These comments reminded me of this story, where even sending exceptionally creepy stuff to the guy's house, and making specific threats against his family weren't actually indicative of genuine intent to do harm. This is what I think of when I see stuff like this. Not that there couldn't be some genuinely disturbed person who would cause harm; but I suspect that in all or nearly all cases of sick trolling like this, it's just "a game thing."
I just checked, and the laptop battery I bought last December for our Toshiba is an Anker, with a higher mAh rating than the OEM battery. It's still working great with a decently long battery life, so consider that yet another recommendation. I didn't know anything about the brand at the time - I bought it because it offered longer life than OEM, and it was highly rated on Amazon.
As for cell phones, I bought a couple EC Technologies batteries for our Samsung cell phones one year ago that are still going strong. I get two full days of life from a charge with moderate usage on my Exhibit 4G.
wouldnt you escalate things if you were being accused of something ridiculous?
I'm imagining a scene where a typical 16-year old boy, having written an obviously nonsensical, nonthreatening comment, is corralled in the principal's office. There are a couple of stern, serious police officers staring him straight in the face, asking in all seriousness about shooting his neighbor's dinosaur. How could he possibly react EXCEPT for an irate "are you f-ing kidding me?!?" I'm not sure that I, with 20 years of life experience on this kid, could react very differently.
Do it - imaging yourself, sitting in a chair surrounded by a bunch of stern authority figures, some in uniform, asking you: "why did you want to shoot your neighbor's dinosaur?"
Sure, maybe he was unruly towards the officers, which is never a good strategy, but some people are provoked to anger by (accurately) perceived lunacy on the part of people who should know better, which would include teachers, principals, and officers of the law.
Of course, I wasn't there - perhaps he actually did something criminal, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet.
Regular expressions make everything slightly better : javascript:window.location=String(window.location).replace(/\/watch\?(.*)v=(.*)/,"/v/$2&$1"); Now works even if v is not the first argument, and add a pointless & at the end of the url if it is.
FWIW, I originally had a regular expression to try to extract the video id parameter (something like v=([\w\d-]{11})), but it didn't properly preserve other parameters. Yours is better! I was going to say you needed to change the first & to a ?, but apparently youtube doesn't care. Also the last ampersand doesn't matter, but in case someone is as needlessly pedantic as I am, here's the version that makes them all pretty, which passed all my test cases:
In Linux, I have this problem. The performance of Flash is fine. More generally, the toolbar bookmark allows the video to be sized arbitrarily based on the browser. This is nice in Chrome, which has a minimal GUI, and allows a really flexible video window.
Assuming how many ads per page? One? If most pages have more than one, that 200 could come down to a more reasonable number. I'd think less than 50/day is achievable for the average internet surfer.
Totally with you. FWIW, YouTube offered to let me "monetize" my videos - I assume by showing annoying ads - but I've declined because I hate YouTube ads so much, and also because it'd probably net me a whopping $0.05/year.
Anyway, I created a toolbar bookmark in all my browsers with the following in the URL field: javascript:window.location=String(window.location).replace("watch?v=","v/"); If you click it while watching a video on YouTube, it causes the video to fill your browser window (for better resizing control, also to get [nearly] full-screen Flash in Linux), but also has the unintended but welcome side effect that it skips the preroll adds. Obviously this won't work if the "v" parameter in the URL doesn't come first, but that's rare enough that doing it by hand isn't a nuisance.
Re:It's not an attempt to "game the system"...
on
The 2014 Hugo Awards
·
· Score: 1
You're giving me a conspiracy theory with a fuckton of assumptions and unsupported allegations.
That's redundant. Like Mel said, if you can prove it, it wouldn't be a good conspiracy now, would it?
I didn't see anyone else post this info, but in the doc displayed in TFA, right there on page 11 of the S4 Quality Program manual under the section titled "Transition to Offer is not Applicable in the Following Scenarios" is the bullet point: -Customer volunteers a "Do not sell to me" statement
So there're your magic words. Just finish your initial statement with "...and don't sell to me."
I could see it working out for some people - I get around 5 Mbps at home over 4G, and if my typical home data usage per month were low enough that the corresponding mobile data plan cost less than wired home internet, it could very well be cheaper. I imagine this would be true for many people who use the web lightly, and don't stream much video.
