2350 posts • joined 4 Jun 2010
I've not seen any ads on the internet since I reinstalled Firefox and forgot to download Adblocker...
Re: Lick my
Re: Also, £6M? Bollocks.
"If the Met genuinely think they've spunked £6M on this, someone needs to go over their accounting policies asking serious questions."
Oh yeah, the figure is inflated as all hell. No doubt on that.
"his rights and fears shouldn't be subjugated to the comfort of the state."
So if I'm afraid that people will beat me up in prison, I shouldn't have to go to prison?
"Well in this case, no charges have been filed, that is the problem, surely no extradition should be granted unless a charge has been filed."
That's not how the laws work.
"but I can't see how he can get an impartial trial now"
An impartial trial for what? You appear labouring under the mistaken idea that trials in most of the rest of the world involve a jury of peers (Hint: Sweden uses the Roman System) or that straight out Contempt of Court for bail jumping is likely to be judged by a jury, rather than settled by a Judge.
No jury will be involved in either matter.
But don't let that stop you debating points of law.
Re: He can't come out in a diplomatic bag
"Sure he can. That's a time tested method of smuggling someone out of a country. Admittedly it's usually a box not a bag, but it's been done and it is still covered as a document."
No it's not. It's a breach of the Vienna Convention to do so. Granted, breaking diplomatic seals on person-shaped boxes is still seen as naughty, but if the hunch was correct and the box contains a bunch of people, a pile of charlie and a box of SAMs, then it's the nation sending the bag that's disgraced.
Re: Er, timing?
"Hmmm - I have heard that "screwing the PoWs wive" still carries "hanged, drawn and quartered" in the UK. Any chance we could get Assange to do that?"
No crime in the UK carries a death sentence. Removal of such statutes is a requirement for EU membership.
Re: £6m ($10.3m) and counting.
"Yes, that all makes sense - except when you see the world from the pov of the interconnectedness of all things, at which point the way our Government and Opposition insult our Law, every day, day-after-day-after-day, and insult us, and lie to us and steal from us, and are actively trying to enslave us from within the near-future until the end of time, Assange becomes meaningless except for the hypocrisy of the wildly-disproportionate response by our police."
Do you honestly want our Courts and policing to be based around the 'interconnectedness of all things', or the premise that politicians lie so we should be able to ignore the Courts?
Just because the professional lying classes are unpleasant, it doesn't mean that we should let guests in our nation decide what Court decisions they want to abide by.
"I have no love for Mr. Assange. Regarding my commentary on the merit of spending large sums to keep watch on him my reasoning is two fold. Practically speaking I haven't been able to come up with a scenario where the current response is proportionate"
Surely that should have no bearing on justice? We shouldn't stop chasing someone just because it gets a bit pricey, do we? What kind of message does that send? Be a rich guy, wave your dick at the law and we'll sidle off and let you get away with it if it becomes a chore to come and get you.
Ok, cost does have a bearing, but it *shouldn't*. And I guess that if we have such a high profile fugitive and we know exactly where he is, it would be a dereliction of police duty to let him wander off. Just how much egg on their faces would the Met have then, especially if upon escape he notched up some further legal complaints.
"Maybe it's because of my lack of imagination, I grant you that."
The legal and court system has to be seen to work. It has to be seen to be effective. If the Courts can be laughed at, we're in a bad place as regards law and order. If high profile figures are seen to be getting away with whatever they like, then us plebs might start thinking we can just abscond when Courts make unfavourable decisions. Granted, the courts *are* laughed at by a section of society, but the vast mass of us have a perception that it works, and it is partly that perception that makes us obey the Courts and respect them. That's why Contempt is a serious matter. The Courts cannot be seen to be letting people ignore them. Without an effective Court system we are no longer a functioning society.
Perhaps more seriously, if being out on bail is seen as something frivolous and more people abscond, then it makes bail harder to get and more expensive for everyone else. That infringes on people's freedoms and is something that I would not want to see happening: If I am undergoing trial, I want to have the opportunity to walk free for the duration, until I am found guilty. So: People who flout bail need to pay severely for it, for all of our sakes.
