Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You're all so cool. You have guns that your parents bought you. Enjoy your 5 seconds of not fame, and go back to your basement.

Buy them, they only cost $1. If you can't buy them, then kill yourself because you suck.

parent cabinent, lol. Go back to alegebra class bitch, and come back here when your older.

first show me your cock, then I'll show you what I'm packing.

no bitch

If you think you have to go on a dating site then you are a loser. Just give up now and jerk off to furry porn, because your life isn't ever going to get better. That one bitch you fucked is that last in your life.

do you even understand that you can use existing technology to make new technologies? Fuck aliens, your just retarded.

college student and fast food employee

a gallon of pcp

At 6/17/13 01:25 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: there are a lot of ways you can compare Obama to Hitler, this isn't one of them.

It isn't the way they are most dissimilar. That would be penis size.

stoner nerd

It would work quite well in Canada.

I can't afford a Mercedes, and the amount of time it would take for my income to drastically change is greater than the amount of time until they release the next Mercedes. Thus I do not care.

Do you realize how much the secret service spends on defending the president even when he is not in Africa? Pro tip, it is not released to the public for a reason. Their spending is not completely unjustified however, the assassination of the president could cause wide spread chaos or be used as an opportunity for a foreign country to launch a wide spread attack on the US.

At 6/14/13 01:08 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 6/14/13 01:04 PM, CaptainPrichard wrote: I am doing amazing. I have a 3.85 gpa at college, a part time job, and a decent amount of friends.

While that is nice, there are people with D's (might be C's now) passing too.

You must have at least a 75% in a class for the credits to count towards graduation, plus no one is willing to hire someone with a gpa below 3.0. So there are very few people with C's that are passing, and they certainly are not succeeding.

A part time job can be anything, thus really doens't govern your future's quality.

Having worked at a job for more than a year looks good on your resume regardless of what the job is. It proves you aren't a bum that is going to quit after a month.

Having friends only accounts for sociality, but sociality is watered down in facades.

You are making a generalization. Just because in your experience people are fake, or you project your own attributes onto others doesn't mean it is universally true.

I am doing amazing. I have a 3.85 gpa at college, a part time job, and a decent amount of friends.

At 6/12/13 11:37 PM, Jackotrades wrote:

At 6/11/13 02:46 PM, CaptainPrichard wrote: A lot of politicians have been saying post 9/11 that privacy has to be sacrificed for national security. This is complete and total bullshit. One of the three aspects that makes information valuable is confidentiality, the other two are integrity and access. What they are essentially saying is that by sacrificing the confidentiality of information it helps ensure it's integrity. This is completely false. For example if you gave your facebook password to everyone, then your wall on facebook would be completely fucked. You also don't see all of Obama's phone information being collected. If someone who was a threat to America wanted the information that the government is collecting it is much easier for them to get it than it was pre 9/11. Before 9/11 information would often only be stored in one location such as Verizons database. Information would also regularly be deleted when it was no longer useful. Now the information has to not only be stored in two locations, the companies network and the governments network, but it also has to be store for much longer periods of time. The risk of storing all this information about the public in government databases is way greater than the risk of missing a phone call between two terrorist. If a terrorist group is advanced enough to pull of a legitimate threat than it is probably not retarded enough to leave a large trail of information. They are also probably advanced enough to gain access to some part of the governments network, especially as it grows in size, and becomes increasing decentralized. Whenever you hear politicians talk about this bullshit, remember that they probably don't understand what the fuck they are talking about. They studied politics in college, which has nothing to do with security risk analysis.

Was going to chop up the wall but it would be a lot of work. So...here goes:

- Confidentiality (Assuming level of importance), Integrity and Accessibility are rightfully the biggest factor in the value of information, some people would add context since some information might be useless to some people but that rarely kicks in.

- I am a firm believer that there exists however small a chance politicians who know exactly what their next move will entail and manipulate others to do the dirty work. Show me a politician who promotes security over freedom and I bet if you dig enough you can find someone who wanted that move to happen for self-gain. Of course they will not outright say that. I hope that is not too conspiracy heavy...then again when you think of recent events...I think Jon Stewart promptly put it best. ( Go about 2:30 in unless you like some humor :3 ) Either way, there is some sinister shit going on...

