"The guy deserves neither girlfriend nor cat."
Right on both counts.
"Or even access to bacon."
Now that's harsh.
1623 posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
"The guy deserves neither girlfriend nor cat."
Right on both counts.
"Or even access to bacon."
Now that's harsh.
"West Yorkshire Police reveal their worst summer nuisance calls"
And they're doing this in order to... encourage competition?
"wearing a helmet while riding a bike. There are some nuts that want to make it compulsory and frankly I'm having a hard time understanding their effort to protect me. If they think there is a risk of injury then for God's sake they should start wearing a helmet and just leave me alone."
That's fine if, and only if, you have already paid insurance premiums such that it will be your money and only your money that will be spent on both immediate and long-tern rehabilitative medical care if you suffer a head injury whilst riding without a helmet.
Since that's unlikely to be the case, and since, thanks to the miracle of compulsory medical insurance, many, many other people's money will be spent cleaning up the mess of a head injury incurred while riding without a helmet, your decision to wear or not wear a helmet becomes a matter of public concern.
Once any type of insurance, public or private, enters the picture, and the money being spent on the injury is not 100% your own, things get... complicated. Note that this has nothing to do with your opinion on. or support of, or desire or lack of desire to be covered by. any sort of compulsory or non-compulsory medical insurance or public health insurance whatsoever. Other people have to pay the costs, and are therefore concerned about how and - especially - why their money is being spent.
"In France 'hunters' are allowed to chase and kill virtually anything they please, on any property."
If, as you imply, hunters actually are allowed to chase and kill drone operators - and also, hopefully, Google Street View Car drivers, then they've hit on an ideal measure for insuring at least some bit of people's personal privacy!
"Nothing like following a 'recipe' [whether for food or to build something] on an American website and then, half-way through getting to the bit that says: 'Next, you'll need a quart of Old Hoosegaw's Pickle Rubbings and an ounce of Stanton's Hard Sides Cleaner –available from any general store...' to reinforce your suspicion that most Merkins don't actually know the rest of the world exists."
Yuppers. Because if the website had recipes without regionally-specific brands and ingredients, then everyone in the world could use it since - as you correctly assume - everyone in the world speaks English and can use the website in the first place.
Or maybe not. Actually, now that I think about it, I begin to suspect that you don't know that, in fact, most of the world does not speak English and that your idea of "knowing the rest of the world exists" means knowing that English is spoken throughout the English-speaking world, and there is no world worth knowing anywhere else.
It would be good if you were actually better than the people you think you're better than.
"His admirable concern for his daughters' well-being is negated a bit by his setting the example that it's OK to let off a shotgun at something that annoys you"
So your position is that his concern for his daughters is admirable but that fact that he's willing to actually do something about it is negative? Apparently his concern should extend to wringing his hands and, possibly, shouting invective at the drone? Or would that also be too much for your liking?
And he was not 'letting off a shotgun at something" - he was taking a shot at something very specific.
"and the fact he also seemingly struts around his garden, wearing a gun...which he threatens people with"
The story doesn't say that. The story *does* say that the four drone operators came over to his house to confront him. It is very possible that he got his pistol on his way out to meet these creeps. As for "threatening people" I consider these four guys coming over to confront him - unaccompanied by police - to be, in itself, somewhat threatening too. I'd have done exactly the same thing were I in his place.
"Actually the fact that he makes the point of brand identifying the gun and its calibre, rather than just referring to 'my handgun' or 'my pistol' kind of confirms he's a dick, in my eyes."
People who have more than one of a thing often refer to them specifically as opposed to generically. For example, I might refer to "my ES-345" or "my Blueshawk" or "my Strat" as opposed to "a guitar". That someone should refer with specificity to a particular item from amongst a group of similar items that they possess, be it cars, computers, cameras, golf clubs, musical instruments, software plug-ins, or firearms, is entirely unremarkable. To you, a gun is a gun and somehow you assume that makes you morally superior to him because he differentiates between them - because you don't approve of them ion the first place. And the only reason you have made this into some sort of matter of judgement is because you are predisposed to condemning him and have no qualms about manufacturing spurious "reasons" out of thin air.
Personally, I don't "sort of agree"; I admire people like that.
If he gets anything more than a very nominal fine, I will consider it a miscarriage of justice. And I think there should be a fine because discharging a firearm is always risky and people ought to have some consideration of consequences in mind before firing. But if he thinks that destroying the drone is worth paying the fine then I have no problem with his actions.
