It's all been downhill since AD&D second edition. We bought and played those in SIXTH GRADE. I haven't played AD&D since I was about 19-20. I'm 31 now. But damn it, and damn you all: my nostalgic memories mean I am right and it was better!
On a related note, Windows 3.1 FTW. The old days ruled!
Is a means to change the grind that is traveling. Going from level 1 to 40, without a mount, is painful. You spend better than 75% of your time... walking. Other games, such as City of Heroes, have a level 1-50 range. The content from 1-50 in COH is easily comparable to the amount of content in WoW from levels 1-40, or 1-45. Levels needed to get a "mount" or "travel power" in each game?
World of Warcraft: 40th
City of Heroes: 14th
It takes--assuming no powerleveling, and playing legitimately--about a week tops to get to 14th in City of Heroes. Two weeks, if you're lazy. To get to 40th in WoW? It can takes months assuming you don't skip content.
The amount of slow travel in WoW is a major obstacle to "casual gamers".
1. Go to Starbucks.
2. Wait for yuppie on laptop to go to the bathroom.
3. Take laptop.
4. Wipe out Windows with nix install of your choice.
5. Profit!
Phil, as public editors of an online encyclopedia, people can take actions by their posting on Wikipedia that easily can open themselves to legal liability in the United States. Wikipedia's section 230 "protection"--sorry, Jimbo--is unproven, and untested. It is Wikipedia's WORST interests to have section 230 for ANY Wiki-installation tested, anywhere, legally. That's the one and only reason that "Oversight" and BLP are so stringent: to help keep the Wikimedia Foundation from getting sued.
If any Wiki-type site loses a series of cases and appeals over section 230 protection, a massive bullseye will be painted on Wikipedia. You can bet your ass that anonymous editing either will immediately have to legally go away, IP information will have to be kept forever, or the WMF will need to shut down--whomever is in charge, i.e. Jimmy and the Board of Trustees--will get their ass sued off.
I actually *like* Slim, from the fact that my direct dealings with her have been pleasant. That said--and I don't care, this is what I've read time and again--is that Brandt pursued her identity to begin legal proceedings against her in the state of Texas. Legally, he, you, or I are allowed to do any sort of 'uncovering' of whom someone is for that person, and its NOT despicable, or wrong. Wikipedia is nothing special, it's just a website. If there was ever an article on me there, and Wikipedia User:SomeDude99 defamed me, in my opinion, again and again--or, I just felt like sueing him, which is my right--I would be 110% within my legal rights as a United States citizen to track down whom he was by any and all legal means or recourse at my disposal.
Being a "Wikipedian" is no special mark, right, or honor, or protection--you're a dude or girl with a made up username, and are irrelevant in the scheme of life. Was it damaging? Probably. Is it damaging if Brandt sues her for something? Probably. Is it damaging, as time goes by, that Wikipedia allows anonymous editing? YES. Recent example? Chris Benoit. Further back? John Siegenthaler Jr. being defamed on Wikipedia (ironically, the culprite there was ALSO caught by Daniel Brandt). Malfeasance and lies on Wikepedia? Brandt helped show that Essjay lied about his identity to the major news media.
The moral is don't act like a douchebag, and bad things won't happen to you. Oh, and Wikipedia clubhouse membership gives you jack and shit for Magical Moral And Legal Rights outside of Wikipedia.
Phil, one of the big problems to keep in mind with Wikipedia's perception is this ideal that is now more rampant than a sexually transmitted disease inside the project: specifically, that ANY criticism of the users of Wikipedia as individuals is trolling, or stalking, or harassing. Its not, in and of itself.
There's no Internet right to privacy, children, and information once outed can't be put back in a bottle. Most importantly, Wikipedia's 'rules' have no application or value outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just a website that happened to get lucky and popular due to fortunate timing and a design architecture in MediaWiki that exploits GoogleBot. Or are we not supposed to mention that Wikipedia "nofollow" tags all external links, but not links between Wikimedia projects?
Glass houses, Phil.
