Re: First fail found
First thing I spotted. What the heck?
1597 posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
First thing I spotted. What the heck?
The clue, I think, is in the bit where he's watching TV. Battle all you like, when you're watching the gogglebox you've already lost the war and might as well turn your brain in at the nearest re-education facility.
And I never said my system was perfect. However, it's only on mobile. At home I selectively whitelist sites that I want to support, but I'm always ready to drop them off it again if they start flinging "dynamic" crap around in an attempt to upsell my user experience or whatever the buzzwords are these days.
I don't like ad-funded apps. I either pay for the app or Ifind one that doesn't have adverts in it.
I think I might be in a very tiny minority...
Still have adblock installed anyway. It catches a few of the more troublesome "adverts" that would otherwise reduce my browsing experience to a series of jerky slideshows before the browser gave up and crashed under the strain.
I'm afraid, for now, we'll have to resort to good old whale oil.
Ok generally I think I agree, but the part where you claim nukes sitting in silos make profit for someone... they're a sunk investment (literally), paid for once, with most of the maintenance work being to keep them clean and dry. Most of them don't even have fuel in unless the US is on extremely high alert because it tends to leak out of the vents and corrode the tanks. By and large the only people making any money from a nuclear silo are the electricity companies.
On the other hand, it gives him three months to come up with an effective solution.
What the hell is wrong with commentards these days? The lot of you are such negative ninnies! Oh your solution isn't perfect, might as well kill yourself now and be done with it!
God in heaven...
Oddly enough, I have a solution to that one. The Raspberry Pi plugged into the USB port of my television powers on when I turn on the TV and switches it to the correct input with that there CEC feature. After that I do everything through XBMC, and when I tell XBMC to power off it shuts down the pi and then shuts down the TV along with it. Freaking marvellous it is.
In the interests of fairness there are downsides. I have to unplug the USB if I want to use my tv for anything that doesn't involve xbmc because otherwise it grabs the screen when I switch it on, which means a little bit of dinking to get it back and then mucking around to tell the pi to switch off the tv when I'm done. I don't watch broadcast television any more (and haven't for years - bye bye TV license!) but I do play a couple of xbox games now and then and the wife still occasionally pulls out the PS2 for her Final Fantasy fix.
Other than that it's bruddy marvellous.
A tablet with fans?
I own a second hand samsung series 7, primarily for the wacom digitiser in the screen. It has a fan. IT IS HORRENDOUS. If a tablet has a fan you're doing it wrong.
I'd use my Note 10.1 for all the mobile art things but there's not yet any equivalent of Paint Tool SAI on android - though sketchbook pro is pretty good (brush engine needs some work, the desktop version is far suprioer) and the Note works with the stylus from my cintiq (and indeed the stylus from my series 7) so I'll never want for spare pens.
In the end you just can't beat a proper desktop tablet screen, but now I can art while I'm flying over to see the inlaws, which is always nice.
Would you believe I'm an electrician? :D
And I seem to own a lot of samsung kit these days...
"A proper scientist dismisses explanations that don't fit the evidence"
No. NO. NO. That's not science. A proper scientist does not dismiss anything, he rather proposes a hypothesis that fits the current empirical evidence and then devises tests to disprove it with the hope of popping up new evidence for or against the particular hypothesis in the process. He never dismisses an explanation. In science, no explanation is ever accepted as 100% immutable truth because new and peculiar things crop up all the time, therefore no explanation can truly be rejected. They are simply demonstrated to be very unlikely.
It has been the case that explanations that didn't fit the current evidence later became accepted as valid when new evidence was brought to light after prediction by hypothesis. The theory of continental drift, for instance, did not fit "the current evidence" because nobody had yet discovered a viable mechanism, and it was thus rejected by the narrow-minded souls who you seem to evince as "proper scientists". It didn't fit the evidence, you see.
Argue all you want about the existence of gods, or lack thereof, but get your bloody definitions right first otherwise you're just mouthing off without any basis in reality.
Oh god, don't tell me I'm still on this fecking social network!
It's the bit where we all turn into slightly worrying membranes that I'm concerned with.
Suddenly Greg Bear's Blood Music seems less fanciful and more than a little worryingly real...
"get the film of their choice torrented and delivered personally by Andrew Orlowski."
I think I just gave myself a hernia from laughing so hard.
Twilight, you're assuming that the wiring in your older building will be up to the required standard. Often it isn't. I could tell you horror stories about the wiring in ostensibly refurbished old buildings and I can tell you right now that none of them would have supported any sort of PLT installation. Wireless repeaters would be more reliable. Given the cost of having to strip and replace all the wiring to make PLT reliable you'd be as well to just install cat5/6 alongside anyway. You'd get a more reliable, higher bandwidth signal and more scope for modification in future if you leave in enough redundancy. Plus you can run phones down it.
You mean you don't have a landline trailed out behind your car wherever you go?
It's a step. That's all that matters.
