| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Comments:
<0> exactly for that reason
<1> yes, why WOULD you pay people to do ****?
<2> the reason they get paid that much is for the "security"
<3> nanotech: uhm, no?
<0> and to be there when the server crashes, or the disk fills up, or users get mail-bombed, or software needs to be upgraded
<4> Or they need someone to fire
<3> they get paid to write code to solve problems? some of that may include security... but i've seen a lot that doesn't./
<5> nanotech: you really think security is sooo much valued?
<0> all kinds of things a sysadmin does that have nothing to do with keeping the skript kiddies babysat
<0> speaking of babysitters, does yours know you're on irc?
<2> lol
<3> security gets a larger focus than it once did, but it's not the *only* reason people get paid to write code
<2> you people just dont wanna agree with someone who is not from here
<1> aah, now I see why nanotech disappeared for a bit
<2> but you know what i say has relavence
<3> nanotech: ok... you're right. thanks for playing.
<2> that 60-70% of an admins job is security
<2> the rest is bull****
<2> any idiot can install printer drivers
<3> i wish i had the insight you do.
<3> do you teach cl***es?
<1> nanotech: you don't even know what an admin does because you're a 14-year-old without a clue
<0> you know what I hate? I hate a lot of things, but you know what one of them is? people who cite percentages they just made up on the spot, with no backing whatsoever
<0> that's what I hate
<3> peterS: onlyh 20% of the population does that though
<0> and you know what's even worse? people who cite *ranges* of percentages, like "40 to 60 percent" or "60-70%", which sounds even more like it has some backing, when it doesn't
<2> peterS that was an estimated guess on my part
<2> i didnt claim for it to be accurate in anyway
<2> ; )
<1> nanotech: actually you did
<3> we gathered that
<2> actrually i didnt
<0> why not just say "20 to 80 percent", which at least has some chance of being correct
<2> lol
<0> since you really have no idea what the actual percentage is
<2> why not say 1-100%
<2> ; )
<1> The 100% confidence interval is 0-100%
<2> ok besides that
<2> i am right ; )
<6> I have a problem with some of my shellcode
<6> can someone help me with it?
<0> so thank you for telling me what 30-40% of my former job consisted of, and what 60-70% of it consisted of
<0> but you weren't right
<0> thanks for playing though
<7> skiddieleet: **** you
<6> lol
<2> lol
<6> I just want to own this n00b
<2> zshzn thats obviously hobbs ; )
<3> why?! why must we suffer so?!?
<6> but I'll look like the n00b if my shellcode doesn't work
<2> peterS maybe thats not what you had to do at your job
<8> I guess this is where all the cool kids hang out.
<0> skiddieleet: you and nanotech should go off in a corner somewhere and whack each other off with shellcode
<2> but your salary maybe was in reflection to that
<7> pravus, I just don't know where these noobs come from
<6> I'm up to that
<6> nanotech?
<1> since Vonnegut is on topic in #perl today: Why don't you go take a flying **** at a rolling doughnut? Why don't you take a flying **** at the moon?
<2> skiddieleet?
<3> zshzn: me either... maybe a #perl article on n00bs.com?
<2> for example if there was no crime in the world
<6> you want to whack each other off with shellcode?
<2> would ther ebe a need for so many law enforcement agencies?
<2> or officers?
<0> now I know neither of you are old enough to really have a proper understanding of that phrase "whack each other off", but perhaps if you pool your ideas you can figure it out
<2> or would the pay be that great?
<7> pravus: could be, could be.
<2> skiddieleet ask hobbs hes better at it
<6> will you whack me off peterS?
<1> nanotech: oh, you're going for the broken window fallacy
<6> no, I want peterS to do it
<0> hobbs: aren't they cute when they do that?
<2> lol
<1> nanotech: If I put a brick through your window it "stimulates the economy" by putting money into a gl***worker's pocket
<1> nanotech: but I've still caused overall harm, not good
<3> so crime does pay!
<0> it pays *someone*
<2> ok.
<3> :)
<2> and your point?
<6> if I don't get whacked off I'm going to get angry and fix my shellcode myself and own some n00bs
<2> you just are proving my point
<2> ; )
<0> if you don't get his point, you haven't been listening to yourself very hard
<1> nanotech: so to skip back to your analogy, without crime we WOULDN'T be paying cops all that money, which means _I_ would be richer
<3> this is definitely getting good. i think i'm becoming a convert.
<2> yeah, so the people who would be cops wouldnt be as rich
<2> ok
<2> now what is your field?
<3> cops? rich? bwahahahahahaa
<2> or your job title?
<0> and so would most cops, who generally have the smarts to get better jobs than law enforcement, but feel a drive or duty to contribute to society in that way
<1> nanotech: sure they would. They'd just have gone into a different profession to begin with. Pro wrestling maybe ;)
<3> cops don't make any money for all they do
<2> hobbs your not thinking wide enough
<6> alright
<2> you said you would be richer
<0> hobbs: it's not much use arguing economics with someone who believes number of types of jobs in the world is completely static
<2> true
<6> which one of you n00bs wants to get owned first?
<2> but your field is comptuerss...
<3> nanotech: you have taken too many drugs
<8> skiddieleet: I do.
<2> lets say it traveled it a little more
<2> and code didnt break
<6> ok :)
<2> or hackers werent around
<1> nanotech: Coder for an anti-phishing firm by vocation. "****ing with morons on IRC" by avocation
<2> then wouldnt you then also become obsolete in a way?
<0> nanotech: no, he'd go on to do something more interesting
<6> what's your port so I can connect to you?
<3> nanotech: you aren't going to convince anyone here that you are correct. why must you persist?
<1> skiddieleet: I've got all of them, from 0 to 65535!
<8> skiddieleet: lolz
<6> ok, here I come
<2> cause i m bored
<2> and southpart is a rerun
<2> ; )
<2> cause i know i m right
<2> you guys just dont want to admit it
<2> because in the end without crime or poeple ****ing **** up
<0> now there's some solid reasoning
<6> ooo, all over your face
<2> alot of other people wouldnt profit
<2> and **** wouldnt work right.
<6> I feel better now
<2> the end
<0> "I'm right and your counterarguments are worthless because ... because I'm right"
<8> hehe
<2> back to southpark
<2> ; )
<3> nanotech: you are right... thank-you.
<0> yes, please, back to southpark
<0> that show has dialog and reasoning a bit more on your level
<6> is that a valid path to your vulnerable program hobbs?
<1> ... and make me some pie.
<3> zomg. we have zerocool in the house! scarez!
<6> is that me?
<3> no
<3> you are skittles
<2> lol
<6> my "realname" is ZeroCool
<2> carmanis funny as ****
<3> skiddieleet: and?
<6> --- [skiddieleet] (n=skiddiel@unaffiliated/skiddieleet) : ZeroCool
<6> :P
<7> skiddieleet's nick really makes a lot of sense, considering what he's saying
Return to
#perl
or
Go to some related
logs:
#debian
gentoo xorg freedesktop
NDOutils
#sdl
#php
#mysql
#iptables
ctorrent+precompiled
alter table max_rows = avg_row_length = ; ERROR 1114 (HY000): The table is f
auth.log authentication failure gdm
|
|