Because if you didn't have to show you'd done anything, people would just say "give me a zillion dollars to make something awesome", and then simply not make anything.
It's not charity, it's an investment. And if you have nothing to invest in, you get no money.
Is the expectation people should just get free money from Kick Starter because they can craft a couple of good paragraphs? Because, if so, I know where I'd be heading.
Having a prototype at least (in theory) demonstrates you've actually got something real and the ability to deliver on it.
So, yeah, no prototype == no money sounds reasonable, unless you want to have a separate section for things which are entirely vaporware but otherwise sound cool.
But who the hell is going to hand over huge sums of money to someone who hasn't yet done anything?
He's some impoverished guy in India desperate to make a few rupees from someone who, in his eyes, is very wealthy.
Well, that's NMFP... he knows damned well that what he's doing is illegal, and would have no sympathy for me if I fell victim. He is certainly aware of the fact that he's not offering me a useful service. You couldn't possibly train someone to do that scam without explaining it to them.
So, he may well have convinced himself that there's no harm if he scams us a little.
But, I don't actually give a crap about his feelings.
If what he's doing is so noble and justified, call someone in India, see if they are interested.
From me, he gets a big "fuck off".
If he's expecting me to say "oh, gee, the poor cute little Indian is just trying to make a buck", he's sadly mistaken, and should expect the kind of animosity he gets.
I'm always surprised by how people can be scared into using this service.
Sadly, not everybody has a good working knowledge of computers, and don't have enough street-smarts to spot the clues of a scam.
Lots of older people who really don't know much about their computer, and are completely unaware this is an ongoing scam fall prey to it. They just think it's a nice person offering to solve a problem for them.
It's like any other form of spam or scam... you only need a very small percentage of people to fall for it to be profitable. Especially since when you answer the phone it takes a few seconds for the auto-dialer to connect you with the guy on the other end. Because they're not calling you, a computer calls a zillion numbers, and then connects people who answer to the next available scammer.
So, if you know some older people who have computers, sit down with them and explain that the world (including the internet and the telephone) is full of lying, greedy bastards who are out to get you. It's like "stranger danger", but for adults.
Not everybody is as cynical and paranoid as people who work in IT. But you need to get them enough of both to not be victims.
I am continuously grateful that when my parents decided to get a computer I sat them down and had "the talk" (*)... because they subsequently became people who could spot a scam on the phone from a mile away, and learned the kinds of things not to do on their computer.
(*) OK, I had to discretely have a separate talk with my father lest the lure of b00b1es caused him additional computer/wife problems.;-)
And, if you're lucky enough to have a telephone which lets you block callers, you can do that.
Setting our home phone to drop calls from "Unknown" and "Private" callers killed a lot of this, and being able to block specific callers also helps. If you're calling me from a Private number, I'm not interested.
Of course, they just keep adding new fake numbers, so it's a losing battle.
I would say 95% of all of our incoming calls are crap... it's gotten to the point if we don't know the number we don't bother answering.
I wish they'd prevent the ability to spoof caller id, because I get more scams calling with a fake caller ID, and I don't really care if a 'legitimate' business needs to do it... because they represent such a small fraction of calls I get that I'm not prepared to accommodate them.
Myself, I would fear bad legal consequences if I did it, because hacking into their computers isn't going to be legal just because they are scammers. So, you have to remember... these are people operating in a foreign country which is currently ignoring your laws, and are actively lying to you in order to scam you.
What legal recourse do you think they're doing to take against you? Take you to court? Good luck with that.
Sorry, but these clowns are using spoofed caller ID, calling from India (by the sounds of their accents), and are hell bent on ripping you off.
You think law enforcement is going to show up at your door?
Now, if you used this one anybody else, you could be in deep trouble.
But these "This is the Microsoft Service Provider" or whatever they say... burn 'em to the ground, wreck their computers.. I've got no sympathy for them, and they probably have no idea of who they're talking to anyway. Because it's just an auto dialer which connects you to the next available idiot when you answer.
So, anybody who has the ability to do this probably should. Because I can only imagine the conversation of them trying to lodge a complaint.... yes, I am the guy from the foreign call center doing the Microsoft support scam, this guy hacked my computer.
