July 24th, 2001, 09:19 PM
CalvN Submitted The Following:
Why is it that High School programming teachers don't know **** about the language they are teaching? My teacher goes:
"Null is the state in which ... (he looks it up) ... nothing is returned as a value."
I am like: "Move on god damn it."
Then there are the ADD retards in the class that write C++ programs that loop continuosly while printing their names to the screen. I just connect to their NetBus infected machines and shut them down. Poor guys. They don't even know what hit them. I love using Trojans like that.
Then there is Visual Basic nerds that think it is called Visual Basic"s" and they write cool text editors
on their free time. I don't mind them that much though.
Did you have any programming classes with retarded people in High School?
Allow me to give a piece of advice to all of the high-school students
that read this. When school starts this fall, look in your "student handbook" for something
called "Independent Study Credits". The highschool that I went to, allowed you to design
a course that fit an area of interest that you have, that your school does not offer
regular classes in. You work one-on-one with a teacher, and sometimes even with several
community members, to design the course, and then that teacher or community member grades
you based on your performance. While these courses tend to involve a LOT more time and
effort than regular classes, the benefits are INCREDIBLE. I graduated with over 23 independent
study credit that I earned after classes and during the summer. This allowed me to graduate
with well over 42 credits, twice the number needed to graduate. BTW: for those of you college
bound, Independent Study Credits look VERY good on your application, assuming the course is
designed correctly, and you have proper documentation from your advisors.
acidflesh Submitted The Following:
Here I am, back at it with something for the mailbag. I was just watching ZDNET's TV
channel, ZDTV. And saw the funniest thing. It should be of some interest to your visitors
and you. Basically, they had a commercial that did nothing but flame the Keebler Elves!
It was the funniest thing I ever saw. It just started out saying the had hack something.gov
and somethingelse.gov (sorry I forget), and then went on to say something to the effect of,
"well why don't you hack marthastewart*.com". About halfway thru the Martha Stewart URL, it
started bleeping everything out and a voice came on and said the usual this is not the opion
of ZDTV, etc (it was a commercial ZDTV made). I just thought it was pretty damn funny that
something like ZDTV would basically bash a hacking group for no apparent reason. It will be
interesting to see if the Keebler Elves try to hack zdtv.com now. Anyway, I just thought this
may be of some interest to you and your visitors that think webpage hacking is lame and all.
Well, personally I find it irresponsible to try to make the whole
malicious cracking into webpages thing look like a game. MTV tried it once, and I wrote
and editorial about it which managed to get national media coverage. It was called
MTV Pretends To Have Been Hacked.
caliban Submitted The Following:
If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?
I learn things here. Keep up the good work.
Probably one with root rot.
Jason Jeffries Submitted The Following:
Hey, those are some pretty cool stools in your "server room." What are they and where did
they come from?
Jason in lovely Morgantown, WV.
Being from Tennessee, Brad tried to convince me to get milking stools
for the server room, the bicycle seats were a compromise. In reality, they came from a store
called IKEA. We found them on one of our many "Ub3r C00l" furniture hunting expeditions.
KaosKlown Submitted The Following:
Hey guys, I'm 32 and I have the IQ of a dead beetle. You have to be considerate of me.
Even though I am utterly stupid and senile, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be treated with
the same respect as everyone else. Even though I never take showers because I think the
water will eat me alive, you should still respect me. Even though I eat from the toilet
and drink from my bedpans, I should not be derogated to the level of "idiot", "dumbass",
"retard", "sped", "loser", "freak", "numbnut", and all the other insulting names that people
label me by.
The GrandFather Submitted The Following:
Unhappy with your new page. Don't like the black background, takes too much black ink to
keep track of you.
Well, that's why we provide a "print-friendly" link on the right hand side
of each news story =P BTW: For those of you reading, that is, indeed, my grandfather. He works
on a better system than I do, complete with a flatbed scanner and slide scanner to do digital imaging
with. He got his first computer when he retired, not too long ago =) - the grandson
Butthead Submitted The Following:
Just a suggestion:
In your section on news from other sites, could you post
the date beside the article.
Help me keep track of what I have already read.
Great site btw.
Thanks for the suggestion, we started to implement it today! If anyone
else would like to write in with a constructive suggestion, feel free, we may put them to use. If
you have a suggestion which isn't particularly constructive, write in with that too, so I can
put you in my MailBag =)
Burt Reynolds Submitted The Following:
Are you a democrat or a republican?
I'm sorry, but I'm independent, which shouldn't come to a shock to
most. I must admit, in the last election, I was a big Ross Perot fan. When he pulled out
his little voodoo stick and was tapping those pie charts, I just fell to pieces.