"That's a snapshot figure of those in US jails within the Homeland. No Internet in jail."
Very perspicacious. But not, however, correct. So maybe not so very perspicacious.
Much like the use of telephones in prisons, the use of the internet under supervision, for various purposes, is approved in 49 U.S. correctional systems and five Canadian provinces. Each of the reporting U.S. systems, except Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska and Nevada, use computers to employ inmate educational programs, as do all five reporting provinces in Canada. There are 36 reporting U.S. systems to handle inmate health issues via telemedicine. However much like the use of mobile phones in prison, internet access without supervision, via a smartphone, is banned for all inmates.
I see you've already gotten a downvote. Not surprising. There are some stupid people who will brook no comments, humorous or not, even hinting that the internet might not be the single best invention ever devised by humanity, or that some of its effects might be less than wonderful in any respect.
"We can send a spaceship to the edge of the solar system and beyond, but we can't avoid the copyright lawyers."
So your idea is that, if Carl Sagan picks some music to be put on a disk and sent into deep space, then the rightsholders to that music somehow forfeit their rights here on earth? How does that work, exactly?
"It was Margaret Thatcher who invented 'American exceptionalism'"
There are fundamentalist Christians who believe that the world is 6000 years old. And there are some people on this forum who seem to believe that the world is about 40 years old.
The theory of the exceptionalism of the U.S. can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840. The exact term "American exceptionalism" has been in use since at least the 1920s and saw more common use after Soviet leader Joseph Stalin allegedly chastised members of the Jay Lovestone-led faction of the American Communist Party for their belief that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history 'thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions'. However, this story has been challenged because the expression "American exceptionalism" was already used by Brouder & Zack in Daily Worker (N.Y.) on the 29th of January 1929, before Lovestone's visit to Moscow. In addition, Fred Shapiro, editor of The Yale Book of Quotations, has noted that "exceptionalism" was used to refer to the United States and its self-image during the Civil War by The Times on August 20, 1861.
The idea of "American exceptionalism" is actually useful when counterposed to the highly self-absorbed European-Marxist idea that Europe somehow embodies a universally-applicable template of historical development.
"The White House stated that no amount of public pressure – even from a petition backed by 167,954 signatures – will sway it from moving forward with its prosecution of Snowden. This is how democracy works - no matter how many people want something that the people in power don't want - SCREW YOU!"
The number of people in the United States of voting age was 236,000,000 in 2012.
The 167,954 people who signed this "epetition"* represents 0.0007% of the voting age population - even assuming that all of the signatories are American citizens, which is probably not the case.
If 167,954 signatures on an "epetition" was the benchmark for implementing a government policy, there is absolutely no policy that couldn't garner that many signatures. It's a really low standard. I'd bet that there are more people who believe that the earth is flat than there are people who signed this "epetition".
I am surprised that this petition got so few signatures. I'm kind of surprised that the Obama administration spent any time answering it. I guess that's what PR hacks are for. This is not really earning their pay, though.
*Regrettably, there seems to be no way to write "epetition" so as to convey the contempt that it deserves.
"The Home Office has sent unsolicited emails to the public, warning [...] the public to be wary of emails that appear to come from the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office."
This degree of candor from a government department is quite a rarity. This would seem to mark a new and commendable level of government transparency.
John McAfee thinks that the Ashley Madison hack might "destabilize society" but will it become as unstable as... John McAfee?
Is that even possible?
"The sheer depth of issues covered by Google's lobbying team [...] including many aspects of cybersecurity, online advertising, anything that will help Google hasten the destruction of the last feeble and rapidly-dying vestiges of online privacy,..."
Well it's kind of rare to come across someone who doesn't believe that a person should be tried by a jury of his peers.
What kind of system would you prefer?
"A tax on the poorer people usually."
The problem with calling it a "tax" is that no one is obligated to play.
"our politicians have a pretty bad habit of using social media irresponsibly - a few are forced to quit over it; see the very-appropriately-named Anthony Wiener who is not only a dick himself but whose idea of courting a woman is to send her pictures of his dick..."
I don't know who decided on that picture but it was an inspired choice.
