952 posts • joined Wednesday 14th November 2007 11:44 GMT
... try googling nominative determinism. Best ever example is
Br J Urol. 1977 Apr;49(2):173-6.
The urethral syndrome: experience with the Richardson urethroplasty.
Splatt AJ, Weedon D.
"puts the willies up the TSA"
I see what you did there!
A solid 2-4 Meg pipe...
... /is/ big enough for the vast majority of people. But what about the vast majority of _households - which hold more than one person? I'd like to be able to watch HD TV regardless of what my kids are doing.
Since you ask?
It would be "nice" to live in a world where no person felt compelled to prostitute themselves - and maybe no-one felt they needed mood-altering substances.
We don't live in such a world. We live in one where prostitution, drugs and gambling are a reality and where attempts to obliterate them via legislation have actually increased the harm that arises from them.
You want common sense? Me too. But to me common sense is realising that certain ways of dealing with things are counterproductive (as decades of experience should tell us) and that we should be seeking other ways of dealing with them.
Of course there is a role for using the law to *control* these things. But if they are simply outlawed, criminals prosper and the vulnerable - and often the rest of society - suffer as a result.
Sorry, but I really think you are missing the point. Imagine going to Tesco and being told "We're not carry Private Eye this week because they keep criticising us" - or "We're not selling the Daily Redtop today because they decided to run a full page advert for Lidl"
But why am I arguing with you? If you already read Neil Mitchell's post and you still stand by yours, there's little point in me or anyone trying to change your mind.
I agree with you about the wallmounting idiocy - never understood why people sometimes mount them so high up. But I'm reminded of what my mother said about our TV 'rather dominating' the living room. My answer is that the Big White Rectangle rather dominates the average cinema too!
Maybe you would feel happier if we called it the 'TV room' - that's what it's for!
Have you noticed how Survivors, The Walking Dead, 28 Days Later etc could all do with some radio hams? Survivors was particularly funny with people getting lost - I know GPS drifts but I'm sure it would be usable for a few years.
Presence of a paired bluetooth device could be used as a second factor. I use (the excellent) Blue Proximity on my personal (Ubuntu) laptop, with the sensitivity turned right down - if my phone is not next to my laptop, it locks - when I put it back, it unlocks.
I'm sure it would be easy to use this as a second factor by setting it up to accept a short password when the paired device is present. A longer password should be available for device-free log-in in case you lose your phone on a screen-break.
Why do the ISPs seem to have such clout? There are big organisations who should be supporting net neutrality (I'm thinking of all those providing video). And a huge groundswell of consumers who - even if they don't know it - want net neutrality. But the ISPs seem to hold some kind of sway over the legislators that is out of all proportion to their financial clout and their popular support. Is it just that governments need them to be on side so they can spy on us?
That would be cunningly...
... but cunninger could be a noun derived from a verb (like employer vs. employ) and therefore 'a cunninger' might be one who is practised in cunning.
It's because ...
... people who would be any use as politicians are doing something else, and pretty much anyone who actually wants to be a politician should be prevented from being one.
It's easy to increase the power output of a 500cc Fiat - just press the throttle. It's easy to overdrive a laser pointer to paper-burning intensity - just burn out the regulator. It's easy for an X-ray machine to give overdoses - just increase the exposure length.
Your premise is incorrect, but your argument is also a non-sequitur, so even if it weren't your conclusion would still be unfounded.
StumbleUpon is great but ...
... it only becomes great after you have used it a lot. Whenever I recommend it to people I always try to prepare for their initial disappointment - after you have established a network of people whose likes and dislikes coincide with yours it is absolutely ace.
not lost ...
... they're on a train somewhere
New sport ...
... Rhino hunter hunting. And Tiger hunters. It should be perfectly acceptable to have the heads of these chaps mounted on plaques above one's fireplace.
Everyone gets 10,000 per year to keep them off the breadline. Everyone pays tax at, say, 30p on every single pound they earn beyond that. Tax departments streamlined by 90%, benefits departments reduced to dealing with a tiny minority of cases such as severe disability. No poverty trap because every hour you work makes you richer. If only ...
... I think you are on the wrong website. Radical opinions are welcome here, but idiotic Daily Mail type posturing, where you think 'I can testify that...' counts for anything whatsoever, is probably not going to cut the mustard. I would be interested to know which UK cities you consider to be 'run by liberals' - it's unlikely we'll give it much credence but it might be good for a laugh.
Salman Rushdie ...
