And, you think that these... what do you call them... "facts"... have any influence on some of these people screaming bloody murder about anything with the word "nuc-u-lar" in it?
Ha! ha! You is so silly!
I wonder what would happen if some of these dolts found out what the sun really is? They'd probably be lobbying that we send the FDNY up there to put it out immediately.
Try paying some fucking attention. I don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK what he thinks about abortion, it's NOT murder, and he said it WAS.
Now, if you idiots don't mind, I have better things to do with my time than try to beat it into your thick skulls that I don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else thinks about abortion, and my post had NOTHING to do with it other than to point out to that flaming moron that it's NOT murder and the original poster DIDN'T mean it, so stop putting words in his fucking mouth.
Pull your heads out of your fucking asses once in awhile - the lack of oxygen is rapidly killing off brain cells.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't think you understand what I'm arguing about. Read the grandparent post to mine and then read what that other guy said:
Original Post: premature ending of pregnancy.
Atzanteol: You mean murder?
No, s/he didn't mean murder, and murder and "premature ending of pregnancy" are not interchangeable. That's it, that's the point. The rest is evidence that I'm presenting for consideration. Atzanteol didn't draw an analogy, he put words in the other poster's mouth and that's why I yelled bullshit. It has nothing to do with analogies at all. It's entirely about Atzanteol misusing the term "murder" to put words into the original poster's mouth just to stir up emotions when "murder" cannot be rightly used in that context.
Put another way, you are basically arguing that the definition of murder can never be expanded.
That's not true unless you abuse my original argument similar to the way this guy was originally abusing the term "murder". To clarify an important point: suggesting that something IS murder just to cause trouble and saying something SHOULD be murder are two completely different things. Replacing a word with the term "murder" where it doesn't fit is just a fallacy to stir up trouble and make people stop thinking with their heads. However, there's certainly nothing wrong with arguing that something SHOULD (or shouldn't, for that matter) be murder as long as you can do so intelligently.
I will address your continuing nonsense one last time, point by point. If you insist on trying to drag me into a fruitless debate on abortion, or continue to simply make assertions without providing evidence on the assumption that something is true because you say it is, then I will simply assume you are an imbecile and I will leave it at that.
Problem 1: the term 'murder' certainly DOES have a most appropriate defintion within the framework of the debate you are attempting to engage in. I have asserted that the legal definition (that is - the definition of the lawfulness - or lawlessness, as it were - of a killing) is the most appropriate one because the debate over abortion is certainly being held within the halls of the legal system. Therefore, murder's legal definition of unlawful killing IS NOT appropriate for describing "abortion" in general because many forms of abortion ARE LEGAL. You can try to fight with me all you want, but murder IS illegal and abortion in general, is not. The best you can do is try to come up with an INTELLIGENT argument as to why I've chosen the wrong definition for murder. If you'd like to do that, by all means, prove me wrong. However, you can't just say 'it is this way because I say it is' and expect me to think you're anything more than a drooling buffoon.
Problem 2: I am not here to debate the meaning of the term 'killing' as 'abortion' certainly IS 'killing'. I fail to see why you brought it up, even, as I never mentioned it and it's totally irrelevant to my confrontation with you.
Problem 3: I don't care WHAT you believe a fetus is, and it's irrelevant what I believe, because I'm NOT here to argue abortion's morality with you and I won't do it. Find another sucker who will waste their time on it, I'm not that sucker.
And, finally, yes, all I've done is bitch about your use of the word murder because you attempted to change what the poster said about abortion into something else entirely simply "because". Well, I just bitch-slapped you back into the real world and now you have a stick up your ass because I pointed out that you're full of shit. Get over it. And, in the future, don't arbitrarily rewrite what people say into "what they meant" unless it's one of those lame "I think you misspelled x as y..." jokes.
You think YOU'RE tired of slashdotters? Imagine what it's like fighting with nimrods like YOU all the time. Boo hoo. You're wrong. Get over it and try to make your point using EVIDENCE for once. Holy shit! Imagine this! You might even.... *GASP* CHANGE SOMEBODY'S MIND ON AN ISSUE!
