You haven't seen me make any bad choices. You don't know who I am, you haven't seen any photos, you just know that I've spotted your irrational prejudice.
Personally I'm quite comfortable with the photos, I'm not ashamed of my extra-curricular activities and I've worn fancy dress to work before for charity.
I must be a fucking weird household then. I just checked and I have two screwdrivers designed for that head, and another 18 that would work with it if too much torque wasn't needed.
I'm not even a hardware nut, I pay other people to put my PCs together for me (£40 build cost on a £2k computer is worth far more than the hassle and need to test individual components).
Friends of them used a media sharing site to share media with their friends of a harmless and fun activity that I happened to be engaged in.
Yes, you are the idiot.
Why are you so defensive about this? What's the issue here? I'm genuinely confused, surely it's pretty obvious that people have a professional life and a private life, and they'll get up to things in their private life that don't impact them professionally but that other people that know them can and do know about?
Why the automatic assumption that anybody that doesn't live an isolated staid existence is inherently and immediately making bad choices?
It's acting like a twat to attend a public art event where everyone dresses to match the theme of the event, to politely interact and make it fun and to go home with the friends I attended with afterwards?
Those photos are on the 'net. They are definitely not ones I'd share with a potential employer. Shit, I have 5 1/4 inch heels on in them..
As an employer, I feel that you're free to do what you like in private, just show a little discretion in a public forum.
As an employer it's fuck all to do with you if your employee likes cottaging, dogging or other public activities in which you personally prefer not to partake.
Why should sharing photographs be any different?
There's video footage of me engaging in one of my hobbies on Youtube. Why is that any more socially acceptable than a student engaging in a perfectly normal student hobby?
Discretion matters if it's secretive stuff. When it's things that are in the public domain anyway then why hide it? Maybe you're ashamed of your student days but I know I'm not. I also wont tolerate people being twats towards other people that went out and had fun.
The solution is to never post anything online that you would never want anyone to see in the future.
.. and the solution for photographs that other people post?
Not that your point isn't valid in context, just that the proposed photo aging approach only addressed the 'shoot yourself in the foot' issue, not the 'other people are twats that like to post photos' issue.
..and yet, somehow, people manage to record movies and take still images from them.
If it's displayed on my screen, I can capture it.
(Of course, if you don't want me accessing your photos after a certain timeframe, then skip this software entirely and just post on Facebook. I'll never see them.)
As I mentioned in a reply to Anonymous Cowpat above, StarCraft was initially released at the time of SupCom's ancestral inspiration: Total Annihilation.
TA was the macro scale 'This is war' with maps it took minutes to traverse while StarCraft was the C&C-alike with story and fixed objectives.
The market largely followed StarCraft, as it was perceived as the more successful game, leaving a generation of frustrated TA fans begging for more of the same (and SupCom was about 20 single-player campaign missions short of delivering).
I haven't given Achtung Panzer a go, will look out for that one on Steam (not there yet, but most Paradox titles eventually make it - and I have 7 queued up to play already so no rush..)
SupCom was fairly weak compared to its venerable ancestor Total Annihilation.
I still find myself bewildered by the love for Starcraft ahead of TA. One had a great story, very high production values, superb game balance and strong multiplayer, but the other had automation of the economic micromanagement and supported some serious hard edged wars of attrition if you weren't nimble enough to win quick.
Maybe there just wasn't room for both at the pro level; for whatever reason Starcraft went global and TA remains unrecognised as the greatest RTS in gaming history.
For gameplay and fun factor the Dawn of War and Company of Heroes series have easily matched it - but they're clearly more tactical in scale/scope.
However, for serious strategy, I always end up going for the 'Total War' series (and their clones - I picked up King Arthur the Roleplaying Wargame on a Steam cheap deal the other week and that's another turn based strategic with pausable real-time battles. Having fun with it, and they've added enough nice features that you don't get in the Total War games that it's not a direct clone or rip-off.)
A gaming company needs to work with the guys behind Spring to re-release a professional production quality version of TA designed for modern computers. Better AI, better graphics, same macro-scale carnage where your army has to claw its way through the wreckage of the last fight just to reach the enemy.
Wtf? Read my fucking reply to your fucking post. TFA clearly fucking states that by breaching AUP you may cease to be accessing your ISP in an authorised manner, thus making it an unauthorised access, which is accessing it without permission, which is illegal. Breaching the AUP isn't illegal, accessing a computer network without permission is.
You're a cunt and I vote to try and stop people like you setting laws.
