As good as it gets
Just think of Twitter. Then take away reason and accountability.
427 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Just think of Twitter. Then take away reason and accountability.
We hated him because he depicted what we all understood as a teenaged living hell as though it were some kind of utopia. It was a betrayal.
Underestimating an opponent by likening him to a child is an egregious tactical error.
I'm reminded of a quote from Family Guy: "Even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies."
Whether MS is doing bad things or not is irrelevant. And I'd argue piracy feeds the monopoly--not opposes it.
I use Just for Men (apart from jet black, they also sell mouse brown). I can't imagine what might possess me to visit their web site. It's not like combing goop through your hair requires a lot of study.
I've never tried to sniff my own storage. I doubt I'm flexible enough.
If you take it as a given that the bunk beds are poorly built and not maintained, then limiting the upper bunks to the smallest students is probably a simple safety concern.
They are still a developing nation. There are only so many resources to go around.
We're going to have to burst Huawei's belief in the Platonic ideal. Perhaps make them take freshman Humanities again, and require a passing grade this time.
The problem with the Philosopher King is that such a person doesn't exist in real life.
We distribute power rather than concentrate it not because it's more efficient, but because it's safer.
Crap. I'll have to pay up.
My money was on the break room microwave.
I suppose we could evolve beyond the need for cars (with "evolve" and "beyond" being suitably elastic in meaning--for example, we could go extinct) before we ever achieve confidence enough in automation to allow a car to do the driving for us.
But I still think it's an especially bold statement.
The condom delivery is impractical in the summer. Outdoor mailboxes can get very hot, and latex degrades when heated (the reason you're not supposed to keep them in your wallet).
I suppose if you live in an apartment building with indoor mailboxes AND you care, for some reason, whether a retailer you see in person knows that YOU know what a wang is used for....
It keeps saying that, over and over, in my dreams: "I will kill you...I will kill you..."
That's what they were trying to prove: Sex is fun.
It's just one of those pieces of science that proves something we've always kind of thought was obvious, but had yet to be tested under laboratory conditions.
All that really happened here is that a particular government agency with very specific powers was called upon to do something, and that something didn't actually match what they have the power to do.
Like calling the DMV because your car caught on fire. Bless the DMV for trying to help, but really, you need the fire department.
If this were a plot element in a movie, it would be hilarious. I'm picturing Seth Green pushing a button, and all the cars within 10 city blocks unlock, and all their doors fly open.
Then a parade of Mini Coopers filled with gold zoom by on the sidewalks or something while the New Yorkers get out of their cars and start swearing at each other.
It's not really ads for products themselves that bug people (well, me).
It's the fact that web ad companies are different from TV or radio advertisers. They spy on us. And then web advertisers become indignant when they are criticized for spying. Like WE'RE robbing THEM somehow.
Sorry, no. You have to have morals to claim the moral high ground.
That depends on how good-looking the person who's asking is.
Actually, the solar system is a zoo. All the "stars" we see are windows just outside the orbit of Pluto, made to seem as though they're farther away.
We're not a popular attraction.
The dimming we see is a kindergarten field trip, as the bored children file past the window and look at the animals just sitting on one planet and not doing anything.
As I see it, there are two primary risk categories.
1) Jailbroken phones, the owners of which install stuff from everywhere.
2) Non-jailbroken phones, the owners of which only install from the Play store.
Naturally, all vulnerabilities affect category #1. But I'm frequently unclear on whether category #2 people should shit their pants with worry on a daily basis until their phone is patched, or whether they should just ignore such reports as irrelevant.
The problem isn't ads qua ads. It's ads served from third party servers. The whole concept is stupid and dangerous.
If you want to run ads, for goodness sake, feel free. But use your own machines to host them, consume your own bandwidth to serve them, and accept responsibility for their contents.
I'm not sure I even understand how this complaint is materially different from the vast tonnage of similar complaints against ICANN over the years.
Unless this independent review actually has the power to compel some kind of action, I don't see how anything would come of this particular complaint, all of a sudden.
A tablet is neither an apt replacement for my phone (which is more portable), nor for a device with a keyboard, like my laptop (which is much easier to do actual work on).
I don't have kids, so a portable entertainment device with no swallowable parts isn't a requirement.
I toyed with the idea of getting a tablet that was waterproof, for the pool or beach, but I couldn't really justify the expense (and let's face it--it was largely a thought experiment about ways to avoid exercise anyway).
So it always comes down to: do I need a THIRD computing device, and why?
Because we are, in a real sense, permanent outsiders even in best-case scenarios.
Think of it this way: Ex-pats will often seek other ex-pats even if they absolutely adore their host country. It's not wrong of them to want to do this from time to time. Also, native-born people shouldn't feel offended or rejected.
I hear 7 predictions of doom before breakfast. We have to come up with some kind of disincentive for people to go off half-cocked, spewing nonsense.
If the doom-predictor hasn't vowed to scoop out his own eyes with a melon-baller if 2040 comes and goes with enough electricity to power the world's computers, then he doesn't believe it himself, and doesn't deserve an article about his claims.
