mroman

You spoiled little swine, you have no idea, how fng dare you

Calling yourself a hacker while doing .net and flash?

You little PUSSY

You little BITCH

How dare you, sitting in your gluttonous SWINE of a country, you spoiled little swine

Hey, a-hole

Those are daily scenes in this (The Republic of Colombia) country

How dare you

Go F yourself

Oh noes, another one defending the banks . . . look, it's very SIMPLE: overcharging clients that much simply because the bank in question CAN is predatory to the point where it amounts to stealing, there is no justification for charging that much, specially in a country as poverty ridden as this one. If you like overpaying that much, suit yourself, but defending such institutions at this point is beyond ludicrous.

                        [[[YAWN]]]

Defending banks in this day and age denotes a lack of brains AND moral fiber

                        [[[YAWN]]]

Amen!

I am glad to see people on this thread who can differentiate between the morality of what he did and the actual skill, balls, and sheer luck this guy had.

While I do not condone or advocate stealing from banks or anyone, well, the damn banks do not seem to have a problem with stealing from clients . . . where I live, the banks charge the local currency equivalent of FIVE US DOLLARS per deposit, even small deposits . . . I had to order a couple of PC parts a few weeks ago, and experienced it for myself . . . stood in line for 30 minutes (out of 8 teller windows, only 4 were manned, and this is in the middle of the afternoon on a weekday) and paid that much to deposit the local currency equivalent of 15 US . . . this is in a country where minimum wage is like $2 US per hour folks . . . someone has to be a straight sheep to criticize a person who steals from banks while not saying the same about the banks themselves . . .

crap is a slang word, not profanity. There is a difference.

My initial post is clear, and I elaborated upon it once already. If you can't understand it, that is your problem.

I used profanity?

What?

Serious question: are you drinking right now?

Thanks, it was also a good story, nothing like our geek criminal mastermind (because he is evidently a geek) :) but an enjoyable story nonetheless . . . can you fellows tell I enjoy true crime stories? Both entertaining and informative, it's the only topic I read besides tech . . .

I wondered about that myself, however, it is plausible in a sense.

> So, I'm not going to waste any time getting into an argument with someone with deficient argumentation skills

Right, coming from someone whose debating skills amount to putting words into another person's mouth (or writing)

Now, just where did you read about "the police bust into his home, hauled him into custody, scaring the crap out of his wife and children, and searched everything. He was likely suspended from work, pending his clearing. And even after being cleared, there's no guarantee that the suspicion disappeared before the Dan guy was convicted."?

Seriously, where did you get that?

You seem to fabricate more and more fantasy as you go along . . .

Interesting, that you would attribute "righteous Robin Hood ethics" to my post. Not so. Read what I wrote.

They were stronger than him in the sense that they had more resources than he did. That they failed to utilize those in an efficient manner is another matter altogether.

Nor did I say that stealing from a bank is just, or that it did not impact anyone.

Framing the brinks guy? Was the man charged or convicted? No. Therefore, no frame.

Withdrawing from thousands of cards, thereby circumventing the security of financial institutions (who have billions available to them) qualifies as taking on stronger forces.

Stealing that jewel is another instance of that.

Nor did I say that he inflicted no harm on anyone.

Please, quote me on what I wrote, not what you fantasized and imagined I wrote.

How ridiculous, one states something, and here comes someone with deficient reading skills and whips up a slew of crap that has no bearing on what I stated.

Once again, go ahead, quote me on what I wrote. If I wanted to express the things you claim I did, I could have and can do so quite explicitly and clearly.

And to think the guy is actually a geek if I ever saw one . . . I love this! There are Mafia/Gang Baboons who commit violent crimes and prey on the weak who can't DREAM of as much money as this guy made.

What do you know? Our very own geek criminal mastermind :-)

I agree with your point, and I knew that - giving drugs away is distribution and a person will get into just as much trouble for it. What I aimed to express was how amazed I am at the way things work out in the criminal world, and how talented AND lucky that fellow is. I mean, no violence at all, all that money, and two years (once again, I know of cases where people have done that long, in installments, for traffic tickets!) plus the very real possibility of landing a well paid job afterwards . . . just amazing.

You know what I like about this guy? that he did not prey on the weak. He preyed on those bigger and stronger than him.

Ah, to think that he could have rented that van under another name, and taken steps to make sure there were no prints left anywhere, which is actually very easy to do . . . this goes to show, no one, not even someone like that, can be a one man Army . . .

I am simply amazed. The fellow, all morality aside, is simply Mr. BadAss himself.

Two years in jail for all that! I know of people who have participated in the sale of $10,000 US worth of Cocaine (a pittance, all things considered) and have gotten life sentences.