As I said, whatever... they still essentially collect money from lobbyists, they just managed to write the rules in such a way as they have a nice legal exemption.
Like I said, I just assume all politicians and corporations are corrupt, it saves time.
So, I've never heard of a phonon. But I'm not in physics.
What I am laughing at is that they "captured" the sound... they've almost gone full on Dr. Evil air quotes... Mini Me, stop humping the "laser". Honest to God! Why don't you and the giant "laser" get a fricken room for God's sakes?
So, basically the same advice they give when travelling to any other banana republic?
Pathetic when they give the same warnings about American cops as they used to about Mexico or other places with corrupt cops.
Any badly written law will get abused like this. Because now these guys can seize money and stuff without any legal process other than "because I said so".
Originally it meant "General Purpose" vehicle. The Jeep has been made by many different companies over the years , Willys and AMC for example, but also made under license by a bunch of others.
And, the reason Chrysler owns it now, is because when they had whatever similar vehicle and ran an ad campaign that said "it was the best keep-like vehicle", they lost a trademark suit. They subsequently decided to buy it.
So, to many people, a jeep is a short wheel-base four wheel drive vehicle which includes the "cute ute's" as well.
And, yes, almost nobody except someone who has owned one really cares about the distinction. And once you no longer own one, you stop caring too.:-P
Me, I decided a gutless tent on wheels wasn't really what I wanted out of a vehicle.;-)
Care to cite where I accused you of any such thing?
I didn't accuse you of accusing me of anything. I'm saying in the abstract, that flagging those answers as untrustworthy is asinine and an utter fail in logic.
Oh? And you've been on the receiving end of such Q's and know their mental processes? I haven't... so I can't say either way.
As a matter of fact, I have. To the best of my knowledge, they didn't inject their own stuff into my answers. They must not have, because I passed the screening.
I'm taking exception with the massive amount of idiocy and failure of logic inherent in:
Example: An old college of mine is now a feeder to a couple of government agencies which give out a few scholarships each year... which in turn require a background check. One of the questions that screws up most kids is "Have you ever illegally downloaded any music or movies from the internet?" (or something to that effect).
Most kids put "no"... not wanting to admit wrong doing... but by doing so end up raising a flag that they may not be the most trustworthy as it's rather unlikely given their age and background (those applying for these scholarships).
Because if that's what these people are actually doing, I weep for the complete stupidity we've become subject to.
Because, really, if there are entities who take an honest answer and assume it's implausible, and therefore the respondent is untrustworthy, they're probably useless at their job.
You know, the really pathetic thing about what you just said is that I've never illegally downloaded music or movies, and never cheated on my partner.
And you're seriously saying that will get flagged as a lie and make me untrustworthy?
Let me tell you this right now... the people screening based on those things are morons unless they actually have proof to the contrary.
Because unless you have evidence, assuming everyone who answers no to those questions is lying is completely idiotic. Because, not everybody has done those things, and if you have no evidence suggesting otherwise is just being an asshole.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
-- Cardinal Richelieu
I increasingly believe the people who do security screenings don't give an actual damn about the truth, just their own interpretations of reality.
Maybe I live in some alternate reality or something, but I don't see a problem with this lady getting the boot if she signed the paperwork and either misrepresented her past, failed to remember it, or neglected to disclose it and the investigation turns up something different.
So, by your ridiculous logic, if you have ever worked at a place and co-worker was ever convicted of a crime, you too are a criminal?
Because, really, that's what's being described here.
So, can I conclude that all Catholics are pedophiles because some Catholics are pedophiles?
There is no substance to the statement she lied, because she wasn't involved in a group which was dedicated to any of those things. She was involved in a group fighting for women's rights, and encountered people who were much more radical.
the OPM ask you in plain English "have you ever belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government" and these forms are retained by the OPM for something like 7 or 10 years, after which you are required to resubmit them. If she said "no" to the question in question, but knew that her acquaintances went to jail, something objectively doesn't add up
There is precisely zero logic in what you say, and if you don't know it, you should.