... was on Open Book (R4) this week. One of the things he said was that we were too timid as a society, because we tried too hard not to give offence. This is problematic, he said, because increasingly large and vocal groups define themselves by what offends them.
AC above put it very clearly by saying that everyone has the right to be offended, but no-one has the right to not be offended. Existing laws are available to deal with specific cases like these. Creating new laws, however well-meaning, to protect people from being offended, are going to disproportionately benefit those who like to be offended by nearly everything: we risk handing our "freedom of speech" - or what little of it we have - over to puritanical minorities.
Ok now we need...
... Michael Moore - or Louis Theroux - or both - to really get to the bottom of this. If these people are going to get off scott free, then at least let's have a full scale media persecution.
If my kids school ever does this to my kids I will be down there with a truck bomb. Oh wait - I could actually get into more trouble just for saying that than these teachers got for their extended pervathon.
Not sure if they've fixed it yet but on the US version of PS3 Home (a sort-of built in Second Life) censorship used to convert 'hello' to '****o'. And of course '****** takeaway' - half a billion people can't even name their nationality without Sony USA worrying that they really meant to say 'Native American'. Unbelievable. And of course you could still tell people to invoke a well known unix filesystem check. VVankers.
It seems teh Interwebs is now officially too easy to use, domain registration included. What sort of noob registers an .org domain without checking what the taken domains of the same name look like? What sort of organisation delegates the registration to such a noob? It's amazing.
On a related note, has everyone seen the 'idiot-test' that's doing the rounds, claiming that this 'weekend-filled' October has a calendrical pattern seen only once every 823 years?
Doesn't work that way....
... TC freespace is encrypted. If you mount the non-hidden volume and write to it, you will indeed run the risk of overwriting a hidden volume. If you want to write to it, you mount it with the hidden volume protected - which of course means entering passwords for both inner and outer volumes.
So if you are forced to give up the outer volume password, noone can prove - except by cryptanalysis - that there is a hidden volume. They could destroy that hidden volume though, by mounting the outer one with the outer password you've given them and filling the disk up.
I always check my scales...
... water weighs 1g/ml. What is amazing is that, in a competition environment, no one thought to check these as a matter of course.
If I WERE a grammar Nazi ...
... I'd point out that the use of [sic] simply means that the source material is quoted exactly and not paraphrased by the author. It is not usually taken to indicate a judgement by the author on the quality of the original prose: it's just intended to stop people piping up "You mean WERE" or "You split your infinitive".
Of course, I agree with you that it is acceptable to occasionally split infinitives and, if I was asked I'd also be relaxed about people not using subjunctive forms. But I do find it ironic that in an attempt to avoid comments about the finer points of style in a quoted section, the author has attracted a comment about the way they've quoted it!
I hope that everyone who attacks wikileaks because of Assange ...
... also boycotts music by Wagner, poetry by Larkin . . . etc. etc. The guy may or may not be a douche - and whether he is may or may not be interesting in its own right. But it has nothing to do with whether wikileaks is useful or not.
How about ...
... an answering message that plays the rising three tone signal for 'number unobtainable' and then says 'please stay on the line' before transferring the call to the ringer unit? Humans will be momentarily confused, but stay on the line, but the autodiallers will probably disconnect immediately, hopefully marking the number out-of-service and not ever calling back.
No context ...
... no meaning. For instance, when compared to the previous generation, it is much more likely that someone in this age group knows that they have a terminal condition - or one, such as alzheimers, that could ruin their children's lives. Compared to the previous generation, they didn't have the bizarrely life-affirming experience of surviving the war. Or maybe, as suggested by Joe K, they don't fear going to hell - just living through it.
On a related note...
... I was in a cafe once where a woman was breastfeeding. I overheard some people tutting and muttering, and shortly afterwards they called over a waitress. They loudly whispered their complaint and the waitress said "I am sure the manager will be able to assist". The manager came out and sympathetically listened to their wibble - I was just about to add my $0.02 when he signalled to the waitress - who whipped away their half-eaten meals - and asked them to leave: 'I'm afraid I don't allow offensive behaviour in my cafe, please don't come back'. The rest of us cheered!
- IT bloke publishes comprehensive maps of CALL CENTRE menu HELL
- Analysis Who is the mystery sixth member of LulzSec?
- Nine-year-old Opportunity Mars rover sets NASA distance record
- Prankster 'Superhero' takes on robot traffic warden AND WINS
- Comment Congress: It's not the Glass that's scary - It's the GOOGLE