Thousands of lonely men wearing foil hats were found paralyzed in the basements of their parents homes today. All were found staring at the same article from the "Slashdot" website. An infamous cult leader named "grub" has been named as the primary suspect in this bizarre case.
I had anorak armor once, and then some Level 89 asswipe named =*DRAZIW*= with two *Last Blades* killed me and stole it. Bastard.
Those old door games were great. I used to register a bunch of accounts to play Usurper, then transferred all my money to one keeper account, committed suicide on all the now broke ones, recreated a character in each, and repeated. An effective way to start with around 200k gold (or more if you're the patient type).
That's the first thing I thought of too. However, how often are security efforts stonewalled by braindead executive types who say "I want security", then later chastise the people who bring it to them for the effect it has on convenience? I'm currently engaged in that exact battle. They said "we want a security system to secure our documents", and when I rolled it out with some basic requirements: you must change your password every thirty days, passwords must be a mix of letters and numbers, and passwords must be at least 6 characters long. They screamed bloody murder about everything except the password length requirement.
In my experience, the single biggest obstacle to corporate security is office politics and executives who want "special treatment". How often do well-secured networks become infected because the CEO brought in a laptop from home and hooked into the network because they didn't feel a need to follow the security policy? How often have networks been compromised because a CEO wanted dialup access to the network and didn't want to "hassle" with any kind of strong authentication measures? How often have security efforts been blocked because nobody is willing to put out the money to implement a good plan? How often have security efforts been blocked because some executive had their hand down a vendor's pants and refused to use vendor with a better product because of it?
I don't executives should be responsible for implementation, but if it turns out that a compromise results from their inept decisions and attitude problems, well, hang the bastards out to dry.
Yea, right. Don't get your hopes up. If part of your plan involves a "reality TV show"... well, maybe you shouldn't be taken too seriously until you produce something more than a press conference...
Why do you care? Would it make you feel somehow vindicated if I admitted my own imperfection?
If anybody ever contacts me with the ability to dump 22 pounds of garbage on the moon and an offer of 6mil to do it, I'll let you know what I choose. Until that day comes, however, my answer is this:
I would like to think that I would not, but I could also put 6 million dollars to good use, so maybe I would.
So, your culture and ideals include, explicitly, your ability to be bought off?
You're getting caught up on the quantity when I'm talking about the principal. The quantity is irrelevant. Would you shoot a starving child in the face who was going to die anyway for 6 million dollars? More? How about 1 billion? The act you're being paid for is not the point, and that's the point.
The point is this: human beings would actually seek to ACTIVELY GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to pollute something.
However, if you'd like to discuss the particulars of the issue instead, I have a serious problem with your "ends justify the means" mentality. If you dump 22 pounds of trash in the middle of yellowstone (ah yes... "with restrictions"), you are polluting yellowstone national park. Are you going to dispute that? So, you get your 6 million, and you give it ALL to charity. So what? You still polluted Yellowstone, now didn't you? In fact, you went out of your way to do it.
Now, while it's still immoral, it's FORGIVABLE which is entirely different. However, this is a "commercial spacecraft project" that is seeking to profit by intentionally polluting a foreign object and is going well out of its way to do it. Only humans could be so pathetically crass.
Is ~22 pounds of material a big deal? No, it's the point that these morons are doing it on purpose and for profit, and that some imbecile will actually spend the money for it.
I can accept that human progress pollutes. This is not progress. This is intentional destruction for the amusement of some sorry buffoon who doesn't have anything better to do with his or her time. The point isn't that 22 pounds isn't a big deal, it's that they're doing at all.
If you could find a way of making someone pay you 6 million to dump a bucket full of 'stuff' in your yard, you'd do it
If someone payed you 6 million to dump a bucket full of stuff somewhere in yellowstone park, subject to some restrictions, then you'd likely do it in a heartbeat.
Ah yes. The ultimate justification for any idiotic, debase action: money.
I'm sorry to hear you have so little moral fiber in your body and can't fathom why someone finds the idea of intentionally polluting an object we can't even inhabit so despicable. It's unfortunate that there are so many people that think like you, because the underlying problem with that kind of thought process is always the same:
If it doesn't directly affect me, why should I care?
