I think you have bigger problems if she's moved on to "fucking Lovejoy" Mr Dabbs.
Or as he is now known, 'Mr Wednesday'.
2407 posts • joined 20 Jul 2010
I think you have bigger problems if she's moved on to "fucking Lovejoy" Mr Dabbs.
Or as he is now known, 'Mr Wednesday'.
Well they certainly shouldn't be on the fucking pavement, like most of the idiots round here!
"To give you an analogy: if you notice someone's bag is open with a visible wallet inside, it's OK to tell them that they left the bag open and that you advise them to close it. But it's not OK to take the wallet yourself just to prove the point."
That's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be to slip a piece of paper into said wallet pointing out that they have left it on view and someone could have nicked it. Would that be a crime? I don't think it would, which illustrates a flaw in the Computer Misuse Act (and analogues in other countries, such as Eire in this case).
I assume any US English I don't understand (or indeed British English) is to do with sport.
Sport, or guns / the military.
The Dwellers have hidden it.
You're a couple of decades late to that party.
I had the misfortune of working with them some fifteen years ago, and we called them that back then.
Coming over here, colonising Norfolk.
Well, whilst this annoys the hell out of me too, I have to play devils advocate here for a moment and voice the opposing argument; would you really want a state where someone/anyone can be arrested BEFORE committing a crime?
You misunderstand me; this is not what I am advocating either. My point is that cuts to police, and more importantly, police staff mean that there are fewer people to actually analyse the intelligence. At any time, there can be a large number of people 'known to the police', and they could be doing something that would be grounds for being picked up, if there was someone to sort through the intelligence. For example, they might be seen on CCTV doing something suspicious, or there might be a suspicious pattern of purchases (such as large quantities of the substances that used to make TATP). These data might already be collected, but it's of no use if there's nobody to collate them and then send an officer round to investigate.
I'm not saying this particular attack could have been stopped this way, but removing the resources to be able to do this certainly won't have made this sort of crime less likely.
Not to mention several 'terrorist bombings' over the past few years allegedly orchestrated by 'Kurdish separatists', and very convenient for a religious-right wanna-be dictator who might wish to further marginalise and demonise the on-the-whole secular and democratic Kurdish peoples.
Which was precisely the point he was making for his sycophantic courtiers who told him he could do anything.
A point well made. He is remembered as the idiot who tried to control the tides, rather than the guy using a metaphor to explain that there are things you cannot control.
Sadly, morons don't understand metaphor, but they still get a vote.
Just like the parliament attack thug, known to authorities and ignored.
So who is really to blame?
They do have the information but do not use it.
Well, the next obvious question is whether they choose to ignore the information, or do not have the resources to handle it?
Discuss, then vote accordingly...
Don't trust Labour either. Remember ID cards?
It may have escaped your attention, but those who were in power and responsible for that sort of thing around a decade ago are substantively not the same people in charge of the Labour Party now. If you concentrate really hard, you might remember a leadership election, where the red Tories got voted out, and replaced by a leftie vegetarian bloke with a beard, and then a couple of failed coups where they tried to get rid of him again.
Many of the people who now support the Labour Party share my opinions of those who were at the head of the party under Blair, and those opinions are not kind. This is why the membership of the party fell while Labour were last in power, and then grew massively once the Blairites were toppled.
Add to this the suggestion that Home Secretaries are usually not well qualified for the job (I can't recall one who has actually ever worked in policing, for example), then they will be getting their opinions from the senior civil servants who feed them to them. You have to ask yourself who the 'Sir Humphrey' is, because the coordinated drive towards authoritarianism across a number of successive governments could only plausibly be coming from Whitehall.
My theory is that the only things they allow the Home Secretary to read are the worst crime statistics and Judge Dredd stories.
If this were the case, then why did May cut funding to the police when Home Sec? There have been a number of Dredd storylines recently concerned with understaffing and lack of resources for the Judges. Add to that, if they read 2000AD, it would have been banned by now as a subversive publication, given its propensity for sometimes not-so-subtle parody of the British government.
At least Corbyn engages with people, rather than hiding in an ivory tower.