"He should definitely have to answer for his alleged crimes, no question."
But not until after he's been punished for the crimes that he has committed: Bail jumping and contempt of court. For me, the alleged crimes in another nation which may or may not have occurred are of secondary importance, now. America's issues with him aren't even of any interest to me.
*If he has little chance of a fair trial, or there's a real possibility of him being spirited away outside of the eyes of the law.... We shouldn't ignore this.*
The Judge who authorised the extradition has considered it fully and its been settled in Court. More informed minds than ours have assessed the risk and decided it was negligible (and I concur: We're talking about Sweden here, not the Sudan). Asshatange fought the charges in Court, with expensive lawyers. He had a better crack at avoiding it than you or I would have had, enjoyed a comfortable bail agreement, and when decided he didn't like what our legal system decided (although he would have been the first to claim a victory for justice had it agreed with him), he bravely ran away. (And it's beside the point now, but he ran away not from jail... not even from trial... but from *questioning*).
"In any case I hope we can both agree he has an ego the size of a planet, is generally a disagreeable person, and we hate the waste of resources."
Certainly no disagreement from my quarters on that.
Re: Cost a government
"Simple answer, the Swedes should pay the cost.
I don't see how this is our problem."
You don't see how a fugitive jumping bail over a sex offence is a problem?
"The UK has spent Â£6 million preventing Assange from escaping because a Swedish prosecutor cannot be arsed to get onto an aeroplane to London?"
No, the UK has spent £6 because Assange is a fugitive bail jumper.
Re: Going nowhere
"Ecuador can't currently make him a diplomat"
More crucially and relevantly, they can't make him a diplomat because the UK is not required to accept every diplomat's credentials. Diplomats have to be accepted by a host nation. You can't just hand Mad Jack Killer of Thousands a diplomatic passport and send him off as an ambassador to a host nation who don't want him there.
Re: This Makes Me Want To Shout (In 72 Point!)
"So, the US aren't the secret powers behind the scenes?"
Probably not at this point. Contempt of Court is pretty serious. The UK authorities probably want to bang him up for that, and that probably trumps any efforts being made by the US.
"Well why don't the Swedes do their initial interview in London?"
Maybe because they're fed up with Assange thumbing his nose at their legal system.
"It doesn't smell of CIA involvement, oh deary me, no."
At this point, no it doesn't. What pressure do you think they are bringing to bear?
Re: £6m ($10.3m) and counting.
"It's almost as if there's something else going on behind the scenes....."
There doesn't need to be. The guy VERY publicly insulted our nation's legal system in a way which citizens or someone with less powerful buddies could never do. When you wave your dick in a Court's face, expect the court to want to make an example and get its pound of flesh.
Re: Cost a government
"It would be outrageous if there was crime that went unpunished"
It would indeed be outrageous if someone who has wiped his arse on the legal system of the nation he was a guest in was allowed to walk straight out if it and into a press conference.
"If I could cost a government $16,000 a day by sitting there, I might just do that for life just because. What about you?"
How about if it meant slumming on your mate's couch and refusing to leave and cost your friends a load of money? I wouldn't, because I'd be being a d!ck to my mates.
I also wouldn't, because that money would be better used elsewhere. It's not coming straight from the pockets of the police and government, it's resulting in those police not helping the population by doing their policing elsewhere, where it's needed.
Re: Australian Federal Government - The New NORKS
"They, at times, [the media] need to be pulled into line to stop them from misbehaving and publishing lies and halftruths. "
How is that relevant to this?
Likewise your issue with immigrants. As in immigrants currently, rather than immigrants from a hundred years ago, who you are obviously ok with.
Re: What changes?
"A brief description of the changes the new rules bring would have been helpful."
It's a free download, so perhaps they thought it best if we came to our own opinion?
Re: Paper shortages
"No XP was/is a design improvement."
For you, maybe. For me its the antithesis of a good game, as I want character growth and to see numbers getting bigger.
Re: Paper shortages
Give 5th Ed. a look?
It's supposed to be quite good, and modular - so you can use what bits you like to get the game-feel you like.
Re: Paper shortages
"The Traveller you mentioned is one such."
