Your light idea sounds good; *but*... doesn't the synthetic light remind you of the evening rather than the morning?
Personally, I hate having to get up so early that I have to use indoor lights to avoid falling over.
Anyway, I'm convinced that my dark curtains are making it harder for me to wake up- I'm trying to leave them part-way open (but not so much that passing people get frightened by my part-dressed state... yikes.)
The pentium flaw could be "fixed" by disabling the FPU in software.
This is akin to getting her drunk to suppress those pesky frontal lobe messages that counter the "I'm horny" feelings with "He's ugly and he reads Slashdot" reasoning.
Actually, this is a bad analogy. The Pentium FPU was disabled because it was giving faulty results. The girl-frontal-lobes are functioning perfectly when they report that you're (*) an ugly geek.
Even hard drive sizes used to be "hacked" bigger by using compression software.
The girl-equivalent being the wonderbra that makes the important things appear larger where it matters (i.e. where you can see them). Unfortunately, like the compression software, you'll eventually see that neither of these methods actually give you more.
(*) No, not you (the parent poster) specifically.... why do people say "you" instead of "one" in English...?
PT said it best: "Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right".
With that in mind, I hope these bastards at Infernalium.com are blessed with an army of dyslexic sycophantic PR flaks.
I did that in response to a Usenet spam; had a go at the guy in my reply and subtlely swapped two letters in the URL quoted from the original article. If anyone was still minded to click on the site after reading the reply, they'd get it wrong.
I don't think this is exactly a fantastic anti-noise tactic for Usenet though.
Creepy stuff, hope MS doesn't make me change my name from Bob to Blob
I find myself in the same position- my real name is Clippy.
On the other hand, I've been considering changing it anyway- the trouble caused by my namesake is too much. You wouldn't believe what I've been getting through the post- really sick stuff. Death threats... you know, little paper clips straightened out or even snapped in half.
The only difference between the sampling that Dangermouse did, and the Beatles did before them, was that Dangermouse had better technology available to him.
I'd like to see the BBC sue over that bit of Shakespeare dialogue that they had in "I am the Walrus" (nicked off Radio 4, or something similar IIRC).
Yeah, I'll bet they went up to them at the time and said "look, this is your work, we think you should be paid".
Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
It's kinda' like packing a 10 inch cock.
Yeah; the analogy is good in more way than one. Beyond a certain size, is it going to impress the girls, or is it just something you want to brag about to other guys? Because, I doubt a 25 inch cock would do much for anyone beyond getting them on a freak show. Same with cars.
Slightly off-topic, but I've often wondered what would happen if (say) the devil appeared to a number of averagely-sized guys and said
"Look, you can have a dick any size you like. I'm going to let it grow by an inch a second, and you tell me when to stop."
Assuming there wasn't any trickery involved, what sort of size would most guys choose? Would they be happy with their choice?
But the rights to call something Star Wars, the rights to the films, the movies, the characters, all that.. they were created by George Lucas. They are his..
Which is pretty much what I was implying.
You couldn't pass a law that says Lucas must do X with his property.
You could, and if it was passed under a democratic system, that would be "democratic".
Well, you could, but it would be immoral.
You could- exactly. And I don't think you can dismiss it as "wrong", let alone "immoral" that easily. The descendants of the Brothers Grimm did not have the right to stop Disney nicking their stories, hacking them about and have the copyright to that particular version.
Democracy is a principle of self-rule, not mob rule.
No, that is liberty.
Democracy is self-rule of the whole group, but not necessarily individuals. To quote someone "Democracy is two wolves and a rabbit deciding what to have for lunch; liberty is a well-armed rabbit contesting the vote." See grandparent post for more details.
almost every modern democracy has restrictions that democracies or majorities cannot vote against the rights of individuals
This is not an inherent part of democracy per se; they were included after the majority of people decided they would be A Good Thing. If they were forced upon a constitution without any sort of vote, then they are not "democratic".
