(Thread IKs:
Nuns with Guns)
|
Cease to Hope posted:Why do you know this? Some of us have lived too long and done too much computer.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 23, 2025 20:25 |
|
|
If Symantec owns Norton AV, why are they still separate? What's the difference between them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Why do you know this? Because it was on our computer as a kid and I used to wonder what the program with the jazzy pink shirted guy icon that was actually really boring and confusing was for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
RyokoTK posted:If Symantec owns Norton AV, why are they still separate? What's the difference between them? I think it's just a matter of business vs. home oriented. (Symantec being business.) As far as the products themselves, the difference is surely a matter of features, license types, etc... (and of course cost). Hipster_Doofus fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Peter Norton first became a big deal among programmers in 1983 when he put out the first book giving lots of nitty-gritty details of how to get the most out of the then-new IBM PC architecture. He also happened to have a pink dress shirt on in the cover photo: This book became popularly known as the "pink-shirt book" (a reflection of the traditional computer-nerd method of nicknames for books) and so the pink shirt and crossed arms became a sort of symbol of Peter Norton. In fact, "Peter Norton, Peter Norton's stylized signature, and Peter Norton's crossed-arm pose are U.S. registered trademarks of Peter Norton". Here's another photo of Peter Norton with pink shirt and literally actually for-real trademarked pose:  The more you know, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
That's crazy! He doesn't even consistently cross them the same way! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
KnifeWrench posted:That's crazy! He doesn't even consistently cross them the same way! The second pic doesn't look much like him either. Must be a mirrored backup  .
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 08:26
|
|
|
KnifeWrench posted:That's crazy! He doesn't even consistently cross them the same way!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
Neddy Seagoon posted:The second pic doesn't look much like him either. I don't know how to break this to you, but Superman is secretly Clark Kent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 15:48
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:We'll be collecting royalties for that emote soon, thank you. Oh, you work for Stephen Colbert?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Have you ever seen Peter Norton and Stephen Colbert in the same room together?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Now I just need to figure out where I can use something so wonderful. I would suggest any moment, serious or no, of kinkshaming. That seems pretty much what it was made for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 06:08
|
|
|
I just found out someone bought a loving reddit/4Chan troll face meme smiley. When, why, and where do I live so I may punish them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:When, why, and where do I live Look inside yourself for the answers to these difficult questions
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I just found out someone bought a loving reddit/4Chan troll face meme smiley. Whoever did it, I'm sure they made the exact face upon viewing your post. (for those that don't want to bother looking it up in the directory it's  )
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I just found out someone bought a loving reddit/4Chan troll face meme smiley. It seems that you're taking this a bit harshly. Perhaps you are, dare I say it, mad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Spanish Manlove posted:It seems that you're taking this a bit harshly. Perhaps you are, dare I say it, mad? I thin I am...bro.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
DrBouvenstein posted:I just found out someone bought a loving reddit/4Chan troll face meme smiley. This has happened before. Don't worry it will be removed soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
If it makes you feel better the person was probated for buying that smiley, and is now banned. The user went by the name "STILL GAY AND DUMB" and their Rap Sheet can be found here. Sadly, Ozma has not removed like she said she would.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
The troll face emoticon is a blight on the forums. It is the cancer that is killing SA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
barbarianbob posted:The troll face emoticon is a blight on the forums. It is the cancer that is killing SA. It's okay, I'll have Shadow show you how to deal with a troll. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
barbarianbob posted:The troll face emoticon is a blight on the forums. It is the cancer that is killing SA. Wait, then what's Forums Cancer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
KnifeWrench posted:Wait, then what's Forums Cancer? The cure. It's the same as setting little forest fires ahead of a really big one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Came here to post how actually angry I am that some motherfucker spent $30 on a loving trollface emote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Came here to post how actually angry I am that some motherfucker spent $30 on a loving trollface emote. I know you are being sarcastic, but it is genuinely upsetting when you realize that money could've gone towards a hot dog shack in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
I think it should be left, but using it should be a bannable offence. Over time it should accrue more money than it cost!
Nettle Soup fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Oct 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Came here to post how actually angry I am that some motherfucker spent $30 on a loving trollface emote. SA playing host to old memes from the rest of the internet? This is an outrage, I never     
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
The rest of the internet hosts our old memes, so it's only fair I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
But who covers for the bandwidth costs? Is that why we have to pay Lowtax? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
p.crestmont posted:I know you are being sarcastic, but it is genuinely upsetting when you realize that money could've gone towards a hot dog shack in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Nettle Soup posted:I think it should be left, but using it should be a bannable offence. Over time it should accrue more money than it cost! I thought that actually happened. When the smiley was new there were entries in the Lepers' Colony of a few people getting probated for using it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
p.crestmont posted:I know you are being sarcastic, but it is genuinely upsetting when you realize that money could've gone towards a hot dog shack in the middle of nowhere. Just wait until someone makes  but for the hot dog shack. Or maybe  but with a hot dog instead of a file.Wasting money to commemorate a waste of money... How poetic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
WorkingPeer posted:Just wait until someone makes Did the hot dog shack turn out to be a fraud?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Did the hot dog shack turn out to be a fraud? No, a bunch of goons are just mad about it for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:No, a bunch of goons are just mad about it for some reason. "Mad" is the wrong word. I think "baffled" is more accurate. Who looks at this:  and says "yup, that's a winning business right there!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Fritos are a little odd, but those look like some drat fine dogs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:No, a bunch of goons are just mad about it for some reason. Okay, I guess I'll be the guy who's not in the loop: What hot dog shack?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
KnifeWrench posted:Okay, I guess I'll be the guy who's not in the loop: What hot dog shack? This thread explains everything. Please read it and know why we can never again discuss hotdogs on the Something Awful (dot com) Forums, as the thread melts down into weird, Dadaist poetry-level madness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
WorkingPeer posted:"Mad" is the wrong word. I think "baffled" is more accurate. Pictures of ice cream have used mashed potatoes instead of the real deal. Fruit and vegetables are wiped over with vaseline to give them that just-picked shine. Shoe polish and lipstick have been used to make sure food looks freshly cooked. Motor oil has substituted for pancake syrup. Any photograph of real actual food (that's probably been sitting out for more than a few minutes while the photographer takes shots) is going to look fairly unappetising considering how much all the promotional shots and advertisements we see use convincing fakes. Not to mention probably airbrushing the poo poo out of things afterwards. Just something to think about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 23, 2025 20:25 |
|
|
NotAnArtist posted:This thread explains everything. Please read it and know why we can never again discuss hotdogs on the Something Awful (dot com) Forums, as the thread melts down into weird, Dadaist poetry-level madness. Good Lord that is beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 00:52
|
|