Dropping 10 kg of junk on the surface of a desloate object in space isn't a big deal. It's the principal of the thing. Human beings seem to be the only life on earth that would consider intentionally dropping garbage somewhere just because they can. A sad commentary on human nature, I suppose.
We're the government! We don't think we're taking enough of your money! Therefore, we're going to start taxing you more! We're not going to tell you why, or where your money will go! You have to wait to find out! And even then, it'll be a real bitch to figure out exactly what we're doing with it, and some of it will be intentionally hidden from you!
Hooray for the government! yay!
Fuck that, buncha goddamn assholes ARE ripping us off. Fuck their wars and their huge ass government and their pork barrel highway bills. Fuck their wages, fuck them. Fuck their "faith based initiatives". Fuck their pet projects and their payoffs to foreign nationals.
Insightful? Last I checked, phone sex was not illegal whereas credit card and wire fraud are.
I do, however, agree that logging calls is a very, very Bad Thing to do. The companies being scammed need to have safeguards in place to make sure they can not only recognize problems, but go back and figure out what happened, who did it, and where they are with the help of law enforcement.
TTY ops are intermediaries. Their job is not to protect companies on one side of the line from fraud and vice versa. They are there to channel information, not concern themselves with its content.
Go back and read the parent post to mine. I think you lost some context either because it got modded away, or it never got modded up from AC 0. You and I are making exactly the same point, mine just doesn't look like it because the parent is being covered by the threshold.
Gee... that might actually be a valid point if the person who actually bought the DVD, song, or whatever didn't have to explicitly state that they didn't want to see parts of what they just bought. You know, if this thing was just a filter you slapped on that filtered ALL content in the database and you didn't have to actually tell it what you wanted it to do.
Of course, you could go on and argue that they're profiting by taking notes on your work, but then you're not really concerning yourself with artistic integrity as much as you are about the business of hawking your content, now are you?
Give it a rest. If you're selling your "art", you're not selling "art", you're just selling content as a product. You have no say what happens to any single purchased copy of your "art", bearing illegal redistribution in some form (oh yes, let's argue that you own the metainformation on your "art" now and it can't be redistributed without consent). The tool employed to alter your "art" is irrelevant. If you want to be so touchy about it, then maybe there should be no rewind, pause, stop, or fastforward on playback devices since they can alter the "artistic integrity" at will.
Sell a copy to me and you can go suck an egg when it comes to your "rights" regarding that particular copy. If I want to chop that thing 8 ways to Sunday before consuming it, that's tough luck. If you were so concerned about the "artistic integrity" of the copy, you wouldn't have sold one in the first place.
Once I own it, it's mine to do with as I wish. If you sell me a song, and I want to blank the entire thing out and listen to an empty track, too... f'in... bad.
Or, to put it another way: what I do with my own personal copy is none of your damn business and if you feel otherwise, you can sit on it and spin.
No no, really, by jumping to inane conclusions and claiming I'm a "tin hat", you have a really valid point. No, really, you do. Yea.. right.
Extra "features" = extra cost. Why the fuck should I have to pay extra for something I'm never going to use anyway, just so other people can "protect" themselves form the big scary badness of the stuff they chose to turn on in the first place?
A Hollywood consortium, including some of Tinseltown's top directors, has sued Clearplay and others, arguing that they are abusing the films' artistic integrity.
Ah, yes. The artistic integrity of, say, the excessive violence in 48 hours? Or, perhaps, the gratiuitous nudity in American Pie.
STFU, morons. 99.9% of Hollywood's tripe is about as artistic as my ass after a binge at Taco Bell.
If people want to screen a movie they paid to see, that's their perogative. An excellent application for this is to effectively turn a "questionable for children" movie into something that you, as a parent, feel is sanitized enough to show your children.
Wake me up if some idiot starts mandating this technology in ALL players. Until then, this is just an interesting technology that people can choose to use if they want. Yawn.
Since you seem to enjoy working purely from conjecture and a confrontational attitude using assumptive reasoning to invent things that were never said....