You persist. How amusing. You have still presented no evidence, but you HAVE made an assumption on my position regarding fetuses and, likely, my position on abortion even though I've given NO indication what I think of it, or that I even care one way or another.
In addition, despite the fact you quoted a defintion for murder that clearly states "UNLAWFUL" in it, you continue to ignore the fact that unless you're misusing it to try and skew the discussion, the word has a legitimate legal meaning that DOES NOT allow it to be synonomous with abortion. Abortion is legal (unless you are specifying a specific type, in which case, I suggest you qualify it to avoid confusion). Murder is not. Framed in the context of this discussion so far, the two are not technically, logically, or intellibly interchangeable. Argue all you like, it's a fact. You don't have to deal in facts ALL the time, but if you plan on actually convincing anyone of positions you hold instead of making yourself look like a screeching moron, I suggest you stick to them in those cases at the very least.
Ah yes, and still you come at me like a whipped dog, too stubborn to admit your defeat. That's fine, here I shall present the final nail in your coffin and proceed to drive it in:
I argued NOTHING for you. I'm not attacking the poster's BELIEF because I DON'T CARE what s/he believes. I am attacking the poster's ARGUMENT because it is WRONG because it is not presenting EVIDENCE. S/he can go on screaming bloody murder about whatever the hell they want and as long as s/he is making up "evidence" on the spot, I will continue to attack him/her on that matter. I have absolutely NO interest in arguing for or against abortion.
And, again, you conveniently skip context in order to maintain your false superiority. You know, it's not that you necessarily made a BAD argument, it's just not RIGHT because you're ignoring CONTEXT which frames this squarely in a legal discussion. Fight about it all you want, but the legal definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful and the legal defintion fits best within the framework of the discussion as it evolved. If the poster is using 'murder' with some other meaning, they're either clueless or trying to drive the discussion off track into a (likely pointless) emotional battle instead of a legal one. If you're just going to continue to pretend that's not the case, by all means, do so - but I'll not waste anymore time sticking it right under your nose for you.
I love it when ACs stubbornly insist on responding to my posts after intentionally misreading them.
Quick! To the thougt-mobile! The term 'murder' includes a large number of defintions like so many other English words do. Unfortunately for you, you are assuming that you can apply the definition that suits you best independant of the context of the two posts above mine. Now, we're talking about what here? Imposing lawful/unlawful restrictions. So, in the spirit of the original poster, which definition of murder would fit the bill here? The one with lawful restrictions, whether it happens to be the first one in your dictionary or not, since I have TWO dead tree dictionaries here, and BOTH list the definition that requires unlawful killing as the first definition. So, considering the version of murder that makes the most sense whether it's the first or not, which can we conclude: a) "murder", in this context, is a legal term that requires unlawful killing to occur or b) "murder" has whatever other arbitrary definition you want to attach to it so you can go stroke your dick for "outsmarting" me?
And, indeed, it is fallacious because the poster intentionally chose an emotionally charged term that DOES NOT apply to what the original poster was talking about whether he said anything about the children or not. However, if you insist on something more: murder requires victims, he's saying the children are murdered, he's making the children out as victims when, in fact, that is NOT a fact. Try thinking through things a little further before you just arbitrarily try to call bullshit on me.
Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence.
Murder and abortion are different things as each has a clear cut meaning. You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence". The commonly understood definition of murder, unless you're using it out of context, in which case you're just not very bright, requires a connection to the legality of the killing being done. Abortion is legal. The commonly understood definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful. Therefore, abortion is not murder, so no, that's not what the poster meant. Please try not putting words in other people's mouths just because you don't have a basis for your argument.
The fact that your fear of being rebuked by the government is greater than your hatred for the way things are right now? The fact that you have too much to lose to become a martyr for the cause you espouse? The fact that you're waiting for someone who really means "I don't give a fuck" to come along and say "I don't give a fuck" so you're not the first and, therefore, best target for the government to make into an example?
Every time I see you you're saying something stupider and stupider. If you get much worse your fucking brain is going to implode.
