Re:P Is For Pirillo, P Is For Pathetic.
on
Online! The Book
·
· Score: 1
It looks like he dropped quite a bit of weight too, and has a nice 5 O'clock shodow in that pic. If I remember correctly, he at least has a hot girlfriend/wife, correct me if I'm wrong.
We are saying pretty much the same thing here, the only sure fire way to get rid of it is to get enough pissed off and motivated individuals/consumers. I really don't think this is an area that the government should be legislating, if the spam is being used to defraud, crack some heads, until then, let wild web justice prevail. The internet community, as a whole, is more than equipped to torture spammers, and I think it should happen more often.
Capitalism will solve problems like this if left alone. When a business practice stops generating revenue because it pisses people off, then the businesses will find new practices. Obviously the practice is working, so it will continue being used. Until everybody, that's EVERYBODY, stops buying from spammers, we _WILL_ still have spam. As was pointed out before, this is not an international law. People in France, bless their smelly hearts, can still spam our asses off.
They had $800 printers for $8, I ordered 100 or so. Turned out they caught the mistake and canceled the transactions, but not before they gave everyone who ordered one $50 certificates.
Even in the case that you don't get what they made a mistake on, you can still get something out of it, so its always worth trying. I'd love to have had a few nice printers and a boatload of money form the EBay sale of the rest, but I'll gladly accecpt the $50 of hush money.
When I was in first grade I was told that drugs were bad, this continued until my graduation 12 years later. When I watched TV I was told that drugs were bad. Cub Scout meetings, parents, school, Mr. Rogers, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, all told me the same thing.
Now that I'm a little older, I get to see my money going to people who need rehab. They got the same messages as I did. I do not smoke, I drink about twice a year, and that's not to excess, I have never taken an illicit drug.
I listened.
They didn't.
It's called Darwinism.
Sucks to be them. Hopefully they won't pass those dumbass genes on.
Maybe one of these days we'll start treating drug use and abuse realistically, but not yet.
I think that I have a very realistic view on drug addiction. My view on it is the one I got working at an ISP a few blocks from the projects(ya know... the realistic low income housing that helps everybody out for $8 a month) watching prostitutes turn tricks to get their next fix, then looking at the column on my paycheck labeled 'withholdings,' WTF was she doing with my money? Putting nice little designs that looked like railroad tracks on her arms.
If you make drug addiction comfortable, with alternatives that don't hurt, free food, $8 housing, clean needles, and methadone, WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER QUIT? And moreover... why would their children not do it? They may very well have a genetic disposition to it, and they see how easy it is for mommy to sell their (MY) food stamps for $.30 on the dollar.
Fsck helping those that don't want help. Fsck the 'white mans burden.' Fsck social security. Let me keep my money, I fought for it, my parents fought so I could have it, as did their parents.
I can't believe you could be so callous and un-feeling. Why does nobody think of the poor, unborn red blood cells that bone marrow could have become? I think we should all write the government and have them withdraw funding for what is essentially murder. </sarcasm>
The PC in the home is a new idea to a large part of the population. I'd have to guess that most of the people in this pole had not grown up with a computer in the home, and if they had, chances are that it we command line based and the skills learned on it apply very little to the point-and-click OS's of today. On the other hand, I do not know anyone personally that did not have at least one television in their house growing up, and most of my friends have one in just about every bedroom as well. In my opinion the difference in exposure would account for the difference in knowledge.
I'd like to think I have taken great steps to loose my elitist attitude since my father told me, after I was mad at having to perform 'simple' maintenance for clients, "Fine then, don't take their money."
Phones that can do everything web related won't make a big impact in the US. Almost everybody, or everybody interested in being connect has bought themselves a PC (Mac, WebTV, etc.) that these phones will do little for them. I, for one, have internet access at school, work (from where I am posting now), any public library, and home. What would I need access in my pocket for? Another point to this is that the tech community (read geeks)are usually the main buyers of gadgets, and why would they want to subject themselves to browsing on a 2.5" screen rather than their 21" CRT?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are an assclown.
