Dat the sound of da police!
(also, told you so.... Pilot Project).
580 posts • joined 12 May 2010
Dat the sound of da police!
(also, told you so.... Pilot Project).
No... he's a comic presenter.
"intended to rival Top Gear"
Hah. It won't merely rival it, it'll make Top Gear and the BBC eat it's dust. Clarkson is a good presenter, Evans is a knob.
This whole report flies in the face of my personal experience, so I too shall call shenanigans.
I suffer with a problem when it comes to basic arithmetic; it's a form of minor dyslexia associated with number itself. Simple problems can confuse me no end, and learning the "rules" of arithmetic has proven difficult throughout my life. My mother in law, a professor and tutor in mathematics demonstrated that I didn't have a problem with "maths" by giving me several simple tests which showed that when presented with a complex mathematical problem, I was able to solve it in a logical pattern. The MiL showed me evidence that many great mathematicians were able to solve problems through a process of creating the tools they needed, mentally, to cope with a deficit in arithmetic skills.
In addition to the mother in law, my wife is also a mathematician, and her brother and my sister in law are both maths teachers. I, on the other hand, am an IT professional with comprehensive programming experience, working at a relatively high level in the public sector. Guess who the family come to with their IT issues?
I solve mathematical problems using the techniques I've learnt from coding; my coding ability doesn't depend on my maths acquired from formal schooling in any way. If you need any particular mathematical skill in coding circles, its probably useful to understand a modicum of algebra and have a rough understanding of Boolean logic.
"Well you have to admit that women are rather rarely of the rapey sort. They can bloody well kill you just as good as men though."
That's an interesting take on things.
I think there's a distinction being made here between physical violent abuse and sexual abuse; I'm not sure how useful that is.
I'm willing to bet that if you include ALL abuse of children instead of just limiting it to sexual abuse, that the gender balance of perpetrators will move swiftly towards something more like 50/50.
Just a hunch though, and I'd be interested to see some figures.
" he urged the online industry to 'obliterate' such images."
Yep, because deleting the images means that the abuse isn't happening.
I play various online games with my niece. She is 21, I am 47. She'll batter me at DOTA, CS:GO and most other "twitch" games. I, on the other hand, will wipe the floor with her in any strategy game you care to mention. Her peer group are all males. she is a clan leader and runs her community with an iron hand. When people lose to her they never mention the fact that she's female, and when she beats them its because they are "noobs" (just like any male gamer would point out).
Why is this? Because the opposition don't KNOW she is female and her peer group accept her as an equal. She doesn't advertise the fact she is female and competes on a completely even keel as a result. She's a gamer in her own right, using her own skills, and is a model of equality as a result. She doesn't play the gender card when beaten or when winning and she's going to give as good as she gets if someone starts trash talking in TS. (I have occasionally heard people state that they believe she's a "nine year old boy" because of her voice, and she will correct them then, which often results in stunned silence).
If I were to ask her about this whole thing. she'd probably roll her eyes and say the following two things, which you may or may not "get".
Rule #16: There are NO girls on the internet. Also, on the internet no one knows you're a dog.
Whoever did so would be a fun guy.
Under "Zero Hour" contracts, an individual is considered as employed by the contract provider, but has no fixed hours of work. Employees under this contract have limited employment rights, often no corporate/employment benefits, and are paid on an hourly or daily basis. The employer is under no obligation to actually provide the employee with ANY paid hours or work, and often the employee is engaged exclusively meaning they can't seek work with another employer when no hours are offered.
So, in summary, be "employed" by a company with no guarantee of pay, hours of work, employed benefits, the right to claim any kind of income support and, often, not be permitted to seek work elsewhere without breaching the contract.
The DWP, by the way, considers this to be "gainful employment" and will/has insisted that those on JSA or DSA be moved into Zero Hours contracts when they are adjudged fit for work.
And we thought "work fare" was bad.
For some people, these are all the same thing.
The more power they have, the more likely they fail to see the distinction.
"Give me Liberty or give me death."
~Patrick Henry, 1775.
I'm with him.
"NASA had nothing to say about them for days after...  ...We now know that silence was caused by Dawn swinging around to Ceres' dark side"
Is that because radio silence prevents NASA from talking about things they've already discovered? Are NASA actually aboard the probe then? Can NASA only do one thing at a time?
...or is it that they just don't like saying "We don't have a clue what that is."?
