Have you ever swam with great white sharks? Shot a man in reno just to watch him die? Blessed the plains in Africa? Given your liver to a pregnant orphan with lupus then taken it back to teach them never to rely on anyone?
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Sophie
Lol, the best kind. You should make a Tesla Coil have it zap to a tune and shock your brain on a rhythm. Transcranial intracerebral deep stimulation the 8bit midi edition.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
That reason usually boils down to incompetence and running systems/software that is way out of date and unsecured.
double strength duh
it's usually impossible to enforce secure policy because nobody takes it more seriously than convenience and most businesses run shitty proprietary software from 20 years ago
and MS can't/won't fundamentally change their shitty security paradigms because they don't want to lose that market share. remember the tantrums when Vista introduced user/privilege level separation?
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson
Either way the sysadmin isn't going to resort to some bullshit 'dark web' arbitration as Aldra suggested
we already agreed that the court idea is dumb, but most malware spreaders communicate through tor and trade in crypto
your question was "What kind of darkweb user falls victim to ransomware?"
retard end users do, sysadmins often have to go there to resolve it
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
just buy a cheap laptop on craigslist with money, install linux. (if you're really spooky put qubesOS with TailsOS in a VM), go to starbucks. buy a drink, get the wifi password. come back the next day with your linux laptop and stay in your car. use the tool macchanger, download and enjoy.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
Originally posted by cigreting
You dumbass,the obvious concept of love for a woman is a man who provides. Look at your dumbass, providing for some bitch and her kid.
When were you going to prove me wrong that women are with men conditionally? Im still waiting
Your insecure hostility towards women altogether is the result of your own inadequacies and only that. Even your avatar is a testament of your hilariously feminine demeanor and the coping mechanisms you've had to develop over the last decade without intimacy.
Your family is worried about you and for good reason. Nobody can claim bitches ain't about money but nobody can also say that going a decade without sex in your 20s wouldn't make you an angsty insecure little loser
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