To make my point briefly; my dispute is that you discuss democracy as if there is something inherent in the principle that guarantees such-and-such freedoms for individuals. It doesn't. Democracy isn't an ideal, it isn't the free market and it isn't liberty. It's a system, and it's up to the people to use it wisely.
I won't buy the "Han is a pussy and look! Dinosaures!" Star Wars DVDs and I won't buy "The Gods Must Be Crazy - both I and II" because it does not include both official languages of region 1.
Are they intended for Canadian release?
I live in region 2. Region 2 includes Japan. Should I refuse to buy any region 2 DVD that doesn't include Japanese dialogue? No, because it wasn't intended for Japan.
Perhaps Lucas has forgotten that he's in the marketplace -- where democracy indeed rules
Yeah, right.
Listen, I know there are many people out there who think that the marketplace and democracy are the same thing. They're wrong, and so are you.
Democracy; various flavors, but the intention is that what the majority of people want, they get. This means that if the country votes for a government-controlled socialist utopia, it's democratic, and when another country invades and forces a market-based economy upon them, it's not (or vice versa).
Marketplace; people have money and goods. Money and goods are exchanged at the highest perceived benefit to both parties. Those with more money have more buying power. Those with goods/rights can do what they like with them. Those with no money or goods/rights have no power.
Do you understand? Two separate concepts. Until the people in such-and-such a country vote for a law that says George Lucas must release the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD, there's nothing "undemocratic" about his decision (in the sense that we are discussing here) like it or not. The democratic USA (*) (and most other countries) has passed laws which allow whoever holds the rights to do pretty much what the hell they like with the Star Wars movies.
And while I'm here, I'll point out that liberty is also different to capitalism *and* democracy, regardless of bluster to the contrary.
(*) You can argue the toss about the effectiveness of US democracy, but that's another topic altogether.
I just ordered a Dell... in about 50% of the machines I looked at, a floppy drive was an optional extra.
Saves Dell a few dollars on something few think that they want, and gives them an excuse to charge much more than the going rate for it as an "extra"; this must be how Dell makes a lot of their money- take basic stuff, repackage as "upgrades" at inflated prices.
If I wanted to enlarge my "friend" from 9" to 11" by using such a product and it didn't work, why do I have to be embarassed?
Bingo. Exactly what I was thinking.
I would bet that the vast majority of men would like an extra couple of inches, given a 100%-safe (and reasonably reliable) method- not just those with "small" dic^h^h^hpenises. It doesn't prove jack about your/his penis size.
Unless, of course, there is some correlation between penis size and intelligence, because you'd have to be stupid to believe the claims made for those products.
That is the part I'd never admit to if I was this guy.
I'm not an expert in this area. However, what I was considering was not altering the white-level response per se, merely allocating the levels 'closer-together' at the top and bottom ends, giving more 'resolution', but beyond that, not altering the levels, gamma, whatever.
Something akin to having an image and (say) having greater (spatial) resolution towards the centre, but not actually stretching or distorting the image.
One thing we can be sure of, Atari would have spent more money on advertising.
No, they wouldn't. You're thinking of Atari when they were owned by Warner Communications (late 70s to 1983/84(?)).
By the time of the Amiga, the consumer-electronics division of Atari (Atari Corp) had been sold to the Tramiels, and I don't think they ever spent much on advertising.
means girlfriend, and in other dialects has connotations of prostitutes
You sound like you know something about this, and my Spanish is extremely limited. However:-
My understanding is that 'amiga' translates as (*platonic*) 'friend'. More specifically, it is the female version of 'amigo'; in English, of course, we have one word for 'friend' that applies to both sexes.
I think the fact that Spanish uses different versions of 'friend' for male and female is what confuses the issue. Also confusing is the English use of boy'friend'/girl'friend' for *romantic* attachments.