Comcast cable internet here is >$60/mo, and equivalent DSL is near that (although slower plans are much less), and T-Mobile's data plans range from $10 for 2GB (what I have) to $60 for 13GB of LTE data (after your data cap the speed is throttled, but you still get data). It wouldn't work for me, but for someone who used the internet mostly for surfing, facebook, etc., but not much video; it could pay off.
When I first got my smartphone, the T-Mobile salesman in the T-Mobile store said she used her T-Mobile phone as a hotspot for all her home internet access. Is this no longer allowed, or are you exempt if you pay the sucker tax for Wi-Fi tethering? (I say sucker tax because you can do it for free if you root your phone, and there's no technical reason they should care).
Replying to pedantic ACs is a waste of time, I know, but I see this mistake made often enough. "Insure" and "ensure" are largely interchangeable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insure.
Some feel there is a loss in quality vs OTA but depending on who you talk to it's not something people will notice.
Comcast subscriber here, and I can definitely tell in some programs. There are certain types of scenes that the compression algorithm doesn't handle well at low bitrates, notably when there's a lot of detail changing from frame to frame. I was watching "Planet Earth" and when it showed a large flock of birds taking flight, the TV looked like a checkerboard pattern of flickering grey squares. So it's usually ok, but often noticeable, and occasionally ugly. I may hook up our old rabbit ears for the OTA channels.
As for the customer service nightmare, I guess my experience has been anomalous, as I've never had a problem with them, even canceling TV service once or twice in the 6 years I've subscribed (TV+internet currently). I rarely have to call, though; service here in Chicago has been extremely reliable. It is very expensive, though.
The White House should respond by providing links to state and federal representatives if they want the law changed.
Why? Can an organization like Tesla not find people smart enough to look them up? Are we not smart enough to know where to look? Or so disengaged we don't know which ones to write?
Apparently. GGP's whole point is that this petition proves that this is true, and people are asking the president to "do something" rather than using the appropriate channel - their representatives in the legislature (whichever is appropriate to the issue). In theory, enough constituents contacting their representatives will stir them to act; it practice it usually takes an organization with funding to have enough influence; either way, there's a method for the average Joe to amplify his voice and get heard.
Exactly what I wanted to say. The White House should respond by providing links to state and federal representatives if they want the law changed.
Alternatively, people should pool their resources and form a lobbying group to have greater influence in changing the law. Kickstarter has proven the potential for crowdfunding; there should be a Kickstarter-type site for forming issue-specific political action committees, so people can more effectively lobby for the change that matters to them most. I think this is very much in line with the spirit of the republic, while offering an effective voice to groups of like-minded people.
Of course, there are already many groups lobbying on many issues, so maybe all that's needed is a comprehensive directory of PACs and lobbying orgs sorted by topic, so people can find one aligned with their ideologies. I just found a decent list here which focuses on tracking financial contributions, but has quite a lot of info.
Assault someone with a bat and go to jail for 5 years. Say, "I hate black people!" while doing it and go to jail for 15 years.
So yeah, we DO put people in jail for thoughts.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Hate crime legislation DOES punish thoughts: we've decided that what you were thinking at the time of a crime somehow makes your crime worse than that of someone who wasn't thinking "hateful thoughts". If we hold to the principle that "the punishment must fit the crime," then hate crime laws seem to directly criminalize certain thoughts, which in the USA seems to come dangerously close to treading on the freedom of thought and expression protected by the first amendment, if not stomping all over it.
More people need to get pissed at these "security" checks. I see it happening at more and more venues: football games, art museums, etc... At least the metal detectors in the courthouse came as a response to actual shootings. But come on, who is going to bother with a terrorist attack on the Duct Tape Museum of Greater Bumfuck? At some point the security measures cost more than what you're actually preventing.
To be fair, security checks at some football stadiums also came as a response to actual violence at said stadiums. See: Raiders fans.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit, clicked the wrong mod. +1 Funny.
These comments reminded me of this story, where even sending exceptionally creepy stuff to the guy's house, and making specific threats against his family weren't actually indicative of genuine intent to do harm. This is what I think of when I see stuff like this. Not that there couldn't be some genuinely disturbed person who would cause harm; but I suspect that in all or nearly all cases of sick trolling like this, it's just "a game thing."
guy pranks a scammer using a soundboard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNsMW4n3z9Y
Not just any soundboard, a George Noory soundboard!
Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Pay me $10,000 to stop hitting yourself.
I just checked, and the laptop battery I bought last December for our Toshiba is an Anker, with a higher mAh rating than the OEM battery. It's still working great with a decently long battery life, so consider that yet another recommendation. I didn't know anything about the brand at the time - I bought it because it offered longer life than OEM, and it was highly rated on Amazon.
As for cell phones, I bought a couple EC Technologies batteries for our Samsung cell phones one year ago that are still going strong. I get two full days of life from a charge with moderate usage on my Exhibit 4G.
wouldnt you escalate things if you were being accused of something ridiculous?
I'm imagining a scene where a typical 16-year old boy, having written an obviously nonsensical, nonthreatening comment, is corralled in the principal's office. There are a couple of stern, serious police officers staring him straight in the face, asking in all seriousness about shooting his neighbor's dinosaur. How could he possibly react EXCEPT for an irate "are you f-ing kidding me?!?" I'm not sure that I, with 20 years of life experience on this kid, could react very differently.
Do it - imaging yourself, sitting in a chair surrounded by a bunch of stern authority figures, some in uniform, asking you: "why did you want to shoot your neighbor's dinosaur?"
Sure, maybe he was unruly towards the officers, which is never a good strategy, but some people are provoked to anger by (accurately) perceived lunacy on the part of people who should know better, which would include teachers, principals, and officers of the law.
Of course, I wasn't there - perhaps he actually did something criminal, but I haven't seen it mentioned yet.
Reminds me of the time when that list of crosswalk-button hacks was published - it created quite a stir.
Regular expressions make everything slightly better :
javascript:window.location=String(window.location).replace(/\/watch\?(.*)v=(.*)/,"/v/$2&$1");
Now works even if v is not the first argument, and add a pointless & at the end of the url if it is.
FWIW, I originally had a regular expression to try to extract the video id parameter (something like v=([\w\d-]{11})), but it didn't properly preserve other parameters. Yours is better! I was going to say you needed to change the first & to a ?, but apparently youtube doesn't care. Also the last ampersand doesn't matter, but in case someone is as needlessly pedantic as I am, here's the version that makes them all pretty, which passed all my test cases:
javascript:window.location=String(window.location).replace(/\/watch\?(.*)v=(.*)/,"/v/$2&$1").replace(/&$/,"").replace(/&/,"?");
The way these can all fail is if youtube introduces a different URL parameter that ends in the letter "v".
In Linux, I have this problem. The performance of Flash is fine. More generally, the toolbar bookmark allows the video to be sized arbitrarily based on the browser. This is nice in Chrome, which has a minimal GUI, and allows a really flexible video window.
Assuming how many ads per page? One? If most pages have more than one, that 200 could come down to a more reasonable number. I'd think less than 50/day is achievable for the average internet surfer.
Totally with you. FWIW, YouTube offered to let me "monetize" my videos - I assume by showing annoying ads - but I've declined because I hate YouTube ads so much, and also because it'd probably net me a whopping $0.05/year.
Anyway, I created a toolbar bookmark in all my browsers with the following in the URL field:
javascript:window.location=String(window.location).replace("watch?v=","v/");
If you click it while watching a video on YouTube, it causes the video to fill your browser window (for better resizing control, also to get [nearly] full-screen Flash in Linux), but also has the unintended but welcome side effect that it skips the preroll adds. Obviously this won't work if the "v" parameter in the URL doesn't come first, but that's rare enough that doing it by hand isn't a nuisance.
You're giving me a conspiracy theory with a fuckton of assumptions and unsupported allegations.
That's redundant. Like Mel said, if you can prove it, it wouldn't be a good conspiracy now, would it?
For a three month mission, this rover is performing fantastically beyond expectations.
Save it, nobody's buying it. Spirit and Opportunity set a higher bar than that.
Hey, Spirit and Opportunity went beyond expectations... way better than Hope and Change, that failed almost instantly.
Well, the leading alternative was Smith and Wesson, but voters weren't quite ready to pull that trigger.
I didn't see anyone else post this info, but in the doc displayed in TFA, right there on page 11 of the S4 Quality Program manual under the section titled "Transition to Offer is not Applicable in the Following Scenarios" is the bullet point:
-Customer volunteers a "Do not sell to me" statement
So there're your magic words. Just finish your initial statement with "...and don't sell to me."
