I'm guessing he never sued the Simpsons on the advice of his lawyers, I think he'd find it hard to overcome the defense that the Simpsons is clearly satire.
100 posts • joined 3 Mar 2009
I'm guessing he never sued the Simpsons on the advice of his lawyers, I think he'd find it hard to overcome the defense that the Simpsons is clearly satire.
They want Ashley Madison and Established Men offline but no mention of Cougar Life?
Must have a thing for the older ladies.
I'm not interested unless they get at least three Stephen Hawkings involved.
In just three years time it'll only be once in the last hundred years.
No matter which way you slice it a significant proportion of the world's largest publically traded companies operate fossil fuel industries. So if scientists were so easily bought by the lure of grant money you would think business like Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP Billiton, et al. could afford to buy a few.
I've said it once on the Reg forums before but it bears repeating; The transition from abject poverty to middle class appears horrific to those already past it and who never had to live through it.
It's drastic but you could cancel the card in tgis circumstance.
Instead they will have to either lease the copper network from Telstra or buy it outright and maintain it themselves, both options will be more expensive than laying and maintaining Fibre in the long run.
"How can anyone — certainly, how can Senator Ludlam — stand in the Senate today and anticipate what the needs of ASIO will be in relation to warrant based computer access next year, or in 10 years time, or for however long this legislation exists?"
So the reasoning is at some point in the future ASIO may needs powers it doesn't have now, and because we can't anticipate what those powers might be we must grant it a specific power that it currently doesn't need now. Brandis should just cut to the chase and take his nonsense to the end game which is that any legal constraint on ASIO may one day prevent it from stopping someone somewhere do bad stuff, so let's remove all constraints now.
I don't think Brandis and Co are genuinely evil, but the only other explanation is that they are genuinely naive to think there is no good reason to not give security agencies powers they don't need.
"Cambridge boffins have discovered that thin films of silver nanoparticles can increase optical storage density and create multi-coloured holograms.
The effect was first noted way back in fourth century Roman times (circa 290-325 AD)..."
Yes I believe it was 301AD when the roman philosopher Boffinus Maximus famously stated:
"optica repono densitate et argento nanoparticles augeri partum varietate multi holograms"
Some might suggest it is the internet generally that is the hang out of fools.
The private networks should totally be allowed to build FTTP any where they want except where NBN Co has already or plans to (I can't imagine they would want to spend on their own networks in those areas anyway). They will be competing with NBN Co in those areas where NBN only provides FTTN or and they may be providing a better service which might make it hard for NBN Co and retailers on NBN Co's network to compete on service quality. But just because the new government has directed NBN Co to deploy a second-rate patchwork network to 70% of customers doesn't mean those customers should be prevented from getting something better from another provider, should one be willing to spend on the infrastructure required.
Of course if the whole NBN was uniformly FTTP this wouldn't be an issue.
Seems to me that that the Oprah Special is exactly what's needed to persuade the ponderous mass of the "sheeple" that this is something that matters. It doesn't matter if, like you, some inquiring types had done the research themselves and could list a sting of obscure names going back to 1971. It is not until now with the far ranging and ongoing releases by Snowden that the issue has made it into the minds of Joe Public in a way that might actually affect real change.
Really you're just saying 'I worked it out already because I'm smart and if you didn't then you're dumb'. Well that's nice bully for you but what have you done with that knowledge, what could you have done with it, to change things. Nothing, small groups and individuals no matter how smart no matter how obvious it was to them had the means or the power to change it. Getting the "Sheeple" on side by making it an Oprah Special is really whats needed to see anything change.
I think the point is that they are not being asked to pay like everyone else ie the major labels who by all reports are being offered or have secured much more reasonable terms. Instead they are being asked to pay differently ie. More for less. than everyone else. If the majors and the indies were offered the same terms one way or the other then this particular complaint would go away.
A human or humans on Mars with sufficient infrastructure can survive an apocalypse on earth that current robots can't. That's one thing humans can do on Mars that robots can't. They can also test the techniques and technologies required for human survival on Mars in a way that robots can't so that's two things. Oh and you're right about the PR, that's kind of the argument of the report.
A slightly more subtle and ironic method might be to apply for a patent for a method of conferring intellectual property rights over concepts, ideas, methods and processes, and their specific or non specific technical implementations. Once that's granted, as it most surely will be, you can then sue the USPTO out of existence for infringing your shiney new patent.
Every article so far has mentioned how bad weather prevented the boat getting into position. Is there any mention if the bad weather was in effect at the site at the time of splash down, if so they can have 10 bonus points for the increased difficulty of landing in conditions that overcame what I assume would be a reasonably capable ocean going vessel.
A killer picture with the tag line:
You're doing it right
@skelband The human right implication was made by mraak see the original post "Freedom of speech goes both ways here" suggesting that eich was "...actively campaigning against their human rights." Thereby implying that marriage is a human right.
I think you got confused who was replying to you and who was replying to mraak.
How is having the state recognize your relationship with another as a legally binding contract a human right?