My dictionary seems to back this up:-
girlfriend 1.(lover) novia (f) 2. (female friend) amiga (f)
However, please correct this if I'm blatantly wrong, or missed some subtleties.
Still doesn't work. If you use a logarithmic scale you don't get the fine gradations in colour at the "high" end.
Yeah, I'm attempting some animation stuff, and it occurred to me that you really want an 'S'-shaped curve (well, not S-shaped, but steep at the low and high end, and flatter in the middle).
Consider it this way; you need more levels allocated to the high-end for the same reason you need more levels allocated to the low-end; the high-end starts with pure white, 0% subtracted; then, going down the linear scale, you'd have white - (minus) 2%, white-4%, white-6%.... white-48%.... and the perceived difference between white-2% and white-4% is greater than that between white-48% and white-50%. In other words, the white-end is the subtractive equivalent to the black-end; a mirror image, but with the same needs.
It's extremely annoying, given that mechanics and plumbers (or even totally unskilled jobs like shunting boxes around a warehouse, which I did for a year or so a while back) can earn you almost as much as it's possible to earn with a degree these days.
That's because there aren't enough of those types of people to go round. Supply and demand.
Same in the building trade. I've heard it said that building companies don't actually save much money on illegal immigrants when the gangmaster's fat fees have been paid; they'd end up having to employ these people anyway.
This lack of supply might also explain the appalling quality of (expensive) new buildings in the UK. The flat I stayed in last year was almost new, certainly not cheap, and yet the workmanship was really cheap and nasty. And yet, housing is unaffordably expensive for first time buyers.
One problem with you post. I never said "politically correct movement".
Your quote is actually quoting a response to me.
I know. The response was specifically to the parent, not to your post.
What I meant was that few people would call themselves "politically correct", which would constitute a movement (albeit a fairly ill-defined one).
It is politically correct to use "enviromentally friendly" chemicals in manufacturing.
This is what I mean. Who said it was "politically correct" and specifically what do you mean by that? "Socially favorable"? Or something else?
However often the original chemicals chosen were chosen for a specific reason
Yeah, often (and admittedly not always) that they may have been cheaper!
just like the enviromental choice of using thinner toilet paper to save the enviroment only to find out a) you have to use more to achieve the same amount of cleanliness
Actually, that would have occurred to me too. Are you sure that this wasn't just a company using it as an excuse to flog cheap toilet paper? There are a lot of lazy consumers out there who would buy this reasoning without thinking; same way they'd assume that "low fat" --> "low calories".
Has there ever been a 'politically correct' movement of substantial size? Unlikely.
The expression was appopriated as a lazy and hollow (but effective) smear against anything the right wing don't like.
Want to gain easy points? Accuse your opponent/the thing you dislike of being 'politically incorrect' and for *absolutely no cost* you get to become the heroic figure making a lone stand against the forces of communism, or whatever.
It's clever, because you don't have to debate the specifics of your argument. There's a good bit about this technique here (see 'Viso Sciolto').
However, since it permeated the mainstream so extensively, 'Politically Correct' has tended to be used by people who are lazy and/or stupid, like the celebrity chef who was cooking something with cream, and pointed out that "I know it's politically incorrect, but.. yadda yadda".
No, it's your choice. If you want to guzzle 5 pints of cream a day, and die of obesity or whatever, that's your problem.
Of course, then you can sue the cream makers. Genius! You get to play the "don't tell me what I can and can't do" card for years, and when the consequences of your actions hit, you can whine and blame the food-makers for not protecting you.
Personally, I'd rather see junk-food manufacturers sued for advertising shitty food to kids or making misleading claims.
Yeah those damn peacenik hippi socialists that control the house, senate, supreme court, white house, wto, and all of those multi-national companies that are ruining this world or ours.
What worries me is that I can't figure out if this is meant to be funny or not. I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe this about the US government... well, maybe not the White House bit.
Google will get their revenge when they sponsor 'National Nerds Day' and use it as an excuse to link their logo to the search 'natalie portman hot grits crap meme'.