You do realize that the implication of that moronic statement is that you believe it's not plausible to accept that you don't know something, right? And that you think that by not knowing something, but being aware of related beliefs to it, that that means you are implicitly rejecting the plausibility of those beliefs? You do realize that's what you're getting at, right?
Okay, poindexter. That could make sense on one condition: at what point do you have to have enough faith in a postulate for it to be a belief? I don't BELIEVE that the theories behind the explanation of the evolutionary process are 100% gospel truth (ha, ha, I'm ironic), but I accept them as the "current best possibility". Do I believe in them? Or, since I harbor a small amount of doubt like I do for all other theories, does that mean I DON'T believe in them?
Come on smarty-pants, you gonna ignore me again like the last three times I called bullshit on your idiotic posts? Or, are you actually going to try and back up this bullshit your spewing this time?
Wait a minute, here. You're insightful because you and the submitter don't know the difference between "file-sharing" and "sharing music illegally" and I'm a troll for pointing out that the submitter is twisting the words in the article into something that wasn't said?
the RIAA will be subpoenaing the University of Michigan for the names of nine students suspected of file-sharing.
The story actually says:
Following numerous lawsuits against Internet users suspected of file-sharing, the record industry will soon subpoena the University for the names of students allegedly sharing music illegally.
...investigators researching the fate of Beagle 2 confirmed that it was blown to pieces on impact when it accidentally landed on a discarded Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
Uh huh. Yea. You're definitely in IT. Ooooo. Watch me tremble at your 1337 PhotoShop skills while I sit over here tweaking algorithms in this context search engine that we built, complete with ranking and meta-data ready parser, from the ground up. I don't know what you were smoking, but I learned HTML inside and out in 2 days when I was 12. Forgive me for not being terribly impressed. Why don't you come back and talk to me when you can tell me what an RFC even is, much less what you might have learned from one.
Now, run along child and go download gator again even though you were stupid enough to do it 4 times before. When the IT guy shows up to fix the fact that you're a helpless dumbass who can't handle anything on your computer more complicated than the power button, be sure to blame him or her for your continual fuckups.
Do you know why IT folks treat you like an idiot when you call them to fix your 10,000th self-inflicted problem of the day? Because you are one.
I was only being anonymous because I didn't want to suck up mod points on a tangent that, while interesting, is only superficially related to the topic at hand. Maybe I'll revise the draft and send it. Can't hurt. But, I don't know anything about this guy. Does he actually believe what he wrote, or is he just writing it to get responses?
Except, herding is not fun. When some idiotic thing breaks that just shouldn't or I'm answering stupid questions or fixing stupid problems caused by stupid people doing stupid things for the millionth time, I'm NOT happy. I HATE doing that.
On the other hand, when I'm writing some tricky new piece of code or working on something that I haven't done before, I AM having fun. I think a lot of IT folks just have a low tolerance for people afflicted by learned helplessness and they spend an inordinate amount of time fixing those morons' problems instead of doing something productive that they can get a feeling of satisfaction from. It only takes one person doing something really, really dumb to screw up a whole day of otherwise productive work. When you support 1500 people, odds are pretty good that one person is out there somewhere.
Oh, boo-freaking-hoo. Did I touch a tender nerve? I find that sort of amusing since I didn't say anything about YOU in particular. So, what does that mean? Well, you're either taking exception to my "misplaced" rant (which we'll address in a minute here) or you mentally put yourself into that group of whiny crybabies who read half a Schneier book, built up a "security" system of smoke and mirrors, and paid the price. Which is it, I wonder?
As for the "misplaced" rant - why yes, if you only look at it in relation to the PARENT post... YOUR post, why yes - it IS misplaced. Of course, context is not so simple, and when you place it into the context of the entire THREAD and consider the fact that I didn't address YOU in particular, then it's not so misplaced, now is it?
So, I wonder - which one of us is a big crybaby peeing his pants? Me? I flew off the handle and went on a tirade about morons with the overall security knowledge of an artichoke who scream bloody murder that these idiot children need to be turned into examples while the real theives could easily be slipping right over the gates unseen. Or, is it you? You, who just automatically flew off the handle on the assumption that YOU were one of the "dumbasses, jackasses, and morons" being referenced? Hmmm? Telling tale, isn't it? Made MOST interesting indeed by the fact that I didn't say a damn thing about YOU in particular unless you're one of the idiots I was complaining about.
Say that to your face? What, are you threatening me through the Internet? Are you the AC troll from my journal maybe? If so, fear not - go ahead and post under your ID - just because you Foed me doesn't mean you can't say something interesting that I might want to read and think about. Odds are I'm not going to subscribe and block anyone.
And you know what's most amusing about that? Face to face - I'd probably just ignore you and walk away if you started getting... "unpleasant". My time is not flexible enough to deal with people who have egos that are so horribly brittle that they just assume anything bad that is said is being said about them.
You're joking, right? Could you imagine the panic that would ensue if Microsoft tanked in one night? My god, it would be like the apocalypse hit Wall Street.
The economy is not all about good products and services being dealt at a fair price. In fact, it's 99% about confidence that that's what's happening. And an AWFUL lot of people are confident that that is what Microsoft is doing. If that confidence was suddenly undermined, the ensuing whirlpool could take an awful lot down the drain before things got back under control. Microsoft needs to be brought down to size the way IBM was - competition needs to wittle it down slowly to the point where it's size and market power reflect the quality and value of its offerings. A sudden disastrous strike taking it out could have horrible consequences.
And here we go again. Again with the "It's all the hackers to blame" crap.
You know what? Chances are good these kids stole a DB full of plaintext card numbers. Why not arrest the idiots that stored them that way and didn't thoroughly test the system as accomplices?
For you jackasses out there who just scream bloody murder about these stupid kiddies, does it not once occur to you that maybe if you'd have done it right in the first place you wouldn't even have to worry about it? Ashcroft wants to make examples out of these poor kids who were being stupid because YOU dumbasses couldn't take the time to encrypt the credit cards as if it wasn't bad enough that you're storing them in the first place?
Here's a thought for you mindnumbingly dimwitted morons who think this "lock em up and throw away the key" mentality is worth shit: how many people are stealing these databases and NOT GETTING CAUGHT? Make examples of stupid kids all you want. While they go to jail and you sit there with your smug grin while you watch it on CNN your crappy little system is just as insecure as it was when they broke it the first time. So, who's stealing it NOW and are you going to be able to catch them this time? Or, better yet, are you even going to KNOW? Nobody's system ever got any more secure because they set some dumb kid up for a 20 year stint in the Federal...
Any moron fresh out of ITT or CLN with a degree pasted to their face by their own drool can churn out a reaking pile of code that will work.
However, without the theoretical knowledge to back that basic syntax knowledge up, it won't work well.
The grandparent post mentions coding being a "factory job". The commoditization of coding IS a huge problem. Coding WELL is not easy. However, because these half-wits that barely dragged their sorry asses through High School can go to CLN and pick up the latest "Microsoft cert dujour" or whatever other worthless peice of paper they offer, the overall expectation of coding is dropping. I couldn't tell you how often I've been ordered to cut critical corners by clueless bosses who don't understand coding on any level deeper than how to throw syntax together to create a brittle shell of a program that will work just long enough to take the customer's money and run (a favorite quote: "... *I* was never taught that." - spoken in the manner of someone who can't imagine they don't know everything).
The problem isn't that we're elite. The problem is that good programming is no less complex or time-consuming a task now than it was 20 years ago. Why is it elite to try and explain that to someone when they tell you not to bother with such and such critical piece or this basic security test? It's not elite, it's just that we've been flooded by so many bozos that wouldn't know good programming practice if it bit them in the balls that we're constantly deluged by sub-par workers and everyone has come to accept that sub-par work as the norm.
Slashdot Mirror
And, you think that these... what do you call them... "facts"... have any influence on some of these people screaming bloody murder about anything with the word "nuc-u-lar" in it?
Ha! ha! You is so silly!
I wonder what would happen if some of these dolts found out what the sun really is? They'd probably be lobbying that we send the FDNY up there to put it out immediately.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
Try paying some fucking attention. I don't GIVE A FLYING FUCK what he thinks about abortion, it's NOT murder, and he said it WAS.