Celebrate progress! Another step! Onwards to the bright future! It's different!
The reason I mentioned the circuit protective conductor specifically and not just "the earth" is because the illustration shows the CPC being used as a signalling bus, which introduces a fault current, which potentially triggers fuses and RCDs and makes the system dangerous in the process. Functional earth isn't connected to the circuit protective conductor and nor should it be - and neither is a functional earth used to protect circuits or prevent the living of exposed metal parts. It's completely irrelevant to what I said because I was talking about protective earthing. And if you can show me a protective conductor that's carrying current in allegedly non-fault conditions I'll be very surprised, because it's both highly illegal and extremely dangerous.
Ok so it took me ages to realise that the odd tweet-counter-looking thing was a link to the comments. Enough with the secret sauce, guys!
The phasing issue the first illustration highlights is uniquely american. It's extremely rare for a domestic supply to have two phases and a neutral to the breaker box. You will see blocks of flats and apartments getting two phases but the individual breaker boxes all have a single phase. Even a lot of commercial isntallations will only have one phase.
Am I the only one that thinks using the CPC as a signalling wire is asking for serious trouble? The whole point of protective conductor is that it only carries current if you have a fault condition in order protect the installation and facilitate ending that fault condition. Quite apart from the possibility of tripping breakers for "no reason", sending signals down the CPC is deliberately introducing a fault current into all the exposed metalwork in the entire installation. A system like that will kill people sooner or later. I don't care if they're saying there's some limit on the current - it only takes one overcurrent at the right time.
And of course the liability for that falls not on the owner, or even the person who sold them the plug, but on whoever installed and inspected the installation.
Thanks dogged, I was feeling terrible today, I needed a good laugh.
Originality died with Homer. Everything since then has been fanfiction.
Ah, you can't fool me, it's VMs all the way down!
Given the speeds involved it's unlikely they even felt it.
And yet they're still both negative. This isn't a semantic argument, it's the scientific meaning of the words. Acids are acids, bases are bases. If you are reducing your basic content you aren't "acidifying", you are debasing or neutralising. You only acidify something when you pass neutral.
besides it's all moot anyway. If the oceans warm they can't hold as much CO2 even with a higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. This "acidification" of the oceans and global warming are mutually exclusive events.
And then you went away to read about bases, avids and relative ph levels and realised you were fantasizing a great steaming pile of bunk.
The oceans are basic. They have shown a very slight shift towards neutral, but there is a greater difference in ph between the arctic and equator. They are not acidifying in the slightest.
New variation on "if you've nothing to hide" hmm?
Elvish? Klingon? Old hat. Go look up FiM++ if you want real crazy.
Also, I feel I should long point that Arabic odds disconnect from OPs complained-about languages in that it is not constructed, but add-on actual, living tongue.
How, exactly, do words oppress someone?
The right to free speech is precisely what it says: the right to speak. You may exercise responsibility along with that right if you wish, but the right itself is nothing more or less than what it is: we have vocal cords, we can use them. It has no moral or ethical dimension, it is simply an acknowledgement of the natural state of the world. Codified in law, it becomes a requirement that the state not interfere with that right.
Free speech is one of the natural rights (or god-given rights if you're so inclined), also known as negative rights. A negative right has no requirement that others give up their rights to support yours. I can speak freely all day without anyone having to give up anything in order to support that right. No sacrifice of another's rights must be made to grant me my freedom of speech.
Actually, in French (and most european) law the court is part of the goverTment. You're presumably thinking in terms of adversarial separation of powers, a very anglo-saxon idea that just never caught on amongst the continentals.
This has odd results. English courts can set and overturn law by precedent because they function in opposition to the legislature and the executive, whilst Courts in France can't (having no ability to set precedent in the first place), because they acknowledge the supremacy of the legislative assembly and executive power. They function as an arm of government, implementing and enforcing the law. They can overturn law, but the law can simply be restated by the legislature, whereas an English court setting a precedent in an area of law can often force the legislature to abandon future attempts to craft law in that area as the courts would simply deny their legitimacy based on prior precedent.
Of course this all ignores the point the original poster was trying to make, and that he would have made much better if he had replaced "the government" with "the state". Courts form part of the apparatus of The State, along with the legislature, executive, armed forces, police and various other bits and bobs. The State, in this case represented by the Courts, is becoming more oppressive and thus more like the stasi. Though the better comparison would be the entire state apparatus of the GDR rather than just its internal security enforcement branch.
Plants are passé. You can't make a big "We're saving the world!" splash just by waving a tree at people, you have to be technological about it.
It's all a sop to green investment funds and politicians looking to shovel more subsidy at anything that looks even remotely environmentalist, and never mind the consequences. Or the costs. Or anything.
Oddly enough, the greasy finger marks don't show up so clearly on a matte screen.
In settings, check "pinch to reflow text" and there you go. Maybe it's only in ff beta, I don't use anything else.
You can't take this guy from me...
