OGC

Both of these comments are idiotic and flamebait.

> facebook could own the biggest social networks out there.

ftfy. if they know what they are doing, they'll just merge the data into one network, and keep the user experience on the frontends the same.

It's quite similar to * a lot * of other sites.

Regarding 3):

They _really_ should. I have a feeling they dont use it at all for actual task (except for testing out if something works)

Second the join-a-club notion. Having something else except "exercise is good for me", like winning a match, to motivate yourself goes a long way. I started playing rugby last year and find myself actually looking forward to regular practice.

So it's just "Correlation does not imply causation"?

> You might get deported like that Saudi guy for being too handsome.

I still have not seen a credible source for that and basically think it's a PR stunt.

Seriously, go to /r/malefashionadvice and buy the uniform..

> "Prosecutors disputed this and maintained that chat logs recovered from Gonzalez’s computer described illegal carding activity that Gonzalez conducted and showed that Watt at least had broad knowledge of what Gonzalez was doing, if not the details.

The lesson here to take away from this is to encrypt your stuff and if you're doing some kind of criminal activity to make (or force) your associates do the same.

From http://codex.wordpress.org/Comments_in_WordPress

Depending on your site's settings, comments display slightly differently from site to site. The basic comment form includes:

Name

Email

Website

Comment

> We were all quite relieved to find that nuclear missiles are controlled by an old computer that presumably doesn't receive security bug patches on a weekly basis.

That missile control computer better not be on any network..

i have a bad feeling about that.

nitpick: that's a dictionary attack, not brute-force

tldr: author is too lazy to moderate comments

AFAIK, aged wordpress install usually run on shared hosting.

To rephrase the other question: So what "magic" does Erlang do then? How does it work?

> My latest project is INDOCTRINATOR: http://indoctrinator.com but I've developed other successful products.

"INDOCTRINATOR is an email program that reveals the secrets to becoming obsessed over anything, even something you hate."

Pass.

I thought that, too, with car insurance for an under 25 year old... The price difference actually was about 25 euros a year (Germany)

A point or question missing from the article (i think): So, downloads for a free app are essentially a competely empty metric?

They shut down the app, because it probably sucked and would have killed the hype. Imagine the PR fiasco if the headlines were "Yahoo bought worthless app that doesn't even work properly for 30 Mio $".

Nothing, that was my point. For OP it would make a lot of sense to found a company / consult / etc instead of working _for_ a company, to get around his felony.

The part with "worthless advice" was about the whole "oh, also be successful and happy" thing.

You are not getting it. The point is it randomly generates image manipulations with several steps (= filter).

> founder

is the key word here

> So I just say that you go on and be happy and successful.

that is worthless advice

To add a "soft" argument to this, OP obviously has talent/knowledge (while not enough to not get caught) in his chosen career field, instead of doing something completely different where everyone else has a headstart.

How about we throw around "they have now 16 more female engineers" instead of "OMFG 500%"?

So, they had 4, and now they have 20 female engineers. That sounds like quite a small sample size and quiet a lot talk about that.

So... if the attacker would not have had deactivated SSH by accident they would not have noticed?

> I'm connected and happily chatting, but then my Wifi blips and I'm disconnected. There's no chat log, so I don't know what I missed. And on crappy connections, this can happen pretty frequently.

So a bouncer + web interface, huh? I'd better get to work..

> "Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[10] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words. The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[11] Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher, has argued that ad hominem reasoning not only has rhetorical, but also logical value. As an example, he cites Karl Marx's idea that only the proletariat has an objective view of history. If that were to be taken rigorously, an ad hominem argument would effectively render Marx's general theory as incoherent: as Marx was not a proletarian, his own view of history couldn't be objective."

(wikipedia article on ad hominem)

In this case, i'd think it's pretty fucking valid.

14 lines is an article now?