A company registers "hotmail.com" as a play on "HMTL" and "mail", back when it was oh so cool that you can make a web page that looks like an email client! It's like mail, but it's HTML, i.e. HoTMaiL! Get it? It's "HTML", and it's "mail"- i.e. "hot-mail"! WOW!
(Although I have to admit, that like many people, I just assumed the name was pornographic when I first heard it.)
So anyway, Microsoft buys this company, promptly screws it up with all the ill-conceived MSN/Passport/.NET crud, and now they're going to redesign the entire interface to look just like Outlook. Can you imagine? It completely flies in the face of everything that drove people to Hotmail in the first place! You could use an ordinary web browser to read your email as if you were surfing the web. You didn't have to run a mail client like Outlook. Now your IE is going to instantiate an ActiveX control or something and you'll basically be running Outlook again, only inside your browser, so it's going to be even less stable than before. It's like the entire design philosophy behind Hotmail has made a 180 degree turn since the Microsoft acquisition.
You should assume witches are the biggest risk to your organizational security.
If any of the witches in your organization denies being a witch, remember that arguing with colleagues about it is one of the clear signs of impending witchcraft.
While I understand and agree with the general sentiment of your post, I would suggest that there is no X sufficiently large that "receiving X spam emails is about as bad as being raped."
OK, then it's probably more accurate to say that being spammed is like being raped just a little.
Two years of your life is a very long time. It's longer than you may think, and spending it in jail doesn't help society very much.
On the contrary. Two years is actually a very light sentence for something that impacts society as severly as this, and society benefits greatly during that two year period, because imprisoning a spammer brings huge benefits to society. It's a cheap and effective way to improve the lives of millions of people.
There really aren't that many spammers in the world. It may not seem like it, but that's because the world has a lot of spam- it's a crime that has a huge number of victims by definition. If you consider all the lives that are improved by jailing a spammer, it compares favorably even to jailing violent criminals. There are comparatively few lives that are improved by jailing (say) an average rapist, and even if each potential rape victim's life is improved a lot by the rapist being in jail instead of being free to rape, there's just a few rape victims per rapist (usually less than a hundred). Jailing a spammer can improve the lives of millions of people by a little, and receiving X spam emails is about as bad as being raped (for some value of X). And raping people isn't like spamming- it takes time, effort, and legwork, and the number of people you can rape is limited just by virtue of the fact that it's a difficult crime to computerize. If nothing else, at least one thing you can say about rapists is that they are not as lazy as spammers, and that should really be considered when coming up with sentences for them. Spamming may be as "nonviolent" as selling drugs, accepting bribes, or rigging elections, but spammers still belong in jail. If nothing else, it will prevent them from spamming, in a way that fining them will not. A spammer can cover any fine you impose by further spamming.
But let me make sure I am reading this right, because I don't think I am.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't do this out of kindness, respect or decency towards the scum that is sexual predators?
Your language betrays your assumptions. How do you know tomorrow's definition of a "sexual predator" is going to be reasonable compared to todays? You don't know that at all.
We can't implement the required infrastructure for a technological police state, and just blithely assume that it's only going to ever be used for people guilty of one crime, the one we hate. If you set up an extensive network of databases, alerts, bulletins, registries, proxies, etc etc etc for "sex offenders" you risk its misuse in the future just as with any system. In this case the risk of misuse is extreme. It would be the simplest thing in the world, once all these systems are implemented and in place, to cleverly redefine "sex offender" to enable their use for terrorizing e.g. tax cheats. These are dangerous tools to be handing any government.
But you have to admit that when one of those creepy pharmaceutical ads comes on, this will make it so much more satisfying to skip, now that you know you're relaying a "thumbs down" back to the pharmaceutical company through your Tivo.
If these commercials I'm seeing are reflective of the viewing habits of Tivo owners then it's clear you people aren't properly using the features of your Tivos.
I tend to believe that people take Valtrex so they can continue sleeping around without using protection while eliminating the risk of a partner noticing their open sores. I mean, how'd they get herpes in the first place?
That's assuming they have it. Smart people take Valtrex so they can start sleeping around without using protection while eliminating the risk of a partner giving them herpes in the first place. But of course, the pharmaceutical industry lacks the balls to produce the obvious commercial, and prefers to delude itself with talk of wholesome couples instead.
