No, it doesn't. It doesn't even use JavaScript except to make sure a robot isn't loading the page. Just set the referer [sic] to the page itself (in Firefox, load the page and refresh) , and it'll load.
Amen (and that's the first time I've said that in a long time, as someone who isn't religious in any fashion). And to answer the guy who replied to you: let's try not spying on ANYONE and let's stop victimizing innocent people just because they have the potential to be dangerous. let's try that for a start, huh? I think that was kind of the point.
no, we can't catch everybody. we can't watch everybody. and that's taking away our privacy; it's violating our rights. that's exactly why we shouldn't try.
These people destroy speed cameras because they want the freedom the break the law, nothing more and I hope everyone of them gets arrested.
yeah, except no. I want to destroy speeding cameras because they're a fucking absurd invasion of my privacy, and used by asshole power-control-freak policemen and police departments to victimize innocent people and make them feel like fucking slaves for no god damn reason. I barely drive, and, when I do, I observe every "speed limit" as well as every fucking traffic regulation and law I'm aware of very meticulously. so fuck you.
and you're right; I do want freedom to break the law. I want these laws to not exist; I want to exercise civil disobedience, and I want to see true freedom, which means that ridiculous things like this won't be around anymore.
Who cares? Why not do it? Making fun of people is cool and fun, and religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe. So why not challenge them on it? You're just being as annoying as whomever it is you're annoyed at for being annoying, to me. I can say what I want, and you can criticize me. Similarly, you can say stupid shit, too, but don't expect me not to call you on it.
I don't see any overwhelming evidence that you're an adherent to any particular religion, if you're theistic or deistic at all, but, if you are, I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons for coming to be so, using the same display of logic and reason.
Like anyone should take your advice on English grammar. Standing in the place of a comma? I suppose it should read: "What happened to proofreading, terrible grammatical errors in this."
No matter; you made a similar error yourself.
"It is written as dialogue, the question marks are standing in the place of commas to better reflect the tone of voice."
What the hell does that mean? Oh, that's right. It was a comma splice.
That is one of the rules that can be suspended when trying to write natural sounding dialogue.
That is one of the rules WHICH [may] be suspended.
If you say it out loud, then say the same thing with commas instead, you'll see the point.
Can you says omething "with commas?"
And the original poster should've said "Yes, I am a grammar nazi."
Eh? That would require the server to store the password. What kind of shitty application does that? About the only way you can securely do that is with a zero-knowledge password proof.
Except not really. It has evolved to mean the general concept of such a star system, taking on the name for convenience and/or familiarity. How many other things have done just that? We name concepts, ideas, states, countries, objects, and geographical features after people -- usually those involved in the discovery or the formation of the process. If our sun was the first, then why wouldn't we apply that terminology elsewhere? It only makes sense.
Also, if you really want to be picky, our "star Sol" is technically our 'sun.'
GPG signing is more secure, but if the secret key is compromised, they can be faked as well.
No shit, but that's a big "if." Who the hell keeps their signing key on the same server? Why do you people always feel the need to make up ridiculous 'the-sky-is-falling' scenarios?
Yeah, it can happen. It probably has happened. That doesn't defeat the point: PGP is safe so far as we know, GPG is a good implementation of it, and, it's an extra layer of security: good security. Stop the fear mongering. You know.. It could be that everything we know about physics is wrong too, and it only takes a wave of a hand for some Jedi master to crack Diffie-Hellman and RSA in five seconds, but who cares? That's a completely circumstantial event.
Of course 'the market' should stop going to GoDaddy and thus 'the market' should decide, but that shouldn't prevent ICANN from implementing something effective to stop problems at the source.
Except the market hasn't experienced any serious dissuasion from godaddy. You're interjecting your own biases into the ideal.
And if GoDaddy was forced to release expired domains back into the public pool there would still be this problem of domain snipers picking up the domain from the public pool to do that same exact thing. Just because someone else will do it doesn't mean GoDaddy should be allowed to.
What does mean they shouldn't be allowed to?
You YELL that we don't need more rules and regulations, but the majority of domains registered today are squatted hoping to make money on advertising from inadvertent visitors or selling the domain to someone who wants to use it, actually, for real. This is a shit-situation
Moreover, British English has not been the standard worldwide for many years, so outside of Commonwealth countries and Europe, people do not, as a rule, gravitate towards British English.
