"How many relationships did these two tits ruin I wonder? "
I see what you did there!
1497 posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
"How many relationships did these two tits ruin I wonder? "
I see what you did there!
"Nicola Sturgeon said: 'It is entirely right that Scotland should have its own distinctive and recognisable Internet domain, in particular one that will resonate internationally, helping to promote Scottish business and culture throughout the world.'"
As an American and an objective observer, does he actually believe that, or does he have some sort of financial interest in appearing to be an idiot?
Once they go down the drain, I don't really care.
"Brin and Page are worried about their future liquidity"
I'll be glad to help! Because I would *love* to see these two turned into liquid.
Being an inveterate gamer, I like to compare critic reviews with user reviews on both Metacritic and Steam. While not the most severe that I have ever seen, the difference between the critics' opinions and the buyers' opinions for Evolve tends to the extreme.
"Or he has some pervy fantasies"
Or maybe he has access to information that you don't...
"US plots to KILL hackers – with bureaucracy!"
That's very humane. Now if it were up to *me*...
"HSBC has no record of [Falciani] ever escalating any concerns to his line management, or using the whistleblowing hotline that was in place at the time of the [data] theft,"
There was no need to report his concerns to management. He needed to go right to the appropriate legal authorities.
One of the few things the ex-Communist Bloc countries did right, and that we need to do too, was to execute people for large-scale financial crime.
"Blyk – a service which gave you free calls when your mates listened to advertisements..."
Oh the depths of human depravity!
"...failed in 2009."
Yet the majesty of the human spirit ultimately triumphs!
"we’ve got an aeroplane this weekend"
How I would love to be able to say this myself...
"The number of food producers going bust has increased dramatically as supermarkets squeeze producers in the quest for greater profit, according to accountancy firm Moore Stephens*. 'The supermarkets are going through the bloodiest price war in nearly two decades and are using food producers as the cannon fodder,' said Duncan Swift, a partner at the firm. It’s easy to see the battle as one of price, something described as a race to the bottom as supermarkets cut, undercut and cut once more."
I have something of a philosophico-semantical objection to the italicized passage because, according to the situation as described here, the supermarkets don't seem to be striving for "greater profits", they seem to be cutting prices *and* profits as much as the goal of "staying in business" will permit. That's what makes it a "race to the bottom" isn't it? It's not as though they are *shifting* the burden of lower sales prices to the producers as it is sharing the pain of lower revenue to the greatest degree with those producers.
*Note please that the statement from Moore Stephens is not a direct quote; it seems to be the story-writer's characterization.
Good post. Most people seem to equate "not guilty" with 'innocent".
"'The internet is not what it seems,' Forbes reports Dratel as saying. 'The internet permits, and thrives on, to some extent, deception and misdirection.'"
So much so, in fact, that you'd think that it'd been designed by defense lawyers.
"Durak" means "fool" (noun, as in "a fool and his money") in Russian. So that's appropriate and conforms to all truth-in-advertising laws.
If "written proof" will do, they'll give you all the "written proof" you could ever want, all day long. Yes they will!
Noscript already has many of the larger parasites whitelisted. You might want to look at Noscript's Options->Whitelist tab and see who's already there courtesy of the devs (and, no doubt, large payments to those devs from the entities on the default list.)
"Amazon, Google, etc. have really quite modest adverts and provide a means of income for the content generators in the world."
False. Those ads provide a means of income for content aggregators and for pirates; the income provided will pay for a box of crayons and some looseleaf paper - not a lot of content, in other words, and what can be financed by such income is usually rather basic if not actually primitive.
The future seems to be like YouTube: an Endless Ocean Of Dilettantes And Amateurs.
I don't understand why, having demanded money to take down the pictures, he's not been charged with extortion.
"Don't forget, some people thought it was amazing that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, married to a Chinese woman, had learned Mandarin and held a Q&A with Chinese students."