I learned about that type of client the hard way. She was the poster girl for a bad client, and I finally got rid of her by pricing her out. It was a big lesson, and I will never make the mistake of giving such a client the benefit of the doubt for a couple of months again. Ha! I was burned out for months after that nightmare.

Be on the lookout for such clients and cut your losses early fellows, it is simply not worth it unless the client in question is paying three times your rate, which bad clients never do anyway . . .

Amen! I had one exactly like that.

It is good to know that you experienced this effect as well. I also have not seen it documented anywhere. The stuff is simply great. I am in a third world country (Colombia) and in a backwater town to boot, and Piracetam is both readily available and inexpensive. What's more, it's a local generic brand, and the quality is very decent.

I have Asperger's and DSPS, and have noticed that taking Piracetam helps me regulate my sleep cycle. On days when I take it, I begin to feel sleepy right around my 16th hour of being awake. I have also noticed that when I have not had decent sleep for a few days, taking Piracetam puts me to sleep within a couple of hours of taking it.

I think the issue is not so much that they exist, the issue is that they profit greatly from content created by others without paying said others a single penny.

Ah, I finally got a reply link to your post.

"Deceiving the search engine to affect its decisions is an explicit goal, as is not getting caught."

Indeed. Yet that obviously does not automatically imply deceiving the users, as you erroneously stated earlier. Doing so would be stupid, as in serving up porn for bridge search results, for example.

"They acknowledge causing bad decisions from the search engine and irrelevant results for users."

Incorrect. You misunderstood what he stated. By saying "vote with their mice" he is referring to whether or not users purchase products or otherwise "convert". Granted, this interview does not cover his stance on DECEIVING the users. The following one does:

http://www.searchethos.com/fantomaster-response.html

"Deceptive cloaking (again: solely viewed from the surfer's perspective) is self-defeating"

"And they're untrustworthy scum, which is why they're eagerly participating in the tragedy of the commons."

Interesting that you would drag morality into an exclusively technological issue. I won't address this, as it has no place in this discussion.

That is a good point, and needs to be considered. From what I have read about their technology however, there are ways to substantially mitigate that risk.

No, he's not talking about that. Please quote him on it if he is.

"In other words, he's the parasite here. Instead of saying 'make things people want' he's saying 'don't do any work, just be really loud and leech content."

That's interesting. Where did you get that from? If you had read the entire article, you would not have reached that erroneous conclusion.

"shady" refers to a moral or legal issue . . . these are technological issues, and need to be thought of as such.

(smiling in agreement)

Yes!

Suits pg, Suits . . . a source of nonstop surprises and entertainment.

I don't mind it in the very least, matter of fact, thank you.

If I become too emotional about this point with Wikipedia, it is because the geek/nerd/techie/propellerhead/[INSERT TERM FOR US] in me is just OUTRAGED at what I witnessed firsthand at wikipedia.

Note to self: avoid wikipedia related discussions, and try to stick to Slashdot from now on.

Oh PLEASE. Inflammatory? the fact that YOU find it inflammatory is meaningless within the context of this discussion. Don't talk to me about admins not censoring content, I had MULTIPLE VALID RELEVANT NON COMMERCIAL LINKS deleted for (paraphrasing) not being a regular, that is EXACTLY what the admin conveyed to me when I called him on it, that part of his decision was based on the fact that I had never contributed anything, which is absolutely ludicrous. As to unsupported, go see for yourself! A user should not need to "understand how WP works" other than the obvious rules, such as no spam, no porn, no irrelevant content, etc, those are obvious, all those other little hoops, whatever they are I am not even interested, that you imply exist only serve to raise the bar for something that is supposedly there to be edited by anyone. Procedural protections? what are you talking about? What happened with my submissions was ALL the result of an arbitrary and completely unjustified decision by an admin.

Replying to your post as I have done has been a waste of time, I know exactly what I experienced there (I was SHOCKED when it happened) and discussing it here in great detail (as in, go to the admin's discussion page, and look for the exchange we had then, to copy and paste here) is absolutely meaningless, a waste of time, Wikipedia as it exists now is a complete waste of time, it's a complete failure, and it constitutes negative value, as I outlined in a previous post about this. I could give a hoot whether you take me seriously on this subject, it means nothing to me, I was replying to pg's comment.

Edit: since when do YOU decide what is becoming or unbecoming here?

Absolutely! And genuine, valuable information is censored by the "admins" (and from observing some of those people, I have concluded that quite a few of them are hardly literate - NOT qualified to make decisions of the magnitude that they make) and the damage this causes is proportional to the amount of accurate information available on the web on a topic, the less useful info there is, the more egregious the damage . . .