Now, if you idiots don't mind, I have better things to do with my time than try to beat it into your thick skulls that I don't give a flying fuck what you or anyone else thinks about abortion, and my post had NOTHING to do with it other than to point out to that flaming moron that it's NOT murder and the original poster DIDN'T mean it, so stop putting words in his fucking mouth.
Pull your heads out of your fucking asses once in awhile - the lack of oxygen is rapidly killing off brain cells.
Fucking morons.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't think you understand what I'm arguing about. Read the grandparent post to mine and then read what that other guy said:
Original Post: premature ending of pregnancy.
Atzanteol: You mean murder?
No, s/he didn't mean murder, and murder and "premature ending of pregnancy" are not interchangeable. That's it, that's the point. The rest is evidence that I'm presenting for consideration. Atzanteol didn't draw an analogy, he put words in the other poster's mouth and that's why I yelled bullshit. It has nothing to do with analogies at all. It's entirely about Atzanteol misusing the term "murder" to put words into the original poster's mouth just to stir up emotions when "murder" cannot be rightly used in that context.
Since my friend, the guy I originally started aruging with is abusing your post in a misguided effort to vindicate himself, I'm going to have to respond here.
Put another way, you are basically arguing that the definition of murder can never be expanded.
That's not true unless you abuse my original argument similar to the way this guy was originally abusing the term "murder". To clarify an important point: suggesting that something IS murder just to cause trouble and saying something SHOULD be murder are two completely different things. Replacing a word with the term "murder" where it doesn't fit is just a fallacy to stir up trouble and make people stop thinking with their heads. However, there's certainly nothing wrong with arguing that something SHOULD (or shouldn't, for that matter) be murder as long as you can do so intelligently.
I will address your continuing nonsense one last time, point by point. If you insist on trying to drag me into a fruitless debate on abortion, or continue to simply make assertions without providing evidence on the assumption that something is true because you say it is, then I will simply assume you are an imbecile and I will leave it at that.
Problem 1: the term 'murder' certainly DOES have a most appropriate defintion within the framework of the debate you are attempting to engage in. I have asserted that the legal definition (that is - the definition of the lawfulness - or lawlessness, as it were - of a killing) is the most appropriate one because the debate over abortion is certainly being held within the halls of the legal system. Therefore, murder's legal definition of unlawful killing IS NOT appropriate for describing "abortion" in general because many forms of abortion ARE LEGAL. You can try to fight with me all you want, but murder IS illegal and abortion in general, is not. The best you can do is try to come up with an INTELLIGENT argument as to why I've chosen the wrong definition for murder. If you'd like to do that, by all means, prove me wrong. However, you can't just say 'it is this way because I say it is' and expect me to think you're anything more than a drooling buffoon.
Problem 2: I am not here to debate the meaning of the term 'killing' as 'abortion' certainly IS 'killing'. I fail to see why you brought it up, even, as I never mentioned it and it's totally irrelevant to my confrontation with you.
Problem 3: I don't care WHAT you believe a fetus is, and it's irrelevant what I believe, because I'm NOT here to argue abortion's morality with you and I won't do it. Find another sucker who will waste their time on it, I'm not that sucker.
And, finally, yes, all I've done is bitch about your use of the word murder because you attempted to change what the poster said about abortion into something else entirely simply "because". Well, I just bitch-slapped you back into the real world and now you have a stick up your ass because I pointed out that you're full of shit. Get over it. And, in the future, don't arbitrarily rewrite what people say into "what they meant" unless it's one of those lame "I think you misspelled x as y..." jokes.
You think YOU'RE tired of slashdotters? Imagine what it's like fighting with nimrods like YOU all the time. Boo hoo. You're wrong. Get over it and try to make your point using EVIDENCE for once. Holy shit! Imagine this! You might even .... *GASP* CHANGE SOMEBODY'S MIND ON AN ISSUE!
You persist. How amusing. You have still presented no evidence, but you HAVE made an assumption on my position regarding fetuses and, likely, my position on abortion even though I've given NO indication what I think of it, or that I even care one way or another.
