The (brilliantly useful) site that pulls up extended statistics for candidates running in elections across the SE network does not seem to be updating for current elections. In particular Christianity site isn't showing up up at all and elections are already in primaries.
I thought moderators were allowed to close questions that were doing something illegal
im gonna run a dll and and exe but i really dont want them to be stolen, there must be no way to get dll and exe. what can i do then? — user259673225 mins ago
not the best link but it gets to the right area of the comment torrent
modifying another programs memory without the explicit permission of the rights holder is both a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act and copyright law
If I see an answer that involves some illegal activity, such as breaking license agreements, should I then mark this as Offensive or should I simply down-vote it?
How should we treat questions that are, or have seeds of, evil or malicious purposes and actions, such as writing spambots and malware?
Should they be answered like regular "everybody keeps their pants on" questions? Or should there be some other type of response to this bad behaviour lot?
I've seen posts pop up every once in a while on virus coding, and I went to flag them, but I didn't see a category under which to do so. After further investigation, I've had no luck finding rules against it, so I presume this means that there are no rules against it (correct me if i'm wrong). So...
I recently flagged a StackOverflow question for moderator attention because related to the decompilation of third-party software, which smelt a little dodgy.
The response I got for the flag was:
declined - flags should only be used to make moderators aware of content that requires their inte...
In short, it is the act of using the technique that may be illegal, but talking about it is not. As long as it doesn't directly infringe on copyright or is against the Terms of Service of Stack Exchange, there is no problem.
hmm, I could make an argument based on the answer of the last... but it would be tenuous at best. Ultimately the best thing to happen is what did happen
@MartijnPieters in the US modifying another program's memory is considered (by law enforcement none-the-less [and questionably so] to be direct infringement) that said your point stands
Agreed. It's just that certain people from certain parts of the world get offended faster than others. That's not "invalidate claims of racism" that's culture
@PeeHaa Well, the general culture of our chats is "don't be racist". So that's the end of this argument right there. I appreciate that you were more than likely posting that link with a different intent, but let's just move on. Not wanting to be uncomfortable or offended in one of our chat rooms generally trumps wanting to making a joke.
@AnnaLear Fair enough. My message in here could have just been deleted instead of flagged again though. Especially considering at least you recognized the way I meant it.
I noticed today that the pro-forma comments userscript created by Benjol stopped working. Instead of the nice "auto" button next to the "add comment" button there is nothing:
There hasn't been an update to the script recently and it doesn't appear that any resources aren't loading, so I (a...
@Seth not sure what has changed, but by the time the script tries to inject the HTML based on the selector the items being selected aren't loaded into the DOM yet.
So, I've got to ask @GeoffDalgas...what are mobile apps giving you over the mobile site interface?
Anonymous
11:35 PM
Aye, I'm curious if they'll use the commenting API and/or new private ones.
Anonymous
(Possibly relevant: specifying version 2.2 in API urls works for 2.1 methods (but specifying 2.3 does not work). This suggests that new methods may have been implemented.)