I wouldn't have approved of Caprica. At least, not as a prequal to BSG.
Prequals suck. They are too restrictive. You already know the ending. It is just a way to cash in on family names and familiarity and such.
I might have approved of a show with Caprica's premise set in its own "universe", not trying to cram the Adama family into the history.
And if anyone wants to see why exactly this "business model" would sink like a rock, look at how badly the Humble Indy Bundle did. All the high moral reasons and justifactions people try to give for piracy go straight to hell when actually try to cater to them.
I was referring to the claim that Anon did any real damage to CoS. Not Simmons. Of course it is easy for a bunch of script kiddies to crash someone's personal website. Simmons is probably using the cheapest service he could find to set it up.
Says you. I say any goal is tangible by definition
No. Not at all
if it brings about real effects.
Which Anonymous doesn't do. Not on any large scale. They can piss off one aging rock star and make some self involved teenage girls cry, but they bring no real change to society.
Ding-dong-ditch is not guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare actually causes lasting damage or achieves some sort of tangiable goal.
"4 lulz" is not a tangiable goal.
Skewering a few scapegoats? Yeah, that is an oft-tried method of combating an opponent who uses guerrilla tactics...
As well as Anonymous themselves. They've lashed out blindly to hurt people they thought were offenders to whatever cause they were touting that day. Just look at their counter attack on Regency. They ended up publishing the personal info of some retired couple.
No, not at all. "takes on" = "confronts" in the world of grown ups.
"stays ahead of"= "gets the best of"
Anon almost had some their identities revealed by Regency and CoS until Youtube took down the video. Which of course, no one on Anonymous ahd a problem with
Anon basically did the cyber version ding-dong-ditch. Annoying, inconsequential children.
Drakkenmensch was claiming that they "regularly take on" and "stay ahead" of Scientology. My point was, Anon actually has hardly any real effect on the outside world at all. They have their little circle jerks, put up some e-graffiti andfd take a nap.
They might be able to hurt individuals who aren't savvy about them, but they can't hurt actually prepared organizations with real resources
Except that they didn't put a dent in Scientology. You think a one day DDoS really slows them down? Some yahoos in Guy Fawkes masks? The Church of Scientology still enjoys tax exempt status and truck loads of money. All the big talk about having a campaign planned out for years turned out to be vapor.
In fact, CoS and some associated groups nearly turned the table on Anon itself.
The majority of Anonymous' "success" involves berating teenage girls for self indulgent YouTube vidoes.
There is just too much of a difference between internet famous and really famous.
I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts.
I know a Secretary of State who told the UN Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
He lied.
Ya, we know. That proves Dead Pixels' point. If they really were so evil and powerful they would have
1 Generated a lot more ineternational support for the invasion of Iraq
2 Planted evidence of NBC weapons or simply have claimed to have found them
Nope. Assange is still an asshole. He's like a drunk driver that managed not to kill anyone.
Unless you expect groups like Amnesty International and Reporters Without Broders and the London Times to kiss your ass.
And I find it funny your spouting the mantra about FOX News. As if that was the only place this accusation was made.
No, Assange's still a douche. It wasn't just the pentagon and the US media slamming him. It was Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders and other NGOs that usually defend journalists from government attacks. People within Wikileaks even have spoken out.
This guy didn't get anyone killed. That's great. But not by his own dilligence. It's like saying a drunk driver didn't do anything wrong because he managed not to kill anyone. It was still reckless and irresponsible.
Besides, do really believe what the Pentagon is telling you? For all we know, this is just an attempt at damage control to make people think the info is worthless and protect their informants
Engineers don't bring in investors. They use company resources to produce product that may attract clients. Investors want to see product, a healthy company, good marketing etc etc. You need leadership to get that stuff done.
I'm not saying they aren't valuable, if you are a manufacturing company, you obviously need them. But, they make product, not the company. Apple wasn't a player until Jobs left his garage and he didn't do that alone.
Real slashers are penguins. Because, who needs actual support, industry acceptance, and a searchable knowledge base?
Apple does get a pretty good thrashing around here though.
I support providers being realistic, which AT&T wasn't at first. Believe me, I try and steer people away from them, but their issue was poor planning, not some kind of corporate undercutting.
And a CEO's retirement plan has little if anything to do with the product being put out. Employee benefits are usually sacrificed first. I do understand the tech and corporate infrastructure. "Can we do it?" is only one question you have to ask.
Is your "random Asian country" one of the ones that experiences rolling black outs and/or has to ration power? Is it one of the ones that the major companies in North America, Europe and Japan consider bonus points and therefor can sell their wares after they've already made their costs domestically? If so, you really can't compare it to a major city in the US, Canada, Europe, or Japan
It was the right decision. Video conferencing is broadband intensive and that is what most people will use Skype for if their phones can do it. For all the flak Apple is taking about the iPhone 4 not allowing videocalls without wifi, they are right.
Even in NYC, ATT's network takes a pounding and occasionalyl goes dark in some areas because they weren't ready for the way people would use the iPhone and other smartphones.
