Joshuaink: R3c0gNiz3 my $/<i11$

Please note that you may have been redirected (you might like to make a note of the URL in the address bar of your browser and update accordingly) This is a permanent archvie but is no longer actively maintained. Please visit http://joshuaink.com for the latest updates.

R3c0gNiz3 my $/<i11$

Sunday April 2, 2006

Update

Yes, this was my pathetic attempt at an April fools joke and if you missed it, the screen shot is here.

The orignal hacker note

j00 h@v3 b33N v3ry r00d +0 m3 1@+31y.

i ph331 h@ my m@d $/

i huMb1y r3qu3$+ h@ j00 r3c0gNiz3 my $/<i11$ Nd @110\/\/ m3 +0 \/\/i$h j00 h@Ppy @Pri1 ph001$.

Skip to main navigation
Skip to sub content and search form

Tobias

859 days ago

interesting redesign john

but i preferred the original, did you actually get hacked?
Hans

859 days ago

Is this for real? Have you finally fallen off your rocker? I got a little worried when this post popped up in NNW.
p4ul Groves

859 days ago

We Own Other Team to you motherfucker.

Excellent work!
r1ch4r|)

859 days ago

Dear God. That is all.
Glen

859 days ago

ok… neat.
Dan

859 days ago

Hmm, I wonder what today’s date is… ;o)
Shayne

859 days ago

HAHA!!

I was browsing my newsreader, then I got to Joshuainnk and I saw boobies! it took me like 3 minutes to decipher your l33t $/
cat

859 days ago

April fools …

[?]
James

859 days ago

d00d, t3Xt1l3 p\/\/nz0r3d teh l33t!
James

859 days ago

Firefox’s “rendered source” view reveals all kinds of fun going on in there.
Jesse

859 days ago

nice.
Michael Grinstead

859 days ago

Loving the new design ;)
Michael Heilemann

859 days ago

GOMF!!!1 U si 4 teh g4xx0zr2d!
J4m3s H4ck4>

859 days ago

w0000000000000000000t!
Matt Robin

859 days ago

You’ve been testing with IE7 again haven’t you? :D
Miles Johnson

859 days ago

wut new design, its the same or have u taken it off already?
Rob Cawser

859 days ago

l0|z0Rz
Martin

859 days ago

All your joshuaink are belong to us….
Colly

859 days ago

It’s the same pair of breasts!
Thievery – this post features breasts!
Tauquil

859 days ago

Clear your cache Miles.

You can’t go wrong with boobies!
flashy

859 days ago

heheh hacked (:
oliver Beattie

859 days ago

i realy cant read that! could sum1 tell me what it means?? please
Ted Drake

858 days ago

nice background image today. what is the blue line for?
karmatosed

858 days ago

Well it’s one up on the plastic dog poo placed on a work top….
Tony

858 days ago

titties.
Thom

858 days ago

People have to learn between the lines i mean even if april fools is a british joke thing then at least read the vain attempt at covering John master hackers tracks in his code ”:{_*(*@& message …..John it made me laugh if only cos people are questioning the hackers validity….take it easy bro hope you got our card.
Nathan Logan

857 days ago

This was entirely innappropriate, and although I’ve enjoyed your stuff until now, you just lost a reader. The joke would have been just as effective without the porn. And with it, you have alienated users (at least this one).

I have (had) your feed in my feed reader at work, and as I checked it on Friday, the naked woman came up while other employees could see it. Our company has a strict policy regarding viewing these kinds of images at work, and while I don’t think it will result in my termination, had the right person been standing behind me, it certainly would have.

Besides, I don’t want to see pornography at all, and while I realize you often push the limit with your content, I’ve never seen you do it to this extreme before. You crossed the line, and although I love your work and enjoy your commentary, you’ve made it impossible for me to trust that I can safely view your content any longer. Thanks for the good stuff you’ve done, and good luck.
John Oxton

856 days ago

pornography : noun printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

So, you are calling a pair of womans breasts pornographic? They were just there, no one was touching them, they were just a pair of breasts for goodness sake.

Firstly, I have to ask what justification you have for reading a site like mine at work anyway? Secondly I find it hard to believe that you find my swearing acceptable and a pair of boobs, passive boobs at that, soo offensive.

Still the choice is yours, good luck and thanks for visiting.
Nathan Logan

856 days ago

John,

Yes, I would say that the image was intended to stimulate erotic feelings, but either way, that’s beside the point. The point is that the image was not safe (at all) for the workplaces of most people. Nudity is just something that many employers disallow at work.

Regarding the justification I’ve felt for reading your site at work – I think you have some insightful things to say about this industry (your most recent post on different career paths, for example) and some entertaining things to say overall. My employer allows me the freedom to enjoy sites like this one (minus the nudity). And really, I think that’s beside the point, as well. Since you must know that there are readers like me, who read your site at work, and a reasonable person should know that most workplaces disallow viewing nudity at work, in my mind, it’s your responsibility to sufficiently hide that content from default viewers. If you warn someone that clicking a work-safe thumbnail will reveal nudity, that’s fine. It’s their choice. But if you do it by default, it puts that image in front of people who may not want to view it, and indeed, who may be fired for doing so.

