And most people bring up 'morals' because most people are idiots and are incapable of seeing the world from someone else's view, and also incapable of seeing the inherent subjectivity of morality.
MySpace shouldn't be in any way held accountable for this. They can't ensure that everyone always tells the truth about themselves without extensive, invasive, impractical checks to get everyone's personal details, and then monitoring of all posted content so that none of it has false information.
And it's not just the parents' fault, for not paying at least *some* attention to their daughters' activities online, it's also the fault of their children, for not having even the slightest bit of common sense. They're all 14-15 years old, there's no excuse at that point for not realizing that giving out personal information to strangers is a stupid idea, and meeting up with strangers is a really fucking stupid idea. Hell, when I was using the intertubes when I was *12* I was smarter than that.
I doubt hard drives could hold too many DVD movies when they first came out, either. I can easily hold more DVD movies on my computer now than I'd ever watch, and in a while drives will probably be big enough to do the same with HD-DVD movies. As it is, I could still fit about twelve HD-DVD movies on my computer, if they were all at 19GB.
Destroying your server in 4 easy steps.
on
Virtualbox Goes OSS
·
· Score: 4, Funny
1. Use full-sized images scaled down with HTML as thumbnails on your screenshot page, rather than real thumbnails. 2. Get your site posted on Slashdot. 3. ??? 4. PROFIT! (For your web host, at least)
It's 'news for nerds' because it's Solaris. It's 'stuff that matters' (at least, to said nerds) because they're giving away DVDs of it for free.
And if you only find it mildly interesting, you've probably got too much of a life. Try spending less time talking to people and going outside, and more time participating in OS flamewars, bashing Microsoft, and filling your multi-terabyte RAID (you *do* have a multi-terabyte RAID, right?) with porn.
In other words, it's about saying "OOH! OOH! I'M COOLER THAN THE OTHER GUYS! BUY ME!" louder than the other guy, which isn't much different. And it doesn't change the fact that they're still shoving their horribly biased opinion in my face, or the fact that it pisses me off.
When I said "buy a pair of shoes", which brand did you just think of? Nike? Adidas? Asics? Saucony? Whichever one it was "won".
Then I guess nobody "won", because I don't associate whole classes of products with one company.
Also, good job completely avoiding the main point of the post, which is that advertising is inherently obtrusive; ultimately, the point is to make people do something you want them to, which they normally wouldn't.
The whole point of advertising is to scream "OOH! OOH! BUY ME!" louder than the other guy. I don't buy stuff on a whim without any sort of information about it, and I certainly don't trust companies to offer unbiased information on their own products; hence, ads are only a waste of money for them (at least when I view them) and an annoyance for me.
This may seem crazy, but if they want me to buy their product or service, maybe they should spend less money shoving it in my face and more money making it better than the alternatives.
We won't ever put ads in the way, but some people just can't stand to let us make money for a free service to happen.
Yes, because everyone blocking ads is just doing it to prevent you from making money.
1) If my eyes were burning too, then yes, I would have them closed, as I'd rather risk damage to other parts of my body while stumbling around blindly than risk damage to my eyes otherwise.
2 & 3) I'll concede that I could easily be wrong on these, as I don't have any experience in the area.
4) I didn't think of this.
5) You worded it as though you seemed to believe they didn't see that that might happen. And could you link to somewhere where it says that? The article certainly doesn't.
And would you rather I blindly believe some random flamebait from Slashdot without any sort of evidence to back up its claims, half of which aren't even related to the topic, because, of course, people on the Internet never lie either?
Yes, no lasting effects unless you count the cataracts and blindness in people who accidently stare too long straight at the antenna, trying to figure out what is causing the pain and when it will stop, while it cooks sensitive eye tissues.
From the article:
Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.
Or used on crowds with pregnant women, and tiny children who don't know what is going on. (Of course, in Cheney's view, ethics and minorities, no great loss.)
Do you know why pain exists? It's so you have some motivation to move away from the source of said pain. When something is causing you extreme pain, you are going to move until it stops, not sit around until it causes you serious harm. (This applies to the above too.)
Additionally, to quote the article:
Documents acquired for Wired News using the Freedom of Information Act claim that most of the radiation (83 percent) is instantly absorbed by the top layer of the skin, heating it rapidly.
It's unlikely it'd even penetrate far enough to be any more of a worry to pregnant women than to anyone else.
Or when the field intensity ends up with strong lobes they never planned on, because of metal in the urban environment accidently causing concentration.
Yes, I'm sure that they, with their 10 years and $40 million, never thought of that; it's remarkable that you, with a few minutes, $0, and no experience whatsoever with the weapon, could so easily spot such a flaw.
The point of Slashback is to post a bunch of updates to recent stories that aren't worth an article on their own, not to post the EXACT SAME STORY TWICE.
Even though I won't be using any of them; why spend twice as much on something that's only going to be seen when I reboot my computers or install new hardware?
