The idiots and lunatics dominate the internet

downfader

Christ almighty (says one athiest with realisation at this simple irony)!!

I go on the local paper website and read a story about a little **** who beat the hell out of an old dear for fun. Then further down I read that he's essentially been let off. Grounds for appeal imo, as he was found guilty and the Judge let him go. :?

Then I make the mistake of reading the comments. Most are just outraged and I dont blame them. But then some get a little darker and start to discuss setting up facebook info of where the lad lives and encouraging people to go around and give him a caning. I leave a comment basically reminding them that he is still a kid by law but I elaborate by saying that this is a society-wide problem and asky why no one has had a pop at the lads parents?

FFS they start tearing into me, calling me a "liberal" (they have no idea of my political stance - infact I dont think they even understand what "liberal" means) and saying I'm the reason kids like this are on the street. :shock: I've asked them to reread my post on there but they seem more happy beleiving their own delusions.

Idiots.

Then theres this kid who trolled me on youtube. So I challenged him on it. It seems I'm not allowed to make comments about motorcycles doing wheelies on dual carriageways as I only ride a bike. Then the lunatic went on about how I dont know how it feels to get urges. LINK

To paraphrase the Nazis: if you keep spinning the same old rubbish people will eventually believe you. This seems to be happening with fever online. Look at all the 7/7 conspiracy videos that have popped up! Did anyone see the program on this lastnight perchance

This is going to lead to a horrible situation of internet regulation and censorship imo. Then people REALLY WILL complain! [/url]

passout

The internet has proven us useful 'research tool' for those who can't bothered to read books or broadsheets and have a tendency to believe conspiracy theories. These theories provide neat answers where in reality there aren't any.

The problem is that you have been providing logical & reasonable opinions whereas these guys don't do logical & reasonable, more emotional & ridiculous. They don't agree with you (fair enough) but don't have the tools to retort.

In short, yes - they are just some of the many on-line idiots out there (not us of course ).

downfader

passout wrote:

The internet has proven us useful 'research tool' for those who can't bothered to read books or broadsheets and have a tendency to believe conspiracy theories. These theories provide neat answers where in reality there aren't any.

The problem is that you have been providing logical & reasonable opinions whereas these guys don't do logical & reasonable, more emotional & ridiculous. They don't agree with you (fair enough) but don't have the tools to retort.

In short, yes - they are just some of the many on-line idiots out there (not us of course ).

LOL yeah! I've always been of the belief that spreading rubbish is dangerous so it should be challenged. At times its something I quite enjoy as it can be quite funny.

I've found the internet to be a fantastic learning resource. I've watched a hell of a load of Richard Dawkin's videos online lately. That man's a saint, haha! Not in that sense however

-spider-

downfader

you really must stop reading the daily mail online edition

downfader

-spider- wrote:

downfader

you really must stop reading the daily mail online edition

Billios

For a nice roundup of all the crackpots, loonies, the freaks and the paranoid, read http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/ . Sums up the madness that is the internet in one small easy chunk.

Oh yeh, the Twat-o-tron is a automated BBC Have your say post generator, genius.

ride_whenever

Hang on a second...

Internet vigilante-ism is a powerful tool for justice. I can think of three cases off the top of my head where the denizens of the underbelly of the internet have for an inexplicable reason come together and fought crime in a very effective and tough love kind of way.

I'm all for it...

TheBoyBilly

Four posts......just four posts, before some t*at mentions the Daily Mail. It beggars belief -what world do you live in ....and what is your agenda? (Very likely on a Local Government Index-linked Pension or similar) Or are you a parasite Consultant?

downfader

TheBoyBilly wrote:

Four posts......just four posts, before some t*at mentions the Daily Mail. It beggars belief -what world do you live in ....and what is your agenda? (Very likely on a Local Government Index-linked Pension or similar) Or are you a parasite Consultant?

You're waaaaay late on the daily mail bit.

Anonymous

Find out where the 13 year old's nan lives and go round and give her a hiding. Oh, don't forget to drink a bottle of wine and "forget" everything.

Give the parents a shoeing too and stick 'em all on Jeremy kyle, thats some tough talkin'.
B'stard, chav, underclass scumbags is all they are.

passout

dmclite wrote:

B'stard, chav, underclass scumbags is all they are.

That may or may not be true but lots of people fit that description and they don't go around doing that sort of thing. Class isn't the main issue, unless there is 'beating up old grannies class'.

And what has the DM and it's detractors got to do with pensions and consultants? Lost me on that one.

Perhaps it all makes perfect sense and I just need more coffee!

cee

passout wrote:

Perhaps it all makes perfect sense and I just need more coffee!

thats my default position before 12

TheDrunkMonk

I know the thread's moved on, but why do all Daily Mail readers all sound like "Daily Mail Readers" in the sterotypical sense? And why do "Daily Mail Readers" get so angry if you infer they read the Daily Mail?

passout

Now I'm really confused - why are underclass 'Daily Mail Reader sounding Daily Mail Readers' beating up CHAV old grannies before 12 for the price of a cup of coffee. If they needed the money that badly (because of problems with their pensions), why didn't they just not buy the DM? So, it's sorted - Don't buy the Dail Mail (a drunk monk told me). And I'm not a consultant.

It's hot isn't it?

TheDrunkMonk

Ok. Its agreed, I won't read the Daily Mail.... the world is already a slightly better place.

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

downfader

All of those newspapers get called "comics" by me. The sun, mirror, Mail, express...