Don't forget that some commenters on this forum opined that Zuckerberg's mandarin was scarcely intelligible.
What we do here is no excuse for you. And that's even making the obviously incorrect assumption that you have any idea about anything in the US, because you don't. But you just keep getting your understanding of the US from people who have political reasons to distort the facts, so that when things like this happen, you can be easily distracted.
I disagree with your post for a reason but it's for a semi-technical reason: I do not subscribe to the same definition of "rationality" as you think you do - but actually don't.
To me, "rationality" is a consonance of means and ends. Means that can achieve the desired ends are rational; means that can't are irrational. In fact you recognize this in your post as you are fully aware that your health bureaucrats are able to formulate ends and devise means to achieve them (in this case, the end is saving money and the means are financial inducements to kill elderly patients).
That you or I do not approve of the ends being achieved does not mean that they are acting irrationally - as long as the means that they have chosen to achieve their ends can be reasonably be expected to achieve those ends then their behavior is "rational".
And that does seem to be the case.
My idea is that people are almost always rational and if someone's behavior seems "irrational" (in the technical sense in which I have explained) then the most likely explanation is that you don't understand or approve of the ends that they are trying to achieve. (Obviously human stupidity needs to be accounted for but again, "stupidity" is "stupidity" and different from "irrationality". People do make mistakes, after all. Sometimes it seems that "making mistakes" is mostly what they. But that's not news, now is it?)
You people are funny. First you pay hospitals to kill elderly patients by giving them bounties for putting those patients on the Liverpool Care Pathway. Now you have decided that patients who desire any degree of privacy deserve to get cancer.
"NoScript" is exactly what came to mind as I was reading the article. If it doesn't support it then I can't even consider it.
Interesting photograph. I see that they took a random derelict right off of skid row and had him give the presentation. Why they couldn't be bothered to shave and dress him in nice clothes is a bit of a mystery, though. I guess they would have had to give him *two* bottles of Thunderbird in order to have him consent to that kind of treatment, instead of the one bottle that their corporate budget allowed.
I accidentally downvoted you; I meant to give you an upvote. (It's *very* early in the morning here.) Sorry.
"But Love in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction is a gruesome, grotesque noir story of a dismal future, where half of the world is considered disposable by the other half."
So pretty much the same as today. That *is* pretty dismal.
"I've never heard of this sort of nonsense before"
I have. If memory serves, an early version of 12 Tone Systems' Cakewalk music/audio production software would, after finishing an installation, delete C:\Temp and all files in it - which was not a problem except if there was no C:\Temp folder, in which case it would delete C:\. And that *was* a problem...
"Greenpeace and other lobbyists complained the job "concentrates too much influence in one person when that person does not adhere to our anti-science agenda.'”
"Theory of Finance scribe and Nobel laureate Eugene Fama's answer – that economic theory insists it is impossible to predict such things – tends not to convince all that many."
Makes you wonder how he got that Nobel. Kinda like Obama got it, I guess...
"Yet no one judges all Catholics, or Christians based on these nasty people.'
I'm sorry but you're full of shit. There are any number of atheists (including on this site) that will take any behavior by or belief of any Christian or group of Christians and use it to smear all Christians.
It takes effort not to see that.
There are people who might care about Anonymous' opinions; I am not one of them.
"He detailed the dirt-cheap Red Star Linux system which contained a modified version of the Firefox browser dubbed Naenara and an Apple-like Mail client renamed Carrier Pigeon."
"Carrier Pigeon"? Shouldn't that be "Stool Pigeon"?
"the allegation Ulbricht solicited murders is based not only on extensive records of communications between him and others (recovered from his laptop), but also transaction records between DPR and Silk Road user 'redandwhite'."
There are many circumstances in which a person would be wise to plea-bargain; but with the charges this guy is facing, even a plea-bargain is likely to get him decades in prison. (Although there have been people who have accepted 25 year, non-parole-eligible sentences for the sake of avoiding even worse outcomes at trial.)