Hoho. The rules system so primitive that there was no such thing as 'XP'?
"you only need the add the improbability of earth's moon to Drake's equation to understand that we are singular."
Even if the Earth's moon *IS* required for life (we have no evidence of that), then just toss in another 1-in-a-million chance to the equation and guess what: You still get a significent result greater than one.
Believing we are alone is utterly, ignorantly arrogant and belies a lack of comprehension regarding the sheer size of the universe.
"Wow...you are a poster child for atheist recruiting aren't you. You make religion look stupid and don't even get it."
Actually; no. I'm agnostic and have qualifications in Religious Studies. I've read the bible and many of the world's other popular religious texts. I 'get it'; I was rebutting someone who appears to believe the Bible is the source of all knowledge.
"The Bible is NOT universally accepted as "literally correct".
I'm aware of that. However, the poster to which I was replying had stated "There is absolutely no evidence for aliens. They are not mentioned in the Bible", so is one of the more literal religious maniacs, I suspect.
"Antecdotally NOT finding life on the moon is silly. Of course not. We didn't expect to as the conditions for life as we know it are not present."
Yes, I agree. I was disagreeing with someone of a religious bent who believes that lack of life on the moon means that there is no other life in the universe. Which is absurd, clearly.
"To be fair, the OP stated "the limitless vastness of the universe" as a given.
Nevertheless, there is some strong physical evidence in support of an infinite universe / duplicate earth scenario:"
But when queried by skeptics about the possibility of other life; what is a more reasonable and convincing reply: That we *think* space is infinite and therefore there must logically be an exact Earth duplicate, or that space is at least X size because we have measured it, and even in that volume, the most staggeringly mean numbers plugged into the Drake Equation result in a large number of other critters being statistically likely.
Essentially, it's better to argue with laymen with measured facts we know than seemingly fantastical theories.
"It's arrogant for atheists to claim there is no God but then go on to claim there are aliens."
Just as its arrogant for those of a religious bent to claim that there is a god and hence no aliens.
"There is absolutely no evidence for aliens."
However, there is simple statistics. With there being 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars kicking around it's blisteringly, mind-numbingly arrogant to suggest that there *isn't* life elsewhere.
"There is absolutely no evidence for aliens. They are not mentioned in the bible"
Nor are microbes, gamma rays, cheesecake, or a correct value for Pi. Do they not exist?
"and even the science books admit no aliens have been found."
'The Science Books'? Which ones, exactly? Is there a definitive list?
They 'admit' it, because that's the truth. Are you inferring that they would rather lie? I don't think 'science' means what you think it means.
"They are made up creatures like zombies and seahorses."
I hate to break this to you, but seahorses are a real thing.
"All the telescopes in the world have been spinning round frantically looking for aliens"
No they haven't. They've only been looking for planets outside our own solar system for 5ish years. How do you think we can 'see' aliens through a telescope?
"NASA supposedly landed men on the moon"
They did. That's how they put a mirror there that bounces lasers back, so we can measure how far away it is. Or did you think that they magiced up there?
"if so they must have looked real hard in craters and suchlike when they were there but still NO aliens. So when are they going to get a clue and admit defeat?"
So... we didn't find an alien on our moon, so there's not one in the infinite reaches of space?
Is there an elephant in your kitchen? Then by your logic, there are no elephants.
"It's the 21st century boys, it's high time to grow up and stop believing in little green men."
It is indeed. High time you grew up and stopped believing that anything that's not in the Bible doesn't exist.
"Space-time is infinite. There's a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space-time. Space-time must therefore start repeating at some point."
Except that space-time being infinite is not a proven fact. We can only work with the observable universe. Likewise, even if space-time is infinite, it does not automatically equate to an infinite amount of matter being in it.
The idea of there being duplicate Earths in the same dimension requires a few assumptions that it's not yet fair to make.
"As long as there is a major influence of religion in the world, we will still see the scientific community scrutinized and downplayed and fooling the less educated people into thinking that any life other than here on earth is non existent."
What? Where? I think you'll find that even if you straw-poll a highly religious nation where a sizable proportion of the population believes the Earth was made on a Tuesday a few thousand years ago*, then belief in life somewhere other than our own is a majority opinion.