.... are you suggesting that every rich person out there got rich by being a hard, honest worker?
That is the single most disgusting thing I think I've ever seen in my life.... every employee involved in the process of selling, developing, or managing those sets for Patientline needs to be skinned alive and dipped in the Dead Sea....
'If it looks like a pop-up, feels like a pop-up or interrupts like a pop-up, we might as well just assume consumers will outright hate and reject the format,'
Didn't Einstien say that insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again expecting different results?
They keep trying with the boorish, intrusive ads as if an irritating ad wasn't necessarily an irritating ad. All web marketers must be insane. Or stupid. Wait wait... let's not be narrow-minded about this.... they could easily be both.
On a more serious note: whatever. I don't care. Go ahead and put ads right in the context of something I'm trying to read. It's really irritating trying to read a forum post or an article and having the text keep changing color because there are ads weaved into it. Put that on your site, and you can rest assured that I'll leave in a heartbeat and never come back, just like I've already done with some sites. Hell, even I can remember from the one marketing class I had to take that ads were supposed to heighten interest in or raise awareness of a product in a positive manner. Yet, these bumbling morons keep turning the advertising into the content, or pushing the content out of the way in favor of the advertising so that people get pissed off by a popup or whatever, THEN see what's being advertised.
What good does it do me to have to struggle with ads to read content? Why should I come back? If the ads destroy the value of the site.... how is it even an idea worth trying? What good does it do the advertiser to raise product awareness with a medium that's making them MAD. What, you want people to be angry when they think of your car? Idiots...
Slashdot Mirror
Tonight at 5!
Thousands of lonely men wearing foil hats were found paralyzed in the basements of their parents homes today. All were found staring at the same article from the "Slashdot" website. An infamous cult leader named "grub" has been named as the primary suspect in this bizarre case.
First computer I ever took apart had a 1.2 MHz processor. And, that makes ME a young buck!
All these newcomers are just teeny-bopping posers.
I had anorak armor once, and then some Level 89 asswipe named =*DRAZIW*= with two *Last Blades* killed me and stole it. Bastard.
Those old door games were great. I used to register a bunch of accounts to play Usurper, then transferred all my money to one keeper account, committed suicide on all the now broke ones, recreated a character in each, and repeated. An effective way to start with around 200k gold (or more if you're the patient type).
Don't worry, you can take your games along too.
That's the first thing I thought of too. However, how often are security efforts stonewalled by braindead executive types who say "I want security", then later chastise the people who bring it to them for the effect it has on convenience? I'm currently engaged in that exact battle. They said "we want a security system to secure our documents", and when I rolled it out with some basic requirements: you must change your password every thirty days, passwords must be a mix of letters and numbers, and passwords must be at least 6 characters long. They screamed bloody murder about everything except the password length requirement.
In my experience, the single biggest obstacle to corporate security is office politics and executives who want "special treatment". How often do well-secured networks become infected because the CEO brought in a laptop from home and hooked into the network because they didn't feel a need to follow the security policy? How often have networks been compromised because a CEO wanted dialup access to the network and didn't want to "hassle" with any kind of strong authentication measures? How often have security efforts been blocked because nobody is willing to put out the money to implement a good plan? How often have security efforts been blocked because some executive had their hand down a vendor's pants and refused to use vendor with a better product because of it?
I don't executives should be responsible for implementation, but if it turns out that a compromise results from their inept decisions and attitude problems, well, hang the bastards out to dry.
Yea, right. Don't get your hopes up. If part of your plan involves a "reality TV show"... well, maybe you shouldn't be taken too seriously until you produce something more than a press conference...
This is not as easy a question as you make it sound.
That's sort of the point of that kind of question.
Why do you care? Would it make you feel somehow vindicated if I admitted my own imperfection?
If anybody ever contacts me with the ability to dump 22 pounds of garbage on the moon and an offer of 6mil to do it, I'll let you know what I choose. Until that day comes, however, my answer is this:
I would like to think that I would not, but I could also put 6 million dollars to good use, so maybe I would.