In addition, despite the fact you quoted a defintion for murder that clearly states "UNLAWFUL" in it, you continue to ignore the fact that unless you're misusing it to try and skew the discussion, the word has a legitimate legal meaning that DOES NOT allow it to be synonomous with abortion. Abortion is legal (unless you are specifying a specific type, in which case, I suggest you qualify it to avoid confusion). Murder is not. Framed in the context of this discussion so far, the two are not technically, logically, or intellibly interchangeable. Argue all you like, it's a fact. You don't have to deal in facts ALL the time, but if you plan on actually convincing anyone of positions you hold instead of making yourself look like a screeching moron, I suggest you stick to them in those cases at the very least.
Ah yes, and still you come at me like a whipped dog, too stubborn to admit your defeat. That's fine, here I shall present the final nail in your coffin and proceed to drive it in:
I argued NOTHING for you. I'm not attacking the poster's BELIEF because I DON'T CARE what s/he believes. I am attacking the poster's ARGUMENT because it is WRONG because it is not presenting EVIDENCE. S/he can go on screaming bloody murder about whatever the hell they want and as long as s/he is making up "evidence" on the spot, I will continue to attack him/her on that matter. I have absolutely NO interest in arguing for or against abortion.
And, again, you conveniently skip context in order to maintain your false superiority. You know, it's not that you necessarily made a BAD argument, it's just not RIGHT because you're ignoring CONTEXT which frames this squarely in a legal discussion. Fight about it all you want, but the legal definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful and the legal defintion fits best within the framework of the discussion as it evolved. If the poster is using 'murder' with some other meaning, they're either clueless or trying to drive the discussion off track into a (likely pointless) emotional battle instead of a legal one. If you're just going to continue to pretend that's not the case, by all means, do so - but I'll not waste anymore time sticking it right under your nose for you.
I love it when ACs stubbornly insist on responding to my posts after intentionally misreading them.
Quick! To the thougt-mobile! The term 'murder' includes a large number of defintions like so many other English words do. Unfortunately for you, you are assuming that you can apply the definition that suits you best independant of the context of the two posts above mine. Now, we're talking about what here? Imposing lawful/unlawful restrictions. So, in the spirit of the original poster, which definition of murder would fit the bill here? The one with lawful restrictions, whether it happens to be the first one in your dictionary or not, since I have TWO dead tree dictionaries here, and BOTH list the definition that requires unlawful killing as the first definition. So, considering the version of murder that makes the most sense whether it's the first or not, which can we conclude: a) "murder", in this context, is a legal term that requires unlawful killing to occur or b) "murder" has whatever other arbitrary definition you want to attach to it so you can go stroke your dick for "outsmarting" me?
And, indeed, it is fallacious because the poster intentionally chose an emotionally charged term that DOES NOT apply to what the original poster was talking about whether he said anything about the children or not. However, if you insist on something more: murder requires victims, he's saying the children are murdered, he's making the children out as victims when, in fact, that is NOT a fact. Try thinking through things a little further before you just arbitrarily try to call bullshit on me.
You mean murder?
Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence.
Murder and abortion are different things as each has a clear cut meaning. You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence". The commonly understood definition of murder, unless you're using it out of context, in which case you're just not very bright, requires a connection to the legality of the killing being done. Abortion is legal. The commonly understood definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful. Therefore, abortion is not murder, so no, that's not what the poster meant. Please try not putting words in other people's mouths just because you don't have a basis for your argument.
The fact that your fear of being rebuked by the government is greater than your hatred for the way things are right now? The fact that you have too much to lose to become a martyr for the cause you espouse? The fact that you're waiting for someone who really means "I don't give a fuck" to come along and say "I don't give a fuck" so you're not the first and, therefore, best target for the government to make into an example?
Every time I see you you're saying something stupider and stupider. If you get much worse your fucking brain is going to implode.
You do realize that the implication of that moronic statement is that you believe it's not plausible to accept that you don't know something, right? And that you think that by not knowing something, but being aware of related beliefs to it, that that means you are implicitly rejecting the plausibility of those beliefs? You do realize that's what you're getting at, right?
