I am going to operate under the assumption that you either put this in the wrong spot, I write like a retard, you can not read well, you are a crazy zealot about something - I am not sure what, or you are drunk. I went back, read what I wrote. I read what I responded to. I read your reply for a second time. Nope. I am not sure where you are coming from.
To give you the benefit of the doubt... I am not pro-anything... I am pro-versatility and pro-research. I am a fan of further research on LSTR solutions. I am not a fan of meltdowns. I am not a fan of shoddy work/work habits. I am not a fan of environmental catastrophes of any type. I am a fan of solar, wind, tide, geothermal, methane recollection, safe(ish) nuclear, and other rational subjects that should be researched, funded, and spread out in a wide area to ensure the best result with the least risk.
How you managed to grasp what you did from my post is beyond me. I am not even sure I can follow what leaps you made mentally, and I wrote the damned thing. I have no idea what the hell it is you think you're seeing in my post but it is not there. My comment was in reference to what you replied to the first person... Maybe you should read that? I have no idea and it is not my job to fix you. Have another beer?
I have never really heard a GOOD reason for Java to be in the browser to being with. Ever... Enlighten me if you wish. I am truly curious - legitimate question.
Can't JavaScript be obfuscated? I seem to recall this as true. I have not done any JavaScript authoring ever, really. I have torn into other bits and hacked my way into getting what I needed it but I know absolutely no JavaScript at all and just adjusted others to suit my needs because, well, once you can write code you can generally pick stuff up easier.
and of course boards that use fewer parts they don't need...
I now have a picture in my head of a guy, his name is Ralph, sitting there, drilling holes, and soldering on random extra bits like capacitors, diodes, a spare bios chip bracket, and a USB port. I know what you meant but, really, that is how my brain works.
If I understand it then it is not green at all. They, quite literally, plan on chucking out whole stripped down towers when a single component fails. They will not be replacing fans, hard drives, RAM, failed network cards, or any of that. It is cheaper for them to toss them in the trash then it is for them to debug, fault-check, and/or replace hardware. It is not that the techs are making that much, it is because the hardware is that cheap and the value of uptime is so high. They are probably even going to be paying someone to come haul these discarded husks out and to wipe/destroy the drives.
Green? Hell no. They'll pay Jose to plant a few trees in South America and call it carbon neutral.
Oh no. I was just pointing out that you are an idiot on the off chance that someone had missed it. The most beautiful part was your attempt to justify your reply. No, you can not just ignore someone and then call them ignorant and not expect someone to call you out on it. You are not having a private conversation - you are on an open website that facilitates discussion with all comers.
Sometimes we see things like abject stupidity. At that point we chime in and point out the idiocy. You, and everyone here, has done this in the past. Attempting to claim otherwise would make you hypocritical and, frankly, you do not really need anything more against you at this point. Your conversations are not special, neither are you.
Finally, even more amusing, is that you attempted to call me kid as an insult. That, right there, is funny considering I am probably old enough to be your grandfather. Hell, I probably am. I might just be your father though, I got around a lot.
So carry on with your bad self. You cute little button-nosed critter you! I am reasonably certain you will have something to say in your response. Go ahead. You can have the last word. I do not mind. Not even a little bit. It might make your ego a little less bruised but your idiocy is now here for all to see and glaringly obvious in case anyone missed it. You're dismissed.
I do. I hate everyone though. You can bet your ass that I hate you with a passion and I do not even know you. I'm pretty certain that you are a sperm-burping gutter slut who does nothing more than breathe my air. So yes, I hate you too. I do not even like your cat.
Don't take it personally. I hate everyone. I'd find a way to kick everyone in the planet in the nutsack, or the vagina, if it were even remotely possible. I'd gouge their eyes out with a rusty potato peeler, rip off their toenails, and smash their children's heads in with rocks.
No, not really. You seem like a pretty good person. I do not actually hate anyone. Not even a little bit.
I am not suggesting your moderation. I am counting the people who can not read.;) (Ctrl + F; food; enter == You are slow on the uptake and did not even read to the bottom before posting.)