Because MS is a big, evil, multibillion dollar corporation, but Skype is a free and wonderful...and what? It's actually the property of a multibillion dollar corporation? And they just poached an executive from another multibillion dollar corporation in order to find more ways to draw revenue from their service? Damn.
Actually, I think it has more to do with the perceived quality of MS's products and services. True or not, they have a reputation.
Hi MR AC! Have YOU been to the spot in Dallas? Have YOU ever hunted with a bolt action? I can answer yes to both and any hunter will tell you the odds of a single guy pulling that kind of shooting off in that amount of time is pretty much zero.
Downward onto a target moving slowly in a straight line 85 yards away is impossible? You know some pretty lousy hunters. 2 shots in 7 seconds isn't really that tough for a trained rifleman.
not to mention Oswald was a lousy shot, which we know thanks to his military records.
You mean Oliver Stone's fictional account of one misguided person's investigation. The records of Oswald's marksmanship skills actually show him to be pretty proficient with a rifle.
Finally if you look at videos of previous trips using the open topped cars there was ALWAYS secret service riding on the back of the car to protect the president...ALWAYS.
They were ordered by JFK himself because he thought they would hurt his image a s amn of the people.
You might want to look up "The men who killed Kennedy" as they have great footage taken BEFORE the trip began and you can actually see secret service guys say "What the fuck are you doing?" as they are PULLED OFF the president's car. It was a setup, someone high in the secret service knew it and pulled his men.
You might to actually read something by a person who has actually properly researched the topic.
Kennedy had already threatened the CIA and had made it clear he would NOT escalate Vietnam. Vietnam was a multibillion dollar windfall for the MIC. Hell people are killed for a lot less every day here in the USA.
Except he actually escalated our presence in Asia and Latin America and expanded the CIA's power.
Ya, everything after the British company holding a monopoly is wrong. MI6 and BP put in the Shah (whose regime the British actually replaced during WW2) with help from the CIA (who didn't want a long, drawn out fight that would have opened the door for Soviet involvement). And the Shah was not a religious extremist. He was actually quite progressive. It was pissing off the religious extremists that led to his downfall.
He did imprison dissidents and rivals, but so did everyone else in that region. He really was the best choice.
Although, I do agree with the idea that countries shouldn't be helping to topple each others' legally elected officials.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't have approved of Caprica. At least, not as a prequal to BSG.
Prequals suck. They are too restrictive. You already know the ending. It is just a way to cash in on family names and familiarity and such.
I might have approved of a show with Caprica's premise set in its own "universe", not trying to cram the Adama family into the history.
And if anyone wants to see why exactly this "business model" would sink like a rock, look at how badly the Humble Indy Bundle did. All the high moral reasons and justifactions people try to give for piracy go straight to hell when actually try to cater to them.
I was referring to the claim that Anon did any real damage to CoS. Not Simmons. Of course it is easy for a bunch of script kiddies to crash someone's personal website. Simmons is probably using the cheapest service he could find to set it up.
Says you. I say any goal is tangible by definition
No. Not at all
if it brings about real effects.
Which Anonymous doesn't do. Not on any large scale. They can piss off one aging rock star and make some self involved teenage girls cry, but they bring no real change to society.
Ding-dong-ditch is not guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare actually causes lasting damage or achieves some sort of tangiable goal.
"4 lulz" is not a tangiable goal.
Skewering a few scapegoats? Yeah, that is an oft-tried method of combating an opponent who uses guerrilla tactics...
As well as Anonymous themselves. They've lashed out blindly to hurt people they thought were offenders to whatever cause they were touting that day. Just look at their counter attack on Regency. They ended up publishing the personal info of some retired couple.
No, not at all. "takes on" = "confronts" in the world of grown ups.
"stays ahead of"= "gets the best of"
Anon almost had some their identities revealed by Regency and CoS until Youtube took down the video. Which of course, no one on Anonymous ahd a problem with
Anon basically did the cyber version ding-dong-ditch. Annoying, inconsequential children.
Not that this isn't already brought up in every topic dealing with Wikileaks but here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLESecondNews
No, they admitted to having undercover cops at that protest. There has never been any real evidence the guys with rocks were cops.
Drakkenmensch was claiming that they "regularly take on" and "stay ahead" of Scientology. My point was, Anon actually has hardly any real effect on the outside world at all. They have their little circle jerks, put up some e-graffiti andfd take a nap.
They might be able to hurt individuals who aren't savvy about them, but they can't hurt actually prepared organizations with real resources
Except that they didn't put a dent in Scientology. You think a one day DDoS really slows them down? Some yahoos in Guy Fawkes masks? The Church of Scientology still enjoys tax exempt status and truck loads of money. All the big talk about having a campaign planned out for years turned out to be vapor.
In fact, CoS and some associated groups nearly turned the table on Anon itself.
The majority of Anonymous' "success" involves berating teenage girls for self indulgent YouTube vidoes.
There is just too much of a difference between internet famous and really famous.