King Canute can legislate for the tide to stay out, but his feet will still get wet...
What these idiots are asking for is technologically impossible without breaking the way the internet works for anything practical (i.e. SSL). Trying to unilaterally impose your own ideas on a global structure like the internet, by the means for nationally-scoped legislation is also doomed to failure, for pretty obvious reasons.
I agree with most of those, but Trips back and forth to Libya is hardly surprising since his family are Libyan and live there.
Trips to Syria (reportedly), now that's another matter...
I remember watching a documentary on Windscale/Sellafield, and back in t'day they just dumped the spend rods in to a swimming pool that was on site.
The correct term is 'cooling pond', and they're still there. It's not a swimming pool because if you tried to swim in it, you'd die - not from the radiation which is very well attenuated by water, but from the bullet wounds.
That's a bang-up-to-date pop-culture reference you've got going there.
Even if you're using dial-up, why would you have port 445 open as an incoming port, to the entire internet? Unless you're serving material to the internet, why do you have any incoming ports open?
At the quantum level, such things are random. If they were not, there would be no source of randomness in the universe, everything would ultimately be entirely deterministic, and there would be no free will. Luckily for us, a combination of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which in essence states that you can never measure all things precisely) and zero-point energy (which tells us you can never remove all the energy from a system) stops this form being the case. The appearance of order comes from statistics...
Can we have your liver then?
'Ahead of most' in some respects only. Lets not forget those blasphemy laws now...
Of the >140,000 million NHS yearly budget, only about 40,000 million is available for things like buying drugs, new hospitals, MRI scanners and desktop refreshes. The rest goes on wages. That's a political failure.
1.3 million people work for the NHS, that makes the average wage around £75k, for people who are mostly highly qualified professionals with medical or nursing degrees, often working unsociable shift patterns. I don't think that is an unreasonable staffing cost. In fact, I think the numbers should be higher, considering how much politicians get paid (an MP gets £74k plus some juicy benefits and expenses).
The root cause for all this is IE6's non standards compliant browser with ActiveX controls that microsoft then did not upgrade.
No. No, it isn't. You should make sure you have a clue about what you are spouting before you demonstrate your ignorance to the world. The root cause of this is reportedly a buffer overflow vulnerability in SMB. SMB (Simple Message Block) is a file-sharing protocol that allows drives etc. to be shared on a network; nothing to do with IE, nothing to do with ActiveX.
Furthermore, if you think buffer overflows are unique to Microsoft then you are sadly mistaken (try googling 'Linux buffer overflow' for example), they are the result of programming mistakes, which can occur in any software.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of MS, some of their business practices raise ethical questions, but then again most large companies are guilty of the same; it could be considered a software flaw in capitalism. People use the tools they need to get the job done.
3. fire the politician who told them to do this, I believe his name rhymes with Funt...
I now live in Bristol, I was fortunate enough to see Concorde make it's last flight over North Bristol, landing at Filton Airfield, now sadly a housing development.
One of the few positive things about growing up in Bedford in the '80s was the fact that we used to get buzzed by the Skyship 500 flying our of Cardington (made famous as Max Zorin's airship in View to a Kill). I say buzzed, because you could always hear it quite a long time before you could see it.
What about the ISS? Does orbiting the Earth count as flying, or is it just continually falling and missing?
@AC, it is trivially easy for you to google any number of graphs showing the national debt, or deficit to confirm my assertions, for example:
edit - this graph show national borrowing, those bit above the baseline are deficit; try overlaying the party in power with this graph, and tell me which is the party of high debt?
It is probably worth reminding those with a short memory that the debts incurred around 2007/2008 were as a result of a global financial crisis, not one caused by the party in power in a country with around 1% of the world's population.
The current Tory government has increased national debt by more than all past Labour governments combined. Their austerity policies, rather than paying down the budget deficit have increased it (don't trust me, look the numbers up for yourself), whilst simultaneously destroying any growth that might have seen increased money from the tax revenue that comes with economic growth.
Don't believe everything you read in the papers, especially the UK ones which have the worst right-wing bias in any developed country (you can verify this for yourself too rather than simply believing what you are told).