She worked for an organization which most certainly did NOT have a dedication to any of those things.
People who were also a member of that organization were members of a separate organization, which did. She did not make the connection, because in her mind the answer was emphatically "no, I certainly have not".
By your extension, if your pastor is caught fiddling with kiddies, you must be a rapist.
You sick bastard, why do you need to molest children? You should be castrated.
See, that's about the same a what you just said.
The best possible excuse is that she's just pathologically oblivious, not that the OPM has trumped up charges out of nowhere.
Or, you know, people she had a tangential relationship in an organization dedicated to one thing also had ties to people in another organization doing something else.
It's guilt by very indirect association, pure and simple. And, since they're not establishing guilt or innocence, they're saying she's politically tainted because of a tangential relationship.
But, hey, Bush was in business with the family of OBL... so he was a terrorist too, right?
Have you ever known anybody who has committed a crime? Then you must be a criminal.
That's about the level of reasoning going on in this. She did NOT work for any such agency, she worked for a rights group, which some of the members were involved in another organization... and that organization was doing illegal things.
This is guilt by association, pure and simple. There's no evidence to suggest she lied, only that an overzealous moron decided that her not making the connection to people she knew who knew other people who did things she didn't know or approve of therefore means she "lied".
This is pure and unadulterated crap.
So, if you have worked in the same building with anybody with a felony conviction (even if it happened after you were no longer there), then you by extension must also be a felon.
During that session, Barr answered âoenoâ when asked if she had ever been a member of an organization âoededicated to the use of violenceâ to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights.
So, it sounds like she answered honestly, was never part of any group with that as their mandate, but that somehow there was a tangential connection to the one she was a member of.
Welcome to the war on terrorism, it's the new McCarthyism.
This just sounds like a witch hint where we're supposed to proactively identify any and all tangential links to anybody who has ever done anything bad and exclude ourselves.
Such bullshit. In reading the article, there isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest she ever did anything illegal.
Hey, I know, Bush did business with the family of OBL, Cheney owned a private security firm which did war profiteering and possibly committed war crimes, and the CIA historically supported terrorists to fight regimes they didn't like.. can we conclude that all top government have ties to terrorism?
Or can we conclude the people in the OPM are fucking morons?
This is just stupid. She was never a member of an organization dedicated to the use of violence, overthrowing the US government or any of that crap. She was a member of a group pushing for the rights of women.
Slashdot Mirror
Call me a cynic, but shouldn't you have learned the difference between "of" and "have" by now?
The contraction " 've" (should've) is not the same as "of", and never has been.
*sigh* My grade school English teacher would be laughing at me right now. Now get off my damned lawn!!
OK, fair enough ... it's not charity though, and it's not an investment.
It's, what ... a no-strings attached one time gift with no expectation of return other than you'd like to see the idea come to fruition?
It has to be something more than "give me some free money". Yes, you may not make an ROI on it. But there has to be some controls on it.
Because other wise it would become a cesspool of people with stupid ideas they'll never implement to see if some idiot will throw money their way.
Because if you didn't have to show you'd done anything, people would just say "give me a zillion dollars to make something awesome", and then simply not make anything.
It's not charity, it's an investment. And if you have nothing to invest in, you get no money.
Is the expectation people should just get free money from Kick Starter because they can craft a couple of good paragraphs? Because, if so, I know where I'd be heading.
Having a prototype at least (in theory) demonstrates you've actually got something real and the ability to deliver on it.
So, yeah, no prototype == no money sounds reasonable, unless you want to have a separate section for things which are entirely vaporware but otherwise sound cool.
But who the hell is going to hand over huge sums of money to someone who hasn't yet done anything?
Well, that's NMFP ... he knows damned well that what he's doing is illegal, and would have no sympathy for me if I fell victim. He is certainly aware of the fact that he's not offering me a useful service. You couldn't possibly train someone to do that scam without explaining it to them.
So, he may well have convinced himself that there's no harm if he scams us a little.
But, I don't actually give a crap about his feelings.
If what he's doing is so noble and justified, call someone in India, see if they are interested.
From me, he gets a big "fuck off".