James Submitted The Following:
oh, John, part three of the def con article, the real audio file, HAHAHA, funny, i bet
that guy bust a few veins in his forhead talking like that, poor bluto, a woman showed
him up! you should put a link on your index page so everyone can hear it, it's so freaking
funny, thanks for the good laugh.
For those of you that missed it (shame on you if you did), part three
of Carolyn's trip to Def Con included a RealAudio file of her going head-to-head with, as she
puts it, "a fat guy".
This Letter Was Submitted By: Mike Loagan
Hello, I simply wanted to respond to a mailing sent in by someone for the last mailbag. Quite frankly, before the author begins arguing against Constitutional protection arguments, he should try READing the CONSTITUTION. He uses the ever quoted shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater quote but he neglects to recall the point behind it. The use of shouting fire (or bomb, these days) was an example of the application of the clear-and-present-danger test. I believe it was Justice Black (sorry if this isn't the right Jurist, it has been a long time since I took Constitutional Law, but even if the name is wrong the content is right) who originally used the now famous "clear and present danger" phrase. Over many years of scrutiny, this phrase has been refined to meaning that, to paraphrase: "First Amendment rights, including especially the right to free speech, may only be suspended, when the words (spoken or written) must have been of such an inflamitory nature to have caused an immediate threat to persons or pr
operty, and to have been issued with the clear intent to incite such threat to persons or property." This was, of course originally applied to such things as the (pardon the language) "'**** THE DRAFT' case" and the near incident at skokie, but the removal of certain books, deemed, by the school board (I think it was somewhere in Jersey) to be (again to paraphrase) "of such obscene and inflamitory nature as to warrant their removal from the public high school library" was found to have been an abridgement of First Amendment rights. This was so, because the Supriem Court had stepped way back on what earlier Jurists had said, and determined that texts in a school library were covered by the Constitutional First Amendment Clauses. Why was this? Because the books may have been obscene, and they may have been inflamitorry, but it was a public school library, which was intended to be in escence a duplicate of the completely public library, but reserved for student use. It was decided that any harm done studen
ts was far outweighed by the potential harm done to society, by preventing the free exchange of ideas. You may not consider (this addressed to the author still, I don't want to insult you, John) pornographic material to be ideas, but as any harm done to any minors who may view it is not immediate, and as the internet is a PUBLIC informational resource--even if you do have to pay to access it, or to be alloted addresses--you cannot prevent its access to minors. Now, the specific instance does warrant that any pornographic publishers take some pains to prevent the material from coming into the hands of minors, but it must be undertaken purely at the publishers discretion--unless of course a SPECIFIC internet publisher were to release something so obscene or violent, with no possible value, other than to incite the audience to destructive actions, and it were deemed in violation of law. I may have gotten a bit off track a bit, and the gist was: written material is even more protected than the spoken word, as
as Black again, and Good-Ol'e Justice Holmes pointed out: no matter how offensive in any way a given set of words (or pictures) may be, if there be time for an individual to consider the 'arguments' presented, and to discard the inflamitory and obscene ones as being just that, free-speech reigns supreme. As I am sure every one realises, the written word ALWAYS affords time for consideration, and thus, unless the writing is so terribly offensive, that an individual cannot possibly over come this. Now, you say, what if pornography is to terribly obscene and incitious (is that a word, probably not, but I can't find the dictionary at the moment) that minors would be unable to over come its influence? Well, so long as reasonable measures are undertaken to prevent the minor from viewing it to begin with, their is still constitutional protection. This can be as simple as not advertising where a minor will likely find it. If the minor seeks it out, you certainly cannot prevent the materials publishing, simply
because a minor COULD obtain it.
I am terribly sorry for the long, monotonous, and sometimes seemingly pointless monologue. I was endevouring to prevent my response from becoming the typical: "Stupid &*@#!$#% !@$!@%*& @#$@#%&*$!@, that is a violation of my rights!" I'm changing who I am addressing now to John: I hope you will place this message(or a heavily edited version there-of) in your mailbag section, because it really ticks me off to hear people saying that the protections of society from allowing the government to become a book-burning, fascista dictatorship, should be discarded in favor of protections of minors from alleged-potential-distant-future-threats to their well being. Also, John, I wanted to say, that I really like Antionline, and that despite a short, intermediate phase, the site would seem to be back on track now (the intermediate phase, of course, being the time between the creation of new domains, and the re-postingg of some of the old stuff you always had) Thanks for a great site!
We get dozens of long, monotonous, and pointless monologues every week. I started feeling bad just throwing away things that people must have spent at least some time writing, so I'm including yours in this week's mailbag to make myself feel a little bit better anyway.