"Brain the size of a planet and you're using me to ask about the weather. Windows were invented for a reason you know. Next you'll be asking me when you should breathe in and out. Humans seem so pointless sometimes."
American? Shows what you know strum.
Perhaps you should go and read up a little on the natural rights of man.
How do you feel about the first amendment, Mooseman? Or the fourth and fifth? Or perhaps the eighth? All of them are over 200 years old. Are they irrelevant now because of that?
Or are you going to start picking and choosing? IN which case you need a better reason than "200 years old" to dismiss these rights.
The security of a free state is no less relevant now than it was then - but that security is not only about borders. A state remains free only as long as its government is beholden to the governed.
I get the feeling you've not read the Federalist Papers. These documents discussed the intent of the framers of the US constitution in some detail, and much of that intent was to provide the people with every possible means to overthrow their government if it became tyrannical.
Incidentally, Parliament ignoring old laws that restricted its power are the reason we're in such a cocked-up state right now. Parliament overstepped its legal bounds decades ago by ignoring its foundational documents; the Bill of Rights 1689 (go look it up) and the Act of Settlement placed limits on Parliament's authority and on the King, and restated certain constitutional rights such as the right to move unmolested by agents of the king, the right to bear arms and the right to be free of "unusual punishment", amongst other things. Today these laws are ignored - because they're "old", is the usual excuse, yet they are still as relevant today as they were when they were first drafted, and if they were observed instead of ignored we'd be a much more free and prosperous country.
The US constitution doesn't "give" them anything. The bill of rights is informing Congress of areas where it shall not legislate to restrict rights that were deemed to be the natural rights of man. Those rights boil down to the right to speech, self-defence and property.
These three are the fundamental rights on which civilisation was built. The world progresses when these rights are held inviolate, and regresses when they are proscribed and infringed.
For the record the president is not allowed to legislation per the constitution. Executive orders have always walked a fine line in this regard and many of them were unconstitutional in their scope (especially quite a few of those issued by Bush toward the end of his second term) even if they had been created by the House. The use of an executive order to infringe on the second amendment is opening Obama up to a lot of potential legal difficulty.
The voltage difference between each end will be rather impressive. You could probably prevent most of the issues you're thinking of by using it as a power source.
That logic doesn't even remotely follow. Blaming the judicial system for being the causative agent of his depression is constructive in that it identifies the most likely source of his illness. His parents and his family were not acting in ways that could trigger depression; they were passive participants at best, and unaware of his mental state. The judges and the judicial system were active participants in the events and did not need to be aware of his mental state in order to cause it.
That's the difference.
That's why the judicial system can be asked to shoulder responsibility for the outcome.
AC: Depression often looks nothing like depression from the outside. In fact it can look completely the opposite. Real depression, the serious stuff (not the "oh my boyfriend dumped me and I got a C on my test I'm so depressed!!!" sort) often looks more like exhaustion, cynicism or even a strange sort of joy. When you're depressed you think you've finally discovered the truth about the world.
Blaming the family is not remotely constructive. They probably didn't even know.
Nnnooo, it's making a subtle joke about the article.
As much as any other ISS module. They have a special radiation shelter for a reason.
If the windows can be replaced with a linux distro I'll be all over that thing like a rash.
Bacon fried in butter, one boiled egg and a pile of roasted almonds will cure that hangover right off. Guaranteed.
Given that privacy legislation is a sole EU competence (partially under the lisbon treaty and partially under european human rights legisation that became our human rights act), and given it doesn't allow any subsidiarity in this particular area, it's not so much "hooray for the EU" as "we could have done this years ago if they weren't sitting on it".
Ever wondered why UK privacy reform is so mealy-mouthed and bitty? They're having to work around the fringes of the problem because the EU doesn't allow national parliaments to act on this issue any more, so instead they legislate in areas where they can at least appear to be doing something. That's why were getting loas of bullshit laws criminalising everything and levying fines on everything else.
I remember when everyone claimed these giant squid were just a myth. Happy days.
Have the got a rocket big enough?
Oh of course, they can buoy it up with his ego.
(Don't get me wrong, I like Bill, it's just he's such an enormously easy target...)
The shutter control.
Except, of course, the little problem that is never acknowledged: the European economies had begun making all of the changes necessary to bring about this new peaceful era in the aftermath of world war 2, before even the Coal and Steel union between France and Germany was put into place, never mind the EU, which wouldn't be implemented until the mid 90s. The EU was late to the party, claimed credit for something it had nothing to do with, and in the end spent most of its time fighting over which of its presidents would get to hold the prize certificate and who'd pocket the cash.
The EU and the EEC before it did nothing to create peace in Europe. They rode on the post-war economic boom that was brought about by rapid (and necessary) cooperation and integration between the nations of Europe, then claimed they were responsible for it, when in reality they've done the most to rein it in and crush it with their constant regulation.
And the nobel peace prize wasn't meant to be awarded to organisations anyway. It's right there in the charter for the damn thing.