I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts.
I know a Secretary of State who told the UN Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
He lied.
Ya, we know. That proves Dead Pixels' point. If they really were so evil and powerful they would have
1 Generated a lot more ineternational support for the invasion of Iraq
2 Planted evidence of NBC weapons or simply have claimed to have found them
Actually, Amnesty International doesn't think much of him either.
All these people bitching about lies and propoganda from the government and MSM are whole heartidly believing a story on CNN of a Pentagon statement.
Nope. Assange is still an asshole. He's like a drunk driver that managed not to kill anyone. Unless you expect groups like Amnesty International and Reporters Without Broders and the London Times to kiss your ass. And I find it funny your spouting the mantra about FOX News. As if that was the only place this accusation was made.
No, Assange's still a douche. It wasn't just the pentagon and the US media slamming him. It was Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders and other NGOs that usually defend journalists from government attacks. People within Wikileaks even have spoken out.
This guy didn't get anyone killed. That's great. But not by his own dilligence. It's like saying a drunk driver didn't do anything wrong because he managed not to kill anyone. It was still reckless and irresponsible.
Besides, do really believe what the Pentagon is telling you? For all we know, this is just an attempt at damage control to make people think the info is worthless and protect their informants
Engineers don't bring in investors. They use company resources to produce product that may attract clients. Investors want to see product, a healthy company, good marketing etc etc. You need leadership to get that stuff done. I'm not saying they aren't valuable, if you are a manufacturing company, you obviously need them. But, they make product, not the company. Apple wasn't a player until Jobs left his garage and he didn't do that alone.
Cuz Ed from Receiving brings in the investors.
Real slashers are penguins. Because, who needs actual support, industry acceptance, and a searchable knowledge base? Apple does get a pretty good thrashing around here though.
I support providers being realistic, which AT&T wasn't at first. Believe me, I try and steer people away from them, but their issue was poor planning, not some kind of corporate undercutting.
And a CEO's retirement plan has little if anything to do with the product being put out. Employee benefits are usually sacrificed first. I do understand the tech and corporate infrastructure. "Can we do it?" is only one question you have to ask.
Is your "random Asian country" one of the ones that experiences rolling black outs and/or has to ration power? Is it one of the ones that the major companies in North America, Europe and Japan consider bonus points and therefor can sell their wares after they've already made their costs domestically? If so, you really can't compare it to a major city in the US, Canada, Europe, or Japan
It was the right decision. Video conferencing is broadband intensive and that is what most people will use Skype for if their phones can do it. For all the flak Apple is taking about the iPhone 4 not allowing videocalls without wifi, they are right. Even in NYC, ATT's network takes a pounding and occasionalyl goes dark in some areas because they weren't ready for the way people would use the iPhone and other smartphones.
Because MS is a big, evil, multibillion dollar corporation, but Skype is a free and wonderful...and what? It's actually the property of a multibillion dollar corporation? And they just poached an executive from another multibillion dollar corporation in order to find more ways to draw revenue from their service? Damn. Actually, I think it has more to do with the perceived quality of MS's products and services. True or not, they have a reputation.
Hi MR AC! Have YOU been to the spot in Dallas? Have YOU ever hunted with a bolt action? I can answer yes to both and any hunter will tell you the odds of a single guy pulling that kind of shooting off in that amount of time is pretty much zero.
Downward onto a target moving slowly in a straight line 85 yards away is impossible? You know some pretty lousy hunters. 2 shots in 7 seconds isn't really that tough for a trained rifleman.
not to mention Oswald was a lousy shot, which we know thanks to his military records.
You mean Oliver Stone's fictional account of one misguided person's investigation. The records of Oswald's marksmanship skills actually show him to be pretty proficient with a rifle.
Finally if you look at videos of previous trips using the open topped cars there was ALWAYS secret service riding on the back of the car to protect the president...ALWAYS.
They were ordered by JFK himself because he thought they would hurt his image a s amn of the people.
You might want to look up "The men who killed Kennedy" as they have great footage taken BEFORE the trip began and you can actually see secret service guys say "What the fuck are you doing?" as they are PULLED OFF the president's car. It was a setup, someone high in the secret service knew it and pulled his men.
You might to actually read something by a person who has actually properly researched the topic.
Kennedy had already threatened the CIA and had made it clear he would NOT escalate Vietnam. Vietnam was a multibillion dollar windfall for the MIC. Hell people are killed for a lot less every day here in the USA.
Except he actually escalated our presence in Asia and Latin America and expanded the CIA's power.
Ya, everything after the British company holding a monopoly is wrong. MI6 and BP put in the Shah (whose regime the British actually replaced during WW2) with help from the CIA (who didn't want a long, drawn out fight that would have opened the door for Soviet involvement). And the Shah was not a religious extremist. He was actually quite progressive. It was pissing off the religious extremists that led to his downfall. He did imprison dissidents and rivals, but so did everyone else in that region. He really was the best choice. Although, I do agree with the idea that countries shouldn't be helping to topple each others' legally elected officials.