairly simple (smash a bunch of uranium together very fast, and it goes supercritical), the tolerances are so tight that it's very difficult to accomplish that electronically/mechanically. If it isn't exactly right, it just melts down spectacularly rather than detonating properly.
I don't know - maybe he's really got it, but I suspect more likely he'd just contaminate a few hundred square miles with radioactive materials if he ever tried building one and testing it.
(offtopic: damn slashdot eats comments in IE. I tried posting a minute ago using the Ajax post form and clicking "preview" just made my comment disappear and I had to retype the whole thing. Is it too much to ask that this website at least WORKS? This isn't nuclear engineering.)
Dibs on next week.
Veni, Vidi, Visa...
Sure you do - unless you're just really forgetful. We haven't changed them at all in the past zillion years (which is more than you can say for your metre).
When did I say it was funny? It's only funny until someone gets hurt.
Your post might be funny if a.) The timing didn't suck
I agree. That comma should definitely have been an ellipsis. However, it could also be argued that you simply read it badly.
The country where greak food comes from, obviously.
Confucius say, man with no anus may be full of shit.
What did he do wrong? He trusted someone. Apparently, that's so idiotic and inconceivable that it makes him the one who's at fault. ... The lesson here appears to be, if you're capable of scamming people online, then you deserve the money and your victims are morons.
I pretty much agree with all of that. Even the bit about you deserving the money - at least more than the people you scammed. You also deserve to get caught, but that's beside the point.
What's next? Blaming rape victims for not bringing pepper spray on a blind date?
To be fair the analogy should be more like "blaming rape victims for going on blind dates in deserted parks at 11 PM and not at least bringing pepper spray".
I guess the study that was written about in NY Times last year wasn't far off the mark.
I especially like their last bit:
"The implications are hardly superficial. Low empathy is associated with criminal behavior, violence, sexual offenses, aggression when drunk and other antisocial behaviors."
No, correlation is not causation. Not even when the New York Times says so.
The <i> tag has been deprecated for quite a while now. Use the <em> tag instead.
Slashdot apparently felt like enforcing the switch... although the old D1 comment posting page still says that <i> is an allowed HTML tag. (Granted, I don't think they maintain the D1 pages much.)
If that was true, GPS would be horribly broken and could never work.
How the hell do they expect to make accurate 3D maps if they can't even keep track of the satellite's own position?!
Ok... time for a bad analogy to rule all other bad analogies, and in the darkness bind them...
Toyota gives all of its prospective customers handy little ink pens that help them write checks and stuff like that. Ford notices that some of its customers are wearing these Toyota souvenir pens in their pockets when they walk into Ford's showroom to ask about the specs and prices on some Ford vehicles. Ford thinks nothing much of it at first. However, Ford starts noticing that when they go over to the Toyota dealership to inquire about similar vehicles, they get suspiciously similar specs and prices quoted to them. Very suspiciously similar. Ford suspects that the pens might really be bugged so that Toyota can rig their specs and prices to compete with Ford, but of course they have no proof of this... yet.
To see if Toyota is really stealing their information, Ford sends a few of its employees under-cover. First they visit the Toyota dealership and pick up some of the souvenir pens. Then they come into Ford dealership showrooms and ask to have some EPA specs and prices on flying carpets and broomsticks. Playing along with this, the Ford dealers quote some fake specs and prices. Eventually they go over to the Toyota dealership, asking about flying carpets and broomsticks. Rather than the Toyota dealers responding "lol what?", suddenly, Toyota is giving them the same fake specs and prices for the nonexistent items...
Suspicious much?
The "article" calls this a rootkit. The summary calls it a backdoor. Neither is strictly true.
Rootkits allow unauthorized users root level access and backdoors allow unauthorized remote users access.
It is unauthorized access. Unauthorized remote root access by Sony to a PS3 that belongs to an end-user who never gave them permission to do whatever it is they needed remote root for.
Oh, you may say it's in the EULA, but whether or not that holds up in court is another matter. They can't just put whatever they want in the fine print and expect it to be contractually binding. Their EULA could say somewhere in the fine print that Sony had remote access to root your firstborn's backdoor, but that wouldn't be a legal contract...
No... you come back when you have some actual evidence that he is a small-time success story. He isn't.
There is no current owner of fish.co, so plenty.of.fish could buy it.
But why would they want to? They have nothing to do with fish, even! It's only part of their name because it's a figure of speech!
I find the notion that you should lump together a bunch of unrelated websites under the same "fish" domain name simply because they all wanted to use that as the last word in their website's address to be completely nonsensical.
Second, it's not cyber-squatting if you're selling a subdomain
It is cyber squatting if somebody registers the "fish.co" domain in the hopes that somebody comes along who wants to rent a subdomain. And a subdomain heirarchy of unrelated sites, as you described it, is just waiting for someone to come along and do just that.
Third, why would there be any track of hits?
Why wouldn't there? Just make all your subdomain renters include your tracking script in their page, hosted on its very own little subdomain of the same domain. Or even if you don't track them, you just happen to hear a story about them on Slashdot and figure "you know, maybe I'm not charging them enough..."
in line with the notion of a domain heirarchy to encourage even-handed reselling of subdomains
I'm all for subdomains, when it makes logical sense. Having a whole bunch of state websites under *.state.us.gov would make sense. Putting plenty.of.fish on the same domain as swedish.fish makes no sense. None.
Hell, just take a look at the Google results for websites whose names end in "fish.com". Aquarium supplies, some ska-punk band, mechanical contractors, a botique, the dating site... strange bedfellows, indeed!
The main benefit of having it done like this is that whoever owns fish.co can resell names from that without conflicting with their own site.
Then the owner of "fish.co" notices that "plenty.of.fish.co" is getting a ton of hits, and decides the fee just quadrupled for the "plenty.of." subdomain he's been renting to you...
Enabling cyber-squatting isn't a "benefit".
Oh really? Then, explain how Obama went from biracial kid from broken home being raised by his grandparents to "community organizer"/lawyer to senator to president.
Money and support from big business.
Michael David Kristopeit is a spammer.
edrugtrader (442064)
madddddddddd (1710534)
Michael Kristopeit (1751814)
Michael D Kristopeit (1887500)
M. D. Kristopeit (1890086)
M. Kristopeit (1890764)
Kristopeit, Michael (1892492)
Kristopeit, M. D. (1892582)
Mike Kristopeit (1900306)
Mike D. Kristopeit (1900568)
Kristopeit, Mike D. (1900570)
MichaelDavKristopeit (1905312)
Mike Dav. Kristopeit (1905334)
MichaelDa.Kristopeit (1905336)
Mike Da. Kristopeit (1905338)
Kristopeit, Mike Da. (1905342)
Kristopeit, Mike (1905452)
Kristopeit, Mike Dav (1905462)
Kristopeit,MichaelDa (1905518)