He donated in support of keeping a narrow definition of marriage. It does not make him homophobic. It does not constitute "...actively campaigning against their human rights. "
In my country there is a prominent federal politician who is openly lesbien, but she has doesn't support the introduction of marriage equality laws. I going to assume that she's not a homophobe either.
Personal opinion disclaimer: I think marriage is not what many people beleive it is. It is state recognition of a relationship as a legal contract between two people in a consensual relationship. I think if you are going to recognize male/female relationships this way that should be extended to m/m and f/f relationships too, he'll while we're at it if people want polygamist marriages let them m/m/m, f/f/m/m any combination you like. Because I also beleive that you don't need state recognition to be committed in your relationship with another and people both sides should step back and realise that they can already have the bit that matters, the relationship, and that the bit they are fighting over is a trivial aside.
The idea that Australians need to be protected from terrorists is ridiculous, and that we can be protected from terrorists by surrendering our last shreds of privacy even more so. I suspect more australians have been killed in australia by dropbears than terrorists in the last decade, and those critters don't even exist. If they really want to save lives, australian or otherwise they should take all the funding for intelligence agencies and funnel it into eradicating bees. They'd save many more lives per dollar spent.
It seems to me that the government is answering to the people, introduction of new laws curtailing mass surveillance is clearly a response to people's concern. The real question should be "When the intelligence agencies no longer answer to the government, is this still a democracy?"
Soviet russia essentially justified massacres with atheism.
Marxist ideologies espouse the elimination of religion to be replaced with universal atheism. To this end 1200 Russian orthodox priests where executed in the newly formed Soviet Union between 1922 and 1926. I'd say that counts as a massacre justified by atheism.
I'm an atheist and I believe that atheism intellectually more defensible than believing in sky fairies. But that doesn't mean atheists can't be extremists, or that atheism can't be part of an argument for militancy and fascism.
- eHealth is pure spin because most hospitals are very close to exchanges
The hospital can have two latex clad exchanges inserted in its examination room and wiggled about and it still won't be able to deliver eHealth to patients on 12 meg connections or even 25 for that matter, because it's the patients connection that will always be the limit on the practicality of eHealth services.
Some say it is a quantum computer, and some say it's not. D-wave won't let any one look inside the box to say for sure, probably for good reason.
"It be not only NSA who be bombarded..."
The voice in my head that I read with turned into a pirate from that line on. Thouroughly entertaining.
Dwayne Dibley is most definately not a nerd. He would be a dork and therefore not part of this conversation.
'Chucklefucks', what a delightful turn of phrase! May I use it?
I see you 1950s radio and raise you the sliding bolt, proundly implementing "slide to unlock" functionality for many civilisations for at least the last 3000 years of human history.
Exactly how much prior art is needed do you think?
Is anyone thinking clearly about the implications of this?
What an absolutely delightful turn of phrase, you don't mind if I use it do you?
Nonsense, there is plenty of fossil evidence of what life was like 500 million yeas ago, and that's because there is plenty of rock at the planets surface that is 500 million years old. In fact there are rocks in Australia that are older than 3 billion years. The surface of earth is not 100% recycled in any given time frame, so if there ever was a previous "advanced civilisation" it would have left an indelible mark somewhere.
The folks at Google et al. are not dumb so if its true then they know the ITU isn't/can't/doesn't want to take over the world. In which case what exactly is it the ITU can/does want to do that theose lobying against it really don't want to happen?
I assume that whatever the real reason for their anti-ITU fervor is it won't win them the hearts and minds of joe public the way accusations of taking over the internet and destroying freedom does.
I have the exact same concern with that sentence.
What they should be comparing is the spending of those who admit to a mix of licensed and unlicensed content vs the spending of those who only ever obtain licensed content. Putting the focus on the very small fraction at the absolute end of the freetard scale doesn't show there its a myth at all, its just lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Are they sure this number is right? Obviously it could be but it seems rather close in astronomical terms, and if it does get this close surely it will have ablated all it has to ablate long before reaching perihelion?
My Bad. Should open my damn eyes.
So the video is not CGI but its not realtime is it? After all the CME seems to cover a sizable proportion of the suns diameter in a second or less which would put it at relativistic speeds. Anyone find reference to how speeded up the video is?
"Sold out to Google - way to screw all your loyal customers,"
This guy like so many others seems to misunderstand the relationship between a business and its customers. Customer loyalty is not something the customer needs to be rewarded for, rather it is the businesses reward for providing a service/product that its customers are satisfied with.
He is also forgetting that the purpose of business to to make money, and I suspect that like most people if Google came knocking at his door with an undisclosed sum that in all likely hood is more money than he would otherwise see in a lifetime then he would take it and customers be damned loyal or otherwise. I know I would.
"The purpose of a mobile phone is to talk to someone. On the phone."
I know a number of people who make this assertion, but they and you are making the mistake of thinking that these devices are called mobile phones because thats what they are. The name mobile phone is just an historical quirk of the way they were developed, and often talking to someone is now the least part of what a mobile phone is used for, to the point where it is not unreasonable to do away with the talk to people function altogether as evidenced by 3g connected tablets which are really just large form factor mobile phones without the talky bit.