So, your culture and ideals include, explicitly, your ability to be bought off?
You're getting caught up on the quantity when I'm talking about the principal. The quantity is irrelevant. Would you shoot a starving child in the face who was going to die anyway for 6 million dollars? More? How about 1 billion? The act you're being paid for is not the point, and that's the point.
The point is this: human beings would actually seek to ACTIVELY GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to pollute something.
However, if you'd like to discuss the particulars of the issue instead, I have a serious problem with your "ends justify the means" mentality. If you dump 22 pounds of trash in the middle of yellowstone (ah yes... "with restrictions"), you are polluting yellowstone national park. Are you going to dispute that? So, you get your 6 million, and you give it ALL to charity. So what? You still polluted Yellowstone, now didn't you? In fact, you went out of your way to do it.
Now, while it's still immoral, it's FORGIVABLE which is entirely different. However, this is a "commercial spacecraft project" that is seeking to profit by intentionally polluting a foreign object and is going well out of its way to do it. Only humans could be so pathetically crass.
Is ~22 pounds of material a big deal? No, it's the point that these morons are doing it on purpose and for profit, and that some imbecile will actually spend the money for it.
I can accept that human progress pollutes. This is not progress. This is intentional destruction for the amusement of some sorry buffoon who doesn't have anything better to do with his or her time. The point isn't that 22 pounds isn't a big deal, it's that they're doing at all.
If you could find a way of making someone pay you 6 million to dump a bucket full of 'stuff' in your yard, you'd do it
If someone payed you 6 million to dump a bucket full of stuff somewhere in yellowstone park, subject to some restrictions, then you'd likely do it in a heartbeat.
Ah yes. The ultimate justification for any idiotic, debase action: money.
I'm sorry to hear you have so little moral fiber in your body and can't fathom why someone finds the idea of intentionally polluting an object we can't even inhabit so despicable. It's unfortunate that there are so many people that think like you, because the underlying problem with that kind of thought process is always the same:
If it doesn't directly affect me, why should I care?
Dropping 10 kg of junk on the surface of a desloate object in space isn't a big deal. It's the principal of the thing. Human beings seem to be the only life on earth that would consider intentionally dropping garbage somewhere just because they can. A sad commentary on human nature, I suppose.
I like the concept here.
We're the government! We don't think we're taking enough of your money! Therefore, we're going to start taxing you more! We're not going to tell you why, or where your money will go! You have to wait to find out! And even then, it'll be a real bitch to figure out exactly what we're doing with it, and some of it will be intentionally hidden from you!
Hooray for the government! yay!
Fuck that, buncha goddamn assholes ARE ripping us off. Fuck their wars and their huge ass government and their pork barrel highway bills. Fuck their wages, fuck them. Fuck their "faith based initiatives". Fuck their pet projects and their payoffs to foreign nationals.
Insightful? Last I checked, phone sex was not illegal whereas credit card and wire fraud are.
I do, however, agree that logging calls is a very, very Bad Thing to do. The companies being scammed need to have safeguards in place to make sure they can not only recognize problems, but go back and figure out what happened, who did it, and where they are with the help of law enforcement.
TTY ops are intermediaries. Their job is not to protect companies on one side of the line from fraud and vice versa. They are there to channel information, not concern themselves with its content.
Go back and read the parent post to mine. I think you lost some context either because it got modded away, or it never got modded up from AC 0. You and I are making exactly the same point, mine just doesn't look like it because the parent is being covered by the threshold.
Gee... that might actually be a valid point if the person who actually bought the DVD, song, or whatever didn't have to explicitly state that they didn't want to see parts of what they just bought. You know, if this thing was just a filter you slapped on that filtered ALL content in the database and you didn't have to actually tell it what you wanted it to do.
Of course, you could go on and argue that they're profiting by taking notes on your work, but then you're not really concerning yourself with artistic integrity as much as you are about the business of hawking your content, now are you?