No TFH needed, but I'll get my coat.
Better to be a warrior than a sheep.
...Produce one of these apps for all the GTAV hackers out there? Please? If I ask nicely?
"can we get back to the discussion about grammar, I'm finding its particularly fascinating."
I'm finding it particularly fascinating. FTFY!
...to point out the picture you've used for this article is a still taken from the dystopian sci-fi Children of Men and not an actual representation of immigrants today?
"the NSA has been collecting the details of commercial deals"
I'm so glad that the intelligence agencies, as they are intended to, are keeping us safe from the terrorpedos everyday....
That meme is such a successful disinformation technique.
Quick update: Changing the FPS setting in BMEngine.ini, along with disabling the motion blur setting, resolved *all* the issues I had with the game. It now runs slick and smooth at ~47fps.
and what a hell of a game it is!
"the PC version is capped at 30fps. (You can change it by editing config files, but it's illustrative of much if the developers are making this the default)."
yeah, that tallies with what I saw last night. I hate it when they nerf PC releases this way! There was an incident a while back where Microsoft were actually bribing a software house to dumb down a game on the PC so that the performance on the Xbone was comparable at release; can't remember what the game was though.... ah yeah, WatchDogs, that was it.
Thanks for the tip on unlocking the framerate!
Played this for about an hour last night and yes, its very engaging and slick. The combat does indeed feel smoother, the keyboard controls are instantly familiar from previous titles and the graphical fidelity is indeed of a very high standard. The opening scene is original (press Space to do what now??), amazing and horrifying all in one go and sets the tone for a darker Gotham than you might expect.
That said, even though I run on a fairly powerful gaming rig (AMD 8 core, watercooled, GTX Titan) that can churn out GTAV in full detail, I had some very noticeable stutter when driving the batmobile (oh god, yes!) which appeared to be related to the motion blur/depth of field setup; the usual criminals. So, off to the menu I went only to find that I had no option to decrease or remove those effects! I'll take a look at the config files tonight, but that's something of a shortfall in PC configuration settings and will make the game unplayable for a lot of players I suspect.
"that should be grinds thee'"
Forsooth and verily it doth grind most foul upon my person and my tooth, liken unto grit drawn from befoul'd oysters, but for thee and thine I can'st not speak.
...awww, but daaaaaaad....!
Dave probably would steal my shoes. Well, one of them, just to maximise the annoyance.
Again, you assume you know my politics, and assume I am a labour voter. You'd be wrong.
The fact of the matter is that the majority of the population chose NOT to vote. That still makes you wrong in saying that the majority voted FOR the conservative agenda.
""Pointless ad hominem attack....." Standard Boring Bernie response when he has no counter to offer."
ooh, look another ad hominem. Surprise!
"you must have missed the fact that the majority of the electorate in the recent UK elections are not included in your "our". "
I see you share Mr. Cameron's idea of "majority". You know, the one that's not.
Pointless ad hominem attack.
Let me know when you're properly awake...
""....Security Service suspect someone, imprison them, and then try to extract information from them with no interest in due process....." Fail! The Secret Service does not have the power to arrest or detain."
Take a look at the remit of the newly formed NCA then. Covers that "judicial gap" very nicely.
You're quite right about attempting to uncover just how many potential terrorist attacks have been prevented by the intelligence and law services, but what we can do is look at the attacks that have "got through". In many of those cases it has become apparent that the services were often aware of the potential terrorist activity before any incident took place, and yet did not act. We can, from these examples, infer that the services allow attacks to take place in pursuit of some higher, often unknown goal (perhaps as simple as finding "bigger fish", perhaps something more clandestine, who knows?).
So, we can compile a list of failures if not successes, and we can draw conclusions from that. It *may* be that these failures are in our scope of awareness due to the propensity of the media to highlight bad news and failure, and the tendency of the security services to not publicise success (though, there are some notable examples of that too, which places their claimed need to keep success secret in some doubt) would simply reinforce that illusion, but I doubt this is entirely the case.
If nothing else, we should be keenly aware of the cost of these operations; politically, socially, and economically, and in light of the publicised failures we should, and must, examine the cost/benefit ratio of those operations.
Simply put, we need evidence that the security operations are *worth* the cost, and right now it appears, from our point of view, that they are not and we are being asked to accept the fact of the threat on trust by a governmental system that has demonstrated, or is at least perceived, that it cannot be trusted.
