You're assuming that they're blocking these apps. All I've noticed thus far is that they're discouraging their creation - there's a big difference between the two.
Because it allows them to pullover the drivers they see texting, without having to wait until they do something overtly dangerous. Which means that if they catch you doing it at a stop light, they don't have to wait until you've gone a ways down the road to pull you over.
GP's point still holds true. Having a specific law against texting makes it harder to prosecute: while you can tell that someone is staring at something other than the road, the specific act of sending a text message can be obscured.
By giving more leniency in interpretation of inattentive driving/reckless driving, equally dangerous activities performed while driving could also be targeted: rooting through your center console, constantly turning your head to talk to your passenger, focusing on the front of your car instead of being aware of the entire road [the predominant cause for most situations in which someone has to come to a sudden stop - that can be used as an indicator], coming to a complete stop while you turn your head to gawp at the accident, etc.
Something I've noticed while driving on the same road as people who are texting - those texting attempt to drive in a way to hide the fact that they're texting. Last night I saw someone staring at her phone for about 30 seconds [she was a bit ahead of me and to the right, so she was in my peripheral scanning range - no I did not stare at her for 30 seconds...] -- yet when I moved to pass her, she still sped up to block it. Without taking her eyes off of the phone.
Which was unfortunate for her, as there was a car in front of her that she narrowly missed hitting in her haste to appear to be paying attention.
Also, nobody cares. Most people really don't give a crap if they're driving dangerously, they just want their entitlements. And they're entitled to do whatever the hell they want to. Just ask them.
I think you give them too much credit in a way, and not enough in another. It's not that they don't care if they're being dangerous - it's that each and every person who does this thinks that they are the exception. There's no way they could be dangerous, they're Good Drivers.
Pirated App. Result for the developer: $0. Result for the user: 1 app.
Do without. Result for the developer: $0. Result for the user: 0 apps.
Where did I mention a dollar cost?
This is the difference with between actually stealing and downloading a copy illegally. Pirating or going without is exactly the same for the developer. You may feel good about yourself for going without it, but you haven't actually done anything good.
What in my statement led you to infer I was talking about the "cost" to the developer? It's obvious to anyone with a brain that 1 pirated app != 1 lost sale.
I mean, I pay for games (Machinarium, World of Good, and a couple of others) and donated to some software because it benefits me, by (hopefully) keeping the developers interested in maintaining, enhancing the software I find useful.
That's spiffy, four or five whole games you paid for. Yet - I'm going to assume that you played through more than that and in your infinite wisdom, deemed the authors unworthy of your funds. After taking the time to hate their products through to the end;)
But I don't really see the attraction in actions that are apparently "good" but ultimately meaningless.
I suppose this might make you feel better about it, but I can assure you it's not meaningless to the developer. The issue is not whether a sale is lost or not (as that's not something that can be measured). Instead, look at it from someone else's perspective if that's not stretching your empathy too thin :
You spend months building an application. You get it out the door and it makes moderately good sales. But as the numbers trickle in, you realize that 80% of the people using your application haven't paid for it.
Then you have to ask: is it really going to be worth doing this again? You know that there's nothing you can do to change these numbers - any time you make an app, about the same number of users will pirate it. Anti-piracy measures just punish your legit users.
You don't work for free; and now you're not getting paid commensurate with your application's usage - all because of people felt entitled to use the your product without compensating you. For those who pirated your app, you essentially are working for free.
Now maybe if you have a million users, the money is good enough that you can live with that; or maybe you're getting paid a salary by someone else such that you're not working for your end users anyway. (In which case the question must be asked by those paying you.)
To claim that it's "neutral" or "has no cost" to anybody is very misleading. If the cost is not one that you can perceive in your mindset of "I want", you're only showing the narrowness of your own viewpoint when you say the cost does not exist.
In other words, the only reason not to pirate in a situation where you would not have paid is to satisfy the righteous indignation of authors who assume that every pirated copy is a lost sale. And in an instance when you personally know that that assumption is wrong, that rationale has no weight.