You're basically bringing your anti-religion sentiment into a discussion that has nowt to do with religion.
Oh yeah: Even the Catholic Church is fine with aliens existing.
"Show me the maths. Just because you want to believe something, doesn't mean it's probably true."
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is.
There are 400,000,000,000ish stars in our galaxy.
There are 170,000,000,000ish galaxies in the observable universe.
That equates to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the *observable* universe [we don't know how many more are out there], each of which might harbour one or more planets which might be harbouring life.
So, unless you believe the odds of life evolving are less than 10^24 or less, then it's statistically certain that there is life elsewhere. Frankly, that's such a stupidly, astonishingly slim chance that if there *isn't* life elsewhere and we are the only things alive, then it becomes a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power that's f***ing with us.
"Don't you need at least 15 or 16 samples to make a statistically significant statement? So far, we have 1. It's been a long time since college stats class, so I could be wrong."
We have 10^24 'sample' stars, and we are busy discovering that lots of them have planets in the goldilocks zone.
If you want to do the maths yourself, then the Drake Equation is here:
Make the variables as un-generous as you like: The equation will still tell you there's a lot of life out there, smart or not.
Re: A quote from Hawking
"Resources on a planet can for the most part never actually be used up.... For instance we could mine out all the gold and take it in use, but unless we start shooting it out into space or radiate it with particles to turn it into lead we will never use it up.."
How about helium?
Re: re: It's been good enough for the last twenty or so years
"Err ... how do we know?
The computer model of the bomb matches the other computer models of the bomb ?"
Because early simulations were compared against blasts.
We don't detonate nukes for fun any more because there is no reason to do so. Just setting a few off a week to check that the simulations are still accurate is fine in the case of firecrackers, but not something that should be encouraged with thermonuclear weapons.
"Nice plan, but at some point to be really sure, you have to test one otherwise the thing is only guessing based on theoretical inputs and the programming of the computer."
It's been good enough for the last twenty or so years. We stopped glassing far corners of the Pacific and bits of desert less than a day's drive from LA in favour of computer simulations quite some time ago, in case you hadn't noticed.
Re: Less lead less impact.
.50 cal sniper rounds aren't for shooting hard targets, unless used in an anti-materiel role, in which case you're generally shooting at a large, static target and don't need much in the way of help.
Lighter-weight explosive 50 cal rounds have been used since WW2 and work just fine. If the mass reduction is an issue, it can be rectified by adding a tungsten pointy-bit, which weighs hell of a lot more than lead and cruises through armour quite nicey. Not that military ammunition is a lump of lead anyway.
"The course corrections looked rather abrupt on the video and not quite feasible for a ballistic object but hard to judge given no range or view point parallax info."
I'm going to bet that it was a ballistic object and that they're not lying, rather than your armchair assessment being correct.
Re: My hopes are dashed
"How do you justify it to yourself? How do you live with it? Does money or nationalism really still your conscience? Do you HAVE a conscience?"
Taking a step back, if you analyse your own job, it's not likely to be much morally better. Maybe you help create or sell a must-have gadget that increases avarice and dissatisfaction on a global scale and uses rare elements for trivial reasons. Perhaps you make choices about healthcare that are more about costs than saving lives, or prioritise people's needs based upon their wealth rather than actual need. Maybe you work for a bank whose entire existence is based around getting people into debt.
when you think about it a lot of the jobs we do are massively immoral. Making a bullet that might kill fifty people a year is chicken-feed in the world of job morality.
"Obvious concept is obvious."
Way to belittle every engineering feat mankind has ever made.
Piling rocks up in a pyramid shape is obvious.
Building bridges to cross massive divides to link communities is obvious.
"Lovely concept in a book; but it's the sort of thing that absolutely should not be allowed in real life."
Like single missiles which can kill a million people at once? Best we never invent those, then.
Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear @ Mikey
"OTOH, remember how the First World War started?"
But wasn't it something to do with Imperialistic nation states unwilling to back down and being stubbornly determined to escalate a fairly unrelated matter into open warfare?