"The risk/reward analysis must be pretty complex. "
I wouldn't think so. The typical user represents an increment of income very close to, but not quite, zero. Any time and effort whatsoever that is spent on supporting the customer means that the customer instantly (see what I did there?) becomes, not an almost-negligible amount of net income, but a net expenditure.
Of course, that's probably only true for those companies that actually turn a profit. Few of them seem to do so. In that case, each customer would be assumed to represent a loss, pure and simple.
Interestingly, as I believe that Instagram, like all of these shitty social networks, runs in the red, it could well be the case that the more popular a user is, the greater an expense he represents.
Although the saying was coined long before the internet came into existence, there is no place where it is truer: "Sure we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume".
"All citizens and businesses shall pay taxes as a percentage of gross income.The sole remaining deduction will be for Mortgage Interest."
There's someone with a mortgage payment!
"The hack may lead to a significant revenue increase. Expect and stampede to pay the fee to remove profiles."
Those would be the *really* stupid people, who think that purging their profiles will somehow remove them from the data that was already exfiltrated into the hands of the hackers.
But their money's good. And as we have all noted before, "idiots" are a vast and lucrative market.
"What an absolute fucking mess. It's a shame people don't look at security beforehand, when they're holding this kind of sensitive data.'
I've looked at "internet security". Here's what I concluded: It doesn't exist.
"Not until AdBlock is available in some easy to maintain form (HOSTS file doesn't count)."
I am waiting for a NoScrpt workalike, myself. NoScript is the one reason and the only reason that I use FireFox.
Good for Jeff Cohen if he slimmed down! Childhood obesity is a big problem here in the USA, which has been severely exacerbated by the potentially-lethal nutritional advice - hopefully but not necessarily superseded by sane and not-potentially-lethal health advice - that having kids on a high-carbohydrate diet is good.
And I *have* heard of The Goonies - but only in the context of it being on a list of one of ten most disturbing children's movies ever made. I'd actually like to see it for exactly that reason.
"Marine boffins spot 'undisturbed, well preserved' GHOST SHIP on deep sea floor"
I was hoping to see a picture of one of the ghosts and all I got was a picture of a fat kid on his way to childhood diabetes.
"I don't quite get how a thread I've replied in can get marked as spam, whilst 'I'm a 21 years old, so I desire 2bang you' gets an A-OK."
You know what you need, but Google knows what you want.
Google is everywhere, all the time! Google sees all, reads all, knows all!
"I would agree with you. The reason for keeping this clapped out thing working was the owner was an elderly relative and would not pay to replace the machine. I do wonder if it would have been a good idea for old XP machines being thrown away to be bought up and install linux for the older users. They dont care about powerhouses, they want something that works at low cost."
I think that that's actually a good idea.
"I managed to install Ubuntu 12 on a 1GHz celeron, 512mb ram old XP machine (when it became end of life) which took some time for the installer but was definitely usable"
That it is possible to extend the life of an obsolete computer that was underpowered when it was bought a decade ago is really not terribly important for very many people.
Considering Neil Young's age and the fact that human hearing acuity deteriorates with age, and considering that it is more than likely that he has abused his ears in the course of playing amplified music for decades, is it really likely that he is hearing anything that other people would hear?
The only explanation that occurs to me, is that he is comparing the music as he remembers it sounding in the recording studio as he played it, and is then comparing his recollection of the sound with what he hears through the medium of his highly-imperfect-due-to-deterioration (both through natural loss of acuity and through abuse) hearing.
"The problem is that once you've heard it once, you hear it every time..."
I'm familiar with the difference between the music being played in the room by the musicians as it was being recorded, and the audio files captured from the mikes. The only way to hear the original music the way the musicians heard it, is to be in the room with them when they are recording it. Once that music has been played in the room, that sound is gone forever and can't be recaptured.
The differences at between the original waveform as captured by the recorders (which is not identical to the sound that was in the room). and 192kbs and higher compression are really slight. At a certain point, be it a 224kbs or 320kbs, or flac or ape or whatever else, there's no reason for compression to impede anyone's enjoyment of the recording.
Unless perhaps if someone is an audiophile and has been informed of the technical characteristics of the audio files before hearing them...
But we're listening to music, right? Not to the test tones that we needed to use in order to calibrate the electronics of 24-track Otaris, Studers, and Ampexes.
It's possible to hear a difference when comparing the sound from the microphone in the studio, captured to a 32-bit float wave, when compared to a 192kbs mp3 of that same file - and in my experience it the first capture that determines the quality of the sound as 16 and 24 bit waves really do sound very noticeably different.