Okay, poindexter. That could make sense on one condition: at what point do you have to have enough faith in a postulate for it to be a belief? I don't BELIEVE that the theories behind the explanation of the evolutionary process are 100% gospel truth (ha, ha, I'm ironic), but I accept them as the "current best possibility". Do I believe in them? Or, since I harbor a small amount of doubt like I do for all other theories, does that mean I DON'T believe in them?
Come on smarty-pants, you gonna ignore me again like the last three times I called bullshit on your idiotic posts? Or, are you actually going to try and back up this bullshit your spewing this time?
Babylon should sue the Pope for copyright infringement.
In my experience, Microsoft crashes ARE the shredder. And that's not even a Soviet Russia joke!
Ooohhhh... my poor beautiful data! You were too good for this world!
Wait a minute, here. You're insightful because you and the submitter don't know the difference between "file-sharing" and "sharing music illegally" and I'm a troll for pointing out that the submitter is twisting the words in the article into something that wasn't said?
That's it! You're all idiots, and I'm outta here!
the RIAA will be subpoenaing the University of Michigan for the names of nine students suspected of file-sharing.
The story actually says:
Following numerous lawsuits against Internet users suspected of file-sharing, the record industry will soon subpoena the University for the names of students allegedly sharing music illegally.
Slashdot: Fairly Unbalanced.
...investigators researching the fate of Beagle 2 confirmed that it was blown to pieces on impact when it accidentally landed on a discarded Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
Uh huh. Yea. You're definitely in IT. Ooooo. Watch me tremble at your 1337 PhotoShop skills while I sit over here tweaking algorithms in this context search engine that we built, complete with ranking and meta-data ready parser, from the ground up. I don't know what you were smoking, but I learned HTML inside and out in 2 days when I was 12. Forgive me for not being terribly impressed. Why don't you come back and talk to me when you can tell me what an RFC even is, much less what you might have learned from one .
Now, run along child and go download gator again even though you were stupid enough to do it 4 times before. When the IT guy shows up to fix the fact that you're a helpless dumbass who can't handle anything on your computer more complicated than the power button, be sure to blame him or her for your continual fuckups.
Do you know why IT folks treat you like an idiot when you call them to fix your 10,000th self-inflicted problem of the day? Because you are one.
I was only being anonymous because I didn't want to suck up mod points on a tangent that, while interesting, is only superficially related to the topic at hand. Maybe I'll revise the draft and send it. Can't hurt. But, I don't know anything about this guy. Does he actually believe what he wrote, or is he just writing it to get responses?
Except, herding is not fun. When some idiotic thing breaks that just shouldn't or I'm answering stupid questions or fixing stupid problems caused by stupid people doing stupid things for the millionth time, I'm NOT happy. I HATE doing that.
On the other hand, when I'm writing some tricky new piece of code or working on something that I haven't done before, I AM having fun. I think a lot of IT folks just have a low tolerance for people afflicted by learned helplessness and they spend an inordinate amount of time fixing those morons' problems instead of doing something productive that they can get a feeling of satisfaction from. It only takes one person doing something really, really dumb to screw up a whole day of otherwise productive work. When you support 1500 people, odds are pretty good that one person is out there somewhere.
Oh, boo-freaking-hoo. Did I touch a tender nerve? I find that sort of amusing since I didn't say anything about YOU in particular. So, what does that mean? Well, you're either taking exception to my "misplaced" rant (which we'll address in a minute here) or you mentally put yourself into that group of whiny crybabies who read half a Schneier book, built up a "security" system of smoke and mirrors, and paid the price. Which is it, I wonder?
As for the "misplaced" rant - why yes, if you only look at it in relation to the PARENT post... YOUR post, why yes - it IS misplaced. Of course, context is not so simple, and when you place it into the context of the entire THREAD and consider the fact that I didn't address YOU in particular, then it's not so misplaced, now is it?