You can do that. You can set your comment preferences penalize "Funny" comments, and then set your threshold accordingly.
https://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm#karma_bonus
I could see it working out for some people - I get around 5 Mbps at home over 4G, and if my typical home data usage per month were low enough that the corresponding mobile data plan cost less than wired home internet, it could very well be cheaper. I imagine this would be true for many people who use the web lightly, and don't stream much video.
Comcast cable internet here is >$60/mo, and equivalent DSL is near that (although slower plans are much less), and T-Mobile's data plans range from $10 for 2GB (what I have) to $60 for 13GB of LTE data (after your data cap the speed is throttled, but you still get data). It wouldn't work for me, but for someone who used the internet mostly for surfing, facebook, etc., but not much video; it could pay off.
When I first got my smartphone, the T-Mobile salesman in the T-Mobile store said she used her T-Mobile phone as a hotspot for all her home internet access. Is this no longer allowed, or are you exempt if you pay the sucker tax for Wi-Fi tethering? (I say sucker tax because you can do it for free if you root your phone, and there's no technical reason they should care).
Right, that or they're just working on a faster way to send letters to their mothers.
Technically, exactly correct.
The best kind of correct.
Replying to pedantic ACs is a waste of time, I know, but I see this mistake made often enough. "Insure" and "ensure" are largely interchangeable: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insure.
Some feel there is a loss in quality vs OTA but depending on who you talk to it's not something people will notice.
Comcast subscriber here, and I can definitely tell in some programs. There are certain types of scenes that the compression algorithm doesn't handle well at low bitrates, notably when there's a lot of detail changing from frame to frame. I was watching "Planet Earth" and when it showed a large flock of birds taking flight, the TV looked like a checkerboard pattern of flickering grey squares. So it's usually ok, but often noticeable, and occasionally ugly. I may hook up our old rabbit ears for the OTA channels.
As for the customer service nightmare, I guess my experience has been anomalous, as I've never had a problem with them, even canceling TV service once or twice in the 6 years I've subscribed (TV+internet currently). I rarely have to call, though; service here in Chicago has been extremely reliable. It is very expensive, though.
The White House should respond by providing links to state and federal representatives if they want the law changed.
Why? Can an organization like Tesla not find people smart enough to look them up? Are we not smart enough to know where to look? Or so disengaged we don't know which ones to write?
Apparently. GGP's whole point is that this petition proves that this is true, and people are asking the president to "do something" rather than using the appropriate channel - their representatives in the legislature (whichever is appropriate to the issue). In theory, enough constituents contacting their representatives will stir them to act; it practice it usually takes an organization with funding to have enough influence; either way, there's a method for the average Joe to amplify his voice and get heard.
Exactly what I wanted to say. The White House should respond by providing links to state and federal representatives if they want the law changed.
Alternatively, people should pool their resources and form a lobbying group to have greater influence in changing the law. Kickstarter has proven the potential for crowdfunding; there should be a Kickstarter-type site for forming issue-specific political action committees, so people can more effectively lobby for the change that matters to them most. I think this is very much in line with the spirit of the republic, while offering an effective voice to groups of like-minded people.
Of course, there are already many groups lobbying on many issues, so maybe all that's needed is a comprehensive directory of PACs and lobbying orgs sorted by topic, so people can find one aligned with their ideologies. I just found a decent list here which focuses on tracking financial contributions, but has quite a lot of info.
Assault someone with a bat and go to jail for 5 years. Say, "I hate black people!" while doing it and go to jail for 15 years.
So yeah, we DO put people in jail for thoughts.
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Hate crime legislation DOES punish thoughts: we've decided that what you were thinking at the time of a crime somehow makes your crime worse than that of someone who wasn't thinking "hateful thoughts". If we hold to the principle that "the punishment must fit the crime," then hate crime laws seem to directly criminalize certain thoughts, which in the USA seems to come dangerously close to treading on the freedom of thought and expression protected by the first amendment, if not stomping all over it.
More people need to get pissed at these "security" checks. I see it happening at more and more venues: football games, art museums, etc... At least the metal detectors in the courthouse came as a response to actual shootings. But come on, who is going to bother with a terrorist attack on the Duct Tape Museum of Greater Bumfuck? At some point the security measures cost more than what you're actually preventing.
To be fair, security checks at some football stadiums also came as a response to actual violence at said stadiums. See: Raiders fans.