Remember, when Cowboy Neal's face appears within the second 'o' in 'Google', you have thirty seconds to save Slashdot before the servers overload, glow white-hot and melt every Star Wars and anime figure within a 30-mile radius.
On a not unrelated note, we have been hacked several times by people uploading movies, MP3s, etc. The system was never rebuilt and the files were simply deleted.
Evil solution: Take MP3s, DivXs, etc.; modify them to include very badly 'hidden' steganographic information that looks like it came from terrorists. Replace originals. Wait for uploaders to download them again. Anonymously tip-off FBI that said h4x0r may be involved in terrorism. FBI search their hard drives, shit hits the fan.
Step 3- Profit! Oh, hang on- that's the one thing you *don't* get out of this method.
WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever
Here's a thought. If it's true that Nazi Germany was still a long way off developing a genuine atomic bomb (as opposed to the dirty-bomb they supposedly wanted to explode over New York), then what would have happened had Germany been a bit stronger and WWII had lasted another 18 months or more?
The United States had the atomic bomb. Would they have held back from using it, even though many civilians would die? Would they have risked Germany successfully developing their own bomb, with the Nazis unlikely to be troubled by any questions of morality over its use? I doubt it. I believe that the atomic bomb would have been used against Germany sooner rather than later, had the war not ended when it did.
What would the morality of that have been?
To get back to your point, I'm not convinced that bombing of civilians for the sake of frightening them into submission wouldn't be counter-productive- but regarding the morality, it's much easier to criticise in retrospect. WWII had to be won. Knowing what we know now, a hundred-fold more so.
Slashdot Mirror
Your light idea sounds good; *but*... doesn't the synthetic light remind you of the evening rather than the morning?
Personally, I hate having to get up so early that I have to use indoor lights to avoid falling over.
Anyway, I'm convinced that my dark curtains are making it harder for me to wake up- I'm trying to leave them part-way open (but not so much that passing people get frightened by my part-dressed state... yikes.)
The pentium flaw could be "fixed" by disabling the FPU in software.
This is akin to getting her drunk to suppress those pesky frontal lobe messages that counter the "I'm horny" feelings with "He's ugly and he reads Slashdot" reasoning.
Actually, this is a bad analogy. The Pentium FPU was disabled because it was giving faulty results. The girl-frontal-lobes are functioning perfectly when they report that you're (*) an ugly geek.
Even hard drive sizes used to be "hacked" bigger by using compression software.
The girl-equivalent being the wonderbra that makes the important things appear larger where it matters (i.e. where you can see them). Unfortunately, like the compression software, you'll eventually see that neither of these methods actually give you more.
(*) No, not you (the parent poster) specifically.... why do people say "you" instead of "one" in English...?
According to "Web Pages That Suck" (old book), the owners of the domain (at least at that time) knew exactly what "mofo" meant and were proud of it.
PT said it best: "Any publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name right".
With that in mind, I hope these bastards at Infernalium.com are blessed with an army of dyslexic sycophantic PR flaks.
I did that in response to a Usenet spam; had a go at the guy in my reply and subtlely swapped two letters in the URL quoted from the original article. If anyone was still minded to click on the site after reading the reply, they'd get it wrong.
I don't think this is exactly a fantastic anti-noise tactic for Usenet though.
Creepy stuff, hope MS doesn't make me change my name from Bob to Blob
I find myself in the same position- my real name is Clippy.
On the other hand, I've been considering changing it anyway- the trouble caused by my namesake is too much. You wouldn't believe what I've been getting through the post- really sick stuff. Death threats... you know, little paper clips straightened out or even snapped in half.
The only difference between the sampling that Dangermouse did, and the Beatles did before them, was that Dangermouse had better technology available to him.
I'd like to see the BBC sue over that bit of Shakespeare dialogue that they had in "I am the Walrus" (nicked off Radio 4, or something similar IIRC).