So, I wonder - which one of us is a big crybaby peeing his pants? Me? I flew off the handle and went on a tirade about morons with the overall security knowledge of an artichoke who scream bloody murder that these idiot children need to be turned into examples while the real theives could easily be slipping right over the gates unseen. Or, is it you? You, who just automatically flew off the handle on the assumption that YOU were one of the "dumbasses, jackasses, and morons" being referenced? Hmmm? Telling tale, isn't it? Made MOST interesting indeed by the fact that I didn't say a damn thing about YOU in particular unless you're one of the idiots I was complaining about.
Say that to your face? What, are you threatening me through the Internet? Are you the AC troll from my journal maybe? If so, fear not - go ahead and post under your ID - just because you Foed me doesn't mean you can't say something interesting that I might want to read and think about. Odds are I'm not going to subscribe and block anyone.
And you know what's most amusing about that? Face to face - I'd probably just ignore you and walk away if you started getting... "unpleasant". My time is not flexible enough to deal with people who have egos that are so horribly brittle that they just assume anything bad that is said is being said about them.
You're joking, right? Could you imagine the panic that would ensue if Microsoft tanked in one night? My god, it would be like the apocalypse hit Wall Street.
The economy is not all about good products and services being dealt at a fair price. In fact, it's 99% about confidence that that's what's happening. And an AWFUL lot of people are confident that that is what Microsoft is doing. If that confidence was suddenly undermined, the ensuing whirlpool could take an awful lot down the drain before things got back under control. Microsoft needs to be brought down to size the way IBM was - competition needs to wittle it down slowly to the point where it's size and market power reflect the quality and value of its offerings. A sudden disastrous strike taking it out could have horrible consequences.
And here we go again. Again with the "It's all the hackers to blame" crap.
You know what? Chances are good these kids stole a DB full of plaintext card numbers. Why not arrest the idiots that stored them that way and didn't thoroughly test the system as accomplices?
For you jackasses out there who just scream bloody murder about these stupid kiddies, does it not once occur to you that maybe if you'd have done it right in the first place you wouldn't even have to worry about it? Ashcroft wants to make examples out of these poor kids who were being stupid because YOU dumbasses couldn't take the time to encrypt the credit cards as if it wasn't bad enough that you're storing them in the first place?
Here's a thought for you mindnumbingly dimwitted morons who think this "lock em up and throw away the key" mentality is worth shit: how many people are stealing these databases and NOT GETTING CAUGHT? Make examples of stupid kids all you want. While they go to jail and you sit there with your smug grin while you watch it on CNN your crappy little system is just as insecure as it was when they broke it the first time. So, who's stealing it NOW and are you going to be able to catch them this time? Or, better yet, are you even going to KNOW? Nobody's system ever got any more secure because they set some dumb kid up for a 20 year stint in the Federal...
I have four Perl files open right now. I have the following pieces of punctuation in them:
? : , . ! ;
You CRAZY man, you CRAZY!
Any moron fresh out of ITT or CLN with a degree pasted to their face by their own drool can churn out a reaking pile of code that will work.
However, without the theoretical knowledge to back that basic syntax knowledge up, it won't work well.
The grandparent post mentions coding being a "factory job". The commoditization of coding IS a huge problem. Coding WELL is not easy. However, because these half-wits that barely dragged their sorry asses through High School can go to CLN and pick up the latest "Microsoft cert dujour" or whatever other worthless peice of paper they offer, the overall expectation of coding is dropping. I couldn't tell you how often I've been ordered to cut critical corners by clueless bosses who don't understand coding on any level deeper than how to throw syntax together to create a brittle shell of a program that will work just long enough to take the customer's money and run (a favorite quote: "... *I* was never taught that." - spoken in the manner of someone who can't imagine they don't know everything).
The problem isn't that we're elite. The problem is that good programming is no less complex or time-consuming a task now than it was 20 years ago. Why is it elite to try and explain that to someone when they tell you not to bother with such and such critical piece or this basic security test? It's not elite, it's just that we've been flooded by so many bozos that wouldn't know good programming practice if it bit them in the balls that we're constantly deluged by sub-par workers and everyone has come to accept that sub-par work as the norm.
Or, to summarize your summary:
Same ol', same ol'.