When it goes down a bit more I am in for a large sum. I know it will go lower but I am not going to wait too long. I can afford to risk it and let the investment sit idle. I have every reason to believe it will return to bubble anew. It is a risk I accept and, really, I am just gambling anyways.
I am one of the biggest supporters of Snowden on this site. What he said is true. However, I accept the loss and think it was worth it to have had the other information released. I think he should be pardoned. However, he did break the law. It does not even need a trial - you can judge for yourself. I think his breaking the law was justified and that a judge or jury should refuse to find him guilty. You can say that he is not guilty because he has not been tried. That does not mean he did not break the law. Courts do not find you innocent - they find you not guilty. He is as guilty as they come but should not be prosecuted.
You are not driven to suicide. You choose to suicide. Evidence: All the people in prison with vastly larger sentences than he was likely to receive. They did not kill themselves. He opted to kill himself. As much as I support his ideals he is still a coward.
Wow. Just, wow. "Hi! I am willfully ignorant. I am going to call you ignorant."
I noticed you used the same exact tactic (including quoting yourself) above. Why would somebody wallow in ignorance instead of being honest? Why is that?
Yeah, yeah... I know. You won't read because you will not think. Children and their tirades are not best if ignored or corrected. They are best when scorned. So... Look at how silly you look! Your drooling on yourself as you try harder to fight against learning than you would have if you had just learned in the first place.
Perhaps you meant that it is not a crime or that it should not be a crime? I can assure you that it is a crime in this country, he would have been found guilty - there is no doubt. What is debatable is if it should be... Until it is changed it is illegal. It may not be immoral but it is illegal. The illegality is what makes it a crime. Violating Jim Crow laws was a crime. The laws were reprehensible but breaking those laws was still a crime.
Ah... I used to type in multiple colors in Yahoo's chat. Once in a while I would paste in some colorful text and tell people that if they pressed "CTRL + ALT + DEL" that they could enter a special admin panel that enabled multi-color chat and the ability to kick and ban other users. It was evil. It was fun.
An aside?
During the Mad Cow epidemic I would go to the "Horse Lovers" channels and point out how much I loved horse. I'd go on and on about it until it all reached the climax of, "They taste so delicious, I hope this Mad Cow stuff never happens!" (Or something along those lines.) It was evil. It was fun.
This is probably going to sound bad but, frankly, I think it needs saying...
(The first is not so bad.) TPB court case was drama and, frankly, has nothing to do with the CFAA or anything in the US legal system. Was their political influence? I suspect so but my suspicions do not make it so.
Swartz did not even get to trial. (My displeasure with my alma mater and the whole situation has been aired before.) He did not make it to trial either. At best we can say that the CFAA was going to be used against him.
The attempt to compare those to this is an obvious attempt to get emotions riles up but it is basically not much more than an attempt to compare apples and oranges. I believe the term is "clickbait." It is an apt term because, well, we clicked.
I found your link to the site, and quote from it, to be interesting. It means you have looked to make a connection where, really, there is not one. In your case you are trying to link (this is what it looks like) a bit of statement about how the punishment was an injustice. This is very likely true. However, it too does not seem to relate to this case in any meaningful way.
If any conclusion could be drawn, and this is stretching, we could say that the TPB and Swatz cases are examples of idiocy. In this case it looks like the judge did a reasonable thing though I would argue that the two year suspended sentence is a bit high. I understand that it is high because they make it higher due to the privilege of having a suspended sentence. At the same time, the dude is still a kid in many ways. He may well do something else dumb. Having that much time hanging over his head seems a bit much which could also mean that this too is stupid but much less stupid than the examples we are meant to compare and contrast with. (We are not meant to compare or contrast them at all, we are meant to be emotional and mindlessly call each other names for not supporting our views.)
Slashdot Mirror
You should thank your lucky stars then. Sheesh. I have to do everything around here.
Y is both. Y was the original trans-gendered member of The Letter People.
In this case, U == hard Y.
A unicycle.
An umbrella.
This message has been brought to you by Hooked on Phonics.
I am going to operate under the assumption that you either put this in the wrong spot, I write like a retard, you can not read well, you are a crazy zealot about something - I am not sure what, or you are drunk. I went back, read what I wrote. I read what I responded to. I read your reply for a second time. Nope. I am not sure where you are coming from.
To give you the benefit of the doubt... I am not pro-anything... I am pro-versatility and pro-research. I am a fan of further research on LSTR solutions. I am not a fan of meltdowns. I am not a fan of shoddy work/work habits. I am not a fan of environmental catastrophes of any type. I am a fan of solar, wind, tide, geothermal, methane recollection, safe(ish) nuclear, and other rational subjects that should be researched, funded, and spread out in a wide area to ensure the best result with the least risk.
How you managed to grasp what you did from my post is beyond me. I am not even sure I can follow what leaps you made mentally, and I wrote the damned thing. I have no idea what the hell it is you think you're seeing in my post but it is not there. My comment was in reference to what you replied to the first person... Maybe you should read that? I have no idea and it is not my job to fix you. Have another beer?
The number was probably zero. It is now likely dozens. Good job. ;)
I do not know much about JavaScript. I have mostly hacked other people's work to fit my needs. However, the worst? Hmm... Have you never tried QBasic?
I have never really heard a GOOD reason for Java to be in the browser to being with. Ever... Enlighten me if you wish. I am truly curious - legitimate question.
Can't JavaScript be obfuscated? I seem to recall this as true. I have not done any JavaScript authoring ever, really. I have torn into other bits and hacked my way into getting what I needed it but I know absolutely no JavaScript at all and just adjusted others to suit my needs because, well, once you can write code you can generally pick stuff up easier.
3% is not much. Let us look at a different, less drastic, graph from your own site:
http://w3techs.com/technologie...
and of course boards that use fewer parts they don't need...
I now have a picture in my head of a guy, his name is Ralph, sitting there, drilling holes, and soldering on random extra bits like capacitors, diodes, a spare bios chip bracket, and a USB port. I know what you meant but, really, that is how my brain works.
If I understand it then it is not green at all. They, quite literally, plan on chucking out whole stripped down towers when a single component fails. They will not be replacing fans, hard drives, RAM, failed network cards, or any of that. It is cheaper for them to toss them in the trash then it is for them to debug, fault-check, and/or replace hardware. It is not that the techs are making that much, it is because the hardware is that cheap and the value of uptime is so high. They are probably even going to be paying someone to come haul these discarded husks out and to wipe/destroy the drives.
Green? Hell no. They'll pay Jose to plant a few trees in South America and call it carbon neutral.
Oh no. I was just pointing out that you are an idiot on the off chance that someone had missed it. The most beautiful part was your attempt to justify your reply. No, you can not just ignore someone and then call them ignorant and not expect someone to call you out on it. You are not having a private conversation - you are on an open website that facilitates discussion with all comers.
Sometimes we see things like abject stupidity. At that point we chime in and point out the idiocy. You, and everyone here, has done this in the past. Attempting to claim otherwise would make you hypocritical and, frankly, you do not really need anything more against you at this point. Your conversations are not special, neither are you.
Finally, even more amusing, is that you attempted to call me kid as an insult. That, right there, is funny considering I am probably old enough to be your grandfather. Hell, I probably am. I might just be your father though, I got around a lot.
So carry on with your bad self. You cute little button-nosed critter you! I am reasonably certain you will have something to say in your response. Go ahead. You can have the last word. I do not mind. Not even a little bit. It might make your ego a little less bruised but your idiocy is now here for all to see and glaringly obvious in case anyone missed it. You're dismissed.
I do. I hate everyone though. You can bet your ass that I hate you with a passion and I do not even know you. I'm pretty certain that you are a sperm-burping gutter slut who does nothing more than breathe my air. So yes, I hate you too. I do not even like your cat.
Don't take it personally. I hate everyone. I'd find a way to kick everyone in the planet in the nutsack, or the vagina, if it were even remotely possible. I'd gouge their eyes out with a rusty potato peeler, rip off their toenails, and smash their children's heads in with rocks.
No, not really. You seem like a pretty good person. I do not actually hate anyone. Not even a little bit.
+6
Your rush to seem witty resulted in your failure to read the thread. You are the sixth person to state this.
+5
I am not suggesting your moderation. I am counting the people who can not read. ;) (Ctrl + F; food; enter == You are slow on the uptake and did not even read to the bottom before posting.)
