Germany -- where the best meat wurst.
FTFY.
I'm fine with sites regulating trolls.
Honestly, I prefer the Slashdot method: community voting based on popular perception.
Contrast that with site regulation, where a certain group of moderators determine the content of the "acceptable" posts: for instance, any anti-gun facebook group. The problem with this type of moderation is it completely destroys discussion, arguement, and discourse in favor of preening and ego stroking. There is no way to correct misinformation, or to have a meaningful debate about the subject at hand.
I am not in any way promoting extreme trolling (such as the example of posting rape porn on a rape victim support site), and I think any rational person would be able to easily pick out this type of abuse and would agree that it is not acceptable. But the act of disagreeing and stating an opposite viewpoint or opinion about a topic is *not* trolling, though it's called that on many, many discussion boards. And that is what I am against: the PC version of troll blasting, where it interferes with honest and even sometimes heated debate. The best that I have seen is the Slashdot type of voting, along with a point of no return, where there are so many negative votes that the comment is hidden but still available to the reader to view and decide on his/her own whether the post was properly modded down.
I'm less fine with government curtailing freedom of expression, regardless of how offensive it may be.
Totally agree. This should be done "For the People, By the People", not "For the People, By the Gubment". The Gov should NOT be in the business of censorship, and in the US that falls under the 1st Amendment. Even the whole child porn illegality to me feels like a slippery slope (even though, morally, I fully support the arrest, conviction, and forced rape by an angry silverback for those who produce that shit), because it could lead to other censorship based on precedence and someone's personal, moral judgement (just like me and the child porn example). I think there's a line that shouldn't be crossed, but the arguement always is, "Who determines the line?" It's always a good arguement to have, and I hope that type of arguement always continues to be had.
It's not ethical to shoot someone who is drunk and yelling at you.
FTFY. There's no "probably" about this. The drunk yelling at you has not escalated the encounter to the point where you need to defend your life or anyone else's. You don't have the right to shoot someone unless there's a life in danger, and don't think there won't be repurcussions even if it was completely self-defense. There will be a court appearance if you shoot someone.
Just because you can do unethical things with a tool doesn't necessarily mean you should get rid of the tool.
Fully agree with this.
You'd never see that if Mobile did a new middleware upgrade that wasted $300M and never worked. And the issue here isn't Lockheed Martin's incompetence in delivering the contract, but the Government's in poorly managing a vendor. The hypocrisy is that the government is always blamed.
You had me until that last line... Let's recap: the Gov't is poorly managing it's vendor(s), but it's hypocritical to blame them for it?
What?
Nobody should ever be logging in as root remotely. That's what sudo is for.
Servers are infected through the execution of a hypertext preprocessor (PHP) script that establishes Mayhem on the victim computer and sets up a communications channel with a command and control server.
...it doesn't need root to operate.
RTFA, AC dumbass troll.
The rule on staying alive as a program manager is to give 'em a number or give 'em a date, but never give 'em both at once.