Re: It's been done before.
"Firing a missile out of a gun which after that deploys active guidance systems has been the de-facto standard for tank-on-tank weaponry for 20 years now"
A guided missile form a 120mm tank gun is not the same thing as a bullet form a rifle. I'd also contest that such munitions are 'de facto' at all. Tanks use unguided conventional HEAT or sabot ammunition for the vast majority of engagements. It's accurate and better able to resist countermeasures.
Re: How old?
July 10, which WOULD have been Tesla's 158th birthday." - As in, it isn't because he's dead...
Re: Really ??
Memorise? Why would you need to do that. Surely you could just favourite them...
"> why should anyone object to that?"
Because anyone who can't find pr0n on the net without resorting to Google Ads doesn't deserve it!
Re: While they are at it...
I don't mind fags and booze being advertised half as much as I despise the number of gambling adverts everywhere. There is a massive advertising drive that's normalising the behaviour. Hell: even the Wonga Loans ad references the fact that the wife is getting the loan to buy a new bed because "they scored a goal, didn't they". Great: Hubby loses a bundle down the bookies so wife takes out a short-term loan.
Our SEO lead threw his hands in the air and said: "Shit, now I'm going to have to do my job and earn page rank instead of just paying money!"
Next up... gambling sites?
Re: Just think...
"If prostitution were legal and there were no drugs prohibition this story would probably never have ended in tragedy, so chalk another one up to 'The Justice System'."
I'm all for sex and drugs, but if prostitution and drugs were legal, then more people would die like this. It's the price of those freedoms.
And even the most pro-drug liberal tends to baulk at legalising skank: It's a highly addictive killer which is supplied by a long chain of international criminal gangs, terminating with the Taliban.
Re: Did he code?
I'm sure the family he left behind feel differently.
Re: > it's => its
Isn't popular sub-culture simply called 'culture'?
"clearly show the oncoming quadcopter nearly colliding with said coppercopter."
So an aircraft has to nearly collide over an urban area and for it to be filmed for it to be an issue, as far as you are concerned.
Don't be ridiculous.
Re: Thought Crime
"So the offense is that the pilot of the police chopper thought that they were endangered?"
So the judgement of a professional pilot isn't good enough for you? what do you want exactly to enforce the law: For the helicopter to have been fitted with a laser rangefinder to determine in a strict yes/no sense if the aircraft *flying over a heavily populated area* was in danger?
If you fly near another aircraft and the other pilot considers your flying a risk to the point that they escalate the matter, you can be in deep sh!t. And rightly so. Drone pilots aren't excepted from this.
Re: Wait and see
People who look up walk-thoughs and cheats the moment they get home with a new computer game will probably want to read them, I guess.
Re: The well manner fuel thief
That's exactly what happened to me. So now the cap is unlocked so they can help themselves, and there's never more than 20 quid's worth in.
"i appreciate the technical challenge but can't see them serving up as much spectacle"
I am clearly missing something, because I can't in any way see how not making much noise makes them less fun to watch. Would tennis be less tense and exciting if people stopped grunting?
Re: Finally some chance of seeing who's actually the best driver
"Because what we have today in F1 is pretty simple: fastest car wins."
Can you let me know at what point F1 wasn't about having a fast, competitive car?
"Alonso with Ferrary"
Pray share more of your great wisdom and expertise.
"instead of Red Bull's "Vettel comes first" that we've had for the last four years."
Vittel was a better driver than Webber. That's why Vittel won more.
(That and Webber is the prince of bad luck)
"The design of the cars has so many constraints that innovation is severely restricted."
Except that when someone innovates and comes up with a race-winning innovation [blown diffusers, or the length-of-engine turbo axle that's giving Mercedes the edge on power output this year]... you don't like it because the fastest car wins! Make your mind up: what do you want?
"I'm afraid but E1 will be the same once they break out of the "everybody drives the same car"
The "Formula" should restrict what can affect safety of the drivers, mechanics or spectators, and nothing else. Give freedom to engineers, mechanics and drivers and it will be way, way more interesting."
Again, you're contradicting yourself: Do you want it to be more about the drivers, or more about development?