True, on that point. Hopefully, admins who enable such lists on their systems would know enough to be aware of things such as this, or would keep tabs on what sorts of blocklists they use. Personally I only really like Spamcop and the open relay lists, as the open relay ones are more selective, and Spamcop is so heavily used by the community that things tend to not slip under the radar.
All that said, no one should have any sympathy for the people/groups/organizations that enable or facilitate this muck.
And if an ISP absolutely refuses to address any spam issues or complaints, what is supposed to be done then? It's like an intervention--if someone has a problem, and will not acknowledge that problem, you get someone else--in this case, the whole country--to get them to correct their destructive behavior.
...and if this forces TDE to address their issues, this would be a bad thing why?
This is the same reason why organizations such as Spews.org, when leveraging their clout correctly, can get things fixed: they get the regular end users after the ISP to fix their problems. Spain now can't email a LOT of places. Spain. Not just TDE customers, but ALL people there. Now, all of TDE will be complaining to TDE, along with TDE's partners. Their competitors. Heck, maybe the government. They'll clean up their act, or else. If they don't, that's fine too, if they don't want to email anyone.
Remember that no one on the Internet is obligated to accept traffic from anyone. Be it email or otherwise. If I choose to block you from mailing me via my website, or from even viewing my site--or if I decide this of your entire country--that is my decision. My IP address(es), my mailbox, my rules. ISPs flaunt my wishes by spamming me, and they get dropped.
So, again, why is this bad if it forces them under huge pressure to fix their issues?
Since it's impossible and illegal to fake your domain name registration info, there is no way any.mail named mail server would be used for illicit purposes. Anyone mailing you from server.cheapest-viagra-online.mail.cn must clearly be a legitimate mail server of a pharmaceuticals corporation and should be whitelisted.
All the companies offer you long-term registrations at a slight discount. Register for one year, it's $15. Register for five instead, and it's $12 a year. Small discount, convenience for everyone, but most people won't take the registrar up on it since most people for a personal domain won't drop $60 in such a fashion outright. This is why with most services like this--including hosting, cell phones, insurances, etc., that "Joe Normal" pays by the month while "The Business" will pay quarterly or annually. It's less of a hassle for the business and a tax write-off anyway.
So why not offer 20, 50, or 100 years at $12/year? I'm sure MANY businesses will leap at this, since it's the equivalent of guaranteed online trademark protection for your single most valuable asset, your domain name and online identity.
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note, Windows 3.1 FTW. The old days ruled!
World of Warcraft: 40th
City of Heroes: 14th
It takes--assuming no powerleveling, and playing legitimately--about a week tops to get to 14th in City of Heroes. Two weeks, if you're lazy. To get to 40th in WoW? It can takes months assuming you don't skip content.
The amount of slow travel in WoW is a major obstacle to "casual gamers".
1. Go to Starbucks.
2. Wait for yuppie on laptop to go to the bathroom.
3. Take laptop.
4. Wipe out Windows with nix install of your choice.
5. Profit!
They just want to clean out the tubes he laid in his remodeling job.
I wonder if Wikia will have controls over their search terms? What will "Wikipedia admin real name" turn up?
Phil, as public editors of an online encyclopedia, people can take actions by their posting on Wikipedia that easily can open themselves to legal liability in the United States. Wikipedia's section 230 "protection"--sorry, Jimbo--is unproven, and untested. It is Wikipedia's WORST interests to have section 230 for ANY Wiki-installation tested, anywhere, legally. That's the one and only reason that "Oversight" and BLP are so stringent: to help keep the Wikimedia Foundation from getting sued.
If any Wiki-type site loses a series of cases and appeals over section 230 protection, a massive bullseye will be painted on Wikipedia. You can bet your ass that anonymous editing either will immediately have to legally go away, IP information will have to be kept forever, or the WMF will need to shut down--whomever is in charge, i.e. Jimmy and the Board of Trustees--will get their ass sued off.
I actually *like* Slim, from the fact that my direct dealings with her have been pleasant. That said--and I don't care, this is what I've read time and again--is that Brandt pursued her identity to begin legal proceedings against her in the state of Texas. Legally, he, you, or I are allowed to do any sort of 'uncovering' of whom someone is for that person, and its NOT despicable, or wrong. Wikipedia is nothing special, it's just a website. If there was ever an article on me there, and Wikipedia User:SomeDude99 defamed me, in my opinion, again and again--or, I just felt like sueing him, which is my right--I would be 110% within my legal rights as a United States citizen to track down whom he was by any and all legal means or recourse at my disposal.