I’m honestly pretty blown away that my comment was the first of its kind on this post. I know for a fact that there are others who feel this way, even if they chose not to talk to you about it.
John Oxton

856 days ago

The truth of the matter is that a large majority of my core readership can’t actually view my site at work, either because of the PICS label or simply because the filters they have set up won’t allow it.

I know for a fact at least one other blogger posted exactly the same picture not so long back, I wonder if he had the same complaint, must ask.

As a result of your comment I have updated my PICS label to be a bit more agressive so hopefully the measures in place at your workplace will pick up on this and filter me out but, for a long time now I have had a PICS label in place that makes it quite clear that this site contains adult content.

I am not yet ready to apologise, people who visit here regularly put up with foul language and outlandish posts and I can’t see how a natural, passive pair of womans breast can be considered more offensive than that.

With regard people losing their jobs over a picture of a pair of boobs on my site, that is ridiculous; if the company finds MILD nudity intolerable and the words FUCK and CUNT acceptable they really should rethink their policy. They should also have the neccesary technology in place to prevent employees from viewing it, no? Also surely there has to be a mechanism in place where I can explain the situtaion to an employer?

All that aside anyone with half an ounce could point to the site and say LOOK IT HAS BEEN HACKED… OMG!! THAT’S WHY THE PHOTO IS THERE.

To be honest I think this is probably more about YOU than your place of work.

I never like to lose a reader, especially over a one off joke and a pair of tits, but I am willing to accept that I have offended you and maybe a number of other people; that makes me sad but if that is the way it is, so be it.
Nathan Logan

856 days ago

John,

I wasn’t aware of PICS, or your use thereof – thanks for pointing me there.

And you’re right – this is about me (as I stated in my first comment) and about my place of work. Not only am I offended by it (which is quite true), it is something disallowed by my workplace. Although I don’t know the details of the firings, they have taken place for viewing nudity where I work. Whether or not that standard is reasonable is not up to me – it is simply one to which I must submit as long as I work here (and as far as I know, one that many, many other employers share).

It seems, though, that I was wrong about bringing this up in the first place. Your PICS label states that you display nudity and the like. It’s not your fault that I was unfamiliar with that system, it’s mine. I was treading on grounds I never should have been – my bad. Thanks for letting me know.
Jon Hicks

856 days ago

So Nathan. You’re an author on Godbit.com, which is part of the 9Rules Network, yes? The fact that Scrivs also operates a Porn Network doesn’t bother you at all?
Nathan Logan

856 days ago

Jon,

I really haven’t been at all evasive regarding my stance on pornography (and I would consider what was shown here to be pornography). Simply, I’m against it.

That said, I don’t claim to speak for all involved with Godbit in making any comments I have made here or elsewhere. I’m a contributor there, but my opinions probably differ from others who contribute. The comments I made above weren’t on behalf of Godbit, but rather on behalf of myself.

Regarding the association you are making between Godbit, 9rules, Paul Scrivens, and his porn network: the authors of Godbit have discussed it and feel that while we do not support, condone, or agree with what Paul is doing, Godbit is not associated with it. Paul has been careful to completely separate his porn network and 9rules, and up to this point, the Godbit contributors feel that the separation there is great enough that we are not inherently associated with it. This is my best understanding on that issue.

Again, please don’t take what I’ve said to be representative of Godbit, 9rules, or anyone other than myself. And as I said to John Oxton in an e-mail earlier today, I probably shouldn’t have even brought it up here. A quiet e-mail or silent browser close and mental note would have served my purpose much better. Being offended clouded my judgment there, and I’m sorry for causing such a stir, I really am. While this was offensive to me, I realize that it certainly wasn’t to others – and there is no need for me to try to impose the standards I try to uphold upon others.
Jon Hicks

855 days ago

Nathan, I think you need to learn the difference between nudity and pornography. And yes, there is a difference.
Nathan Logan

855 days ago

Jon, we can argue semantics all day long (although it would probably be best to refrain from doing so here), but the fact remains that what I’ve said still pertains to my stance and my employer’s stance on what was shown. Call it nudity, pornography, or erotica, it’s still not something I want to see and not something my employer permits me to see while at work.

But as I’ve already said, it’s not my place to impose upon others the standards by which I try to abide, and especially on someone else’s blog.
Steven Woods

853 days ago

The only man in the world to be offended by a pair of titties.

Thank fuck you didn’t post www.meatspin.com or anything else on the www.bagslap.com network.

Those links are NOT work-safe Nathan, just in case you, you know, accidentally click on it and shit your pants. They’re not morally acceptable either really, but hey – its the internet :D

John … there’s always one person who chokes on their own bollocks, keep it up :D

Update

The orignal hacker note

James

James

Martin

flashy

Tony

Thom

Christmas gifts?

Recently

Geeky shiteMeta

Main navigation

Page foot