"PI said that GCHQ is starting to see itself as “above the law”.'
"“There are no legal penalties for misuse of this information..."
And the governments response to these criticisms, the ISC findings and other commentary?
Good luck, PI, but I think you're scuppered right out of the gate.
Fair play, that was comedy gold Matt. :D
" quickly identify known criminals (including those that are wanted) before they can do more crimes" - MB
"What is meant by 'known crims'?" - Divided
Quite so. Back in the day, when I was still a young lad living in an enlightened country, we had a word for people before they'd committed a crime: innocent.
Not a word you hear much anymore.
Some may call me a paranoid conspiracist nutcase for suggesting that this is a pilot for a larger scheme (indeed, some have in the last hour or so), but consider the alternative explanation:
That the Powers That Be, believe that attendees of a major music festival are more likely to be criminals, untrustworthy or international terrorists than any other section of the population. It seems to them that its a good idea to surveil this very specific cross section of the community, for whatever reason, and to prevent them using cash in the cause of crime reduction.
Personally, I'm not sure which explanation is worse.
So, yes, theories, that's what science has. Not facts. A theory stands, by definition until and unless it is disproved. Each of those theories remains un-disproved. "Laws" are theories too, they can and are occasionally disproved and then science adjusts and continues to grow and learn.
"Where did the original something come from? Your answer is still a question, not answered."
A question that you didn't answer either. Your theorem states an answer that is disproven by a simple, logical question. This one. Tell me where God came from? Easy enough isn't it? And when you resort to "He is eternal" I shall ask "Why then cannot the universe be the same?". God relies on "something from nothing" just as much, if not more, than any "Big Bang" theory. Problem is we have *some* evidence of the big bang and none for the existence of god(s). That, I believe, puts science ahead in the race for truth.
"Virtual particles, you proved that by scientific method as well? Or is it still theorized?"
Yeah, here you go. I hope its not too difficult for you to grasp the science. I'd like you to compare its validity to the bible please: http://physics.about.com/od/physicsutoz/g/virtualparticles.htm
"Weather cycles? Random at best!"
Random? Where is your god in that then? I thought "random" couldn't happen and that was your disproof of evolution. So, random in weather, but not in genetics. Perhaps you ought to get your story straight and decide if your god is omnipotent or not.
Also, here is some reading on chaos mathematics and the nature of fractals. Again, I hope its not too hard: http://miqel.com/fractals_math_patterns/visual-math-natural-fractals.html
"Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms... really? Still theories, where is the reproducible science?"
You missed my point here. Platonic Idealism was a scientific theory predating any interpretation of Christianity by centuries. It has been overturned and discarded by science. Show me an element of religion that has been discarded or supplanted by new thinking in the same time scale.
"The Origin of Species was never pier reviewed..."
Not as we do so today, no, that's true. Can you show me the peer review for the bible please?
"standard set of responses, which all point to yet more theories, based on more theories etc. etc. [...] So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"
Someone doesn't understand the concept of scientific theory, or the scientific method do they? But, even pushing that fundamental lack of knowledge aside, I am forced to ask which bit of your creationist cobblers is factual beyond dispute, and thus superior?
"So where is the real scientific evidence, testable, reproducible evidence?"
Science has lots. Where is religions?
"Stop trying to disprove evidence with weak theories to suit your religion"
I do not practice a religion.
I have nothing to lose, you on the other hand stand to lose your faith and childlike assumptions about the universe. You stand to lose the comforting thumb you have stuck in your mouth.
Next troll please, this one is done.
Consider it done, Jake.
"The big bang cannot directly be reproduced or tested..."
Yes it can. Heard of the LHC?
"Creation - Something came from something"
Where did the original something come from? Turtles all the way down is it? This line leads to the conclusion that god is an atheist. After all, god clearly does not believe that god was created by anything else, such as a further superior being, but exists in and of itself as sentience. Therefore, god is an atheist. Your argument is just as ridiculous.
"Can any scientist demonstrate something coming from nothing?"
Virtual particles. Someone doesn't know aught of quantum physics either.
"Can any scientist demonstrate complexity coming from chaos by random forces without any intelligent input?"
How about weather cycles? the spots on a ladybird? Mandlebrot patterns. Chaos maths. Someone doesn't know much about pure mathematics, do they?