"There are very many complaints and issues I have encountered when dealing with the creative types that are my user-base, but never have they complained that one storage system sounds better than another storage system."
I have been told - I never encountered it myself, possibly because I never worked with world-famous producers and engineers - but I have been told that one of the more important pieces of esoteric knowledge in the possession of such people was that, after booting the computer you needed to wait ten minutes because it sounded better after the RAM had a chance to warm up.
And I vaguely recall something about green magic markers on cds...
"Even if the attacks did originate from North Korea, no one is discussing whether it was the work of a bunch of script kiddies or a state-sponsored group."
You think that the whole fucking world is just like your home town, don't you? Let me give you the clue that you so badly lack: North Korea is not like anywhere that you or anyone else on this site lives.
How could you not know this?
"Monopolies live in their own world where they expect customers to pay whatever they want to charge. Seems that they have forgot about how a customer sees it."
I have seen the opinion that that's not really classical monopoly behavior, which would consist of keeping prices low in order to discourage competitors from entering the market, so making it a source of low but steady and reliable profits for the incumbent. Duopoly has different dynamics. As would captive markets in which the availability or dearth of substitutes is key. And then there is the inherent threat of government regulation, along with barriers to entry and imperfect competition. But these are all different things.
The situation might be somewhat more complex than you realize.
Any actions meriting a fine this large needs to have prison sentences to go along with it. Both for the responsible executives (for obvious reasons) and the board of directors (for, at the very least, negligence - a directorship is not or rather should not be free money to the the cronies of the managing execs and major stockholders.)
One could not think of a better way to ridicule Google Glass than that photo.
That's all good as far as it goes but how much would it have cost to encrypt the passwords, for example, as opposed to storing them (and all the other information) in plaintext?
"Seriously, you need to look at your EULA to see what happened to that concept. "
Do you actually believe that all the clauses of a EULA (or any other agreement, such as an employment contract) are legally-enforceable simply by virtue of the end-user having agreed to it? If you do, you are profoundly mistaken.
"Even after such major breaches, the company was still storing critical information in plain text and without proper encryption, and Sony management made a business decision not to invest in proper security mechanisms, despite repeated warnings from IT staff, the suit claims."
The situation is probably best summed up by the words "criminally-culpable negligence"...
If the upshot of the global warming panic-mongering turns out to be the rehabilitation of nuclear power, it will have been a very good thing overall.
"Noble stand but unless it directly benefits Wall St. financially (actually does but they won't see it) its not going to get passed."
They see it perfectly well. You have maybe missed the various articles on this site about cloud service providers complaining that the Snowden leaks have damaged their business? Or that various countries are passing laws that their citizens' data must be stored in country and not abroad?
Did you miss that stuff?
And considering that this is Ron Wyden, a Google hireling, be sure that his essay and remarks were cleared with Google before being made public. Irrespective of what you think about what he is saying, the *reason* he is saying it, is that it will benefit Google.
"Bets here in the next six months poor Ron Wyden is going to find himself in some type of an embarrassing scandal?"
I will take any odds that nothing of the sort will happen. Unless you want to give me some real life examples...
"I'd watch it for the gay elf orgy. Unless my friend at work was lying."
If I were you, I wouldn't be quite so sure that he's actually your "friend".
"The LoTR trilogy was very good cinema"
I rate these the most tedious movies I've ever seen. And I loved the books - well, I loved them when I first read them long long ago, in a universe... Oops, sorry. Whether I'd like the books if I were to read them now is a good question. And, although I liked the book very much, it would never even occur to me to see "The Hobbit" or any of its constituent parts.
Look at my original question: "I wonder how sure they are that the sediments could only have been formed by liquid water and not some other liquid."
Now let's look at your post. First you state "there are plenty of geochemical signatures that - to our current knowledge at least - can only occur with Mars having had a thicker atmosphere." And then - just a few words later - you state "This means that we no longer need to prove that it occurred; there is so much evidence that it did we can simply take it for granted.