Much of what you say seems based on this straw man, but if you paid any attention to my post... you'd see that I said nothing about it. We all know it's a foolish position to hold.
What we're talking about here is when someone sees a product for sale, decides he doesn't want to pay for it, then takes it anyway. You say this has no cost - but it does. It devalues the author's time; and provides disincentive for the author to make more products
But that is a different question than the one you asked -- which is why someone should ever choose free stuff over either paying or doing without. The answer is that honest people know when their own decisions are socially beneficial in a way that external observers cannot determine, and there is nothing morally wrong with picking what you know to be the optimal choice just because no one else can verify it.
So everyone should decide for himself whether to steal someone's labor; and as long as they're honest in their evaluation of that theft, it's OK? I'd just call that as a thin veneer over a strong sense of entitlement.
I'd probably be an alcoholic in the slum I grew up in, if not dead, if it wasn't for free software (and yes, pirated software) giving me opportunities I never had otherwise. There's a reason why people on sites like TPB rally together when attacked. Yes, software is necessary in modern life. Yes, sometimes pirating it is necessary too. Although thankfully a lot less lately, thanks to Open Source.
And I'm sure this is the use case in question - this guy needs his Android apps to save himself from alcohol addiction or worse.
Though... if he can afford a few hundred dollars for an android and data plan.. perhaps he's not as bad off as all that;) WE're not talking food here, we're talking about phone apps. I'm struggling for find the "need" in any phone app - particularly the "need" that drives one to steal. (Aw, I shouldnt've said that. That's going to wake up the 'pirating is not stealing' trolls.)
Really, sites like TPB are the modern equivalent of libraries that lend books to people would couldn't afford to buy them. They should be praised and donated to, not targetted. And that's why people DO donate to them.
TPB serves many purposes, regardless of what their predominant purpose is. Those other purposes are what makes them worth donating to.
Funny, it always seemed to me that the "incentive" for buying a product was being able to use the product.
Secondly, there are a crapload of Android apps that are overpriced, you can't expect someone to pay for essentially a tech demo or utility
True. I expect people to not use those apps if there is no way to get a free trial. Why is this so difficult to do? If the developer isn't cooperating in making his app available, why not move on to another product? And if there is no other product, why not do without?
And number three, a lot of apps simply don't work. Unless there is a free version equivalent to all the features of the paid version, no one wants to spend even $.99 on something that doesn't work then deal with the hassle of returning the application.
This is subjective. I've received emails from people for my app on BB saying "it doesn't work". And that's true - it doesn't work for that user because their service provider hasn't correctly set up networking, or any of a hundred other reasons specific to that user's configuration.
I can accept that one doesn't want to pay for something only to have it completely fail to work - especially in the digital context, where you can't just walk in to the store and get your money back. But again I'd say - why not just avoid the app in the first place, if no free functional trial is offered? Why do you feel entitled to a free trial when the person who developed it is not giving one? What is it that you bring to the table that the developer should be saying "oh, yeah, for YOU I can make an exception"?
And in both cases, let's face the truth: once someone downloads a binary to "try it out", the odds are good that if the user continues running the app - they're still not going to go back and pay for it. What incentive is there to do so, when they already have the app for "free"?
there was flow logic before redstone using falling sand, however, these types of circuits require you to refill the source of the flow (sand), every time you wanted a new computation done.
Phew - that sentence was clearly typed by someone on too much caffeine and itching to return to minecraft...
It seems to me that it goes without saying that we're talking about in the context of Segway users.What reason would you have to assume that I was including people who did not ride a Segway, given that we're talking about someone who died in a Segway accident?
You can (and did) choose to focus on the fact that I said "last person" while not specifically stating "last person from among the subset of the human population that drives Segways". Logically speaking, those who don't drive Segways are generally excluded from the sum total of known Segway fatalities; and excepting the rare run-over-by-a-runaway-Segway case, they will always be excluded from any such discussion.