Are you google-eyed with confusion over net neutrality? No wonder. It's all just clever mumbo jumbo. Net neutrality is nothing more than a scheme by the multi-billion dollar silicon valley tech companies to get you, the consumer, to pay more for their services. Forget all the mumbo jumbo, net neutrality simply means you pay.
Makes Microsoft's FUD look a bit tame by comparison.
And how exactly is this contradictory? I can be a Lisp user without being a stuck up ass who thinks that *their* language is the only one that anyone should ever use for anything.
Slashdot Mirror
And most people bring up 'morals' because most people are idiots and are incapable of seeing the world from someone else's view, and also incapable of seeing the inherent subjectivity of morality.
You'd need a few more zeroes for that.
$4 CAD = about -$0.02 USD and a punch in the face.
I've heard "soft link" a few times. While not as popular as symbolic link/symlink, it still sees a fair bit of usage.
MySpace shouldn't be in any way held accountable for this. They can't ensure that everyone always tells the truth about themselves without extensive, invasive, impractical checks to get everyone's personal details, and then monitoring of all posted content so that none of it has false information.
And it's not just the parents' fault, for not paying at least *some* attention to their daughters' activities online, it's also the fault of their children, for not having even the slightest bit of common sense. They're all 14-15 years old, there's no excuse at that point for not realizing that giving out personal information to strangers is a stupid idea, and meeting up with strangers is a really fucking stupid idea. Hell, when I was using the intertubes when I was *12* I was smarter than that.
I doubt hard drives could hold too many DVD movies when they first came out, either. I can easily hold more DVD movies on my computer now than I'd ever watch, and in a while drives will probably be big enough to do the same with HD-DVD movies. As it is, I could still fit about twelve HD-DVD movies on my computer, if they were all at 19GB.
1. Use full-sized images scaled down with HTML as thumbnails on your screenshot page, rather than real thumbnails.
2. Get your site posted on Slashdot.
3. ???
4. PROFIT! (For your web host, at least)
It's 'news for nerds' because it's Solaris. It's 'stuff that matters' (at least, to said nerds) because they're giving away DVDs of it for free.
And if you only find it mildly interesting, you've probably got too much of a life. Try spending less time talking to people and going outside, and more time participating in OS flamewars, bashing Microsoft, and filling your multi-terabyte RAID (you *do* have a multi-terabyte RAID, right?) with porn.
Then I guess nobody "won", because I don't associate whole classes of products with one company.
Also, good job completely avoiding the main point of the post, which is that advertising is inherently obtrusive; ultimately, the point is to make people do something you want them to, which they normally wouldn't.
This may seem crazy, but if they want me to buy their product or service, maybe they should spend less money shoving it in my face and more money making it better than the alternatives.
Yes, because everyone blocking ads is just doing it to prevent you from making money.
Why the hell do people pay for *any* porn, and especially why would you pay for porn that's *already illegal*?!
People make my head hurt.
1) If my eyes were burning too, then yes, I would have them closed, as I'd rather risk damage to other parts of my body while stumbling around blindly than risk damage to my eyes otherwise.
2 & 3) I'll concede that I could easily be wrong on these, as I don't have any experience in the area.
4) I didn't think of this.
5) You worded it as though you seemed to believe they didn't see that that might happen. And could you link to somewhere where it says that? The article certainly doesn't.
And would you rather I blindly believe some random flamebait from Slashdot without any sort of evidence to back up its claims, half of which aren't even related to the topic, because, of course, people on the Internet never lie either?
Do you know why pain exists? It's so you have some motivation to move away from the source of said pain. When something is causing you extreme pain, you are going to move until it stops, not sit around until it causes you serious harm. (This applies to the above too.)
Additionally, to quote the article:
It's unlikely it'd even penetrate far enough to be any more of a worry to pregnant women than to anyone else.
Yes, I'm sure that they, with their 10 years and $40 million, never thought of that; it's remarkable that you, with a few minutes, $0, and no experience whatsoever with the weapon, could so easily spot such a flaw.
I've always thought you should be able to write interrupt handlers in Javascript.
Surely their good friend, Mr. Hand, will be joining them.
You must be new here.
Am I the only one who was a little confused by seeing the Enlightenment logo up there?
The point of Slashback is to post a bunch of updates to recent stories that aren't worth an article on their own, not to post the EXACT SAME STORY TWICE.
Even though I won't be using any of them; why spend twice as much on something that's only going to be seen when I reboot my computers or install new hardware?
What is this blasphemy doing on slashdot?!
Maybe this'll get all those so called 'web designers' to realize that there's more to web sites than making them look pretty.
'To' is a word too, dumbass. Spell checkers won't do a damn thing to help with that.
Makes Microsoft's FUD look a bit tame by comparison.
And how exactly is this contradictory? I can be a Lisp user without being a stuck up ass who thinks that *their* language is the only one that anyone should ever use for anything.