Oh, cheers. I'll see you in Hell, man XD
Yup - I'm on the bus too.
That is properly, massively out of order, though. Some proper sickos came up with that idea.
The Scientologists are blaming Anonymous.
They Just Don't Get It, do they?
They Just Don't Get It, do they?
Is OK, Hell has Creme Eggs.
But, yeah, it's very bad and wrong.
Craster's right, of course, but it made me snigger too...
Craster wrote:
That is properly, massively out of order, though. Some proper sickos came up with that idea.
This.
It's not even funny.
Ian Osborne wrote:
Craster's right, of course, but it made me snigger too...
Oh, I have no issue with finding it amusing, but it's effectively happy slapping on the internet, and with no way for people to defend themselves, either.
One of the best things about the internet is how it allows people who are sufferers of chronic conditions like epilepsy to gain a sense of community and support that just isn't available in their neighbourhoods. These cunts have ruined that for kicks.
Craster wrote:
Ian Osborne wrote:
Craster's right, of course, but it made me snigger too...
Oh, I have no issue with finding it amusing, but it's effectively happy slapping on the internet, and with no way for people to defend themselves, either.
One of the best things about the internet is how it allows people who are sufferers of chronic conditions like epilepsy to gain a sense of community and support that just isn't available in their neighbourhoods. These cunts have ruined that for kicks.
And potentially triggered epileptic fits. They've likely acually caused someone actual physical harm through this. It's not just a case of trolls going "haha, spackers" at them.
**Checks date of original story**
Ah, yesterday so it's safe to post the following: That is so wrong. I mean it's quite clever in it's wrongness, but it's just irresponsible. It's the same sort of thing as resting a weight on a door, and waiting for someone to come through. not knowing if it would knock them out, or kill them, or even who it is.
Malc
Ah, yesterday so it's safe to post the following: That is so wrong. I mean it's quite clever in it's wrongness, but it's just irresponsible. It's the same sort of thing as resting a weight on a door, and waiting for someone to come through. not knowing if it would knock them out, or kill them, or even who it is.
Malc
Spinglo Sponglo! wrote:
**Checks date of original story**
Ah, yesterday so it's safe to post the following: That is so wrong. I mean it's quite clever in it's wrongness, but it's just irresponsible. It's the same sort of thing as resting a weight on a door, and waiting for someone to come through. not knowing if it would knock them out, or kill them, or even who it is.
Malc
Ah, yesterday so it's safe to post the following: That is so wrong. I mean it's quite clever in it's wrongness, but it's just irresponsible. It's the same sort of thing as resting a weight on a door, and waiting for someone to come through. not knowing if it would knock them out, or kill them, or even who it is.
Malc
I was thinking it must have been a poor taste April fool. But no.
It's more balancing 1000 weights on a thousand people's doors, and specifically targetting those people who you know have soft skulls.
I hope they catch the pricks that did it. They won't find it so funny when their names and pictures are plastered over the local rag.
Callous MrD wrote:
Shoulda been more careful.
Callous but more helpful MrD wrote:
Turn off Javascript. Turn off animated gifs.
You're plugging a whopping great illuminated screen with the power to physically harm you into a dumb robot connected to an unpredicatable and persuasive digital mess. Caution!
I believe you can get a 'visual firewall' plugin of sorts for Firefox 'n' pals which can stop GIFs playing when they contain frames of or below a certain length.
You're plugging a whopping great illuminated screen with the power to physically harm you into a dumb robot connected to an unpredicatable and persuasive digital mess. Caution!
I believe you can get a 'visual firewall' plugin of sorts for Firefox 'n' pals which can stop GIFs playing when they contain frames of or below a certain length.
Oh shit that isn't nice. At all.
If only it was an April fools then it would be funny without the 'being a complete dick' part.
If only it was an April fools then it would be funny without the 'being a complete dick' part.
MrD wrote:
Callous MrD wrote:
Shoulda been more careful.
Callous but more helpful MrD wrote:
Turn off Javascript. Turn off animated gifs.
You're plugging a whopping great illuminated screen with the power to physically harm you into a dumb robot connected to an unpredicatable and persuasive digital mess. Caution!
I believe you can get a 'visual firewall' plugin of sorts for Firefox 'n' pals which can stop GIFs playing when they contain frames of or below a certain length.
You're plugging a whopping great illuminated screen with the power to physically harm you into a dumb robot connected to an unpredicatable and persuasive digital mess. Caution!
I believe you can get a 'visual firewall' plugin of sorts for Firefox 'n' pals which can stop GIFs playing when they contain frames of or below a certain length.
Exactly. That's why we all wear body armour when we go outside, just in case someone decides to be a complete cunt and stab us in the belly. Don't we?
Craster wrote:
Exactly. That's why we all wear body armour when we go into the community centre to attend a group meeting, just in case someone decides to be a complete cunt and stab us in the belly. Don't we?
FTFY
It's like chucking firecrackers into someone's garden party.
You promised not to tell anyone I was in group.
Don't live in Liverpool, do ya?
If your garden's doused in petrol... etc.
Quote:
It's like chucking firecrackers into someone's garden party.
If your garden's doused in petrol... etc.
"caused some viewers to stare blankly at the screen".
Cough. Hmm, not clever though.
OTOH I'm a bit surprised that people who can be killed by animated gifs browse with images switched on in the first place: if I'm googling for something at work and visiting unknown websites then the first thing I do is switch images off to avoid any nasty surprises.