Yeah, I'll bet they went up to them at the time and said "look, this is your work, we think you should be paid".
It's kinda' like packing a 10 inch cock.
Yeah; the analogy is good in more way than one. Beyond a certain size, is it going to impress the girls, or is it just something you want to brag about to other guys? Because, I doubt a 25 inch cock would do much for anyone beyond getting them on a freak show. Same with cars.
Slightly off-topic, but I've often wondered what would happen if (say) the devil appeared to a number of averagely-sized guys and said
"Look, you can have a dick any size you like. I'm going to let it grow by an inch a second, and you tell me when to stop."
Assuming there wasn't any trickery involved, what sort of size would most guys choose? Would they be happy with their choice?
Did you read the parent post?
But the rights to call something Star Wars, the rights to the films, the movies, the characters, all that.. they were created by George Lucas. They are his..
Which is pretty much what I was implying.
You couldn't pass a law that says Lucas must do X with his property.
You could, and if it was passed under a democratic system, that would be "democratic".
Well, you could, but it would be immoral.
You could- exactly. And I don't think you can dismiss it as "wrong", let alone "immoral" that easily. The descendants of the Brothers Grimm did not have the right to stop Disney nicking their stories, hacking them about and have the copyright to that particular version.
Democracy is a principle of self-rule, not mob rule.
No, that is liberty.
Democracy is self-rule of the whole group, but not necessarily individuals. To quote someone "Democracy is two wolves and a rabbit deciding what to have for lunch; liberty is a well-armed rabbit contesting the vote." See grandparent post for more details.
almost every modern democracy has restrictions that democracies or majorities cannot vote against the rights of individuals
This is not an inherent part of democracy per se; they were included after the majority of people decided they would be A Good Thing. If they were forced upon a constitution without any sort of vote, then they are not "democratic".
To make my point briefly; my dispute is that you discuss democracy as if there is something inherent in the principle that guarantees such-and-such freedoms for individuals. It doesn't. Democracy isn't an ideal, it isn't the free market and it isn't liberty. It's a system, and it's up to the people to use it wisely.
I won't buy the "Han is a pussy and look! Dinosaures!" Star Wars DVDs and I won't buy "The Gods Must Be Crazy - both I and II" because it does not include both official languages of region 1.
Are they intended for Canadian release?
I live in region 2. Region 2 includes Japan. Should I refuse to buy any region 2 DVD that doesn't include Japanese dialogue? No, because it wasn't intended for Japan.
Perhaps Lucas has forgotten that he's in the marketplace -- where democracy indeed rules
Yeah, right.
Listen, I know there are many people out there who think that the marketplace and democracy are the same thing. They're wrong, and so are you.
Democracy; various flavors, but the intention is that what the majority of people want, they get. This means that if the country votes for a government-controlled socialist utopia, it's democratic, and when another country invades and forces a market-based economy upon them, it's not (or vice versa).
Marketplace; people have money and goods. Money and goods are exchanged at the highest perceived benefit to both parties. Those with more money have more buying power. Those with goods/rights can do what they like with them. Those with no money or goods/rights have no power.
Do you understand? Two separate concepts. Until the people in such-and-such a country vote for a law that says George Lucas must release the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD, there's nothing "undemocratic" about his decision (in the sense that we are discussing here) like it or not. The democratic USA (*) (and most other countries) has passed laws which allow whoever holds the rights to do pretty much what the hell they like with the Star Wars movies.
And while I'm here, I'll point out that liberty is also different to capitalism *and* democracy, regardless of bluster to the contrary.
(*) You can argue the toss about the effectiveness of US democracy, but that's another topic altogether.
cd's have hard time fitting in a pocket.
8cm mini-CDs.
Fit almost any CD drive since the late 80s (yeah, the format *has* been around that long).
Hold 210MB.
Plus.... interesting talking point as they look "cute".