If he's expecting me to say "oh, gee, the poor cute little Indian is just trying to make a buck", he's sadly mistaken, and should expect the kind of animosity he gets.
Well played.
Sadly, not everybody has a good working knowledge of computers, and don't have enough street-smarts to spot the clues of a scam.
Lots of older people who really don't know much about their computer, and are completely unaware this is an ongoing scam fall prey to it. They just think it's a nice person offering to solve a problem for them.
It's like any other form of spam or scam ... you only need a very small percentage of people to fall for it to be profitable. Especially since when you answer the phone it takes a few seconds for the auto-dialer to connect you with the guy on the other end. Because they're not calling you, a computer calls a zillion numbers, and then connects people who answer to the next available scammer.
So, if you know some older people who have computers, sit down with them and explain that the world (including the internet and the telephone) is full of lying, greedy bastards who are out to get you. It's like "stranger danger", but for adults.
Not everybody is as cynical and paranoid as people who work in IT. But you need to get them enough of both to not be victims.
I am continuously grateful that when my parents decided to get a computer I sat them down and had "the talk" (*) ... because they subsequently became people who could spot a scam on the phone from a mile away, and learned the kinds of things not to do on their computer.
(*) OK, I had to discretely have a separate talk with my father lest the lure of b00b1es caused him additional computer/wife problems. ;-)
You know, the amazing thing is they feel they have a right to be angry.
Dude, you called me with the express intent of scamming me ... you seriously expect me to treat you like a human being?
I don't think so.
And, if you're lucky enough to have a telephone which lets you block callers, you can do that.
Setting our home phone to drop calls from "Unknown" and "Private" callers killed a lot of this, and being able to block specific callers also helps. If you're calling me from a Private number, I'm not interested.
Of course, they just keep adding new fake numbers, so it's a losing battle.
I would say 95% of all of our incoming calls are crap ... it's gotten to the point if we don't know the number we don't bother answering.
I wish they'd prevent the ability to spoof caller id, because I get more scams calling with a fake caller ID, and I don't really care if a 'legitimate' business needs to do it ... because they represent such a small fraction of calls I get that I'm not prepared to accommodate them.
Because they have guns and don't bother with the courts?
Crap, the Preview button is separated from the Submit, but I'm still an idiot. :-P
As I said, whatever ... they still essentially collect money from lobbyists, they just managed to write the rules in such a way as they have a nice legal exemption.
Like I said, I just assume all politicians and corporations are corrupt, it saves time.
This is different from lobbyists giving "campaign contributions" how?
The same thing happens everywhere, it's just a matter of the form it takes.
At this point, I assume all politicians and all corporations are corrupt.
So, I've never heard of a phonon. But I'm not in physics.
What I am laughing at is that they "captured" the sound ... they've almost gone full on Dr. Evil air quotes ... Mini Me, stop humping the "laser". Honest to God! Why don't you and the giant "laser" get a fricken room for God's sakes?
So, basically the same advice they give when travelling to any other banana republic?
Pathetic when they give the same warnings about American cops as they used to about Mexico or other places with corrupt cops.
Any badly written law will get abused like this. Because now these guys can seize money and stuff without any legal process other than "because I said so".
And, to many many people, jeep is a generic term.
Originally it meant "General Purpose" vehicle. The Jeep has been made by many different companies over the years , Willys and AMC for example, but also made under license by a bunch of others.
And, the reason Chrysler owns it now, is because when they had whatever similar vehicle and ran an ad campaign that said "it was the best keep-like vehicle", they lost a trademark suit. They subsequently decided to buy it.
So, to many people, a jeep is a short wheel-base four wheel drive vehicle which includes the "cute ute's" as well.
And, yes, almost nobody except someone who has owned one really cares about the distinction. And once you no longer own one, you stop caring too. :-P
Me, I decided a gutless tent on wheels wasn't really what I wanted out of a vehicle. ;-)
It is an interesting question though ... is a network protocol classed as interference in that sense?
It's not jamming the signal, it's sending a well-crafted packed which says "piss off".
I have no idea what the regulations are, so it's a real question ... is the regulation worded in such a way that this is covered by it?