And that would only cover a range of outcomes from embarrassment through to disciplinary warning, rather than death.
Cough. Hmm, not clever though.
OTOH I'm a bit surprised that people who can be killed by animated gifs browse with images switched on in the first place: if I'm googling for something at work and visiting unknown websites then the first thing I do is switch images off to avoid any nasty surprises.
And that would only cover a range of outcomes from embarrassment through to disciplinary warning, rather than death.
kalmar wrote:
"caused some viewers to stare blankly at the screen".
Cough. Hmm, not clever though.
OTOH I'm a bit surprised that people who can be killed by animated gifs browse with images switched on in the first place: if I'm googling for something at work and visiting unknown websites then the first thing I do is switch images off to avoid any nasty surprises.
And that would only cover a range of outcomes from embarrassment through to disciplinary warning, rather than death.
Cough. Hmm, not clever though.
OTOH I'm a bit surprised that people who can be killed by animated gifs browse with images switched on in the first place: if I'm googling for something at work and visiting unknown websites then the first thing I do is switch images off to avoid any nasty surprises.
And that would only cover a range of outcomes from embarrassment through to disciplinary warning, rather than death.
Have a guess at the percentage of the population that knows they can do this.
People who don;t know these things shouldn't be allowed to use computers.
Mr Chris wrote:
kalmar wrote:
"caused some viewers to stare blankly at the screen".
Cough. Hmm, not clever though.
OTOH I'm a bit surprised that people who can be killed by animated gifs browse with images switched on in the first place: if I'm googling for something at work and visiting unknown websites then the first thing I do is switch images off to avoid any nasty surprises.
And that would only cover a range of outcomes from embarrassment through to disciplinary warning, rather than death.
Cough. Hmm, not clever though.
OTOH I'm a bit surprised that people who can be killed by animated gifs browse with images switched on in the first place: if I'm googling for something at work and visiting unknown websites then the first thing I do is switch images off to avoid any nasty surprises.
And that would only cover a range of outcomes from embarrassment through to disciplinary warning, rather than death.
Guess at the percentage of the population that knows they can do this.
General population, sure. People whos lives depend on not seeing rapid flickering things might want to look into it though.
It's (bad anallergy time) "like" if you're allergic to nuts, you know you're allergic to nuts, yet when someone tells you of this fantastic new chocolate bar, you rush out to buy one and open it immediately without checking if, you know, it has nuts in it.
edit: actually, what's the one single pertinent message a forum for epilepsy sufferers who are also internet users should be emphasising to its members, rather than potentially enabling that exact problem?
But in your analogy they would have been eating a type of chocolate bar they had enjoyed many times before, secure in the knowledge that it was specifically not meant to contain any nuts.
kalmar wrote:
edit: actually, what's the one single pertinent message a forum for epilepsy sufferers who are also internet users should be emphasising to its members, rather than potentially enabling?
Perhaps they thought they wouldn't need to? Prsuambly they'd set up the forum so that it didn't have any flashy google ads, and what's the one thing that members of an epileptic forum are least likely to post? That's right, flishy flashy pictures.
If there was a failure here, it was that they didn't expect a bunch of cunts to turn up and deliberately try to trigger seizures. Which, you know, is a reasonable assumption in a civilised society.
EDIT - plus, what markg said.
Indeed they wouldn't be able to go to a sweet shop, in case someone leapt out of the shadows and rammed an unwrapped lion bar up their arse.
Craster wrote:
Indeed they wouldn't be able to go to a sweet shop, in case someone leapt out of the shadows and rammed an unwrapped lion bar up their arse.
The sad, strained voice of experience, there.
Mr Chris wrote:
kalmar wrote:
edit: actually, what's the one single pertinent message a forum for epilepsy sufferers who are also internet users should be emphasising to its members, rather than potentially enabling?
Perhaps they thought they wouldn't need to? Prsuambly they'd set up the forum so that it didn't have any flashy google ads, and what's the one thing that members of an epileptic forum are least likely to post? That's right, flishy flashy pictures.
If there was a failure here, it was that they didn't expect a bunch of cunts to turn up and deliberately try to trigger seizures. Which, you know, is a reasonable assumption in a civilised society.
Fair enough, and it is sad that someone's done such a c*nty thing and I'm certainly not trying to say it's their own fault. But by the same token this is why we use virus checkers, firewalls, locks on our doors and all the rest of it, depsite a supposedly civilised society. And when it's literally a life or death issue, why not take the precaution anyway? I'd hope they would now, at least.
kalmar wrote:
Fair enough, and it is sad that someone's done such a c*nty thing and I'm certainly not trying to say it's their own fault. But by the same token this is why we use virus checkers, firewalls, locks on our doors and all the rest of it, depsite a supposedly civilised society. And when it's literally a life or death issue, why not take the precaution anyway? I'd hope they would now, at least.
Oh, I don't ultimately disagree with the sentiment, but sadly computers and firewalls/virus checkers etc are still much more of a complex unknown to most people than a front door and a Yale.
Craster wrote:
Indeed they wouldn't be able to go to a sweet shop, in case someone leapt out of the shadows and rammed an unwrapped lion bar up their arse.
The 1980s called, they want their chocolate ingredients back.
I was going to use the Marathon bar as an example..
Page 1 of 1 [ 32 posts ]