Being a "Wikipedian" is no special mark, right, or honor, or protection--you're a dude or girl with a made up username, and are irrelevant in the scheme of life. Was it damaging? Probably. Is it damaging if Brandt sues her for something? Probably. Is it damaging, as time goes by, that Wikipedia allows anonymous editing? YES. Recent example? Chris Benoit. Further back? John Siegenthaler Jr. being defamed on Wikipedia (ironically, the culprite there was ALSO caught by Daniel Brandt). Malfeasance and lies on Wikepedia? Brandt helped show that Essjay lied about his identity to the major news media.
The moral is don't act like a douchebag, and bad things won't happen to you. Oh, and Wikipedia clubhouse membership gives you jack and shit for Magical Moral And Legal Rights outside of Wikipedia.
Protection of editors on Wikipedia, and their privacy, is more important than the privacy of people who are subjects of Wikipedia articles.
Phil, one of the big problems to keep in mind with Wikipedia's perception is this ideal that is now more rampant than a sexually transmitted disease inside the project: specifically, that ANY criticism of the users of Wikipedia as individuals is trolling, or stalking, or harassing. Its not, in and of itself. There's no Internet right to privacy, children, and information once outed can't be put back in a bottle. Most importantly, Wikipedia's 'rules' have no application or value outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is just a website that happened to get lucky and popular due to fortunate timing and a design architecture in MediaWiki that exploits GoogleBot. Or are we not supposed to mention that Wikipedia "nofollow" tags all external links, but not links between Wikimedia projects? Glass houses, Phil.
Be sure to check out: http://www.wikipediareview.com/ http://www.wikitruth.info/ For uncensored information on Wikipedia.
Alohomora?
I mean, honestly. This is like society endorsing Halliburton-style shenanigans.
Giggidy giggidy giggidy!
Anyone got a mirror?
Oh boy, we almost got that keeping up with inflation thing LICKED! w00t!
A cam whore gently weeps.
I think they need to photoshop a young Harrison Ford into their dig photos, to complete the whole farce of it.
All that said, no one should have any sympathy for the people/groups/organizations that enable or facilitate this muck.
And if an ISP absolutely refuses to address any spam issues or complaints, what is supposed to be done then? It's like an intervention--if someone has a problem, and will not acknowledge that problem, you get someone else--in this case, the whole country--to get them to correct their destructive behavior.
This is the same reason why organizations such as Spews.org, when leveraging their clout correctly, can get things fixed: they get the regular end users after the ISP to fix their problems. Spain now can't email a LOT of places. Spain. Not just TDE customers, but ALL people there. Now, all of TDE will be complaining to TDE, along with TDE's partners. Their competitors. Heck, maybe the government. They'll clean up their act, or else. If they don't, that's fine too, if they don't want to email anyone.
Remember that no one on the Internet is obligated to accept traffic from anyone. Be it email or otherwise. If I choose to block you from mailing me via my website, or from even viewing my site--or if I decide this of your entire country--that is my decision. My IP address(es), my mailbox, my rules. ISPs flaunt my wishes by spamming me, and they get dropped.
So, again, why is this bad if it forces them under huge pressure to fix their issues?
A few other countries that can use this are found here.
Since it's impossible and illegal to fake your domain name registration info, there is no way any .mail named mail server would be used for illicit purposes. Anyone mailing you from server.cheapest-viagra-online.mail.cn must clearly be a legitimate mail server of a pharmaceuticals corporation and should be whitelisted.
So why not offer 20, 50, or 100 years at $12/year? I'm sure MANY businesses will leap at this, since it's the equivalent of guaranteed online trademark protection for your single most valuable asset, your domain name and online identity.
That said, some of the cases, especially the Bill Wyman one, are laughable.
Looks like the old contender for biggest model is so big that they lost it track of it...
Another 945,478,233,526,156 IP addresses I need to blacklist from spamming me.