Again, as https://news.slashdot.org/comm... argues, you have really two choices here:
1. FIX THE SYSTEM
2. work around the system (allow further degradation of the system and its benefits to the general populace driven by the NIMBY folks or pull-up-the-ladder-after folks).
I guess your decision is clear. And as a non-childbearer, irrelevant to the discussion.
Where's the upvote?
Suppose you have suborned a switching point for a company you wished to access. Suppose that you could reduce switching options for traffic to that destination by taking out one (or more) of those trunks at a particular time, to force traffic through your captured switching center.
Know anyone who might want to run some man in the middle attacks on the valley?
*like* *upvote*
Sorry, I don't have any mod points, currently. But this issue badly needs an injection of humor. Somewhere.
You are confusing the location of her education with her campaign for "the freedom of women and girls to be educated".
Ascribing motive to the location of her education is probably premature.
In as far as your "OSS falters" comment goes, the TL;DR version is "groupthink is bad". The obverse is that "non-groupthink is good." This is not the same as contentiousness to eleven, but enough dissent to spot any naked Emperors.
Having worked in both the cathedral and the bazaar, there are pros and cons to each, but I'd rather have more contentiousness earlier on in the cycle than usually happens in the cathedral. It's overall better for the cost of the project as well as the bugs/kloc BS metrics mgmt wants to use.
Amazing. I restrained myself and didn't call out your ignorance, since I tend to use rather complicated sentence construction. You failed to learn when hit with the clue-stick.
So hey, let's play...
The sentence read "I reported the infringements, the spamming, the users who have a variant of the name (e.g. foo2525 instead of foo): to the spam-handlers and to the variant-users." Let's dissect this.
The disingenuous would read this to mean I reported everyone to the spam-handlers *and* the variant-owners. That's totally unhelpful. So, perhaps there is another interpretation, after one is finished with your ad hominem nonsense: It can represent two different actions. Obviously, "variant-users" cannot refer to spammers -- that's just stupid. Then, it quite obviously indicates the resolution path for the variant-owners is *to* the variant-owners. The use of "respectively" would force the reader to cross-correlate the phrases, easing the process.
So, learn some bloody English, you puerile, self-indulgent, narcissistic, entitled moron. When they invent a "does not exceed a 6th grade reading level" tag, I'm sure you'll finally come into your own.
Close... It's qwer@yaho^H^H^H^HH^H^H^H^H Ha. I'm not so foolish
RTFMessage. To be clear, I wrote that I reported folks who used a variant to the variant-user. e.g. send email as foo@yahoo.com instead of foo2525@yahoo.com and I get the email reply, I sent it on to foo2525 with a note that they used the wrong email. Of course, the correct email has to be indicated somewhere, or I have no way
My mistake was not adding ", respectively" to the sentence.
Glad to see you got your exercise today, jumping to conclusions.
If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke
