... people don't wait until they are ready to upgrade and then go out and read reviews...
I have far to much a life to be reading the reviews of every cool little gadget or other product on the day of release!
Besides, with my luck I would read a review on the day of release, remember that review when I wanted to upgrade, then buy a P90! Which I did. I now read reviews when I'm ready to upgrade... This can still result in buying bad products, but at least I feel like I'm trying!
They picked the wrong target. If you hit a small business it's easier to pay. If you hit a large business you pay because you don't want people to find out. You hit a hospital though and people could die and it is very very public.
Right about now there will be a whole lot of resources targeted towards finding these people. They are fucked.
How dare those IT guys fail, seriously FAIL, to protect against every single, fucking danger there IS! Obviously, they have an UNLIMITED budget, holy f*ck! How dare they.
News for YOU buddy! They, the IT people, didn't cause the problem. Criminal P'sOS did.
How's this for a proposal: If you are caught endangering the health system in an egregious manner and are found guilty, YOU, your immediate ancestors(2, 3 or more parents), AND ALL of your descendants are put to death.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As you advocate committing crimes, I can see where you're coming from....
The laws concerning marijuana in much of the US are still morally reprehensible, encouraging people to break those laws is worse than the crime(s) of breaking those laws.
The "society" where laws are ignored will end up being, arguably, just as bad if not worse than the brutal society where people are punished "too harshly" for breaking laws.
What to say?! "Takes one to know one!"? Or, perhaps, "So says the douche!"?
Disclaimer: I have no idea who poperatzo is! But He/She sounds like an adult being slammed by a bunch of juvies who have taken of the cry of "Don't trust anyone over 19!"
No, you're not. You weren't born on the Internet's "day one". I was there on the other hand, and the people I knew back then would have had pieces of Gamergaters/MRAs/KiAs/and/pol in their crap. You guys aren't fit to name the people who were there at the Internet's day one.
If I was particularly religious, I would say "Amen". Ah, I'll say it anyway: "Amen"!
This is another example of what I call "barbarians at the gate". I didn't come up with that phrase. I don't remember where I first came into contact with that phrase.
The idea, as best as I can recall, is something like this: The empire won't fall simply because of the increasing decadence of the empire. It falls because it eventually gets weak enough that the barbarians, ever-present at the gate, can bring it down with a simple raid.
These people are "barbarians at the gate". They don't care that they are trying to destroy the Internet. They are after chaos or, maybe, simply trying to "earn" a dollar. They are no different to ISIS. That group of fanatics trying to force the world to submit to their stupidly strict interpretation of Islam. Or to those hate-mongers in many forums who should probably have "Poor Impulse Control" tattooed on their forehead... i.e. Barbarians.
I think I first came across the phrase in a book by Larry Niven.
I posted a comment an hour or so ago and it is gone. It was a reply to another post here. Is there possibly someone here who does not believe in free speech?
It was a comment about the ordinariness of mohammad. It was only my opinion.
Here now is a comment about free speech: Two dickheads died in Texas for trying to violently shut down free speech.
Here now is a question: Do you think those two dickheads learned their lesson? The lesson being that you shouldn't try to shut down the right to free speech of citizens of the USA!
There is a reason God created guns. (And if you don't understand what that statement means, you never will.)
...using it against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of burning down their city, and looting their neighbours businesses...
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
By claiming to be an attorney, (as in you are giving legal advice, thus laying claim to the attorney side of the attorney-client phrase), you _are_ claiming to be a lawyer:
Slashdot Mirror
... people don't wait until they are ready to upgrade and then go out and read reviews...
I have far to much a life to be reading the reviews of every cool little gadget or other product on the day of release!
Besides, with my luck I would read a review on the day of release, remember that review when I wanted to upgrade, then buy a P90! Which I did. I now read reviews when I'm ready to upgrade... This can still result in buying bad products, but at least I feel like I'm trying!
Just use Linux :)
Why would you think that a 3 word sentence would be ANY answer to ANYBODY'S problem?
They picked the wrong target. If you hit a small business it's easier to pay. If you hit a large business you pay because you don't want people to find out. You hit a hospital though and people could die and it is very very public.
Right about now there will be a whole lot of resources targeted towards finding these people. They are fucked.
One can only hope!!!
Don't forget to pat your ass on the back, there!
How dare those IT guys fail, seriously FAIL, to protect against every single, fucking danger there IS! Obviously, they have an UNLIMITED budget, holy f*ck! How dare they.