When it goes down a bit more I am in for a large sum. I know it will go lower but I am not going to wait too long. I can afford to risk it and let the investment sit idle. I have every reason to believe it will return to bubble anew. It is a risk I accept and, really, I am just gambling anyways.
I am one of the biggest supporters of Snowden on this site. What he said is true. However, I accept the loss and think it was worth it to have had the other information released. I think he should be pardoned. However, he did break the law. It does not even need a trial - you can judge for yourself. I think his breaking the law was justified and that a judge or jury should refuse to find him guilty. You can say that he is not guilty because he has not been tried. That does not mean he did not break the law. Courts do not find you innocent - they find you not guilty. He is as guilty as they come but should not be prosecuted.
Yip. Right on cue. (I did not misrepresent facts. I posted what you posted. Unless you are saying that your posts were not factual...)
"Other people do illegal things and they are worse!" -- not a valid point
You are not driven to suicide. You choose to suicide. Evidence: All the people in prison with vastly larger sentences than he was likely to receive. They did not kill themselves. He opted to kill himself. As much as I support his ideals he is still a coward.
"i[sic] stopped reading..."
"...ignorant..."
Wow. Just, wow. "Hi! I am willfully ignorant. I am going to call you ignorant."
I noticed you used the same exact tactic (including quoting yourself) above. Why would somebody wallow in ignorance instead of being honest? Why is that?
Yeah, yeah... I know. You won't read because you will not think. Children and their tirades are not best if ignored or corrected. They are best when scorned. So... Look at how silly you look! Your drooling on yourself as you try harder to fight against learning than you would have if you had just learned in the first place.
Perhaps you meant that it is not a crime or that it should not be a crime? I can assure you that it is a crime in this country, he would have been found guilty - there is no doubt. What is debatable is if it should be... Until it is changed it is illegal. It may not be immoral but it is illegal. The illegality is what makes it a crime. Violating Jim Crow laws was a crime. The laws were reprehensible but breaking those laws was still a crime.
Happens? Meh... I meant "ends" but I am functionally, barely, retarded.
Ah... I used to type in multiple colors in Yahoo's chat. Once in a while I would paste in some colorful text and tell people that if they pressed "CTRL + ALT + DEL" that they could enter a special admin panel that enabled multi-color chat and the ability to kick and ban other users. It was evil. It was fun.
An aside?
During the Mad Cow epidemic I would go to the "Horse Lovers" channels and point out how much I loved horse. I'd go on and on about it until it all reached the climax of, "They taste so delicious, I hope this Mad Cow stuff never happens!" (Or something along those lines.) It was evil. It was fun.
This is probably going to sound bad but, frankly, I think it needs saying...
(The first is not so bad.) TPB court case was drama and, frankly, has nothing to do with the CFAA or anything in the US legal system. Was their political influence? I suspect so but my suspicions do not make it so.
Swartz did not even get to trial. (My displeasure with my alma mater and the whole situation has been aired before.) He did not make it to trial either. At best we can say that the CFAA was going to be used against him.
The attempt to compare those to this is an obvious attempt to get emotions riles up but it is basically not much more than an attempt to compare apples and oranges. I believe the term is "clickbait." It is an apt term because, well, we clicked.
I found your link to the site, and quote from it, to be interesting. It means you have looked to make a connection where, really, there is not one. In your case you are trying to link (this is what it looks like) a bit of statement about how the punishment was an injustice. This is very likely true. However, it too does not seem to relate to this case in any meaningful way.
If any conclusion could be drawn, and this is stretching, we could say that the TPB and Swatz cases are examples of idiocy. In this case it looks like the judge did a reasonable thing though I would argue that the two year suspended sentence is a bit high. I understand that it is high because they make it higher due to the privilege of having a suspended sentence. At the same time, the dude is still a kid in many ways. He may well do something else dumb. Having that much time hanging over his head seems a bit much which could also mean that this too is stupid but much less stupid than the examples we are meant to compare and contrast with. (We are not meant to compare or contrast them at all, we are meant to be emotional and mindlessly call each other names for not supporting our views.)