Release it as an optional download in the download center. I'm sure that the vast majority of Windows admins (especially shared web hosts, but ) will get that installed right away! While I understand why they have to do it this way (forcing an update on your enterprise clients is generally Very Bad for some very valid reasons), I would think that they (and those who could be impacted) would be better served if they said "This will be available for 3 days on the download center for you to download and test; then it will become mandatory in order for your enterprise to receive continued support.
It's usually a bad idea for the police to meddle in the affairs of the members of the judiciary and/or legislative body. For instance, near my hometown in Cleveland, a cop pulled over one of the members Of the state legislature and gave him a ticket. Said legislator introduced a bill, the next week, requiring that all municipalities in the state must have, in order to patrol the highways within their jurisdiction, x size of population and y amount of highway running through it (something like, greater than a mile or two). The town in question only had a quarter mile of highway. They also realized something like 75-85 percent of their income via speeding tickets...all gone...
A bad idea, yes. Also just as much an abuse of power - if not more so - than the cop who pulls you over for an arbitrary reason, breaks your taillight, then gives a ticket for it.
I agree re: walled garden (hence my final comment about "no technical solution") for exactly the reason you state.
But SELinux can't do it either - if you think about it, it's just another kind of walled garden. *somebody* has to decide what apps are allowed what permissions.
As far as the twitter issue - it' s more insidious than that. Because a tweet can be posted via a GET URL, anything that causes the browser to redirect to a static URL (even a standard HTTP 302 redirect) can cause this; it's not a case of sanitizing inputs, because the inputs are all valid. And because the request comes from a user who remains logged in via preference... twitter has *no* way of knowing if the request is real or not.
The problem is more insidious than it seems. It's not specific to GET requests(even though this hasn't been discussed yet - people are still blaming the RESTful nature of Twitter end points) - though GET requests do make it so that javascript is not required to perform the exploits. A script could just as easily silently POST the same data.
The only change I can see working in a foolproof fashion is to require a random unique ID from any browser-based request that's single-use and provided by twitter in the posting form. Ideally you'd also move service requests to a new host that requires credentials to be included with every request.
You're aware that there is only ONE way to make this secure OS you speak of, right? THe walled garden. You must only allow access to carefully hand selected applications. You must not allow any interpreted language to execute (including javascript) unless you can vet the code. You must not allow updates to be received from any source but the True Source, after manual review for approval.
Sound familiar? Except even Apple doesn't go far enough - the source code itself must be reviewed for every app in the garden in order for true security. No client app may be permitted to execute instructions originating from an external system (including , for example, an HTTP redirect). Your reviewers must also be subject to strict scrutiny, and your reviewer-reviewers and....
In other words, there is no technical solution to this problem. The walled garden presents a reasonable compromise (for people willing to accept it), but there is no true solution when you have an end user with control over his own machine connected to the Internet.
And as I said above... if I see a link that's immediately followed by some spam about leisure activities with barnyard animals, I'm gonna question that link.
Playing whack a mole with stuff like antivirus, antispam, antiwhatever suggests your operating system is broken
I agree that all of the above are a waste of time - you can't keep up. But you also can't blame the OS because it's no more capable of keeping up (unless it's a true walled garden - which works well for some people.) than OS vendors are. My point - and I don't see how it was missed - was that "security" vendors will jump on this bandwagon claiming that they can "fix" this problem when it's a problem that can only be solved via user education.
(What I didn't say is that's also no solution at all. Users - rightfully I feel - don't want to be educated extensively in security practices when to their perspective they're using a simple tool. )
The user uses the internet as intended, the developers, not so much.
I agree. This exploit could just as easily be done without XSS. Someone clicks a link that says "check this out"; which in turn does an HTTP redirect to a GET URL that does the exact same thing. No script required.
But there's also no OS currently in existence that can prevent this. Users click links, often blindly. Just because it's not fair that they need to do so intelligently doesn't change the fact that they must be responsible for what they click on.
