Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to include their brains.
343 posts • joined 23 Jun 2009
Re: A good file name
Did anyone else ever receive an email attachment called "Brilliant_Ice_Hockey_Fight.wmv" (who could resist ?)
When opened it was actually a Powerpoint file (so automatically opened in full screen, & all other buttons disappeared) which flashed, in massive letters, 'DOWNLOADING GAY PORN NOW'.
Cue frantic scrambling to close the offending item. Lesson learned.
Re: Those ones are a pain...
It is a question that has vexed me for some time, why my trouser pockets fail a long, long time before the rest of the trousers. Over time I have refined two hypotheses to explain this phenomenon :
1) Ongoing inflation, which has resulted in me continually carrying a weight of clanking coins that, three decades ago, would have been sufficient to finance an entire weekend of drinking and whoring.
2) A nefarious international tailors' conspiracy to create a Single Point of Failure in trousers, by ensuring that the *most* heavily-abraded section is constructed of the *least* robust material.
The considered opinions of the commentard corps would be most welcome in assisting me with this conundrum.
Re: Not only in the capital
(@ AC - you just beat me to posting !)
I'd be very surprised if it falls to the Belgian mass-media to *ask* citizens stay "off [of] their phones".
AFAIK*, in such scenarios UK networks simply block calls to/from any standard number (a large separate block of numbers is set aside for emergency-services/gubmint use), across a defined area.
*Source : v reliable friend who was at Vodaphone's Newbury centre at the time of 7/7, and took the call from the Met police invoking 'Protocol Aardvaark' (or whatever the procedure is called). She advised that the standard media statements that "networks *failed* due to the number of people trying to contact loved ones" is complete BS, they just block all calls from prole-phones.
Does anyone really still fall for these pathetic scams ?
"Due to a problem on our servers, your CA audit records have been lost.
This requires you to verify your account being the recipient of this update. Failure to verify your records will result in account suspension.
Click on the Verify button below and enter your login information on the following page to Confirm your records.
Re: For real expertise...
The whole article reminded me of a favourite Dilbert cartoon -
Boss : Use the CRS database to size the market.
Dilbert : That data is wrong.
Boss : Then use the SIBS database.
Dilbert : That data is also wrong.
Boss : Can you average them ?
Dilbert : Sure. I can multiply them too.
(That and many more at http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/423/what-is-your-favorite-data-analysis-cartoon )
1) Your claim of "£250m per year" is demonstrably utter BS. They get about £15m p.a. for climate research, (up from £13m two years ago), according to reasonably-reliable sources :
2) All climate research depends on "modelling", because unlike most scientific research, we cannot repeat the experiment a thousand times to see whether a different outcome occurs when the conditions are changed. We don't have hundreds of planets to experiment on (or a time machine so we can change the past and see how it affects the present).
So if your disagreement is based on the fact that it is a model, then you seem to have a fundamental problem understanding the scientific method involved, and you may as well just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la la it's not happening" for all the wisdom that you're bringing to this debate.
Maybe in your head, every piece of evidence is simply a scam by someone-or-other to make some 'profit' out of 'scaremongering', while the money that companies such as ExxonMobil pour into supporting 'sceptics' is just their way of being philanthropic, and they have *no vested interest* in persuading the world to continue using their products. No doubt if this was the 60s or 70s you'd say that lung cancer boffins only do it because they profit from "maintaining the fraud" that cigarettes are bad for you, whilst those nice tobacco companies are simply fighting for the little man's right to live life however he wants. Personally, I simply don't believe any of that.
At the end of the day, if the 'climate change lobby' are wrong, all that really happens is some people (different people from the current industrial-military status quo) make a few bucks for a while.
However, if the 'denial lobby' are wrong, millions of people (and animals) will die. And when people like yourself blithely say, in a coded way, "well I don't care if millions of people die, I want to keep my toys", I consider you nothing less than utter scum.
As far as I can find, absolutely *none* of the mainstream media have covered the report issued by the (UK) Met Office last week, "Industrial pollution linked to 'natural' disasters" (full report published in 'Nature', as "Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability").
Quote from one of the authors :
"Until now, no-one has been able to demonstrate a physical link to what is causing these observed Atlantic Ocean fluctuations, so it was assumed they must be caused by natural variability.
"Our research implies that far from being natural, these changes could have been largely driven by dirty pollution and volcanoes. If so, this means a number of natural disasters linked to these ocean fluctuations, such as persistent African drought during the 1970's and 80's, may not be so natural after all.
...When industrial pollution peaked over the Atlantic, this effect played a big role in cooling the ocean beneath; as pollution was cleaned up - for example after the clean air legislation of the 90's - the seas warmed."
But then the Met Office are obviously such a bunch of HIPPIES...and obviously *we* couldn't possibly be responsible for droughts that killed millions of people... that would be too much for *some people* to accept.
Where did the hand grenade icon go, cos that's what I'd like to do to climate change deniers.
@ Uncle Slacky
IIRC (from ep.2 of 'Orbit') the third factor is the location of the perihelion on the orbit ? But yes, the next Ice Age will be along in 60k years, for definite.
But more importantly, has anyone else noticed the *apparent correlation* between rising global temperatures, and the rising number of really HOT tv boffinesses like Helen Czerski and Alice Roberts ? This needs further investigation, I think.
Fair play to the beak
At least he didn't let any Daily-Mail-faux-prurience obscure the legal issue.
There was an instance a few years ago where a UK court refused to let a plaintiff pursue a case of blatant false advertising relating to adult services, and basically said "well if you're a perv it doesn't matter if you get ripped off ".
(The facts of the case : the plaintiff rang a premium rate phone line that was advertised with a picture of a busty young lady, and the text "HEAR ME MOAN !!!". The actual product consisted of five minutes of "When are you going to do the washing up and take out that rubbish ? You just sit round the house all day doing nothing ! I should have listened to my mother...")
My thoughts entirely
His op-ed piece didn't state that GS was a sh1t place to work, it stated that it *treats its clients like sh1t*.
No doubt the 99.99% of GS employees who aren't "disgruntled" are the 99.99% who would sell their own grandmothers into slavery if they needed the capital to cover a margin call.
Spawn of Satan icon, natch.
Re: if someone offers me a job, I am obliged to take it
Slightly off-topic, but 'Class War' newspaper pointed out some years ago that whilst it is an offence to hide any unspent convictions in order to get a job, there is no specific law about spicing up your CV with a few convictions you don't have, in order to *not* get a job...
"Public obscenity, namely, bestiality with a llama in a convent" should probably do the trick.