Re: The child
The sort of sick fuck who would murder someone for internet fame, perhaps.
1653 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
The sort of sick fuck who would murder someone for internet fame, perhaps.
Deflating an inflatable is "terrorism" now?
Oh brave new world...
That's pretty much what spectrum means these days, in contexts outside the measurement of light. One of its definitions is "a range; a continuous, infinite, one-dimensional set, possibly bounded by extremes." presumably taken from the near-infinite gradation of the electromagnetic spectrum. Words tend to get used for similar but distinct ideas and over time, and in differing contexts, change meaning in quite fundamental ways.
Since we're getting picky about words, however, I must stress that it's not Aspergers/autism. Aspergers is one expression of the condition and is more properly labelled as higher-functioning autism to distinguish it from more severe expressions of the condition. It's also not a disease.
Nope, it's much closer to an arbitration service. It administers various intellectual property treaties.
Oh don't get me started on the video "tutorials" for every damn thing. They're worming into some pretty technical areas that are far better served by a page or two of text. Video and images as accompanying illustrations to highlight particular elements of the process are fine, but if you only provide a video it's not going to be much use to a lot of people. A piece of text I can skim back and forth to see and understand the processes involved. A video? Follow it by rote. Can't search it if something doesn't quite go right and I need to double-check. Can't skip ahead to the part I need without faffing around dragging the time bar thing back and forth until I get it just so. Can't skip my attention between the information and the project. Can't move at my pace, have to wait for the video to get to the point... the list goes on and on and on.
I guess that means we're all terrorists.
Blithering idiot. We had a well-organised, well-funded terrorist organisation just a hop across the Irish Sea from us for most of the latter half of the 20th century but they were mostly kept at bay without all of these powers the police and "security" services are demanding now. The ones that got through were almost entirely because reports of potential activity were ignored by the same kind of people now demanding all these extra powers.
Laboratory conditions strike again!
The problem with this test is that it doesn't appear to replicate the real-world conditions involved. The "bendgate" video showed uneven pressure being applied across a corner, which - unintentionally, I'm sure - is a more realistic representation of what would happen. A phone jammed in a front pocket, as reported at the start of the controversy, would be subjected to unequal pressure on one corner as its owner bent their leg to sit down and stand, or walk around. The problem is magnified if that corner is also the one with the controls, which present a significant weak spot.
The full cross-section of the phone is a great deal stronger than a partial section across the corner. Testing the full cross-section doesn't address the demonstrated failure.
The smaller phone is more robust due to the relative strength of the case material in cross-section. The larger phone is weaker. It's rare, but this bending issue obviously does happen, and it's a case of Apple apparently not realising that scaling the phone up without accounting for the square/cube law is asking for trouble.
You realise those embedded devices will use busybox, yes? And that busybox isn't vulnerable to this?
Those are the nightclubs.
And no correction from the Reg either despite the fact that the site is now forwarded to rantic media's own site.
Come on Reg, I always thought the redtop image was a bit of clever satire.
So you say android is bad, but then spend all your time complaining about the crapware Samsung slung on top of it?
Why is it some people are so insanely angry about the idea of a telephone just being a telephone?
Depends if you want to beat them with intellect (something they have no experience of) or pull a Buzz Aldrin and just beat them senseless.
The latter is far more satisfying.
In fact the best evidence against the hoax is the recording technology available at the time. It was physically impossible to do what the hoaxers claim was done.
Good outline of the technological issues involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs
I've always liked alternate history tales and parallel worlds. My current favourite is the Long Earth series by Pratchett and Baxter, though that's a rather different take on the topic to this.
Did you happen to be flying over Siberia on any of those times? It'd explain a few of the holes.
So it'd come in a headband as well? I'd live with the end of the world in exchange for the sight of people headbutting the barriers on the tube to get in.
Wouldn't be possible. The plans are all in metric.
It's like a foreign language I tells ya...
Geological sources of hydrocarbons are generally thought to be produced that way, but methane is known to be produced without any biological origins in the upper mantle, and likely anywhere else you have carbon and hydrogen in close proximity.
Schneier's reasoning is flawed, though. His criticism starts from a false premise.
Well, no, the government were the rich. It's a subtle distinction but worth making.
And some things apparently have not changed in the meantime. There are just more of the buggers now.
My american friends tell me a shotgun is a far superior weapon for home defence.
Not that we're allowed to defend our homes or anything. That would be cruel to the poor burglar.
No, the filing date for this patent was this year. There are related documents filed in 2011, but they aren't for this concept. Sorry. Samsung got there first.
With the sensitivity of modern RCDs, a fused plug isn't really necessary these days. Still, you can never have too much protection when it comes to electricity. Belt and braces and all that.
Oh gawd, retina-searing xenon lights were bad enough, the last thing we need is a BMW with lasers mounted on the front.
And I can confirm by proximity to my lovely wife that he sounds like a Swede. Well, he sounds like he's from Skåne, which is only Swedish because the Danes didn't want it any more.
Try burning it inside a sealed container.
So how is this different from BMW incorporating a HUD in their latest models?
All right, you know what? I'm getting tired of this. Dictionaries record the language as it is spoken. They are not a set of rules. If a word gains traction and becomes part of the language, it will be put in the dictionary.
How many of the words you all use every day were once considered vulgar, silly or impertinent? 150 years ago there were complaints about new words entering the language - words like curry and thug, and constructions like "slice of life". Prior to that, practically the entire modern English language was invented from whole cloth by Shakespeare, and the complaints and mockery his words generated as they entered the language were legion.
Language changes. Get over it.
Some form of economy would still exist, though. People would exchange value for value in some form or other, even if it's just uptwinkles on facetwat.
