SudsyFist

Oh, they had gotten it that time. And she so knew it. I'm rather fond of that shot, myself.

I thought that reality had pounded the last bit of life out of the idealist in me, but I just heard him take a breath. And when I looked over my shoulder, I saw him lying there, mangled, but with a smile. Hope your light never dies, dude.

Hey, VIKING! Whatcha doin' Saturday?

Haven't seen 'em since The Cure's Prayer Tour (Disintegration) circa 1990. Glad to hear they can still kick some arse!

Which is obviously the one with the nicer boobies.

You are such a troublemaker...

Yeah! Duh! wait...

It really does seem as if no-one's actually reading your posts, doesn't it? Maybe it's best to just leave it for now. My mouth is still hanging agape. Wow.

*stunned* Wow. I think I'm gonna go make some Tao of Poo. EDIT: tag fix.

Sudsyfist: (dialing) *67, (number) Sudsyfist: ... Sudsyfist: He-rro? Victim: ¿Aló? Sudsyfist: He-rro? Victim: ¿Aló? Sudsyfist: He-rro? Victim: Ya. Sudsyfist: He-rro? Victim: ¿Quién habla? Sudsyfist: He-rro? Victim: ¿Quién habla? Sudsyfist: He-rro? Victim: (angrier) ¿Quién habla? Sudsyfist: (singing) I'm sooooo ronreyyyyyyyyyyyyy... Victim: *click*

That was Les's usual axe. It's pretty distinct, as he tended to flaunt it with a lot of smooth slides, even double and triple stops as heard on the Beaver. *Love* the right hand tapping on Jerry Was A Race Car driver. The only way to fudge that one on a four-banger is to use lighter strings and tune high, or play an octave lower. Even then, it's not the same without the fretless.

Hell YEAH! But you need a six string fretless to get it just right.

So. Do. I. *sigh* EDIT: Did I really misspell JFTC in the subject line?

I have been known to lead occasional sunset tracks in the tightie whities...

Thanks! I've been shooting with a Canon 10D. My wide is a Tamron 17-35mm, whereas my tele is a cheapie (obvious in the freefall shots) Canon 75-300mm. I've made my EXIF data available on Flickr. Just click the "More Properties" link on the right side of each photo page, and you can get all the technical details (focal length, aperture, exposure, etc.) you can eat.

Thanks, man. The captions are just whatever comes to mind when I upload the photo -- sometimes they're funny and sometimes they're just wrong. Sometimes they're both, in fine sudsy style... As I just posted in General Skydiving Discussions, I've finished uploading the rest of my photos from JFTC: JFTC Photos By Tag: "JFTC 2005" JFTC Photos By Date: 30 Sep 2005 Thanks to jumpwally, benforde, RevJim, and anyone else I missed for the compliments.

Greets, I dropped by Perris on Friday, 30 Sep 2005, to check out how JFTC was going, see a few faces I haven't seen in a while, and shoot some ground shots of the event. Of the 500+ photos I took that day, I cleaned up (rotate, crop, etc.) and posted 100 or so to my Flickr account. I usually try to restrict my photo postings to just a handful of interesting ones per day; however, in this case, I figured participants and their friends/family would appreciate my going overboard, so here y'all go: JFTC Photos By Tag: "JFTC 2005" JFTC Photos By Date: 30 Sep 2005 Please note that Flickr displays the photos in reverse chronological order, hence my linking to the last page of the set. Also note that I published all the ground shots under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, thereby allowing you to download hi-res versions for your personal pleasure (prints, etc.). Enjoy! EDIT: Note that my captions are just what come to mind when I upload the photo. As to whether you find them bland or funny or offensive, YMMV.

Would you agree, then, that the following statement is not racist? "If you wanted to reduce hate crimes against minorities, you could, if that was your sole purpose, you could kill every white baby and child in the South, and your hate crime rate would go down." EDIT: I mistook that to which I replied as pertaining to Bennett's statement, not to the posting of the FBI stats. My apologies for catching this only after my posting, but I think it's still a worthwhile question to consider in light of the poll.

That would be Taz... Way out of you league... Being short, fat, bald, ugly, old, and less endowed than most insects, I don't even have a league. She is *totally* photogenic, though.

Hey, fun pics! I was there on Friday and took a little over 500 photos myself, about 100 of which seemed interesting enough to share. Last night I edited (crop, rotate, color, etc.) and posted about half of those on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sudsyfist/ I'll update everyone when I've finished editing and posting the rest.

Here's where this bit of the thread started: No, Apple's tiny (read: midget porn) market share makes developing a virus on/for a Mac extremely fruitless. Unless you're Jeff Goldblum. I don't dispute security weaknesses in the Windows architecture. I don't dispute that OSX is better in that department. I do, however, dispute the causal notion that because OSX (or any *nix for that matter) is arguably more secure from the architecture standpoint, that these platforms are less exploited than Windows. That's all. Thanks for the clarification request. It's easy to get on different sheets of music. In the latter cases, in particular, there's a lot more going on behind the scenes (social networking, e.g.) than just exploiting OS vulnerabilities. A good example is SQL injection; a platform independent vulnerability (just bad, bad application design). As a blanket statement, I'll disagree. Open and closed source each have their respective roles, but as far as Internet-exposed server platforms are concerned, I'm *totally* with you.

Popularity makes it more than just visible: it makes Windows the most effective vector for an epidemic (imagine if HIV went airborne). That's the point at which I was trying to get. If Mac or any other OS ends up in the same place, you absolutely will see exploit after exploit targeting that platform. Once compromised, there may be a whole lot more that can be done to a Windows box due to its architecture, but a compromise is still a compromise. Just don't let Linus hear you say that. Couldn't agree more.

Hear, freakin', hear! They're doing a lot better now than five years ago, but there's still a looooooooong way to go.

WTF has that got to do with anything? Today's Windows is built off the old NT codebase, not 95. I'll agree, though, that it's younger nonetheless. How often are servers targeted by virus authors? Seriously? If you're looking to pollute the net with your twisted creation, are you going to target the machines that have a gaggle of high-paid nose-picking pizza-and-peanut-M&M-eating dorks building layer after layer of protection around them? Or are you going to target Joe Dumbass who bought his first PC for the online porn? And how many of those dumbasses choose Unix for their desktop OS? That is so inaccurate, I don't even know where to begin.

IMO, there a number of things about the Windows architecture that's lacking but I think it's much more complex than having convenience built-in. The same could be said about other OS's, as well, but I'll agree not to the same extent. I've never -- I say again, never -- run background/service anti-virus software on my Windows PC's. Nor anti-spyware, for that matter. Once, about four years ago, someone connected an infected laptop to my network and popped my IIS cherry on one of my boxes (wasn't on the latest service pack), but I caught it the day it happened. Other than that, my relatively infrequent scans have always come up negative. So I agree with you. That's where I disagree. Yes, security out of the box is shit, but pinning the blame on that one reason is a great example of tunnel vision. And I strongly believe if the Apple/MS market share roles were reversed, we would have an abundant (note, I didn't say same) amount of vulnerabilities being exploited on the Mac. Honest question: which gets exploited more, or has a more successful track record of infection? You see your web logs. Agreed. I was trying to make a point that fanboys rarely seem to be able to see: less does not imply zero.