I've seen listening tests where no single auditor always preferred the sound of either bit depth for every instrument - they all preferred a mixture of 16 and 24 bits.
And there's the effect of dithering algorithms when you dumb down your stereo master from 24 bit or 32 bit floats to 16 bit audio to make a cd... But after that, once you are taking your audio from the two-track master, effort is required to make any derived files sound more than very marginally inferior.
It shouldn't be an issue.
At 192kbs, the difference between an mp3 and cd audio is *very* minor. At 320kbs the difference verges on being undetectable - at least to my ears. So I really don't understand what Neil Young is either hearing, or thinks that he is hearing.
"Billions are spent by Android manufacturers marketing their loss-makers. Samsung has just recorded its seventh quarterly loss in a row, despite producing the year's best flagship. HTC lost 24p on every pound of revenue. Sony's smartphone division is dragging down the rest of the group, losing £1bn last year. But fear not, Sony's new Mobile chief has vowed to keep on losing money"
Well I guess that maybe I don't understand business economics as well as I thought I did.
"If he is receiving leniency because of mental illness then the public has a right to know the details. Not if he was a minor while the crime was committed."
Oh I doubt that. Minors are tried in closed courts. This kid was apparently being tried as an adult in an open court. His picture was in the paper - which I am not sure would have occurred if he was considered a minor for the purposes of this trial. And it makes no sense whatsoever to refuse to disclose the details of the kid's mental illness after the subject was brought up in open court - especially if that mental illness was the basis for the leniency shown by the judge.
"I smell a plea bargain."
In the US, a plea bargain would be announced as such. But it is *possible* that he plead guilty and threw himself on the mercy of the court.
If he is receiving leniency because of mental illness then the public has a right to know the details.If British law does not demand that the details be disclosed then, as far as I am concerned, that is a glaring defect in the law. If mental illness is being used as a defense then all the details belong in the public domain. I am pretty certain that resorting to such a defense in the US would require that the defendant forfeit any right to confidentiality of their medical history.
"I would have thought the illegal child images on top of everything else should have resulted in a custodial sentence in some sort of institution at least.";
That depend on the specifics. This little shit was 16 years old when he was collared and the images found. If the images were of girls who were also 16, then that's one thing. If he for example were 23 and the girls in the pictures were 6 years old, then that's something else again. But because he's a minor himself, and if we don't know the age of the girls in the images, there is no basis to form an opinion - other than the fact that the judge didn't think any of this crimes were very serious.
"'I said at the outset that these crimes were and are serious and indeed that is so,' said Judge Jeffrey Pegden in summing up the case."
... but for some reason the judge doesn't feel like imposing a penalty reflecting that seriousness.
So really not too serious at all.
"People like that need help and understanding, not jail time."
What you need to understand is that psychopathy / sociopathy can not be cured.
"First kill all the lawyers"
It was said by Jack Cade's follower Dick The Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI; it was in the midst of a harangue in which Cade lays out his, errr... social-political program.
Consider the following: "'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers' You know the line, from Shakespeare's 'Henry VI, Part 2.' Like a mantra, it is mindlessly quoted by pundits, stenciled on T-shirts and generally marshaled as condemnation of the legal profession from the very pen of the Bard of Avon. Not only is this a gross calumny, it is a symptom of gross cultural illiteracy.[...] Dick the Butcher shouts enthusiastically, 'The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.' There it is - the phrase so frequently used to damn the legal profession, shouted by a butcher in response to an ex-convict and confidence man who was in London to foment anarchy, burn the city and loot the commonwealth. But that's not all. Cade shows us what his world would be like without lawyers. Immediately after Dick the Butcher mouths his famous line, a clerk enters. Someone accuses the clerk of being able to write and read. Cade orders, 'Hang him with his pen and inkhorn about his neck.' Yes, second thing let's do, let's kill anyone who can write or read." (http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-14/local/me-1614_1_jack-cade.)
I don't know if this was an idea ever espoused by the real Jack Cade. It might not have been, as Shakespeare's account of Cade and the events surrounding him seem to be quite ahistorical.
Shakespeare wrote the line but that's not nearly enough reason to think that he espoused the idea himself. He put those words in Cade's mouth to show the audience the barbarity and ignorance of Cade and his followers.