So in the span of a few short words you've managed to go from the correct idea that scientific theories are provisional and subject to change (in consequence of the acquisition of better data, different interpretations of the data or of the pre-existing theories on which the theory under discussion is built, or simply in consequence of someone having newer and maybe better ideas), to the completely erroneous idea that science has arrived at something which you seem to think is very, very close to an incontrovertible truth.
That you think that we have arrived at a state where we are able to reveal the ultimate truth in this matter is laughable; I would be very surprised if any scientist actually involved in these matters would take the same view.
What you seem to be unaware of, is that a theory built on a series of high-probability statements becomes a lower-probability theory the more higher-probability statements it includes. Here: calculate the probability of a theory being correct if it is based on FIVE statements each with a 90% probability of being correct. Hint: the probability of five statements, each having a 90% probability of being true, all being true is a somewhat underwhelming 59%.
By the way, that's one of the reasons why astrophysicists, astrobiologists, xenobiologists, and their ilk, want more scientific space missions: because the certitude that you have is something that they don't have. You seem to think that "our current knowledge" has enabled us to arrive at The Truth.
To sum up: your vacuous post and pompous disquisition on how science operates (in your limited understanding) really don't answer the question of "how sure they are that the sediments could only have been formed by liquid water and not some other liquid" Some essentially empty babble about "geochemical signatures" and "evidence stacking up" is empty handwaving. And although the earth might indeed be "one hell of a lab" it is not "one hell of a lab" for absolutely whatever needs to be found out - and it might not all that effective for finding out the natural history of Mars. It's possible that extrapolating from the earth to Mars might actually mislead us. This is what needs to be actually be discovered, not merely surmised.
Furthermore, asking how sure scientists really are of their theories is not - as you seem to think - some form of lese majesty against science. What is actually is, is a very valid question.
"which other liquid would that be then, pray tell?"
You didn't understand my question. It was a "question". I didn't ask it because I know the answer. I asked it because I would like to know the answer.
I did however understand your answer, which clearly told me that you don't actually know enough to answer my question - or, that you think that question is so naive as to be worth ridicule.
Here's my question again: How do they know that the liquid that created the features of Mars under discussion was actually water and not some other liquid (such as found on other planets and moons)?
Please, do one of the following two things: Either show me the evidence that proves beyond doubt that it was water and could only have been water, and shows that no other capable liquid could occur on Mars other than water (and since you deemed my question worthy of ridicule, I am expecting a very simple and obvious answer) - or, failing that, you can, alternatively, admit that you actually don't know enough to answer my question and that your smug superciliousness is due to your lack of understanding and knowledge.
"Sedimentary rocks at Mount Sharp" that accompanies the article is an exceptionally beautiful picture. (Not sure if it has been "colorized" or if that is what the human eye would see if it were there in real life, though.)
I wonder how sure they are that the sediments could only have been formed by liquid water and not some other liquid.
" In fact the number of unemployed people in the US is more than triple the entire population of Norway. "
A good example of the misuse of statistics. As you yourself noted, the population of the US is 61.5 times greater than the population of Norway. Your comparison proves nothing. You can compare total population to total population - as you did earlier - or you can compare percent of unemployed to percent of unemployed, but a comparison of two completely different and unrelated metrics, total unemployed and total population, is simply disingenuous and misleading if not outright dishonest.
"pictures of house numbers were obviously being used to improve google maps..."
Google can give me a house number if they want but they *never* get a right answer from me. I will *always* sabotage the answer, either by leaving out or, conversely, inserting a digit, or interchanging 1's and 7's, 0's and 8's, 9's and 4's, etc. The important thing is that the number they get is as different as possible from the actual number in the image. For example, changing 7038 to 7036 is not really worthwhile, but changing it to 138 is very satisfying indeed.