You just want to bust out your steampunk gear, don't you? ;-)
Well, the daylight side. :-P
They haven't yet confirmed the extent of it (as of the posting at least), and they're estimating 2-3 days ... so the answer is yes or no.
I didn't accuse you of accusing me of anything. I'm saying in the abstract, that flagging those answers as untrustworthy is asinine and an utter fail in logic.
As a matter of fact, I have. To the best of my knowledge, they didn't inject their own stuff into my answers. They must not have, because I passed the screening.
I'm taking exception with the massive amount of idiocy and failure of logic inherent in:
Because if that's what these people are actually doing, I weep for the complete stupidity we've become subject to.
Because, really, if there are entities who take an honest answer and assume it's implausible, and therefore the respondent is untrustworthy, they're probably useless at their job.
You know, the really pathetic thing about what you just said is that I've never illegally downloaded music or movies, and never cheated on my partner.
And you're seriously saying that will get flagged as a lie and make me untrustworthy?
Let me tell you this right now ... the people screening based on those things are morons unless they actually have proof to the contrary.
Because unless you have evidence, assuming everyone who answers no to those questions is lying is completely idiotic. Because, not everybody has done those things, and if you have no evidence suggesting otherwise is just being an asshole.
I increasingly believe the people who do security screenings don't give an actual damn about the truth, just their own interpretations of reality.
What a fucking joke.
So, by your ridiculous logic, if you have ever worked at a place and co-worker was ever convicted of a crime, you too are a criminal?
Because, really, that's what's being described here.
So, can I conclude that all Catholics are pedophiles because some Catholics are pedophiles?
There is no substance to the statement she lied, because she wasn't involved in a group which was dedicated to any of those things. She was involved in a group fighting for women's rights, and encountered people who were much more radical.
There is precisely zero logic in what you say, and if you don't know it, you should.
She worked for an organization which most certainly did NOT have a dedication to any of those things.
People who were also a member of that organization were members of a separate organization, which did. She did not make the connection, because in her mind the answer was emphatically "no, I certainly have not".
By your extension, if your pastor is caught fiddling with kiddies, you must be a rapist.
You sick bastard, why do you need to molest children? You should be castrated.
See, that's about the same a what you just said.
Or, you know, people she had a tangential relationship in an organization dedicated to one thing also had ties to people in another organization doing something else.
It's guilt by very indirect association, pure and simple. And, since they're not establishing guilt or innocence, they're saying she's politically tainted because of a tangential relationship.
But, hey, Bush was in business with the family of OBL ... so he was a terrorist too, right?
Give us a break.
Horseshit.
She didn't lie.
Have you ever known anybody who has committed a crime? Then you must be a criminal.
That's about the level of reasoning going on in this. She did NOT work for any such agency, she worked for a rights group, which some of the members were involved in another organization ... and that organization was doing illegal things.
This is guilt by association, pure and simple. There's no evidence to suggest she lied, only that an overzealous moron decided that her not making the connection to people she knew who knew other people who did things she didn't know or approve of therefore means she "lied".
This is pure and unadulterated crap.
So, if you have worked in the same building with anybody with a felony conviction (even if it happened after you were no longer there), then you by extension must also be a felon.
Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife?
So, it sounds like she answered honestly, was never part of any group with that as their mandate, but that somehow there was a tangential connection to the one she was a member of.
Welcome to the war on terrorism, it's the new McCarthyism.
This just sounds like a witch hint where we're supposed to proactively identify any and all tangential links to anybody who has ever done anything bad and exclude ourselves.
Such bullshit. In reading the article, there isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest she ever did anything illegal.
Hey, I know, Bush did business with the family of OBL, Cheney owned a private security firm which did war profiteering and possibly committed war crimes, and the CIA historically supported terrorists to fight regimes they didn't like .. can we conclude that all top government have ties to terrorism?
Or can we conclude the people in the OPM are fucking morons?
This is just stupid. She was never a member of an organization dedicated to the use of violence, overthrowing the US government or any of that crap. She was a member of a group pushing for the rights of women.
Give me your fucking papers, comrade.