- I think you are making a presumption of a scenario where you overestimate terrorists and underestimate government intelligence. Certainly the situation could happen, but just as you have said I believe security-risk assessments are always factored into these kinds of situations. If our intelligence was as incompetant as one claims we would absolutely be destroyed in so many ways years ago. No doubt do we have enemies that can do as you say, but we too might have people capable of holding the same power against our foes. Again...tossing the tin foil hat on, it would not surprise me if we were having a Cold War of the Information Age right now online.

- Actually, I got a question: Going off the concept that our enemies are as capable as you entail, what if the security-risk analysis government intelligence determined it would be in the nation's best SECURE interest to take a copy of a company's data? Hypothetically holding information in a single location is a double-edged blade, if even the slightest bit gets breached, the integrity of that information is comprised, THE ORIGINAL gets compromised and we lose an infathomable amount of data, money or power.

So now its a trade between assisting in integrity by creating a duplicate in a secure location like the government, or assisting in accessibility and confidentiality by holding it all in one location.

This sort of security-risk dilemma I believe is fairly popular, I am rather curious what you guys think?

If information is compromised in the slightest amount it does not mean we lose the data. If the data is so important the hard drives can be formatted in certain ways to ensure the integrity of data ex. RAID 5 and RAID 10.

I also believe I was not overestimating the ability of terrorist. Most terrorist plots will fail however, there are advanced terrorist groups out there that have resources and funding similar to that of foreign governments. They are called advanced persistent threats and a lot of them are coming from China. It is widely believed that the Chinese and several Arab governments are funding hacker groups to attack the United States telecommunication systems, however the foreign governments deny that they are funding these groups.

Also there are probably several politicians that somewhat know what they are doing, however information systems are too complex for politicians to know in depth about the underlying system unless they devoted a large amount of their time on them, instead of dividing their time among understanding numerous political issues. They need understanding in so many subjects, and a large amount of these subjects require an individual to devote most of their time to studying them to understand them, especially one as complex and frequently changing as information systems.

Finally a good game being released. I was about to not buy any new consoles and stick with the super nintendo.

I would like free art and programming please. Programmers and artist don't need to eat, they only develop things for fun.

They better not fuck it up like dragonage 2.

Maybe you should get a job.

A lot of politicians have been saying post 9/11 that privacy has to be sacrificed for national security. This is complete and total bullshit. One of the three aspects that makes information valuable is confidentiality, the other two are integrity and access. What they are essentially saying is that by sacrificing the confidentiality of information it helps ensure it's integrity. This is completely false. For example if you gave your facebook password to everyone, then your wall on facebook would be completely fucked. You also don't see all of Obama's phone information being collected. If someone who was a threat to America wanted the information that the government is collecting it is much easier for them to get it than it was pre 9/11. Before 9/11 information would often only be stored in one location such as Verizons database. Information would also regularly be deleted when it was no longer useful. Now the information has to not only be stored in two locations, the companies network and the governments network, but it also has to be store for much longer periods of time. The risk of storing all this information about the public in government databases is way greater than the risk of missing a phone call between two terrorist. If a terrorist group is advanced enough to pull of a legitimate threat than it is probably not retarded enough to leave a large trail of information. They are also probably advanced enough to gain access to some part of the governments network, especially as it grows in size, and becomes increasing decentralized. Whenever you hear politicians talk about this bullshit, remember that they probably don't understand what the fuck they are talking about. They studied politics in college, which has nothing to do with security risk analysis.

Drugs will never be legalized in America. Could you imagine politicians saying, "Sorry for locking you up in jail for ten years, but we were wrong".

At 8/3/12 01:11 AM, ClearlyConfused wrote:

At 8/3/12 12:24 AM, CaptainPrichard wrote: No, I am not poor and/ or fat.

Says the person with a Star Trek name.

I've never seen Star Trek nor am I fat. I am out of shape due to smoking, both kinds, drinking, and lack of exercise. I much prefer Doctor Who.

Economics is amoral, because science is amoral and economics is a social/ soft science.

Bill Clinton/ congress under Bill Clinton already did that. It is called the Defense of Marriage Act.

P.S. The President doesn't pass laws, so Romneyy couldn't ban gay marriage.

Sorry, I don't speak hip hop.

beer pong
drinking contest
eating contest
fastest smoking a pack of cigs
hold the hit
poker

At 8/3/12 12:26 AM, tox wrote: kind of like what they have now with international boxing, kungfu, tikwondo, jujidsu....
and all those other names that i am sure i fif not spell right?

Those are baby sports, I want to see body bags, and nascar in the olympics.

Garry's Mod was so 5 years ago. I used Garry's Mod before it was cool.