I've always liked the Sun weirdly. It has a certain charm that makes me laugh. (And i dont mean the young lady on the third page)

downfader

TheDrunkMonk wrote:

Ok. Its agreed, I won't read the Daily Mail.... the world is already a slightly better place.

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

EDIT... just tried that link. LMAO!

Will Russel Brand Ruin you Children?

Oh undoubtedly if she's over 16.

SteppenHerring

There used to be a theory that if you put a million monkeys in front of a million typewriters, eventually they would come up with the works of Shakespeare.

Thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

LittleB0b

downfader wrote:

Then I make the mistake of reading the comments.

learn from your mistake - AVOID the comments section at all costs.

and remember

.

Porgy

SteppenHerring wrote:

There used to be a theory that if you put a million monkeys in front of a million typewriters, eventually they would come up with the works of Shakespeare.

Thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

it was infinite - infinite monkeys and an infinite period of time.

A few million over about 10/ 15 years doesn't cut it i'm afraid :P

ride_whenever

you don't need and infinite amount of time, or an infinite number of monkeys.

One monkey for an infiinite amount of time will do it.

Or an infinite number of monkeys for about 10 hours or so (so they have time to press enough buttons)

I wonder if you could do it by evolution?

Porgy

But infinite's in there right? Tha's all I was trying to say.


With only a million I reckon you'd get a Daily Mail article.



So that's how they do it? :shock:

passout

If the Univers has a beginning and end then does 'infinite' exist? Anybody do science at schhol?

Porgy

passout wrote:

If the Univers has a beginning and end then does 'infinite' exist? Anybody do science at schhol?

from reading the new scientist recently - i think all bets are ow off regarding beginnings and ends of universe.

It's starting to look like the Buddhists may have been right all along.


anywauy i think the monkey thing was never meant to be practically realised - it was just - a wotsist - an analogy - or something.

I mean where would you get an infinite number of monkeys from anyway?

also - i think they probably meant apes, not monkeys. I don't think monkeys can type. Or can they?

Fu.ck it - i need a holiday.

Le Commentateur

Having a go at the Daily Mail is good fun. and the nastiness of parochial middle England is quite possibly reflected in some members of its readership, but remember too that they were the newspaper that campaigned to have the Steven Lawrence killers brought to public attention when other UK media had lost interest after the initial police investigation.

Chip \'oyler

passout wrote:

If the Univers has a beginning and end then does 'infinite' exist? Anybody do science at schhol?

Yes Univers did have a beginning - 1956 - and was created by Adrian Frutiger. And to my knowledge it hasn't ended - in fact I used it yesterday.

http://typophile.com/node/13516?

'Infinite' doesn't exist - but 'Infinite Justice' does

http://www.dafont.com/infinite-justice.font

Le Commentateur

‘And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was Univers 45.’

passout

1957, good - thanks.

How many books do you think the apes/monkeys would write before they did the complete works of Shakepeare? A zillion, an infinate number or maybe 47? Anybody know? I want to read those monkey books - I bet they write a lot of comedies! Or Planet of the humans maybe?

downfader

passout wrote:

1957, good - thanks.

How many books do you think the apes/monkeys would write before they did the complete works of Shakepeare? A zillion, an infinate number or maybe 47? Anybody know? I want to read those monkey books - I bet they write a lot of comedies! Or Planet of the humans maybe?

I think they'd start with a Clancy thriller and move on from there.

passout

I think that would be beneath their artistic integrity...monkeys can be very stubborn over that sort of thing.

jimmypippa

downfader wrote:

passout wrote:

1957, good - thanks.

How many books do you think the apes/monkeys would write before they did the complete works of Shakepeare? A zillion, an infinate number or maybe 47? Anybody know? I want to read those monkey books - I bet they write a lot of comedies! Or Planet of the humans maybe?

I think they'd start with a Clancy thriller and move on from there.

Not Dan Brown or Jeffry Archer, because even hypothetical monkeys would have some standards...

Actually we had a physics undergrad question along those lines.
Could a large number of monkeys ever write a Shakespere play?

<nerd>

Assuming that a play is 20,000 words, and that average word length is (6?) "letters" including spaces, then this is 120,000 "letters".

Ignoring capitilisation, there are 27 characters (including spaces).

A monkey could put any character in any position, so this means that there are 27 to the power of 120,000 possible letter permutations in such a play-length. (27 multiplied by itself 120,000 times).

This comes out at 10 with 171,762 zeros after it.

Now the monkeys are very fast typists and can type at a billion letters per second, and there are a million monkeys, so there are a million-billion letters being typed every second.

They start typing at the big bang, which is 6000 years ago before Noah built his ark... sorry, 14-billion years. When you do the sums there are about 32-million seconds in a year, so there are about 14-billion times 32-million, which comes out at 3 with 17 zeros after it.

So if you then multiply this by the million-billion keystrikes per second, (10 with 17 zeros after it) you now get 3 with (17+17=34) zeros after it.

This is a ridiculously small fraction of the length of time needed to write the play, as it would exhaust only 1 in 10 with (171,762-34) zeros (171,728 zeros) of the possible combinations.

Alternatively we could work out how many super monkeys would be needed, typing at one billion words per second...

we would need 10 with (171,728 zeros) monkeys to randomy type the words of a particular Shakespere play.

There are only about 10^80 atoms in the universe (1with 80 zeros after it).

So not infinite, but not within the observable universe....

<endnerd>