However: Accessing your ISPs systems without permission is illegal access and is a crime.
Do you have permission? Only if you obey the AUP.
The article thus posits that by breaching the AUP you cease to use the services in an authorised manner. Using the services in an unauthorised manner is illegal and you broke the law.
I personally think it's full of shit, but legally it may nonetheless be true. Ask a lawyer.
Only those with leave to stay, e.g. dual nationality or residency visas.
Being required to stay in Hampshire doesn't necessarily mean Assange has a residency visa. He may have been in the country (quite legally) without one.
You do NOT go on the sex offender's list just for being accused. You need to be convicted.
However, any accusations made against you that you were not aware of can be raised in court as evidence of your character against you, and can be shared with a potential partner that approaches the police to inquire about you.
No matter how unfounded those accusations, despite the fact you've never had an opportunity to respond to them.
The law right now in the UK is severely unbalanced against men in almost any domestic or sexual context.
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't seen me make any bad choices. You don't know who I am, you haven't seen any photos, you just know that I've spotted your irrational prejudice.
Personally I'm quite comfortable with the photos, I'm not ashamed of my extra-curricular activities and I've worn fancy dress to work before for charity.
You're still an idiot.
Indeed - I have one screwdriver always in my pocket that's capable, and another in my work bag, let alone the multiple additional ones in the house.
(Both portable screwdrivers are part of multitools. But that's a whole other discussion.)
I must be a fucking weird household then. I just checked and I have two screwdrivers designed for that head, and another 18 that would work with it if too much torque wasn't needed.
I'm not even a hardware nut, I pay other people to put my PCs together for me (£40 build cost on a £2k computer is worth far more than the hassle and need to test individual components).
Friends of them used a media sharing site to share media with their friends of a harmless and fun activity that I happened to be engaged in.
Yes, you are the idiot.
Why are you so defensive about this? What's the issue here? I'm genuinely confused, surely it's pretty obvious that people have a professional life and a private life, and they'll get up to things in their private life that don't impact them professionally but that other people that know them can and do know about?
Why the automatic assumption that anybody that doesn't live an isolated staid existence is inherently and immediately making bad choices?
It's acting like a twat to attend a public art event where everyone dresses to match the theme of the event, to politely interact and make it fun and to go home with the friends I attended with afterwards?
Those photos are on the 'net. They are definitely not ones I'd share with a potential employer. Shit, I have 5 1/4 inch heels on in them..
wtf? You refuse to employ people that drink alcohol or smoke?
I'd be in big trouble. I engage in physical sports. I mean, forget temporary mild intoxication, I've broken legs!
You'd have to avoid me in case I broke your whole office! I mean, I could burn it down or ram a truck into it or anything!!
Or you could just be an idiot.
So... I go to a party, hosted by friends (one's a lawyer, one owns a software company). It's fancy dress.
You're telling me I make bad choices because I hang out with people that like fancy dress parties and facebook?
You are indeed an idiot.
As an employer, I feel that you're free to do what you like in private, just show a little discretion in a public forum.
As an employer it's fuck all to do with you if your employee likes cottaging, dogging or other public activities in which you personally prefer not to partake.
Why should sharing photographs be any different?
There's video footage of me engaging in one of my hobbies on Youtube. Why is that any more socially acceptable than a student engaging in a perfectly normal student hobby?
Discretion matters if it's secretive stuff. When it's things that are in the public domain anyway then why hide it? Maybe you're ashamed of your student days but I know I'm not. I also wont tolerate people being twats towards other people that went out and had fun.
The solution is to never post anything online that you would never want anyone to see in the future.
.. and the solution for photographs that other people post?
Not that your point isn't valid in context, just that the proposed photo aging approach only addressed the 'shoot yourself in the foot' issue, not the 'other people are twats that like to post photos' issue.
I would judge him on the stupidity of his choices to post these behaviors to the internet with no thought whatsoever.
There are embarrassing photos of me on Facebook. They're tagged with my real name. They're visible to potential employers.
Nothing I do in them is illegal, nothing I do in them impacts my ability to do my job, some of them are indeed from my student days.
I don't have a Facebook account.
Tell me, exactly, what the stupid choice I've made here is, that would prejudice you against giving me a job?
Hint: I'd turn it down anyway; I don't work for fucking idiots.
If it's displayed on my screen, I can capture it.
(Of course, if you don't want me accessing your photos after a certain timeframe, then skip this software entirely and just post on Facebook. I'll never see them.)