"Creation - Random mutation damages the genetic code reducing fitness and degrading a species over time"
Are you familiar with the concept of Platonic Idealism, or the World of Forms? This idea that there is a "perfect original" for all things predates the bible by some two thousand years, but that aside, even accepting the premise of this argument, why would god allow the degrade of his perfect design? To teach us some sort of lesson in humility? Or, if the degrade is part of the design and god is infallible, then the perfection he envisages has not yet been reached, indicating your statement regarding genetic evolution is wrong even by the standards your argument sets.
"Can any scientist demonstrate selection that removes enough genetic damage to cause a species to become more genetically fit than the preceding generations?"
I'll leave this one to Charles. Please read the Origin of Species. I think he demonstrates it rather well. If you find the language hard, there are *thousands* of books on the subject by *hundreds* of scientists.
"The second law of thermodynamics, things tend toward disorder unless energy is put into a system, simply states that left to its own things decay over time. "
You need to do some basic reading about entropy. This is *not* a good definition at all. Even if you can't be bothered with that, perhaps a refutation like the Poincare recurrence theorem might do. There are plenty of others. If entropy increases, order has been lost. If it decreases, order has emerged or been created. The point of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that entropy can’t decrease without increasing by at least as much in some connected object or area. In other words, it can’t decrease overall in a closed system. Please indicate where the bounds of gods closed system might lie.
"Whether you are currently a creationist or evolutionist I challenge you to become an evidence-based thinker. "
Done and done a myriad times, old chap. I think you could do with some schooling in the arguments you have championed here. Not a bad shot, but not up to scratch.
BM Orwell, Atheist, Scientist, Philosopher and Ex-Methodist minister.
Hello Mr. Troll.
The Bible is not evidence of anything other than people can write stories.
He's no MB, is he?
Superb response, needing more than a simple upvote. The US, and those that sing the "obey the law because you don't know better" song should remember how the US was formed in the first place; people defying an unjust law imposed on them by an unjust power.
They appear to have an objective of sorts: provoke the west (Rome, as they think of it) into a "final battle" at a specific location in Syria (can't remember the name of the place).
They want this to happen because, according to their prophetic scribblings, once they are defeated in that battle (yes, they know they can't win), then the end of the world will be heralded and what is left of "true islam" will inherit the earth and the remaining kufir will be destroyed.
ISIS entirely understand that they are outmatched, and that they will be utterly defeated by their enemies, but want to provoke that battle anyway. That's why they are carrying out atrocities, destroying world heritage sites, performing mass executions and putting the lot on social media. They *want* us to fight them.
This linked article is highly insightful and worth a read..
Nah, he's here. Posted in the EMC/HP thread within the last 30 minutes. Several posts on other threads over the last 10 days.
I think he knows which way the wind is blowing.
"Now more crims will escape punishment because authorities will not know about them until after they impose their evil"
You know, there's a word for people before they actually commit a crime: Innocent.
Please prove the fallacy.
" I've never heard of any innocent person being the slightest bit harmed by any use of it"
I'd like you to do a search for "Extraordinary Rendition". After that, please read about a place called Gauntanamo, with a specific eye on the nature of the interns, their legal rights and, most importantly, what they have been charged with. It is reasonable to assume that NSA data collection was responsible for a proportion of those activities.
You notice how quiet MB has been on this subject and related items lately?
Perhaps he's finally realised that his argument, of how everything that the Gov(s) have done is all good and legal and fair and honest, has all been "male bovine" all along?
We can but hope that enlightenment has dawned.
Because Anjem Choudray, as objectionable as I find him, has not broken the law. He is entitled to speak his mind and I am entitled to argue with him and criticise him. This is why we are not the state than Mr Choudray wants us to be; it's why we are better than that. The moment we surrender that freedom take steps closer to the totalitarianism that he, and thinkers like him, want us to have and we lose ourselves another tiny piece at a time.
Let him speak, we'll point and laugh.
if that's too complex for you, perhaps we should imprison Roy "Chubby" Brown, because he upsets lots and lots of people with his comedy?
Or what about our very own Matt Bryant? I mean, we can clearly see by the downvotes over the years that he is found highly objectionable by the masses and therefore should be silenced immediately!
Beware of "liberal censorship", wherein we take a sharp breath when someone says something "illiberal" and we respond with "you CAN'T say THAT!"
Yes, you can say that. Speak up so we can all hear you.
...shades of Oryx and Crake.
Quite so. Either way you cut this it's worth remembering that consensus != science; it's closer to faith.