It looks like he dropped quite a bit of weight too, and has a nice 5 O'clock shodow in that pic. If I remember correctly, he at least has a hot girlfriend/wife, correct me if I'm wrong.
We are saying pretty much the same thing here, the only sure fire way to get rid of it is to get enough pissed off and motivated individuals/consumers. I really don't think this is an area that the government should be legislating, if the spam is being used to defraud, crack some heads, until then, let wild web justice prevail. The internet community, as a whole, is more than equipped to torture spammers, and I think it should happen more often.
Capitalism will solve problems like this if left alone. When a business practice stops generating revenue because it pisses people off, then the businesses will find new practices. Obviously the practice is working, so it will continue being used. Until everybody, that's EVERYBODY, stops buying from spammers, we _WILL_ still have spam. As was pointed out before, this is not an international law. People in France, bless their smelly hearts, can still spam our asses off.
Yup.. /. has been hacked9 8/09/14/1949212&mode=thread
<br>
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=
Best Buy had a blunder like this a while back.
They had $800 printers for $8, I ordered 100 or so. Turned out they caught the mistake and canceled the transactions, but not before they gave everyone who ordered one $50 certificates.
Even in the case that you don't get what they made a mistake on, you can still get something out of it, so its always worth trying. I'd love to have had a few nice printers and a boatload of money form the EBay sale of the rest, but I'll gladly accecpt the $50 of hush money.
Now the morals of this on the other hand...
When I was in first grade I was told that drugs were bad, this continued until my graduation 12 years later. When I watched TV I was told that drugs were bad. Cub Scout meetings, parents, school, Mr. Rogers, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, all told me the same thing.
Now that I'm a little older, I get to see my money going to people who need rehab. They got the same messages as I did. I do not smoke, I drink about twice a year, and that's not to excess, I have never taken an illicit drug.
I listened.
They didn't.
It's called Darwinism.
Sucks to be them. Hopefully they won't pass those dumbass genes on.
Maybe one of these days we'll start treating drug use and abuse realistically, but not yet.
I think that I have a very realistic view on drug addiction. My view on it is the one I got working at an ISP a few blocks from the projects(ya know... the realistic low income housing that helps everybody out for $8 a month) watching prostitutes turn tricks to get their next fix, then looking at the column on my paycheck labeled 'withholdings,' WTF was she doing with my money? Putting nice little designs that looked like railroad tracks on her arms.
If you make drug addiction comfortable, with alternatives that don't hurt, free food, $8 housing, clean needles, and methadone, WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER QUIT? And moreover... why would their children not do it? They may very well have a genetic disposition to it, and they see how easy it is for mommy to sell their (MY) food stamps for $.30 on the dollar.
Fsck helping those that don't want help.
Fsck the 'white mans burden.'
Fsck social security.
Let me keep my money, I fought for it, my parents fought so I could have it, as did their parents.
I can't believe you could be so callous and un-feeling. Why does nobody think of the poor, unborn red blood cells that bone marrow could have become? I think we should all write the government and have them withdraw funding for what is essentially murder.
</sarcasm>
OH MY GOD!
So THATS the reason, all this time I thought it was genetics!
The PC in the home is a new idea to a large part of the population. I'd have to guess that most of the people in this pole had not grown up with a computer in the home, and if they had, chances are that it we command line based and the skills learned on it apply very little to the point-and-click OS's of today. On the other hand, I do not know anyone personally that did not have at least one television in their house growing up, and most of my friends have one in just about every bedroom as well. In my opinion the difference in exposure would account for the difference in knowledge.
I'd like to think I have taken great steps to loose my elitist attitude since my father told me, after I was mad at having to perform 'simple' maintenance for clients, "Fine then, don't take their money."
Phones that can do everything web related won't make a big impact in the US. Almost everybody, or everybody interested in being connect has bought themselves a PC (Mac, WebTV, etc.) that these phones will do little for them. I, for one, have internet access at school, work (from where I am posting now), any public library, and home. What would I need access in my pocket for? Another point to this is that the tech community (read geeks)are usually the main buyers of gadgets, and why would they want to subject themselves to browsing on a 2.5" screen rather than their 21" CRT?