Re: sad but true, Linux sucks, a bit

[Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:51 AM, cletusjenkins <cletusjenkins@zoho.com> wrote:
>
> ---- On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:53:20 -0800 Ralf Mardorf<ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote ----
>
>  > I agree, but they will kill you and now me too, because you mentioned
>  > that. Sexuality is a taboo! It's evil, it doesn't exist in the clean
>  > computer world!
>
> Any computer sufficiently complex to be considered sentient will have its own particular perversions, different due to the differing physical hardware, but still. Even the simplistic insect/bacteria computers we have now are far from clean:
>
> (Not safe for work:) [obviously inappropriate link elided]
>
> (hoipefully such links do not violate some rule, if so I apologize, but I couldn't help myself)

There are two problems with such links.

One is that "iseekgirls.[domain]" is going to have a high probability
of harbouring drive-bys and other kinds of malware that we don't
really want to subject our current version of flash+browser to.

As food for thought, it seems to me that the other problem, while I
assume it's the one you reference in your comment about rules,
involves principles of human condition which parallel the computer
security problem. If you don't see what I mean, consider, who pays for
the server space and internet bandwidth,  why, and with what money?

-- 
Joel Rees

Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.