Happy Belated Birthday
This Dave fella seems like a hoopy frood.
33 posts • joined 3 Jun 2011
I think a fair amount of people with authoritarian right-wing parents end up going completely on the other end, rebelling by believing in such crazy liberal lies as freedom of the person over their own body, health care for even poor people, and governments needing to take in taxes in order to support their most disenfranchised citizens.
More importantly, supporters of Michelle Bachmann are still on Symbian.
Yeah, it kinda is.
1) The game is not working as intended. It was intended to, after a set amount of real time, set the crops to be at the next level of growth. They didn't have access to real time, so they used system time, which will be close enough. When you change the system time you are changing how it is intended to function. If they wanted you to be able to fast forward time, they probably would have given you a fast forward button.
2) Cars are not built with hard-coded rules that would deny them from going 71mph, in almost all cases. However, if they were, but you found out that it only prevented you from going above 70 in the top gear (which makes sense, nobody could possibly go above 70 in a lower gear!), but you then realized you could drop it down a gear, rev the engine (much too hard, admittedly, for a low gear) for a second, and then pop it back into the top gear and be clear of the prevention scheme... now that's hacking! Breaking a rule outside the system by hitting a button or stepping on a peddle isn't hacking, but finding a way to bypass a lock that prevents you from hitting the button or stepping on the peddle could be.
3) Your penis wasn't designed to be unable to receive blowjobs (I'd hope, but you had better clean off anyways just in case).
4) Because the system has to trust input from the system time, and there's no technical way to avoid this, any hack involving changing the system time isn't really a hack? No! That just means that the system time is an easy attack vector that is hard to defend against!
5) While it might not be clever for you to change the system time, a child who is but 10 coming up with it is rather clever for her or his age.
Why should we be admonishing this child as not "really hacking" the system. Encourage it is a great starting point and a simple example of game-breaking, hacking, and lateral thinking, so that we can continue to encourage this child to develop these skills into the future, so that when they are 20 they are able to understand the hundreds of different ways to protect, penetrate, or game a computer system to get a desired effect outside of the standard procedural bounds.
Google knows what's best, as Google likes to remind us in all their products.
"We know what the customers really want is for us to fix issues, so we'll do that without letting them know."
What are customers expecting? Feedback on their feedback? A quick response that Google is aware of the issues? Crazy!
I'm sure at this point the "customer service reps" don't even have a real "Reply" button. Receive the issue, determine if it is an issue, hit "Reply" and the same message gets sent out automatically every time.
"Thank you for spending the time and bothering to email us. Please don't expect any further responses or update from the company, if the issue gets fixed hopefully you will just notice."
Well that'd be interesting to prove.
I wonder if this claim is based in a reality that Lodsys believes they are are only infringing on one system, or based more on "We don't want Apple to step up to defend Rovio as well, so we'll only go after the Android version".
Has the goog stepped up to the plate yet to defend developers, last I heard only Apple had.
Thumbs up because if we were in the Colosseum, I know what my verdict would be. Let the heads roll!
Sure, Sony has been pretty bad in terms of restricting access to their devices and controlling their IP. I am not a supporter of how they attempt to control access to their platforms.
However, Sony HASN'T, as far as I know, been hacking into the phone records of victims of horrible crimes and tragedies, in some cases causing police to back off from cases and giving false hope to families. Also, I haven't heard anything about the people who brought to light the rootkits on audio CDs showing up D-E-A-D within a few weeks.
So, Sony might be evil... but they certainly aren't THAT evil.
that you meant that horrible comedian who thinks he's funny by making "edgy" racist jokes and then exclaiming "It's okay because I'm *ONLY KIDDING*."
I'm not one to wish pain on others, but I wouldn't be upset in the slightest if his fans all had to go about resetting their passwords.
Strong personalities don't have to be explicit leaders.
Individuals within the group all, I'd assume, provide input into many decisions. There are of course, however, some forces of personality who have a bit more sway over what is going on. Lack of defined, explicit leadership doesn't mean that everyone has equal weight in decisions, but some people having more power than others doesn't imply the group is going to tear itself apart.
Anonymous has an advantage in this, as, if somebody does attempt to exert too much power, other anons ruthlessly abandon and ostracize them. Most active anons agree on some core issues, as the article points out. I think you may be thinking of anonymous in the wrong terms. It isn't a movement like feminism or civil rights, it's more of a civilization or society not bound by location. To imagine that society itself would fall apart because there is no explicit goal in society is somewhat foolish.
Not agreeing with everything they do, just pointing out a different opinion on what anonymous is.
Because it would be impossible for Google to create a service that allows you to send generated single-use URLs to an email of a friend, giving them an option to add you. That way you could have a profile that is COMPLETELY PRIVATE from the outside world, but still allows you to stay in touch with friends by giving them something as simple as a URL to click.
Private profiles don't allow this currently, apparently, but it could easily be allowed with such a system. They say it themselves, "The purpose of Google Profiles is to enable you to manage your online identity." Apparently they decided that you don't have the right to manage who can see it.
Perhaps I'm just a crazy guy coming up with conspiracy theories, but Google seems intent on changing the definition of privacy by forcibly mainstreaming the idea that you don't have a right to privacy if you are using their services. If they convince you that your information should be available to everyone, it seems so much more innocent that they are gathering truckloads of information about you.
Google may have admitted it effed up, but only after denying it effed up, then saying it may have effed up, than saying "it was just a simple mistake".
Kind of a scary mistake, to "accidentally include code" in a non-test environment that grabs personal data from unencrypted wi-fi communications and store them. Wonder how that got "overlooked".
Here's to watching it all go down, knowing it all sucks and we aren't getting a slice of the pie (though they're getting a slice of some emails, apparently!)
Seriously, refusing to feed people because you are worried that they might stick around? It's better to risk the lives and health of the homeless than risk the neighborhood not looking so pretty? Let's sweep the undesirables under the rug by passing them off to the next county or state and pretending they don't exist. I wonder if this has ever happened before in history...
And are you really going to complain that it's a group of fundamentalists providing food to the homeless? I wouldn't care if it was Charles Manson released on bail passing out the food, as long as the only result is the most dejected people in society are able to get some food and they aren't withholding it unless they join their religion. I also don't care if every member of the Orlando bureaucrats are all hypocritical Christians, because in the end they're still being immoral assholes.
"They haven't illegally accessed a computer system. Their job gives them the right to access it."
Their job gives them the right to access it for appropriate usage.
Their job also have the right to access and use certain weapons, but if they started shooting them randomly at strangers they would be illegally using them (even if they are ABLE to use them legally, in this situation they are NOT USING THEM LEGALLY).
It's a good thing it exists, because it's not as if people who are considered ugly already get the short end of the stick across their entire life.
"I'm so tired of having to see these ugly people. WHY WON'T THEY JUST LEAVE ME ALONE BY NOT EXISTING."
Perhaps it's time to capitalize on the lack of straight white only dating services too, BECAUSE NOWHERE IS SAFE FROM UNDESIRABLES.
Pictures related on multiple levels.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019