News for YOU buddy! They, the IT people, didn't cause the problem. Criminal P'sOS did.
How's this for a proposal: If you are caught endangering the health system in an egregious manner and are found guilty, YOU, your immediate ancestors(2, 3 or more parents), AND ALL of your descendants are put to death.
I can support that.
likewise, i said the punishment must be less harsh than the crime. i didn't say criminals should get off relatively easily.
Yes, you did.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
As you advocate committing crimes, I can see where you're coming from....
The laws concerning marijuana in much of the US are still morally reprehensible, encouraging people to break those laws is worse than the crime(s) of breaking those laws.
The "society" where laws are ignored will end up being, arguably, just as bad if not worse than the brutal society where people are punished "too harshly" for breaking laws.
Some engineers are also invisible and intangible.
I mean, until proven otherwise.
And many of them can be assumed to be spherical.
That would be "theoretical" engineers, would it not?
how many people are actually that stupid!
IIUC, Amen is properly interpreted as meaning "So let it be" (traditionally "so be it", but subjunctive I is rarely used anymore).
As such, Amen is not the proper resoponse to an accurate portrayal of a historical fact. "yay verily" would be more accurate.
I was agreeing with this part of the quote:
You guys aren't fit to name the people who were there at the Internet's day one.
Sorry if I didn't make it obvious enough.
... poperatzo is a douche
What to say?! "Takes one to know one!"? Or, perhaps, "So says the douche!"?
Disclaimer: I have no idea who poperatzo is! But He/She sounds like an adult being slammed by a bunch of juvies who have taken of the cry of "Don't trust anyone over 19!"
No, you're not. You weren't born on the Internet's "day one". I was there on the other hand, and the people I knew back then would have had pieces of Gamergaters/MRAs/KiAs/and /pol in their crap. You guys aren't fit to name the people who were there at the Internet's day one.
If I was particularly religious, I would say "Amen". Ah, I'll say it anyway: "Amen"!
This is another example of what I call "barbarians at the gate". I didn't come up with that phrase. I don't remember where I first came into contact with that phrase.
The idea, as best as I can recall, is something like this: The empire won't fall simply because of the increasing decadence of the empire. It falls because it eventually gets weak enough that the barbarians, ever-present at the gate, can bring it down with a simple raid.
These people are "barbarians at the gate". They don't care that they are trying to destroy the Internet. They are after chaos or, maybe, simply trying to "earn" a dollar. They are no different to ISIS. That group of fanatics trying to force the world to submit to their stupidly strict interpretation of Islam. Or to those hate-mongers in many forums who should probably have "Poor Impulse Control" tattooed on their forehead... i.e. Barbarians.
I think I first came across the phrase in a book by Larry Niven.
...government in US kill people in their homeland (cops killing innocent people)...
If you think this is any sort of "official policy", even remotely, a simple google search will correct that ignorance.
...as well as abroad (bombing Middle East).
Well, the terrorists were targeting the US; now they are targeting each other. Not ideal, but, hey, they need to kill somebody!
to sum up! ...
You are silly.
this will be "corrected"
Bull Shit.
Thats good!
If he wasn't shizo he would probably be a closeted racist.
What, like you?
They're only doing this to find people that can spell
There, FTFY
To Slashdot personnel: I finally figured it out what I was doing wrong, my apologies.
So a post calling mohammad a paedophile is somehow less inflammatory than simply saying mohammad liked fucking little girls?
I posted a comment an hour or so ago and it is gone. It was a reply to another post here. Is there possibly someone here who does not believe in free speech?
It was a comment about the ordinariness of mohammad. It was only my opinion.
Here now is a comment about free speech: Two dickheads died in Texas for trying to violently shut down free speech.
Here now is a question: Do you think those two dickheads learned their lesson? The lesson being that you shouldn't try to shut down the right to free speech of citizens of the USA!
There is a reason God created guns. (And if you don't understand what that statement means, you never will.)
I think the point is that mohammad was a normal man, fucking little girls. There was nothing special about him.
...using it against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of burning down their city, and looting their neighbours businesses...
There, FTFY
So says AC! Wisest of all rodents!
Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
By claiming to be an attorney, (as in you are giving legal advice, thus laying claim to the attorney side of the attorney-client phrase), you _are_ claiming to be a lawyer:
http://www.lawyeredu.org/attorney-vs-lawyer.html
Thus, YOU are the evil one :)