The findings are consistent with my modified Terry Pratchett theory that we all live on the back of a giant turtle, swimming through the aether, on his way to mate (the "big bang").
The aether has mass, but being ubiquitous, it is impossible to detect because we have no concept of its absence.
Also: "There's no dark matter, really. Matter of fact it's all dark."
Ursula K LeGuin once said something like the point of science fiction is to create a distancing effect so you can explore aspects of the human condition without preconceptions.
I feel like the first several Treks at least gave it the old college try. I never felt it with Enterprise nor with the reboot. It could just be me. But it makes me sad.
My solution is to simply repeat the practice that is already in-place on television, and apply it to the web. Which is to say: The content creator eats the price of bandwidth for the ads, and uses his own equipment to broadcast them on the same station (i.e.: domain) that the primary content comes from.
It's absolutely no different than the system they prefer anyway, and would largely circumvent ad blockers.
If they applied the system they're using on the web to television, they'd be taking over your TV, switching to an all-ad station, make you watch it for a period of time, and then switching back to the channel you originally tuned to. Pretending surprise that people might resist such a scheme is completely disingenuous. I'm sure you would find ad-blocking devices becoming available for your television that would prevent the hijack altogether or block ad-only channels' frequencies.
If memory serves, Facebook periodically has links to articles about emergency room hijinks where just such mistakes had been made.
The argument in favor of Linus's preferred commenting format is that when the code changes, then the comments sometimes must be changed, too.
Comments with asterisks on the right are unnecessarily cumbersome to modify.
Taking a step back, we could conclude that developers that DO use asterisks on the right are not concerned about modifying code over time.
Taking another step back, we might conclude that developers who are not concerned about modifying code over time are foolish, or arrogant.
Taking another step back, we might decide that developers who work on kernel code could not be foolish, and therefore such comments are a display of arrogance.
You can't deal with arrogant people politely. You have to tear them a new one, or they won't listen.
It's a lot of presumptions. And any one of the steps could be false if you took some time to evaluate them. But you don't actually take the steps individually. You flash from the beginning to the end in blind fury.
Yeah. His "index finger."
Q: Can I move my Windows-deployed .NET sites to Linux?
A: Not really. You'd effectively have to rewrite the whole thing.
Q: Could I move Linux-deployed .NET sites to Windows?
I guess Clara didn't show it her leaf, then.
Carbon on the valves. Anyone? Anyone? Crap, I'm old.
If my understanding is correct, the electric current helps prevent "seizing," which is also what happens when you add moisture to a low-fat chocolate (for example, dipping strawberries into dark chocolate).
So, what do I Google to buy the household appliance that will do this for fondue?
The first thing that happens to me when I read an article like this is a sudden wash of profound relief that it wasn't me.
I suppose there's probably a complex named for it.
What it means to me is that whether foreigners have high-grade encryption or not is uninteresting to them. It's a "theoretical" capability that may be true; it may not be true; it doesn't really matter.
It's their own citizens they want to listen in on. It's their own citizens they're trying to exert control over.
So you're saying I can't give someone a Michigan Mop Job unless we're in Michigan? That give me sad feelings.
You mean: Romani ite domum. And I want you to write it 1000 times.
Forget the bacon. It also seems to include a Bacardi emoji.
And I can prove it!
We know that corporations are legally people. We also know that it is appropriate to use "it" to refer to a corporation.
Therefore, any legal document would use "it" whenever it doesn't mean to be gender specific.
And consequently, the "he" in the act can only be interpreted to mean men.
I seriously doubt the exchange was as abbreviated as they say.
I'm going to assume the salesman started talking, and wouldn't let the woman get a word in edgewise. After several minutes of mounting unease, the woman finally had to suspend any natural impulse toward politesse and slam the door.
Assuming the woman was NOT an Olympic athlete, and she was not able to retrieve a gun and point it at him in the second and a half it takes to tick a box, I'm going to further assume he spent some time screwing around on her stoop, at which point the woman, transitioning from irritated to terrified, finds a toy gun and tries to get him to leave her property.
Ah. A variation on the old "I saw an error message" riff.
"I saw an error on screen."
"What did it say?"
"I don't know."
One assumes that the reporter must exert a serious effort of will to invoke his powers of literacy. By the time the error appeared, his will was exhausted.
I feel like what I'm hearing is that they're re-inventing NFS (for some reason).
In college physics, we were required to calculate not simply the results of an experiment, but also the margin of error. This had to be included in each step of the primary calculations. This was referred to as "showing your work."
Surely small floating point differences are part of the computation of the margin of error? Don't they calculate that in real life, or do they just do that in school?
Ah. Smoker as in smoked sausage.
I thought at first they were inhaling the dog into their lungs, one cigarette at a time.
...because when the president does it, it's not illegal.
Science is always scary.
Nature is always safe.
Cross-breeding two crops via sexual reproduction is inherently safe. There is no reason to investigate the resulting cross.
Cross-breeding two crops any other way is inherently unsafe. There is no reason to investigate the resulting cross.
Gene editing is unsafe because the combination of those two words sounds scientific, and science is dangerous.
Anyone who disagrees is part of a political or financial conspiracy.