He's got herpes. She doesn't. They take VALTREX to keep it that way. So her neocortex is all hot for him. But her amygdala isn't convinced. Because he has herpes.
This statement is in the passive voice. No one is directly referred to here. The problem with this? The poster makes a statement and forces assumptions on who has been putting this pressure of censorship.
Yes, an obvious assumption that the Bushies are the subject of the sentence, applying to the predicate "forced". That's how passive voice works.
So?
I am not sure which is worse--deliberate censorship or subtle trickery as is in the first line of the "summary."
The image this conjured was of you giving a homeless person a dollar with your right hand, while simultaneously giving them the finger with your left.
Actually that could happen with a corpus callosectomy, which is like having a skull with two half-wits inside that develop as separate individuals after the surgery (although being in the same body they continue to share experiences so the effect isn't that pronounced). Supposedly, for the most part nobody notices but you lose the ability to button your shirts with both hands. But I'm not going to consider that procedure; it sounds too creepy.
It is unclear why, in all situations, a blanket policy of honesty would be expected to maximize profits for corporations. (Let me rephrase that: this is obviously not the case.) Microsoft's goal is not to make you like them; it is to make lots of money. So far, they've been very successful at that. Probably their PR department played at least some small role in that. Don't get me wrong, I despise them too, but let's be clear that they're all doing exactly what they're "supposed" to.
Oh God, I don't know what's the matter with people anymore. Everyone is so brainwashed with these right wing talking points.
A corporation's goal is to maximize profit. While a corporation's officers have a fiduciary duty to work toward this goal, they must do it within the law. A corporation is a legal instrument and is constrained to operate within the law like the rest of us. Its goal to maximize profit doesn't give it license to commit vandalism. I mean, it's my own goal as an individual to maximize the amount of money I have myself. I can't simply cite that my goal requires me to break the law.
While there are not yet any laws against it yet, it's pretty obvious that this is vandalism of a public resource.
Just do what Stephen Colbert did, and tell your audience the edits you want to see!
If Microsoft were smart, they'd set things up so that a friendly Wikipedia edit would extend your Windows license for a few days.
As for the rest of us, we may have to write worms to infect Windows computers if we are to orchestrate massive distributed Wikipedia editing campaigns.
I've had no working sense of humor for days at a time. This isn't one of those times though. But I've regained consciousness surrounded by unhelpful people before, so cracks like that bring back sore memories for me. The worst is when people (esp. cops) think I'm on drugs. I wake up with 1% of my brain working and retrograde amnesia and a migraine with nausea and right away people are giving me bullshit about drugs.
Ha ha, yeah, real funny. Never do that to someone just recovering consciousness from a brain trauma. I would totally fall for something like that.
You don't even need much of your brain working to be able to wake up and talk to people. It can take a week for your judgment and facilities to come back.
Slashdot Mirror
A company registers "hotmail.com" as a play on "HMTL" and "mail", back when it was oh so cool that you can make a web page that looks like an email client! It's like mail, but it's HTML, i.e. HoTMaiL! Get it? It's "HTML", and it's "mail"- i.e. "hot-mail"! WOW!
(Although I have to admit, that like many people, I just assumed the name was pornographic when I first heard it.)
So anyway, Microsoft buys this company, promptly screws it up with all the ill-conceived MSN/Passport/.NET crud, and now they're going to redesign the entire interface to look just like Outlook. Can you imagine? It completely flies in the face of everything that drove people to Hotmail in the first place! You could use an ordinary web browser to read your email as if you were surfing the web. You didn't have to run a mail client like Outlook. Now your IE is going to instantiate an ActiveX control or something and you'll basically be running Outlook again, only inside your browser, so it's going to be even less stable than before. It's like the entire design philosophy behind Hotmail has made a 180 degree turn since the Microsoft acquisition.
I'm glad I searched for that quote and found it your post instead of reposting the same observation about it.
This one is one of my wife's favorites: http://www.awfulplasticsurgery.com/
You should assume witches are the biggest risk to your organizational security.
If any of the witches in your organization denies being a witch, remember that arguing with colleagues about it is one of the clear signs of impending witchcraft.