Really? Less than the billions of persons who have never even seen one?
Making a deliberately literal-minded interpretation of my statement doesn't invalidate my point. One does not expect Lance Armstrong to die in a bicycle crash. One does not expect Garmin's CEO to die lost in the desert. One does not expect Segway's CEO to drive his Segway off a cliff. Coming up with irrelevancies for the sake of seeing your words on the screen print doesn't change that each of these deaths would be a fine example of irony.
I'd expect the owner of Segway to use them much more than most people, vastly raising his odds of driving one off a cliff.
Which has what to do with this exactly? No shit his odds are greater -- yet still if someone walked up to you yesterday morning and said "wouldn't it be messed up if the CEO of Segway died by riding his Segway off a cliff" you wouldn't turn around and say, "Yeah, I kind of figure that's gonna happen any day now. In fact I've started a pool - want in?"
No, I'm saying that if my friend posts a link and also posts to discuss his carnal relations with barnyard animals, yer damned skippy I'm gonna check with him first.
Wow... you're a douche. If you were my friend, I'd have long since put you into a group that can't see my updates, or just de-friended you altogether.
So you're saying you DO enjoy carnal relations with barnyard animals? Oops, my bad...
So... um... don't click the link without verifying it with the sender?
This is a basic common sense fail of the variety that keeps anti-virus vendors in business. In fact, I'm sure that right now AV companies are cooking up great Extended Plus products that will Protect you from the Evils of Twitter.
5.
an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
I don't know about you, but the last person I'd expect to drive a Segway off a cliff is the owner of Segway. That's... ummm... well, a classically ironic event .
On a related note: irony is an odd thing, really. Last year I expected a toy bike for my birthday, and got a toy car instead. Not ironic by any definition even though it fits the technical requirement of being the contrary to expectations. There's a certain... subtlety?... that's needed for something to be ironic; and perhaps a sense of history as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming that they're blocking these apps. All I've noticed thus far is that they're discouraging their creation - there's a big difference between the two.
Because it allows them to pullover the drivers they see texting, without having to wait until they do something overtly dangerous. Which means that if they catch you doing it at a stop light, they don't have to wait until you've gone a ways down the road to pull you over.
GP's point still holds true. Having a specific law against texting makes it harder to prosecute: while you can tell that someone is staring at something other than the road, the specific act of sending a text message can be obscured.
By giving more leniency in interpretation of inattentive driving/reckless driving, equally dangerous activities performed while driving could also be targeted: rooting through your center console, constantly turning your head to talk to your passenger, focusing on the front of your car instead of being aware of the entire road [the predominant cause for most situations in which someone has to come to a sudden stop - that can be used as an indicator], coming to a complete stop while you turn your head to gawp at the accident, etc.
Something I've noticed while driving on the same road as people who are texting - those texting attempt to drive in a way to hide the fact that they're texting. Last night I saw someone staring at her phone for about 30 seconds [she was a bit ahead of me and to the right, so she was in my peripheral scanning range - no I did not stare at her for 30 seconds ...] -- yet when I moved to pass her, she still sped up to block it. Without taking her eyes off of the phone.
Which was unfortunate for her, as there was a car in front of her that she narrowly missed hitting in her haste to appear to be paying attention.
Also, nobody cares. Most people really don't give a crap if they're driving dangerously, they just want their entitlements. And they're entitled to do whatever the hell they want to. Just ask them.
I think you give them too much credit in a way, and not enough in another. It's not that they don't care if they're being dangerous - it's that each and every person who does this thinks that they are the exception. There's no way they could be dangerous, they're Good Drivers.
Pirated App. Result for the developer: $0. Result for the user: 1 app. Do without. Result for the developer: $0. Result for the user: 0 apps.
Where did I mention a dollar cost?
This is the difference with between actually stealing and downloading a copy illegally. Pirating or going without is exactly the same for the developer. You may feel good about yourself for going without it, but you haven't actually done anything good.