I just ordered a Dell... in about 50% of the machines I looked at, a floppy drive was an optional extra.
Saves Dell a few dollars on something few think that they want, and gives them an excuse to charge much more than the going rate for it as an "extra"; this must be how Dell makes a lot of their money- take basic stuff, repackage as "upgrades" at inflated prices.
If I wanted to enlarge my "friend" from 9" to 11" by using such a product and it didn't work, why do I have to be embarassed?
Bingo. Exactly what I was thinking.
I would bet that the vast majority of men would like an extra couple of inches, given a 100%-safe (and reasonably reliable) method- not just those with "small" dic^h^h^hpenises. It doesn't prove jack about your/his penis size.
Unless, of course, there is some correlation between penis size and intelligence, because you'd have to be stupid to believe the claims made for those products.
That is the part I'd never admit to if I was this guy.
Film has a more-or-less S-shaped transfer curve.
I'm not an expert in this area. However, what I was considering was not altering the white-level response per se, merely allocating the levels 'closer-together' at the top and bottom ends, giving more 'resolution', but beyond that, not altering the levels, gamma, whatever.
Something akin to having an image and (say) having greater (spatial) resolution towards the centre, but not actually stretching or distorting the image.
One thing we can be sure of, Atari would have spent more money on advertising.
No, they wouldn't. You're thinking of Atari when they were owned by Warner Communications (late 70s to 1983/84(?)).
By the time of the Amiga, the consumer-electronics division of Atari (Atari Corp) had been sold to the Tramiels, and I don't think they ever spent much on advertising.
means girlfriend, and in other dialects has connotations of prostitutes
You sound like you know something about this, and my Spanish is extremely limited. However:-
My understanding is that 'amiga' translates as (*platonic*) 'friend'. More specifically, it is the female version of 'amigo'; in English, of course, we have one word for 'friend' that applies to both sexes.
I think the fact that Spanish uses different versions of 'friend' for male and female is what confuses the issue. Also confusing is the English use of boy'friend'/girl'friend' for *romantic* attachments.
My dictionary seems to back this up:-
girlfriend 1.(lover) novia (f) 2. (female friend) amiga (f)
However, please correct this if I'm blatantly wrong, or missed some subtleties.
Still doesn't work. If you use a logarithmic scale you don't get the fine gradations in colour at the "high" end.
Yeah, I'm attempting some animation stuff, and it occurred to me that you really want an 'S'-shaped curve (well, not S-shaped, but steep at the low and high end, and flatter in the middle).
Consider it this way; you need more levels allocated to the high-end for the same reason you need more levels allocated to the low-end; the high-end starts with pure white, 0% subtracted; then, going down the linear scale, you'd have white - (minus) 2%, white-4%, white-6%.... white-48%.... and the perceived difference between white-2% and white-4% is greater than that between white-48% and white-50%. In other words, the white-end is the subtractive equivalent to the black-end; a mirror image, but with the same needs.
It's extremely annoying, given that mechanics and plumbers (or even totally unskilled jobs like shunting boxes around a warehouse, which I did for a year or so a while back) can earn you almost as much as it's possible to earn with a degree these days.
That's because there aren't enough of those types of people to go round. Supply and demand.
Same in the building trade. I've heard it said that building companies don't actually save much money on illegal immigrants when the gangmaster's fat fees have been paid; they'd end up having to employ these people anyway.
This lack of supply might also explain the appalling quality of (expensive) new buildings in the UK. The flat I stayed in last year was almost new, certainly not cheap, and yet the workmanship was really cheap and nasty. And yet, housing is unaffordably expensive for first time buyers.
One problem with you post. I never said "politically correct movement". Your quote is actually quoting a response to me.
I know. The response was specifically to the parent, not to your post.
What I meant was that few people would call themselves "politically correct", which would constitute a movement (albeit a fairly ill-defined one).
It is politically correct to use "enviromentally friendly" chemicals in manufacturing.