I can asure you I am not alone in saying that the $500 worth of call credit that comes on my plan goes largely untouched each month but I always use at least %50 of the 2gb of data thats included. Maybe you can't think of anything you would want to do with a "mobile phone" other than talk to someone, that doesn't mean you know something the rest of us don't, it just shows a distinct lack of imagination.
It can't be mining asteroids, there is no evidence of any minerals in the asteroid belt that:
a) are of any use.
b) can't already be mined on earth for a miniscule fraction of the cost of mining from an asteroid.
c) couldn't be synthesised already on earth for a fraction of the cost of mining from an asteroid
Maybe its orbital solar power stations? given the current state of spaceflight tech thats got to be more practical than mining asteroids that are millions of kilometers away.
til Malcolm turnbull and the coalition are pointing at this and saying "See the NBN FTTH network is obsolete before its been built."?
"I have only come accross 2 people that said the NBN is a great thing (out of possibly 30-35 people I've talked to about this)."
Its usually unconcious but we tend to be surrounded by and interact with people who share similar beleifs to us. One example of that is your 2 out of 35 . Another is ther vast majority of people that I work with and socialise with who are very much in favour of the NBN.
Both of those examples are entirely anecdotal and therefore worth squat by way of denying/supporting the findings of this poll.
Where did it come from? Was it just the sum total of 30,000 years background exposure or was there some natural source local to where the seeds were found?
Malcolm Turnbull: "i said "a MASSIVE new government-owned broadband monopoly.” Singapore by comparison to Australia is very small so theirs is therefore a VERY SMALL new government-owned broadband Monopoly."
See he's not wrong after all.
And another thing, singapore is not our closest neighbour. It is close but Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and East Timor are all closer.
Is there an easy rule of thumb to gravity at the surface of these planets. ie. assuming the same density if the mass is 4.5 times earths is acceleration due to gravity at the surface = to 4.5 x 9.8 m/s/s?
Actually I mostly agree with you.
1) Absolutely there are limits to growth. You eventually run out of people in poverty who you can pay to do crap jobs. Then the cheap shit stops being cheap. It becomes expensive, and nobody wants expensive shit. I'm not sure it’s what you meant, but when you say:
"This transition to higher living standards through outsourced labor is running into … limits."
you are suggesting it’s the outsourced labor that’s the problem. I suggest it’s the higher living standards period that is running into sustainability limits. It’s our already high living standards not their improving living standard that’s the main cause of that. It’s not fixed by telling the world’s poor "You cannot work your way toward having what we have." It’s fixed by us accepting decreases to our living standards
Despite limits to growth the outsourcing of crap jobs to places with cheap labor is the most effective (only) way that vast numbers of people around the world can be raised out of poverty.
2) Yes you need more than just pouring money into a place to permanantly increase standards of living. China’s stable communist government that genuinely seems focused on the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens (to the exclusion of concern for the individual which is reflected in their disregard for human rights) has allowed china to ride the gravy train to middle class in a way that no other nation could have.
But even if you create the required economic and governance environment in places like the Philippines and Thailand through UN diplomacy and IMF carrots and sticks you still then need to pay them to do something and that thing is going to be stuff that you can’t pay people in developed economies to do cheaply. i.e. cheap labor making cheap shit.
It’s still the process of global capitalism finding the cheapest place to get something done that in the end will grow the economies and the living standard of the worlds developing economies.
Already Foxconn is looking abroad and building manufacturing plants in Brazil citing increased labour costs as the reason for building outside China. The conditions for workers in chinese manufacturing may seem unconscienable by western standards, but if it weren't for western demand for cheap shit, and chinas ability and willingness to provide cheap labour then there would be hundreds of millions of chinese still subsistance farming in an agrarian economy instead of, as they are now and have been for the last 50 years, moving into the middle classes and creating their own demand for cheap shit. As China continues to fill up with money and its per capita income continues to increase over the next half century more and more chinese will elevated from poverty to middle class and inexorably China's economy will follow western economies and manufacturing will move to parts of the globe with cheaper labour and China's economy will become more sevice oriented.
This is the joy of global capitalism. It is the most effective way to raise living standards around the globe, and its our demand that shit be cheap that determines where the focus of those living standard increases are directed. The rub is that the transitional steps between poverty and middle class often appear very unpleasent to those who never had to go through it.
Giddy with joy as I enetered the shuttle thinking I had finally defeated SHODAN and escaped i was not emotionally or mentally prepared for this turn of events my response at the time was to pull the plug on the PC and declare:
"I still beat you SHODAN!"
Truely one of the greatest games I have ever played in so many ways.
"I am all for being optimistic, but how can Newt possibly think that the U.S. could ever be able to even get to the moon in 8-years..."
Manned moon landings was an election promise in 1960 only 2 years after the creation of NASA itself, and 9 years later it happened. Given the advances in technology and the amount of economic growth in the half century since, it could be accomplished in much less time and be significantly cheaper in terms of % of national GDP were they to seriously try again. The only thing really missing is the political will to do so.