What in my statement led you to infer I was talking about the "cost" to the developer? It's obvious to anyone with a brain that 1 pirated app != 1 lost sale.
I mean, I pay for games (Machinarium, World of Good, and a couple of others) and donated to some software because it benefits me, by (hopefully) keeping the developers interested in maintaining, enhancing the software I find useful.
That's spiffy, four or five whole games you paid for. Yet - I'm going to assume that you played through more than that and in your infinite wisdom, deemed the authors unworthy of your funds. After taking the time to hate their products through to the end ;)
But I don't really see the attraction in actions that are apparently "good" but ultimately meaningless.
I suppose this might make you feel better about it, but I can assure you it's not meaningless to the developer. The issue is not whether a sale is lost or not (as that's not something that can be measured). Instead, look at it from someone else's perspective if that's not stretching your empathy too thin :
You spend months building an application. You get it out the door and it makes moderately good sales. But as the numbers trickle in, you realize that 80% of the people using your application haven't paid for it.
Then you have to ask: is it really going to be worth doing this again? You know that there's nothing you can do to change these numbers - any time you make an app, about the same number of users will pirate it. Anti-piracy measures just punish your legit users.
You don't work for free; and now you're not getting paid commensurate with your application's usage - all because of people felt entitled to use the your product without compensating you. For those who pirated your app, you essentially are working for free.
Now maybe if you have a million users, the money is good enough that you can live with that; or maybe you're getting paid a salary by someone else such that you're not working for your end users anyway. (In which case the question must be asked by those paying you.)
To claim that it's "neutral" or "has no cost" to anybody is very misleading. If the cost is not one that you can perceive in your mindset of "I want", you're only showing the narrowness of your own viewpoint when you say the cost does not exist.
In other words, the only reason not to pirate in a situation where you would not have paid is to satisfy the righteous indignation of authors who assume that every pirated copy is a lost sale. And in an instance when you personally know that that assumption is wrong, that rationale has no weight.
Much of what you say seems based on this straw man, but if you paid any attention to my post... you'd see that I said nothing about it. We all know it's a foolish position to hold.
What we're talking about here is when someone sees a product for sale, decides he doesn't want to pay for it, then takes it anyway. You say this has no cost - but it does. It devalues the author's time; and provides disincentive for the author to make more products
But that is a different question than the one you asked -- which is why someone should ever choose free stuff over either paying or doing without. The answer is that honest people know when their own decisions are socially beneficial in a way that external observers cannot determine, and there is nothing morally wrong with picking what you know to be the optimal choice just because no one else can verify it.
So everyone should decide for himself whether to steal someone's labor; and as long as they're honest in their evaluation of that theft, it's OK? I'd just call that as a thin veneer over a strong sense of entitlement.
Sophistry. You equate pirating apps to stealing food for survival.
I'd probably be an alcoholic in the slum I grew up in, if not dead, if it wasn't for free software (and yes, pirated software) giving me opportunities I never had otherwise. There's a reason why people on sites like TPB rally together when attacked. Yes, software is necessary in modern life. Yes, sometimes pirating it is necessary too. Although thankfully a lot less lately, thanks to Open Source.
And I'm sure this is the use case in question - this guy needs his Android apps to save himself from alcohol addiction or worse.
Though... if he can afford a few hundred dollars for an android and data plan.. perhaps he's not as bad off as all that ;) WE're not talking food here, we're talking about phone apps. I'm struggling for find the "need" in any phone app - particularly the "need" that drives one to steal. (Aw, I shouldnt've said that. That's going to wake up the 'pirating is not stealing' trolls.)
Really, sites like TPB are the modern equivalent of libraries that lend books to people would couldn't afford to buy them. They should be praised and donated to, not targetted. And that's why people DO donate to them.
TPB serves many purposes, regardless of what their predominant purpose is. Those other purposes are what makes them worth donating to.