There really aren't that many spammers in the world. It may not seem like it, but that's because the world has a lot of spam- it's a crime that has a huge number of victims by definition. If you consider all the lives that are improved by jailing a spammer, it compares favorably even to jailing violent criminals. There are comparatively few lives that are improved by jailing (say) an average rapist, and even if each potential rape victim's life is improved a lot by the rapist being in jail instead of being free to rape, there's just a few rape victims per rapist (usually less than a hundred). Jailing a spammer can improve the lives of millions of people by a little, and receiving X spam emails is about as bad as being raped (for some value of X). And raping people isn't like spamming- it takes time, effort, and legwork, and the number of people you can rape is limited just by virtue of the fact that it's a difficult crime to computerize. If nothing else, at least one thing you can say about rapists is that they are not as lazy as spammers, and that should really be considered when coming up with sentences for them. Spamming may be as "nonviolent" as selling drugs, accepting bribes, or rigging elections, but spammers still belong in jail. If nothing else, it will prevent them from spamming, in a way that fining them will not. A spammer can cover any fine you impose by further spamming.
We can't implement the required infrastructure for a technological police state, and just blithely assume that it's only going to ever be used for people guilty of one crime, the one we hate. If you set up an extensive network of databases, alerts, bulletins, registries, proxies, etc etc etc for "sex offenders" you risk its misuse in the future just as with any system. In this case the risk of misuse is extreme. It would be the simplest thing in the world, once all these systems are implemented and in place, to cleverly redefine "sex offender" to enable their use for terrorizing e.g. tax cheats. These are dangerous tools to be handing any government.
Launch a big sponge made of aerogel. Light and easy to carry up there, and it scoops up crud as it orbits.
Having kids, I don't think this is misguided...
That's because you're assuming you're not ever going to be in that database or one like it.
But you have to admit that when one of those creepy pharmaceutical ads comes on, this will make it so much more satisfying to skip, now that you know you're relaying a "thumbs down" back to the pharmaceutical company through your Tivo.
If these commercials I'm seeing are reflective of the viewing habits of Tivo owners then it's clear you people aren't properly using the features of your Tivos.
He's got herpes. She doesn't. They take VALTREX to keep it that way. So her neocortex is all hot for him. But her amygdala isn't convinced. Because he has herpes.
So? Using the passive voice is subtle trickery?
Ethanol is made by adding sugar to yeast, but Amyris believes that it can reprogram the microbes to make something closer to gasoline.
This is UNIX! I KNOW this
It's the ME version of XP.
The image this conjured was of you giving a homeless person a dollar with your right hand, while simultaneously giving them the finger with your left.
Actually that could happen with a corpus callosectomy, which is like having a skull with two half-wits inside that develop as separate individuals after the surgery (although being in the same body they continue to share experiences so the effect isn't that pronounced). Supposedly, for the most part nobody notices but you lose the ability to button your shirts with both hands. But I'm not going to consider that procedure; it sounds too creepy.
Well, you'd think it would automatically be nice to live on top of lots of oil, but it isn't necessarily the case.
A corporation's goal is to maximize profit. While a corporation's officers have a fiduciary duty to work toward this goal, they must do it within the law. A corporation is a legal instrument and is constrained to operate within the law like the rest of us. Its goal to maximize profit doesn't give it license to commit vandalism. I mean, it's my own goal as an individual to maximize the amount of money I have myself. I can't simply cite that my goal requires me to break the law.
While there are not yet any laws against it yet, it's pretty obvious that this is vandalism of a public resource.
You mean it runs out???
;)
I said if they were smart.
Just do what Stephen Colbert did, and tell your audience the edits you want to see!
If Microsoft were smart, they'd set things up so that a friendly Wikipedia edit would extend your Windows license for a few days.
As for the rest of us, we may have to write worms to infect Windows computers if we are to orchestrate massive distributed Wikipedia editing campaigns.
I've had no working sense of humor for days at a time. This isn't one of those times though. But I've regained consciousness surrounded by unhelpful people before, so cracks like that bring back sore memories for me. The worst is when people (esp. cops) think I'm on drugs. I wake up with 1% of my brain working and retrograde amnesia and a migraine with nausea and right away people are giving me bullshit about drugs.
Ha ha, yeah, real funny. Never do that to someone just recovering consciousness from a brain trauma. I would totally fall for something like that.
You don't even need much of your brain working to be able to wake up and talk to people. It can take a week for your judgment and facilities to come back.