As I mentioned in a reply to Anonymous Cowpat above, StarCraft was initially released at the time of SupCom's ancestral inspiration: Total Annihilation.
TA was the macro scale 'This is war' with maps it took minutes to traverse while StarCraft was the C&C-alike with story and fixed objectives.
The market largely followed StarCraft, as it was perceived as the more successful game, leaving a generation of frustrated TA fans begging for more of the same (and SupCom was about 20 single-player campaign missions short of delivering).
I haven't given Achtung Panzer a go, will look out for that one on Steam (not there yet, but most Paradox titles eventually make it - and I have 7 queued up to play already so no rush..)
SupCom was fairly weak compared to its venerable ancestor Total Annihilation.
I still find myself bewildered by the love for Starcraft ahead of TA. One had a great story, very high production values, superb game balance and strong multiplayer, but the other had automation of the economic micromanagement and supported some serious hard edged wars of attrition if you weren't nimble enough to win quick.
Maybe there just wasn't room for both at the pro level; for whatever reason Starcraft went global and TA remains unrecognised as the greatest RTS in gaming history.
For gameplay and fun factor the Dawn of War and Company of Heroes series have easily matched it - but they're clearly more tactical in scale/scope.
However, for serious strategy, I always end up going for the 'Total War' series (and their clones - I picked up King Arthur the Roleplaying Wargame on a Steam cheap deal the other week and that's another turn based strategic with pausable real-time battles. Having fun with it, and they've added enough nice features that you don't get in the Total War games that it's not a direct clone or rip-off.)
A gaming company needs to work with the guys behind Spring to re-release a professional production quality version of TA designed for modern computers. Better AI, better graphics, same macro-scale carnage where your army has to claw its way through the wreckage of the last fight just to reach the enemy.
Wtf? Read my fucking reply to your fucking post. TFA clearly fucking states that by breaching AUP you may cease to be accessing your ISP in an authorised manner, thus making it an unauthorised access, which is accessing it without permission, which is illegal. Breaching the AUP isn't illegal, accessing a computer network without permission is.
You're a cunt and I vote to try and stop people like you setting laws.
The title is sensationalistically misrepresenting the article. That doesn't qualify as a claim.
Breaching the AUP is not a crime.
Nobody is suggesting that it is.
However: Accessing your ISPs systems without permission is illegal access and is a crime.
Do you have permission? Only if you obey the AUP.
The article thus posits that by breaching the AUP you cease to use the services in an authorised manner. Using the services in an unauthorised manner is illegal and you broke the law.
I personally think it's full of shit, but legally it may nonetheless be true. Ask a lawyer.
Bah. It's overpriced even now. When released battery life was shit too.
It sold well, but it's still shit. Just well marketed shit.
. This sort of duchbaggary and negativity should have no place here...
Actually, this site has a long and cherished history of pointing out when shit is shit.
This is shit.
If the stock is not publicly traded and no value is returned, then that stock is worth nothing.
So 10% of Facebook is worth nothing? That was unexpected.
Sounds like a violent form, involving brutal use of a table leg.
I don't even have lady parts and I'm wincing..
Only those with leave to stay, e.g. dual nationality or residency visas.
Being required to stay in Hampshire doesn't necessarily mean Assange has a residency visa. He may have been in the country (quite legally) without one.
Simple fact: Giffords was targeted by a political opponent using assassination metaphors.
Can you at least acknowledge that fact and agree that it's entirely inappropriate and contributes to an unhealthy political atmosphere?
You do NOT go on the sex offender's list just for being accused. You need to be convicted.
However, any accusations made against you that you were not aware of can be raised in court as evidence of your character against you, and can be shared with a potential partner that approaches the police to inquire about you.
No matter how unfounded those accusations, despite the fact you've never had an opportunity to respond to them.
The law right now in the UK is severely unbalanced against men in almost any domestic or sexual context.
More to the point, Assange isn't by any definition an 'enemy combatant'.
That hasn't stopped the US from kidknapping people and illegaly incarcerating them in Guantanamo Bay so far..
I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest that Assange is the target of anything more than an obsessed media and a lot of public outcry
Clearly you have very constrained sources of news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8212812/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-facing-US-prosecution-bid-says-Joe-Biden.html
Or maybe something more recent: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/us-turns-to-twitter-as-wikileaks-chase-continues-20110109-19jy5.html
t I also don't see a lot of convincing evidence that he definitely is the target of anything in particular
How much evidence would you like exactly?