I have also seen the quote attributed to Leon Trotsky, who might have been well-enough read to know it from a translation of Shakespeare. I do not know if Trotsky ever said it or not, but it would have been both appropriate and ironic if he had.
I must have missed something because the idea that there are people who feel the need to drink blood seems to me to be unsurprising. Whether their "vampirism" is based on a Richard-Trent-like psychosis, or just on the circumstance that they have picked up some half-witted occult ideas, is to a certain extent irrelevant.
Now, if this Dr D J Williams said that drinking blood gave them supernatural powers, or enabled the vampires to live forever, then that's one thing - but that's not the attitude he seems to have taken.
Who could doubt that there are people - mentally ill, suggestible, whatever - who somehow have gotten the idea that drinking blood is beneficial to them? That this guy has studied them (after succeeding in what must have been the rather more difficult task of *finding* them in the first place) could prove interesting.
If we recall, for example, Heaven's Gate, Marshall Applewhite, and the Hale-Bopp comet, where otherwise well-educated people actually killed themselves at the behest of a former mental patient preaching a doctrine than can only be called "moronic" - then what is the difficulty in thinking that there are also people who have "reasons" to drink blood?
We see people who entertain and act on the most bizarre beliefs every fucking day. And it's worthy of study, don't you think?
Personally, I kinda like terrapins.
If a guy had horns growing out of his head, he'd probably attempt to disguise it with exactly the kind of hairstyle that we see in the photograph. And he'd wear shoes to hide his hooves. And he'd keep his tail in his pants so you'd never see that either.
Makes you wonder...
"...Timex makes Versace watches..."
"Slice Intelligence claims Apple Watch sales have fallen from 1.3 million units shipped on launch day to fewer than 2,500 watches sold on July 1. [. . . ] As recently as June 1, Apple was selling more than 40,000 Watches per day, we're told. That figure plummeted over the month of June as the end of the month saw just 4,947 units sold on the day, it is claimed."
I wonder if sales figures comprise a first wave of early adopters and if those figures were then temporarily buoyed up by a wave of sales to people who bought them as graduation gifts for stupid kids. And now perhaps both waves have been exhausted.
"It's a fair point that some of our wobbly dining delicacies do require a bit of dedication, but if we restricted ourselves solely to grub suitable for preparation by the truly incapacitated, we'd be done after a swift bacon sarnie..."
And the problem with that would be...?
"However, it is not true the service is illegal in France. This is up in the air at courts."
Although I am not very familiar with legal systems based on the Napoleonic Code, I'd think that this statement is probably wrong. Uber *is* illegal in France; the courts might eventually decide that it must be recognized as legal, but until they do so, it is, in fact, illegal. Laws are valid until actually annulled and the existence of a lawsuit seeking to annul the law does not invalidate the law and does not prevent its enforcement (unless the courts issue an injunction preventing enforcement).
The Japanese tanuki is also known for the same thing. I don't know whose is bigger. I also don't know how much folklore concerns lemurs but there's quite a bit concerning tanuki. Apparently statues of tanuki are very popular in Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_raccoon_dog - and of course look at the pictures.
"Except Google don't have any sort of noble rationale behind why they are doing something so utterly stupid and offensive."
Look, no one hates Google as much as I do, but they didn't do this intentionally. And when they say "We’re appalled and genuinely sorry that this happened" I actually believe them. And I don't believe much of what they say, I promise you.
"How do you define an algorithm to describe a chair, something to sit on. Is that algorithm good enough to correctly distinguish a dining table chair, a stool, sofa, a park bench?"
That's a good question. And what's particularly interesting is that scientists do not even know how the human mind is able to distinguish the incredible variety of things that are subsumed under the heading "chairs".
Because intelligence of any sort, artificial or otherwise, is hard.
"English people often understand each other when the speak a foreign language like French - yet the native speakers find them incomprehensible."
There's a very simple reason for this: people will learn the vocabulary of a foreign language but not its grammar and syntax. So someone might speak, as in your example, French words with English sentence constructions, or, for a native French speaker, English words with French sentence structures.
It's interesting to note that, once you have a very basic familiarity with a given language, you can begin to understand the reasons for some of the mistakes that native speakers of that language make when learning your own native language.
"Thus the increase in literacy is going to come about as a result of the existence of Facebook..."
No true statement could possibly be more depressing.
First was a farewell to Mr Spock, and now for the bomber...