Secondly, there are a crapload of Android apps that are overpriced, you can't expect someone to pay for essentially a tech demo or utility
True. I expect people to not use those apps if there is no way to get a free trial. Why is this so difficult to do? If the developer isn't cooperating in making his app available, why not move on to another product? And if there is no other product, why not do without?
And number three, a lot of apps simply don't work. Unless there is a free version equivalent to all the features of the paid version, no one wants to spend even $.99 on something that doesn't work then deal with the hassle of returning the application.
This is subjective. I've received emails from people for my app on BB saying "it doesn't work". And that's true - it doesn't work for that user because their service provider hasn't correctly set up networking, or any of a hundred other reasons specific to that user's configuration.
I can accept that one doesn't want to pay for something only to have it completely fail to work - especially in the digital context, where you can't just walk in to the store and get your money back. But again I'd say - why not just avoid the app in the first place, if no free functional trial is offered? Why do you feel entitled to a free trial when the person who developed it is not giving one? What is it that you bring to the table that the developer should be saying "oh, yeah, for YOU I can make an exception"?
And in both cases, let's face the truth: once someone downloads a binary to "try it out", the odds are good that if the user continues running the app - they're still not going to go back and pay for it. What incentive is there to do so, when they already have the app for "free"?
Otherwise, expect us to live our lives by any means necessary.
In what way is pirating an app necessary to living your life?
It's a sad state of affairs when I can't tell if you're seriously offended by this or not...
there was flow logic before redstone using falling sand, however, these types of circuits require you to refill the source of the flow (sand), every time you wanted a new computation done.
Phew - that sentence was clearly typed by someone on too much caffeine and itching to return to minecraft...
Yet given his presumed skill and experience, one would indeed not expect him to die that way...
You can (and did) choose to focus on the fact that I said "last person" while not specifically stating "last person from among the subset of the human population that drives Segways". Logically speaking, those who don't drive Segways are generally excluded from the sum total of known Segway fatalities; and excepting the rare run-over-by-a-runaway-Segway case, they will always be excluded from any such discussion.
Hence: too literal.
Damn. I hate it when I post without knowing what I'm talking about.
Release it as an optional download in the download center. I'm sure that the vast majority of Windows admins (especially shared web hosts, but ) will get that installed right away! While I understand why they have to do it this way (forcing an update on your enterprise clients is generally Very Bad for some very valid reasons), I would think that they (and those who could be impacted) would be better served if they said "This will be available for 3 days on the download center for you to download and test; then it will become mandatory in order for your enterprise to receive continued support.
It's usually a bad idea for the police to meddle in the affairs of the members of the judiciary and/or legislative body. For instance, near my hometown in Cleveland, a cop pulled over one of the members Of the state legislature and gave him a ticket. Said legislator introduced a bill, the next week, requiring that all municipalities in the state must have, in order to patrol the highways within their jurisdiction, x size of population and y amount of highway running through it (something like, greater than a mile or two). The town in question only had a quarter mile of highway. They also realized something like 75-85 percent of their income via speeding tickets...all gone...
A bad idea, yes. Also just as much an abuse of power - if not more so - than the cop who pulls you over for an arbitrary reason, breaks your taillight, then gives a ticket for it.
But SELinux can't do it either - if you think about it, it's just another kind of walled garden. *somebody* has to decide what apps are allowed what permissions.
As far as the twitter issue - it' s more insidious than that. Because a tweet can be posted via a GET URL, anything that causes the browser to redirect to a static URL (even a standard HTTP 302 redirect) can cause this; it's not a case of sanitizing inputs, because the inputs are all valid. And because the request comes from a user who remains logged in via preference... twitter has *no* way of knowing if the request is real or not.
The problem is more insidious than it seems. It's not specific to GET requests(even though this hasn't been discussed yet - people are still blaming the RESTful nature of Twitter end points) - though GET requests do make it so that javascript is not required to perform the exploits. A script could just as easily silently POST the same data.