Give it a rest. If you're selling your "art", you're not selling "art", you're just selling content as a product. You have no say what happens to any single purchased copy of your "art", bearing illegal redistribution in some form (oh yes, let's argue that you own the metainformation on your "art" now and it can't be redistributed without consent). The tool employed to alter your "art" is irrelevant. If you want to be so touchy about it, then maybe there should be no rewind, pause, stop, or fastforward on playback devices since they can alter the "artistic integrity" at will.
Sell a copy to me and you can go suck an egg when it comes to your "rights" regarding that particular copy. If I want to chop that thing 8 ways to Sunday before consuming it, that's tough luck. If you were so concerned about the "artistic integrity" of the copy, you wouldn't have sold one in the first place.
Once I own it, it's mine to do with as I wish. If you sell me a song, and I want to blank the entire thing out and listen to an empty track, too... f'in... bad.
Or, to put it another way: what I do with my own personal copy is none of your damn business and if you feel otherwise, you can sit on it and spin.
No no, really, by jumping to inane conclusions and claiming I'm a "tin hat", you have a really valid point. No, really, you do. Yea.. right.
Extra "features" = extra cost. Why the fuck should I have to pay extra for something I'm never going to use anyway, just so other people can "protect" themselves form the big scary badness of the stuff they chose to turn on in the first place?
A Hollywood consortium, including some of Tinseltown's top directors, has sued Clearplay and others, arguing that they are abusing the films' artistic integrity.
Ah, yes. The artistic integrity of, say, the excessive violence in 48 hours? Or, perhaps, the gratiuitous nudity in American Pie.
STFU, morons. 99.9% of Hollywood's tripe is about as artistic as my ass after a binge at Taco Bell.
If people want to screen a movie they paid to see, that's their perogative. An excellent application for this is to effectively turn a "questionable for children" movie into something that you, as a parent, feel is sanitized enough to show your children.
Wake me up if some idiot starts mandating this technology in ALL players. Until then, this is just an interesting technology that people can choose to use if they want. Yawn.
It wasn't the cameras...
Yea, you're right. He did shoot himself with a gun, not a camera. You're really perceptive for an AC. Dumbass.
No kidding.
Good thing that's not what I'm paid to do, huh?
I attended two school districts in my high school career. One was poor. One was not.
Poor
Not
Note the various statistics, but pay close attention to the SAT and PSSA section at the bottom.
I have circumstantial evidence. What have you to defend your statements?
That's how I like to think of rich people:
Crash Test Dummies.
Since you seem to enjoy working purely from conjecture and a confrontational attitude using assumptive reasoning to invent things that were never said....
.... are you suggesting that every rich person out there got rich by being a hard, honest worker?
Dear... god.....
That is the single most disgusting thing I think I've ever seen in my life.... every employee involved in the process of selling, developing, or managing those sets for Patientline needs to be skinned alive and dipped in the Dead Sea....
My users are dumber than 4 year olds?
Wait.. that's insulting to 4 year olds... sorry, let me correct it:
My users are dumb.
'If it looks like a pop-up, feels like a pop-up or interrupts like a pop-up, we might as well just assume consumers will outright hate and reject the format,'
Didn't Einstien say that insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again expecting different results?
They keep trying with the boorish, intrusive ads as if an irritating ad wasn't necessarily an irritating ad. All web marketers must be insane. Or stupid. Wait wait... let's not be narrow-minded about this.... they could easily be both.
On a more serious note: whatever. I don't care. Go ahead and put ads right in the context of something I'm trying to read. It's really irritating trying to read a forum post or an article and having the text keep changing color because there are ads weaved into it. Put that on your site, and you can rest assured that I'll leave in a heartbeat and never come back, just like I've already done with some sites. Hell, even I can remember from the one marketing class I had to take that ads were supposed to heighten interest in or raise awareness of a product in a positive manner. Yet, these bumbling morons keep turning the advertising into the content, or pushing the content out of the way in favor of the advertising so that people get pissed off by a popup or whatever, THEN see what's being advertised.
What good does it do me to have to struggle with ads to read content? Why should I come back? If the ads destroy the value of the site.... how is it even an idea worth trying? What good does it do the advertiser to raise product awareness with a medium that's making them MAD. What, you want people to be angry when they think of your car? Idiots...