CrownStem

I agree with this. It degrades relatively quickly into a Wikipedia core group of elite editors kind of thing, where the disconnected ideals of a clique dominate.

It amazes me that people rely upon a free Email service for critical personal infrastructure.

That was said by Ken Olsen, CEO of DEC, in 1977- At a meeting of the World Future Society, of all places. Granted, he later said that he was referring to large computers common at that time.

The bottom line is that you should expect whatever you store using Google Drive to be mined- This is what the company does, and it leaves the option wide open in its terms. If your expectations are in line with that eventuality, then use the service. If not, don't.

Yes- The TV station in question has a -team- working on an established product with an established methodology (whether it all works well together is another topic). It's unrealistic to expect quick, large-scale change in any big operation that's driven by a large team... no matter how great the new ideas are. It can happen, but it takes time.

A skilled developer can single-handedly shake up the paradigm and drive things in a new direction. The real challenge for the organization that grows up around that game-changing idea is to avoid behaving like the one it replaces.

After graduation, started in '90 at a consulting firm with oil field apps using 4GL's: FOCUS, PowerBuilder, DataEase (anyone remember that?), then Paradox, DBIV/Clipper, then C, VB1 (client just -had- to use it), then VBII, III, Delphi, VB6.

Lived in SQL Server from when it was hard to differentiate from Sybase / OS/2. Did anyone ever have the problem that if you unplugged the monitor on an Sybase / OS/2 machine the whole box would crash?

In the mid-90's, the saving grace for us with VBIII / SQL Server was a small, self-published (at the time) book, Hitchhiker's guide to SQL Server, by Bill Vaughn. Actually went to dinner once with the guy- He flew helicopters in Vietnam on SAR missions... give him a couple of drinks and he'll tell some -very- interesting stories.

Three very cool years 2003-2005 creating games using Torque and GameStudio to host educational content (an FPS, hosting .avi's instead of shooting), then the C# .Net world on the desktop and the web. A little Python and Pearl thrown in for fun.

I'm lucky that I'm the go-to guy for weird requests. Keeps the job interesting.

Looking at your idea from a different angle: I guess it could be useful for an opposing group to make the threat, in order to make Anonymous look impotent if it's not carried out, while the opposing group takes credit for "stopping" it.

Who knows... -We- surely don't. I feel like I'm outlining a plot for a Tom Clancy novel.

That could be true, but I believe it to be unlikely in this case.

It's easier to benefit from a false-flag attack by just doing it- denials don't carry as much weight in an emotional, post-attack context. When forewarning is given for a false-flag, you give the accused a chance to back away and say "it's not us" before an event, lodging enough doubt that the size of the crowd with torches and pitchforks isn't as big afterwards... I think this would be counter-productive for the guys staging the false-flag attack.

I cannot think of a better way for this group to hurt their cause and garner the animosity of much of the world. It seems to endlessly repeat throughout history- groups with an axe to grind (whether in power or rebelling against it) use blunt force to try and further their cause. They're either too lazy or not competent enough to use a scalpel so they blow up the patient to get rid of a tumor. After the majority of the populace then turns against them, they're either shocked or self-righteously indignant that everyone else doesn't "get it". It never ends.

"Slander" is a strong word, and most of the folks around here are not idiots- You are not helping your case slinging that accusation around. Tell us exactly what verbage you believe is "slander".

It looks as if the author -did- look at the event with a fairly in-depth analysis, and the results were plausible yet inconclusive.

Whether you are the original poster or not, you're not a troll, you're a sociopath emboldened by anonymity. Cloak yourself in some idealistic mission if it makes you feel good- but your mission isn't to make the point that "people around here need to be a lot more skeptical"- You're a sociopath that enjoys kicking a hornet's nest just to watch the reaction.