I can't seem to pin you down for one or the other. Towards instead of toward, but premier instead of premiere?
Let's not get into the "dialectic" (did you have capacitors on your mind, or something?).
That's just fucking great, Slashdot. Randomly CHANGE THE PAGE LAYOUT SO EVEN OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT USERS CAN FALL FOR SHITTY TROLL LINKS? Who the FUCK thought this shit up? I didn't click on the link, but when I saw this thread, I wanted to see what the replies were, so I instinctively hovered my mouse over the top right link of the post, which is where the comment link USED TO BE, but some FUCKTARD WHIMSICALLY decided he'd just change it, so "trolls" can link goatse or a malware site or whatever the fuck they want and dupe unsuspecting or tired users into visiting them. This website is just horrible. What kind of fucking legitimate website changes their layout just like that, and makes it default for everybody?
Now, personally, I don't care all that much. I did research that page and then open it in another browser to check out what it was. It's just Tubgirl, Lemonparty, some chick vomiting after she deepthroated some dude, and like some dude sticking a stick up some chick's ass and they both have shit all over their bodies. Oh, I didn't even notice the goatse. I guess that's just so fucking old that my grandma wouldn't even give a shit. Personally, again, I'm not sexually aroused by goatse or lemonparty. I haven't seen the stick-fucking-shit-covered one before, but that doesn't seem to arouse me either. I'm not really into fisting, and shit-smearing, while not gross, is not particularly appealing to me--it just doesn't make any sense; why the fuck are you smearing shit all over yourself instead of doing something more erotic like eating it or not playing with shit at all?
The Tubgirl image is more appealing to me, but it doesn't really get my "rocks off;" I just find it less not-appealing. The chick vomiting over that dude's cock could be arousing for me in the right context. The vomit itself isn't an attraction, but the degradation of the bitch performing the act is a win. Deep throat is nice. Gagging is nice. Vomit is ok; it shows what a disgusting whore that slut is, and it shows that she's in pain, all for the sake of pleasuring some faggot. That's awesome.
However, I don't really see the FUCKING point of posting these images on some shitty website. Is there anyone who's been using the web for more than two months who hasn't seen all of this and "worse?" Only fucking faggots go to these kinds of websites and are like "OMG PUKE LOL HEHE." I also don't see the fucking point of putting them all together like that. Goatse and Tubgirl have a specific, unique appeal. They weren't made to be one.
My major point IS WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE SLASHDOT GUYS?
No, no, no. I mean "me." Yeah, "they" have decided to some degree; it's a democratic republic, so we've managed to vote people in somehow or another who vote for these things (which may or may not be constitutionally sound?).
Of course, "decided" in this context usually means something slightly higher than 49.9% of the people. It's probably not as bad as a direct democracy, but you get the idea. It's mob rule. And they're taking tax dollars of people who WEREN'T in that 50% to do it. That's my problem.
I know plenty about the subject -- heaps more than you, I'm sure. Wow, you've written some software in Perl (I'm sure that's very efficient). Congratz, dude!111. The point was hardly that software can't be written to take advantage of an array of machines. It was that your numbers of what comprises a feasible botnet are very, very skewed and childishly wrong.
That's something I think I'd certainly know more about than you. I didn't say I "don't know how to do it," and I didn't say it can't be done -- whatever it is we were talking about. I said you're enormously overestimating the ability of any kind of attacker -- even a very sophisticated one. That's something I think I'd know more about than you.
And I'm certainly not downplaying the potential for an offline attack, if that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure of the complexity of various kinds of passphrases used in all the different encryption schemes, but if has the cost of any modern hashing algorithm, give or take, an eight character "passphrase" is incredibly weak. I know that. I can crack an 8-char a-zA-Z0-9 raw, unsalted MD5 hash on my computer, using hardware from the year 2003, in just 2/3 of a year.
My objection to your comment is entirely in the position of authority you seem to be taking, when it's clear you really aren't any sort of authority. I might have been content to leave well enough alone had you not made ridiculous remarks about the feasibility of harvesting a 50 million computer botnet (which probably doesn't exist, and which certainly isn't going to happen for any random attacker), which I would still deny completely.