Ignoring the consideration of value is the failure of all central planning. The value I place on some old toys I still have hanging around is immense. Some people wouldn't pay pennies for them. Someone else might value them enough to offer me a lot of money (or something else that I value), which I might consider a worthwhile exchange.
That's all an economy is, in the end. Exchange of value for value. Money is simply one means of measuring value but it is not the only means of measuring it. In a post-scarcity society we may not need a medium of exchange for commodities that can be manufactured on demand, but there will still be items that are valued by people and they will still want to exchange other things of value for them. A painting by a great artist. He may give it away for free. He might not. He could be induced to part with it for something of sufficient value. Or someone helps their friend move a couch around their living room, and in exchange they get a few beers. Exchange of value for value. That's an economy in action.
The claim that the notion of economy would be absurd in some far-off post-scarcity society is itself absurd, because it ignores that central element of what forms an economy in the first place. Forget "utility" and grand theories of things. Economies form from the bottom up, through transactions between entities. They emerge from the value those entities place on things.
That's why central planning fails in the end. It has no notion of value outside of what the planners consider to have value, and what they consider to have value has no relation to what you or I or anyone else considers to have value.
There are no remedies in law holding the owner of a cat responsible for the actions of their pet. Cats are exempt from the laws governing animal trespass. They can also look at the king.
Speaking as the owner of two cats, your best solution is a good soaking with a hose. One of those spray fittings works best.
I'd also suggest putting a cover on the bike. It's a reasonable thing to do anyway. Keeps the bird shit off.
I know Cameron's a bit paranoid on the matter, but is it really such a terrible thing to say Boris?
It's a well-attested fact that if you hand the state a power, it will use it. Governments don't legislate new means to intrude in the personal lives of their citizens unless they intend to make those intrusions. It doesn't matter how much oversight might be placed on those intrusions: the fact is, once they exist, they will inevitably be abused.
RIPA in the UK is a good example. It was legislated to give the police, the security services and government the means to secure evidence against suspected terrorists without going through the usual process of getting warrants and such. In the years since it was passed it has been used to spy on what people put in their bins, find out whether they live in the right catchment area for a school and to gather evidence against people who let their dogs crap on the pavement.
As for the last point, let me ask you something: do you have covers on your windows? Curtains, blinds, some sort of concealment? Do you wear clothes? If you answer yes, then why? After all, you have nothing to hide...
Maybe, but it ignores a few issues. We were quite late to the slavery game, and there was always an undercurrent against it in England. The abolition movement began before the US war of independence and had its first major victory in 1772, when a court rules that no man who stood on English soil could be a slave. At that point the Americans were still arguing about whether they should establish a local parliament and send representatives to British parliament.
Also worth noting that the United States banned the atlantic slave trade entirely from 1775 to 1783 and the first abolitionist movement in the US sprang up one year before they declared independence.
Abolition was entirely coincidental to the american revolution, and in fact became one of the forces that brought the USA and Britain toward more friendly relations in the aftermath of America's independence.
there was only one matrix movie what are you talking about
The sheer volume of assumptions, logical fallacies and strawmen in your post is staggering, anon.
Standard. Any norm, convention or requirement
Technical standard, an established norm or requirement about technical systems
International standard, standards suitable for worldwide use
Standards organization, an entity primarily concerned with maintaining standards
Standardization, the process of establishing technical standards
Lets just say I meant act rather than directive.
The comparison with the US constitution isn't particularly apt. Their constitution outlines a list of very strict, tightly defined negative rights without any exceptions or special cases and was aimed squarely at telling the government what it wasn't allowed to touch. The ECHR delves into far different territory (and also spends a lot of time inserting caveats and exceptions to its various rights, but lets ignore that for the purpose of this argument), framing so-called positive rights - rights that require some sort of social interference - and also spends a fair amount of time telling people what they aren't allowed to do. It assumed rights extend from the state, whereas the US constitution assumes that the state only protects what already exists.
The point is, regardless of all that, the treaty isn't the target. The act is. It was badly framed, badly implemented and is generally a bit shite.
They want to repeal the human rights directive, not the treaty.
As long as they don't send up Clooney and Bullock...
The odds aren't just based on the last time such a CME hit earth but also on the last time the sun produced a CME of the magnitude of the carrington event. The last of those was in July 2012 according to wikipedia.
Other way around. The threat of a CME is that it sets up induction currents in large-scale conductors, unlike an emp. Your electrical goods will be fine, especially if they’re switched off. The grid will fry no matter what.
True. We don't even get the benefit of warmth.
I've had people walk out in front of my jeep. It is not quiet at all, being a late 90s diesel (great fuel economy though, all things considered). The problem is that people are just dipsticks who seem incapable of paying attention to their environment.
In fact that's pretty much the ideal hybrid design. You can tune the engine to its greatest efficiency, you can run the electric motor from batteries as well, and you don't have to faff around with complex differentials and dual drive trains. The current trend of putting the IC's power to the wheels instead of using the electric motor for motive power strikes me as rather silly and only makes sense if you want a car that goes vroom vroom when you put your foot down.
The reason for asking all of those obviously daft questions is actually very clever: say you're a terrorist, but you answer no to the "are you a terrorist?" question. Now when they catch you trying to set off your underpants in the loo they can add immigration fraud and lying to government officials to your charge sheet. Worth another 30 years in prison at least.
The french take plenty of advantage. For them it's a giant market protection scheme that serves to keep the farm subsidies flowing.
Ending a sentence with a proposition is something up with which we shall not put!
The phrase "cave in" is a non-hyphenated compound word that, whilst it might apparently contain the preposition "in", is not itself a preposition. A sentence ending with "cave in" is grammatically valid, though for clarity it might be best to hyphenate it as "cave-in".
Never say never.