This is what I mean. Who said it was "politically correct" and specifically what do you mean by that? "Socially favorable"? Or something else?
However often the original chemicals chosen were chosen for a specific reason
Yeah, often (and admittedly not always) that they may have been cheaper!
just like the enviromental choice of using thinner toilet paper to save the enviroment only to find out a) you have to use more to achieve the same amount of cleanliness
Actually, that would have occurred to me too. Are you sure that this wasn't just a company using it as an excuse to flog cheap toilet paper? There are a lot of lazy consumers out there who would buy this reasoning without thinking; same way they'd assume that "low fat" --> "low calories".
the 'politically correct' movement
Has there ever been a 'politically correct' movement of substantial size? Unlikely.
The expression was appopriated as a lazy and hollow (but effective) smear against anything the right wing don't like.
Want to gain easy points? Accuse your opponent/the thing you dislike of being 'politically incorrect' and for *absolutely no cost* you get to become the heroic figure making a lone stand against the forces of communism, or whatever.
It's clever, because you don't have to debate the specifics of your argument. There's a good bit about this technique here (see 'Viso Sciolto').
However, since it permeated the mainstream so extensively, 'Politically Correct' has tended to be used by people who are lazy and/or stupid, like the celebrity chef who was cooking something with cream, and pointed out that "I know it's politically incorrect, but.. yadda yadda".
No, it's your choice. If you want to guzzle 5 pints of cream a day, and die of obesity or whatever, that's your problem.
Of course, then you can sue the cream makers. Genius! You get to play the "don't tell me what I can and can't do" card for years, and when the consequences of your actions hit, you can whine and blame the food-makers for not protecting you.
Personally, I'd rather see junk-food manufacturers sued for advertising shitty food to kids or making misleading claims.
Yeah those damn peacenik hippi socialists that control the house, senate, supreme court, white house, wto, and all of those multi-national companies that are ruining this world or ours.
What worries me is that I can't figure out if this is meant to be funny or not. I'm sure there are people who genuinely believe this about the US government... well, maybe not the White House bit.
Simple. We /. google.
Google will get their revenge when they sponsor 'National Nerds Day' and use it as an excuse to link their logo to the search 'natalie portman hot grits crap meme'.
Remember, when Cowboy Neal's face appears within the second 'o' in 'Google', you have thirty seconds to save Slashdot before the servers overload, glow white-hot and melt every Star Wars and anime figure within a 30-mile radius.
On a not unrelated note, we have been hacked several times by people uploading movies, MP3s, etc. The system was never rebuilt and the files were simply deleted.
Evil solution: Take MP3s, DivXs, etc.; modify them to include very badly 'hidden' steganographic information that looks like it came from terrorists. Replace originals. Wait for uploaders to download them again. Anonymously tip-off FBI that said h4x0r may be involved in terrorism. FBI search their hard drives, shit hits the fan.
Step 3- Profit! Oh, hang on- that's the one thing you *don't* get out of this method.
2.13.5 sucks soo badly mostly since linus got addicted to heroin
Classic quote, folks!
WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever
Here's a thought. If it's true that Nazi Germany was still a long way off developing a genuine atomic bomb (as opposed to the dirty-bomb they supposedly wanted to explode over New York), then what would have happened had Germany been a bit stronger and WWII had lasted another 18 months or more?
The United States had the atomic bomb. Would they have held back from using it, even though many civilians would die? Would they have risked Germany successfully developing their own bomb, with the Nazis unlikely to be troubled by any questions of morality over its use? I doubt it. I believe that the atomic bomb would have been used against Germany sooner rather than later, had the war not ended when it did.
What would the morality of that have been?
To get back to your point, I'm not convinced that bombing of civilians for the sake of frightening them into submission wouldn't be counter-productive- but regarding the morality, it's much easier to criticise in retrospect. WWII had to be won. Knowing what we know now, a hundred-fold more so.