Combatting your unsourced ancedotes with some of my own, I'm not exactly the worst programmer in the world, myself. I don't have a thorough educational background, so my mathematical ability is a little lacking, but I've been using computers for a long, long time, and the concepts are second nature to me. My strengths are more in the realm of security and networking, which are relevant enough. I've written security software, including cryptography applications and implementations. I'm pretty confident I could write something, rather easily, to parallelize such a task if I wanted to, all the same. But just because there's some ridiculously hypothetical 'perfect-world' where there are 50 million "bots" ripe for the taking by some script kid with a hard-on for some particular dude he's had his eye on, and, god damn it, he's managed to write the most efficient software in the world for managing 5.0 * 10^7 bots OVER THE FUCKING INTERNET to do it all... well. I can dream about writing Perl implementations of cryptography software, too.
Their records speak volumes...quite loudly and forcefully.
Which is exactly why you should consider voting for Ron, if you agree with the kinds of things he says, because his voting record is crystal clear. He hasn't been around to vote as often as he should lately, because he's too busy campaigning for president, I'd wager.
I don't know that it's impossible for Ron Paul to win the nomination; it's probably not the MOST likely thing in history, and I'm not sure I'd bet all of my moeny on it, but I'm optimistic; it's certainly not going to happen, though, if people, who would otherwise support him, keep thinking it can't.
As far as Kucinich goes, I, too, would rather vote for someone who spends a metric assload of money on health care instead of warfare, but I'd much rather have someone who lets the citizens decide for themselves what they want to do with their own money.
That's a hell of an argument. "you are a nut." Damn, you've sure convinced me.
Why the hell should kiddie porn be illegal? I'm pretty sure child abuse already IS illegal. The only "argument" I've ever heard for making child pornography illegal is "the pictures support people who do bad things to kids." So what? We don't ban cell phones because Al Qaeda uses them to coordinate acts of terrorism. Not that those things are analogous, but what the hell? What the fuck does the product have to do with anything except being a product?
Because people can't donate more than once. The poster is slightly conflating several things, though. Ron Paul raised money from about 38,000 donors on November 5, totaling somewhere around $4.2 million. Last quarter, however, he raised something like $5.3 million, and something like $2.8 the quarter before that.
This quarter, he's already raised $10.7 million or so (rising daily), with that $4.2 million being part of this. I'm not sure the number of individual donors for the entire quarter is known to the general public, but it's probably more than 40,000. Also, the average donation size on Nov. 5 was about $110.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it doesn't. It doesn't even use JavaScript except to make sure a robot isn't loading the page. Just set the referer [sic] to the page itself (in Firefox, load the page and refresh) , and it'll load.
Amen (and that's the first time I've said that in a long time, as someone who isn't religious in any fashion). And to answer the guy who replied to you: let's try not spying on ANYONE and let's stop victimizing innocent people just because they have the potential to be dangerous. let's try that for a start, huh? I think that was kind of the point.
no, we can't catch everybody. we can't watch everybody. and that's taking away our privacy; it's violating our rights. that's exactly why we shouldn't try.
yeah, except no. I want to destroy speeding cameras because they're a fucking absurd invasion of my privacy, and used by asshole power-control-freak policemen and police departments to victimize innocent people and make them feel like fucking slaves for no god damn reason. I barely drive, and, when I do, I observe every "speed limit" as well as every fucking traffic regulation and law I'm aware of very meticulously. so fuck you.
and you're right; I do want freedom to break the law. I want these laws to not exist; I want to exercise civil disobedience, and I want to see true freedom, which means that ridiculous things like this won't be around anymore.
Who cares? Why not do it? Making fun of people is cool and fun, and religious people don't have any good, rational arguments for the things they believe. So why not challenge them on it? You're just being as annoying as whomever it is you're annoyed at for being annoying, to me. I can say what I want, and you can criticize me. Similarly, you can say stupid shit, too, but don't expect me not to call you on it.
I don't see any overwhelming evidence that you're an adherent to any particular religion, if you're theistic or deistic at all, but, if you are, I'd love to see how you're going to argue your reasons for coming to be so, using the same display of logic and reason.
