I have a photo of my penis on LinkedIn with a caption: "If you hire me, you get this, and 5 inches more!"

So far, all I've received as spam, and one har-dee-har, "So all we get is 5 inches?"

I hate to "steam" you even more, but NASA disagrees with your "JWSC !- Hubble successor" belief.

Webb often gets called the replacement for Hubble, but we prefer to call it a successor. After all, Webb is the scientific successor to Hubble; its science goals were motivated by results from Hubble. Hubble's science pushed us to look to longer wavelengths to "go beyond" what Hubble has already done. In particular, more distant objects are more highly redshifted, and their light is pushed from the UV and optical into the near-infrared.

...which is the first paragraph on their page addressing whether or not Webb is Hubble's successor. I don't mean to imply that they're an authoritative voice or anything on the subject, but surely their opinion should be weighed into your semantics argument?

and he'll put funding for it as the first item on his presidential agenda. Word on the Hill is that the jobs plan Romney's announcing in September involves putting a sizable number of Americans to work building his spaceship so that he can scope out an appropriate location for his galactic rule; funding for a measly telescope seems like a natural fit, no?

up to Alaska. If only a new compelling reason to make this happen would present itself to us.

A god that demanded the murder of infants, gives him...hope? That's a normal mental condition?

While this may be true:

This isn't:

From the KB warning:

"Vulnerabilities exist in how the BlackBerry MDS Connection Service and the BlackBerry Messaging Agent process PNG and TIFF images for rendering on the BlackBerry smartphone. Successful exploitation of any of these vulnerabilities might allow an attacker to gain access to and execute code on the BlackBerry Enterprise Server. Depending on the privileges available to the configured BlackBerry Enterprise Server service account."

Access to the besadmin account gives an attacker all sorts of access to the server. That account has sendas permissions on all users mailboxes, can make configuration changes to the BES configuration, including changing device settings, and pushing applications to the devices.

It really wouldn't be all that hard to completely compromise an organization's Blackberry configuration -- server and device -- and there's a good chance that you'd be able to escalate privileges onto other servers within the network.

Sadly, the subject-line of this post is more interesting than everything already posted on Google+ combined with everything that will ever be posted on Google+.

tl;dr: I took a shit!

to just buy the CEO a pair of clip-on sideburns?

Pro-tip: "all the latest windows updates" don't install updates for java, adobe reader, or adobe flash.

When did I say that all information should be free? Care to quote me?
When did I say that I have a right to know everything? Care to quote me?
When did I say that an organization or an individual wanting to keep something secret is in and of itself evil? Care to quote me?

That's quite a lot of inferring you did there, and none of it's remotely accurate. Excellent job, champ.

But please tell me how it's beneficial for people not to know rhat Lockheed was broken into through an RSA vulnerability? Please tell me how it's beneficial to current users of RSA's product to know the extent to which they are at risk. I encourage you to answer both questions directly in lieu of making half-assed inferences.

What exactly is your problem with people revealing information that organizations would rather keep hidden?

And what exactly is your evidence that you're not a moron?

It's a site dedicated toward electing Democrats, and discussing Democratic Party principles. Yes, it is true, as per the site's FAQ, that it is not a site where non-Democratic Party principles are discussed. Just like NASA forums don't spend time arguing over whether the moon is or is not made of cheese, DailyKos doesn't rehash base philosophies that have already been agreed upon. If you think the site is a "sandbox", you've never read it, are only pretending to have read it, or don't understand the concept of what is or what is not "off-topic." There is quite a schism among users regarding any major issue: from President Obama's handling of extending Bush's tax cuts for income over $250000, the Senate's and the President's handling of health care reform, to the handling of Libya, to the handling of Osama Bin Laden's capture. The site is anything but a consensus, there's much disagreement (which is what you get in a "big tent" party), and you're being wholly disingenuous to state otherwise. I'm sorry that you apparently got banned from the site. How many sockpuppets have you had to go through?

Both require users to spend some time contributing to the site before they're awarded the ability to mod: over here it's by acquiring 'karma', and at dkos, it's by acquiring 'mojo'. An advantage, imho, of the kos model is you get to see who upranked any given comment. This allows you to see which mods are abusing their privilege to mod up trolls, as well as to see what little cliques exist who spend their time uprating their friend's comments regardless of content, or downrate their internet-enemies' comments.

Slashdot has the issue of anonymous cowards. It has it's benefits, I'm sure, but it makes driveby trolling a hell of a lot easier. Is there any means to report a chronic troll? Is there any backend slash-fu to try to detect sockpuppets beyond IP?

And then you have sites like Boingboing: an idiot mod protecting the fee-fee's of idiot writer's like Xeni and Cory when they make idiot remarks about topics they'd like to pretend they have any expertise on.

...Reagan didn't act like a petulant fucking child in 1986 when he tore down the White House's solar panels, and instead opted to invest in infrastructure and lead by example?
Granted, that might've delayed the booming 25 years of trickle down wealth we've all enjoyed, but perhaps it would've been worth it?

You're oversimplifying and being ridiculous. If a group is trying to collaborate together to achieve a common goal, it would be ridiculous to allow discussions that are outside of that goal.

Time is limited. If a group is trying to develop a consensus of opinion or discuss the nuances within an issue, it would be self-defeating to waste time having conversations that are off-topic. Just as an anti-abortion blog isn't going to discuss the merits of making Plan B prescriptions available to women, a blog that is devoted to electing Democrats isn't going to waste it's time discussing another party's platform: that discussion has already been had by the very definition of people already deciding that they want to be part of a group dedicated to electing Democrats. Why would they waste their time discussing an issue that they've already reached a conclusion on? By your logic, at the next townhall I go to, I should raise my hand and ask my rep "So, are we sure we've thought this revolt against King George through? Belonging to the British empire, does have it's merits...