The only change I can see working in a foolproof fashion is to require a random unique ID from any browser-based request that's single-use and provided by twitter in the posting form. Ideally you'd also move service requests to a new host that requires credentials to be included with every request.
You're aware that there is only ONE way to make this secure OS you speak of, right? THe walled garden. You must only allow access to carefully hand selected applications. You must not allow any interpreted language to execute (including javascript) unless you can vet the code. You must not allow updates to be received from any source but the True Source, after manual review for approval.
Sound familiar? Except even Apple doesn't go far enough - the source code itself must be reviewed for every app in the garden in order for true security. No client app may be permitted to execute instructions originating from an external system (including , for example, an HTTP redirect). Your reviewers must also be subject to strict scrutiny, and your reviewer-reviewers and....
In other words, there is no technical solution to this problem. The walled garden presents a reasonable compromise (for people willing to accept it), but there is no true solution when you have an end user with control over his own machine connected to the Internet.
Playing whack a mole with stuff like antivirus, antispam, antiwhatever suggests your operating system is broken
I agree that all of the above are a waste of time - you can't keep up. But you also can't blame the OS because it's no more capable of keeping up (unless it's a true walled garden - which works well for some people.) than OS vendors are. My point - and I don't see how it was missed - was that "security" vendors will jump on this bandwagon claiming that they can "fix" this problem when it's a problem that can only be solved via user education.
(What I didn't say is that's also no solution at all. Users - rightfully I feel - don't want to be educated extensively in security practices when to their perspective they're using a simple tool. )
The user uses the internet as intended, the developers, not so much.
I agree. This exploit could just as easily be done without XSS. Someone clicks a link that says "check this out"; which in turn does an HTTP redirect to a GET URL that does the exact same thing. No script required.
But there's also no OS currently in existence that can prevent this. Users click links, often blindly. Just because it's not fair that they need to do so intelligently doesn't change the fact that they must be responsible for what they click on.
Really? Less than the billions of persons who have never even seen one?
Making a deliberately literal-minded interpretation of my statement doesn't invalidate my point. One does not expect Lance Armstrong to die in a bicycle crash. One does not expect Garmin's CEO to die lost in the desert. One does not expect Segway's CEO to drive his Segway off a cliff. Coming up with irrelevancies for the sake of seeing your words on the screen print doesn't change that each of these deaths would be a fine example of irony.
I'd expect the owner of Segway to use them much more than most people, vastly raising his odds of driving one off a cliff.
Which has what to do with this exactly? No shit his odds are greater -- yet still if someone walked up to you yesterday morning and said "wouldn't it be messed up if the CEO of Segway died by riding his Segway off a cliff" you wouldn't turn around and say, "Yeah, I kind of figure that's gonna happen any day now. In fact I've started a pool - want in?"
Okay, now I'm getting ridiculous-- I agree with you, though my point still stands.
Wow... you're a douche. If you were my friend, I'd have long since put you into a group that can't see my updates, or just de-friended you altogether.
So you're saying you DO enjoy carnal relations with barnyard animals? Oops, my bad...
Noo.... questionable is a friend saying WTF, providing a link, then posting another update talking about goat sex ;)
This is a basic common sense fail of the variety that keeps anti-virus vendors in business. In fact, I'm sure that right now AV companies are cooking up great Extended Plus products that will Protect you from the Evils of Twitter.
Please look up the definition of irony before posting anything with that particular word in it.
(This especially includes all Sheryl Crow fans)
Thanks in advance.
Um, yes, kindly do. From your link:
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
I don't know about you, but the last person I'd expect to drive a Segway off a cliff is the owner of Segway. That's... ummm... well, a classically ironic event .
On a related note: irony is an odd thing, really. Last year I expected a toy bike for my birthday, and got a toy car instead. Not ironic by any definition even though it fits the technical requirement of being the contrary to expectations. There's a certain ... subtlety? ... that's needed for something to be ironic; and perhaps a sense of history as well.