No matter; you made a similar error yourself.
What the hell does that mean? Oh, that's right. It was a comma splice.
That is one of the rules WHICH [may] be suspended.Can you says omething "with commas?"
And the original poster should've said "Yes, I am a grammar nazi."
or Snadboy's Revelation. Ancient software, that.
Eh? That would require the server to store the password. What kind of shitty application does that? About the only way you can securely do that is with a zero-knowledge password proof.
Except not really. It has evolved to mean the general concept of such a star system, taking on the name for convenience and/or familiarity. How many other things have done just that? We name concepts, ideas, states, countries, objects, and geographical features after people -- usually those involved in the discovery or the formation of the process. If our sun was the first, then why wouldn't we apply that terminology elsewhere? It only makes sense.
Also, if you really want to be picky, our "star Sol" is technically our 'sun.'
No shit, but that's a big "if." Who the hell keeps their signing key on the same server? Why do you people always feel the need to make up ridiculous 'the-sky-is-falling' scenarios?
Yeah, it can happen. It probably has happened. That doesn't defeat the point: PGP is safe so far as we know, GPG is a good implementation of it, and, it's an extra layer of security: good security. Stop the fear mongering. You know.. It could be that everything we know about physics is wrong too, and it only takes a wave of a hand for some Jedi master to crack Diffie-Hellman and RSA in five seconds, but who cares? That's a completely circumstantial event.
Except the market hasn't experienced any serious dissuasion from godaddy. You're interjecting your own biases into the ideal.
What does mean they shouldn't be allowed to?
How?
Why?
You're (not necesarily you in particular) still using the internet for your WWW.
That's just fucking great, Slashdot. Randomly CHANGE THE PAGE LAYOUT SO EVEN OTHERWISE INTELLIGENT USERS CAN FALL FOR SHITTY TROLL LINKS? Who the FUCK thought this shit up? I didn't click on the link, but when I saw this thread, I wanted to see what the replies were, so I instinctively hovered my mouse over the top right link of the post, which is where the comment link USED TO BE, but some FUCKTARD WHIMSICALLY decided he'd just change it, so "trolls" can link goatse or a malware site or whatever the fuck they want and dupe unsuspecting or tired users into visiting them. This website is just horrible. What kind of fucking legitimate website changes their layout just like that, and makes it default for everybody?
Now, personally, I don't care all that much. I did research that page and then open it in another browser to check out what it was. It's just Tubgirl, Lemonparty, some chick vomiting after she deepthroated some dude, and like some dude sticking a stick up some chick's ass and they both have shit all over their bodies. Oh, I didn't even notice the goatse. I guess that's just so fucking old that my grandma wouldn't even give a shit. Personally, again, I'm not sexually aroused by goatse or lemonparty. I haven't seen the stick-fucking-shit-covered one before, but that doesn't seem to arouse me either. I'm not really into fisting, and shit-smearing, while not gross, is not particularly appealing to me--it just doesn't make any sense; why the fuck are you smearing shit all over yourself instead of doing something more erotic like eating it or not playing with shit at all?
The Tubgirl image is more appealing to me, but it doesn't really get my "rocks off;" I just find it less not-appealing. The chick vomiting over that dude's cock could be arousing for me in the right context. The vomit itself isn't an attraction, but the degradation of the bitch performing the act is a win. Deep throat is nice. Gagging is nice. Vomit is ok; it shows what a disgusting whore that slut is, and it shows that she's in pain, all for the sake of pleasuring some faggot. That's awesome.
However, I don't really see the FUCKING point of posting these images on some shitty website. Is there anyone who's been using the web for more than two months who hasn't seen all of this and "worse?" Only fucking faggots go to these kinds of websites and are like "OMG PUKE LOL HEHE." I also don't see the fucking point of putting them all together like that. Goatse and Tubgirl have a specific, unique appeal. They weren't made to be one.
My major point IS WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE SLASHDOT GUYS?
Three years? Try ten.
Or maybe they don't mean much of anything.
Yes, but can they do it by visual recognition alone (on a computer screen, no less)?
