Considering Columba has been around longer than Thunderbird...
While technically true, that's a pretty meaningless statement. Thunderbird is further development of the Mozilla mail client, which is a re-implementations and improvement on Netscape Messenger, taking you back far enough that the roots of it are probably older than Outlook.
No matter how many people your lolcal telephone directory service lists, it won't change the laws of physics, and they happen to call bullshit on the story.
RPGs? Try swinging your arm around like with a sword for hours, because that's what you'd have to do in an action-RPG.
Or hey - crazy idea, I know - maybe the designers will adapt their games to the controller, and maybe RPGs will stop being utterly boring hack-and-slash for hour after hour, and would actually be fun?
All right, putting aside the fact that that link doesn't even work, what kind of anti-abuse system do these sites have? What would happen if, say, some theorertical script were to sign up about ten thousands referrers for somebody's account? Think it'd get pulled?
I prefer considering reality. The reality where I have a judicial system and a police force to protect me, and provide deterrence in a systematic and reliable fashion, and I don't need to carry a gun.
Why is it that you think this issue of deterrence only works one way? If criminals are armed, then you think people should arm themselves. But you don't seem to think criminals will get themselves more weapons if they believe their targets might be armed, and they might shoot you dead the second they see you to minimize the threat to themselves?
Your deterrence cuts both ways, and I would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire, OK?
Putting aside the blatantly obvious fact that if you don't have a firearm, you're not a threat and are much more lately to get away with just losing your wallet and not your life, isn't the reverse also true? The attacker is carrying a firearm, so he's extremely dangerous to you and you might very likely end up dead and once again the attacker has more weapons.
This is the most incoherent Slashdot story all day. Neither the submitter, the editors nor the readers seem to have any idea what it's about. I know I don't.
Congratulations, you have won the award for worst Slashdot grammar of the week! I truly have no idea what you are trying to say with these tortured sentences.
Bonus point for using both "gamers" and "gamer's" in the same sentence, ensuring that at least ONE of them will be wrong!
The best part about this question is how there's the one response that mentions that the answer is in the article, and the rest are just shooting their mouths off.
Re:spammer's low-tech way
on
Defeating Captcha
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It originated as an off-hand remark by someone - maybe Cory Doctorow, I forget - as an example for a theoretical way to break captchas. This was quickly misremembered and blown out of proportion by people wanting to seem clever on Slashdot.
You mean you hadn't noticed yet that Slashdot is pretty much a hive of technology-fearing luddites? These people think RFID is the scariest thing since barcodes, and keep going on about how analog cameras will always be better than digital ones, and how they want a phone that JUST MAKES PHONECALLS!
> If you think about it hashing your passwords in a database is almost an admittance either that 1) you're database will probably be comprimised or 2) you're users shouldn't trust you.
Slashdot Mirror
In Accelerando one of the characters refers to the Singularity as the 'rapture of the nerds'.
Very fitting, since the whole singularity myth is pretty much a religion of the nerds.
Finnish people in general really have no sense of humor.
In my entire life living in the country, I have seen ONE Finnish comedy show that was actually funny.
I can tell you're written a lot of large applications in your days, to have such a keen insight into how easy it is.
Well, it was incredibly obvious bullshit, and apparently the editors were embarrassed enough to nuke it completely.
Still not true.
Read any Slashdot discussion about hash algorithms to find this idea refuted again and again.
Considering Columba has been around longer than Thunderbird...
While technically true, that's a pretty meaningless statement. Thunderbird is further development of the Mozilla mail client, which is a re-implementations and improvement on Netscape Messenger, taking you back far enough that the roots of it are probably older than Outlook.
No matter how many people your lolcal telephone directory service lists, it won't change the laws of physics, and they happen to call bullshit on the story.
No matter how many data points you pile on this one, it still won't make one little bit of sense.
Unless maybe the carpet was soaked in gasoline.
RPGs? Try swinging your arm around like with a sword for hours, because that's what you'd have to do in an action-RPG.
Or hey - crazy idea, I know - maybe the designers will adapt their games to the controller, and maybe RPGs will stop being utterly boring hack-and-slash for hour after hour, and would actually be fun?
"*grin*"? What is this, an AOL chatroom?
All right, putting aside the fact that that link doesn't even work, what kind of anti-abuse system do these sites have? What would happen if, say, some theorertical script were to sign up about ten thousands referrers for somebody's account? Think it'd get pulled?
Consider the following scenario:
I prefer considering reality. The reality where I have a judicial system and a police force to protect me, and provide deterrence in a systematic and reliable fashion, and I don't need to carry a gun.
Why is it that you think this issue of deterrence only works one way? If criminals are armed, then you think people should arm themselves. But you don't seem to think criminals will get themselves more weapons if they believe their targets might be armed, and they might shoot you dead the second they see you to minimize the threat to themselves?
Your deterrence cuts both ways, and I would prefer not to get caught in the crossfire, OK?
Putting aside the blatantly obvious fact that if you don't have a firearm, you're not a threat and are much more lately to get away with just losing your wallet and not your life, isn't the reverse also true? The attacker is carrying a firearm, so he's extremely dangerous to you and you might very likely end up dead and once again the attacker has more weapons.
If a bad guy shoots someone, he already had a gun,
Maybe his buddy didn't. Maybe he stabbed you in the back. Either way, you've just provided criminals with yet another firearm.
I don't see why you think capitalism has anything to do with the consumer benefitting from anything.
He's trying to live out his survivalist fantasy to the fullest, and having the time of his life.
My having a gun or a knife is not a threat to any good person and not a threat to police.
Until somebody shoots you and takes your gun.
This is the most incoherent Slashdot story all day. Neither the submitter, the editors nor the readers seem to have any idea what it's about. I know I don't.
Congratulations, you have won the award for worst Slashdot grammar of the week! I truly have no idea what you are trying to say with these tortured sentences.
Bonus point for using both "gamers" and "gamer's" in the same sentence, ensuring that at least ONE of them will be wrong!
The best part about this question is how there's the one response that mentions that the answer is in the article, and the rest are just shooting their mouths off.
It originated as an off-hand remark by someone - maybe Cory Doctorow, I forget - as an example for a theoretical way to break captchas. This was quickly misremembered and blown out of proportion by people wanting to seem clever on Slashdot.
> sort the chaff from the soap. ...what?
You mean you hadn't noticed yet that Slashdot is pretty much a hive of technology-fearing luddites? These people think RFID is the scariest thing since barcodes, and keep going on about how analog cameras will always be better than digital ones, and how they want a phone that JUST MAKES PHONECALLS!
> If you think about it hashing your passwords in a database is almost an admittance either that 1) you're database will probably be comprimised or 2) you're users shouldn't trust you.
Why yes, thank you, Captain Obvious.
It used to be a buzzword, sometime back in 1990 or so. The fact that the article submitter uses it today speaks volumes.