No, no, no. I mean "me." Yeah, "they" have decided to some degree; it's a democratic republic, so we've managed to vote people in somehow or another who vote for these things (which may or may not be constitutionally sound?).
Of course, "decided" in this context usually means something slightly higher than 49.9% of the people. It's probably not as bad as a direct democracy, but you get the idea. It's mob rule. And they're taking tax dollars of people who WEREN'T in that 50% to do it. That's my problem.
People attracted to children do.
I know plenty about the subject -- heaps more than you, I'm sure. Wow, you've written some software in Perl (I'm sure that's very efficient). Congratz, dude!111. The point was hardly that software can't be written to take advantage of an array of machines. It was that your numbers of what comprises a feasible botnet are very, very skewed and childishly wrong.
That's something I think I'd certainly know more about than you. I didn't say I "don't know how to do it," and I didn't say it can't be done -- whatever it is we were talking about. I said you're enormously overestimating the ability of any kind of attacker -- even a very sophisticated one. That's something I think I'd know more about than you.
And I'm certainly not downplaying the potential for an offline attack, if that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure of the complexity of various kinds of passphrases used in all the different encryption schemes, but if has the cost of any modern hashing algorithm, give or take, an eight character "passphrase" is incredibly weak. I know that. I can crack an 8-char a-zA-Z0-9 raw, unsalted MD5 hash on my computer, using hardware from the year 2003, in just 2/3 of a year.
My objection to your comment is entirely in the position of authority you seem to be taking, when it's clear you really aren't any sort of authority. I might have been content to leave well enough alone had you not made ridiculous remarks about the feasibility of harvesting a 50 million computer botnet (which probably doesn't exist, and which certainly isn't going to happen for any random attacker), which I would still deny completely.
Combatting your unsourced ancedotes with some of my own, I'm not exactly the worst programmer in the world, myself. I don't have a thorough educational background, so my mathematical ability is a little lacking, but I've been using computers for a long, long time, and the concepts are second nature to me. My strengths are more in the realm of security and networking, which are relevant enough. I've written security software, including cryptography applications and implementations. I'm pretty confident I could write something, rather easily, to parallelize such a task if I wanted to, all the same. But just because there's some ridiculously hypothetical 'perfect-world' where there are 50 million "bots" ripe for the taking by some script kid with a hard-on for some particular dude he's had his eye on, and, god damn it, he's managed to write the most efficient software in the world for managing 5.0 * 10^7 bots OVER THE FUCKING INTERNET to do it all... well. I can dream about writing Perl implementations of cryptography software, too.
Which is exactly why you should consider voting for Ron, if you agree with the kinds of things he says, because his voting record is crystal clear. He hasn't been around to vote as often as he should lately, because he's too busy campaigning for president, I'd wager.
I don't know that it's impossible for Ron Paul to win the nomination; it's probably not the MOST likely thing in history, and I'm not sure I'd bet all of my moeny on it, but I'm optimistic; it's certainly not going to happen, though, if people, who would otherwise support him, keep thinking it can't.
As far as Kucinich goes, I, too, would rather vote for someone who spends a metric assload of money on health care instead of warfare, but I'd much rather have someone who lets the citizens decide for themselves what they want to do with their own money.
That's a hell of an argument. "you are a nut." Damn, you've sure convinced me.
Why the hell should kiddie porn be illegal? I'm pretty sure child abuse already IS illegal. The only "argument" I've ever heard for making child pornography illegal is "the pictures support people who do bad things to kids." So what? We don't ban cell phones because Al Qaeda uses them to coordinate acts of terrorism. Not that those things are analogous, but what the hell? What the fuck does the product have to do with anything except being a product?
Because people can't donate more than once. The poster is slightly conflating several things, though. Ron Paul raised money from about 38,000 donors on November 5, totaling somewhere around $4.2 million. Last quarter, however, he raised something like $5.3 million, and something like $2.8 the quarter before that.
This quarter, he's already raised $10.7 million or so (rising daily), with that $4.2 million being part of this. I'm not sure the number of individual donors for the entire quarter is known to the general public, but it's probably more than 40,000. Also, the average donation size on Nov. 5 was about $110.
Seee http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ and http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/ for more information.
Not if that password is hashed with a properly complex, salted hash algorithm.