Oh, and the tax cuts the Tories have given to corporations and on capital gains tax? Those give us the lowest taxation rates on the rich of any G8 country. There's your "costs us more yearly" right there.
I'm still boggling at "hydrogen with an extra electron".
They're talking about a hydrogen ion. A neutral hydrogen molecule (H2) is comprised of two hydrogen atoms which are covalently bound. If you break this bond you get either two neutral radicals (H.), consisting of a nucleus (a single proton in this case) and an orbiting electron, or two ions (H+ and H-), one (H+) which has no electrons, and one which has two (H-). They then accelerate the negative ion (H-) using an electric field, before stripping the two electrons. What remains is an accelerated H+ ion. Because the hydrogen nucleus is the simplest element consisting only of a single proton, the H+ is generally referred to as a proton, rather than hydrogen ion, although the two names are equally valid.
So, could possibly be mounted in the axis of a naval vessel, the sort with the power already in place for rail guns?
That would work just fine, as long as the weight of the thing didn't sink them, and their target is magnetically confined in a vacuum.
When the electron was discovered, people were saying much the same thing. I guess they were right, and there are now no applications in the whole world based upon technology that manipulates electrons.
...or maybe you are just a dullard with a lack of imagination, which is why those working at CERN are generally considered to be a lot brighter than Brexit-voting dolts like you.
Are you off your tablets again?
Imagine the kudos in the black hat world to the first one to take over a combat aircraft and drop its payload on some General's back yard? (when he's not there naturally).
I doubt networking the sensors on an aircraft would allow you to do that. You might be able to spoof sensor readings to fool them into colliding mid-air, but even then, I reckon you'd be more likely to be identified by your RF emissions and find yourself the recipient of some targeted explosives.
Do you know what, I reckon they might even have considered this sort of thing, not being entirely inexperienced in the field of warfare.
One thing I've never understood. In an era of increasing satellite comm needs why don't more combat aircraft have a) Upper wing surface areas available for sky pointing aerials. b)Why they don't have at least one hard point for mounting a pod above the wing for upward looking "stuff"?
My (basic) understanding of how wings generate lift, is that the air moves more slowly underneath them than above them, thus generating increased pressure on the lower surface. Sticking things on the top of the wing would therefore decrease the lift, increase the stall speed, and make the aircraft less aerodynamic and efficient in general. I guess they stick such things in the top of the canopy instead.
"Bleating" would be more accurate.
On the other hand, you aren't having to live with a government that's actively trying to kill you. Count yourself lucky.
Unless of course, you are poor, or disabled, or an NHS nurse, in which case they are trying to starve you out.
Well, the Babylonians did invent to concept and means of representing the number zero, which is in important part of our counting systems, and as for base-60, it depends on what you are counting, doesn't it? Unless you have moved onto decimal time, that is.
People who parrot on about things like 'hiding places' are usually doing so because they understand the motivations and behaviour of others based upon their own 'theory of mind' - in other words, they project their own motivations onto others in order to try to understand them. Thus Rudd's obsession with 'hiding places' indicates that she is probably hiding from the repercussions of something herself, and is desperate to not be found out. I wonder what her 'dirty little secret' could be?
I have to confess that ads don't really bother me much. I seem to have developed an internal filter so that I don't even see them whether online or in real life. They might be there but they never register.
The word you are missing on the end there is 'consciously'. This is why you are exactly the target of advertisers. You don't notice the adverts, but they still affect you on a subconscious level. From 'brand awareness' (The subconscious process of hey I've heard of X brand, they must be better than Y that I've not heard of) to finding yourself humming a jingle while stuck in traffic.
This is my basic objection to most advertising; it's mostly not basic honest, "Buy Johnson's Soap," kind of stuff but designed to affect you on a psychological level. An adept advertiser knows that the human psyche can be manipulated very easily. Just ask Derren Brown if you don't believe me.
How about a respectable newspaper like the Times?
Ahahaha hahaha haha *cough* *splutter*
Owned by Rupert Murdoch. Totally respectable. Just like the
Whilst not directly elected, a general election is a pretty good proxy for it. And to be fair, she was elected the head of the tories, something like 30 people got to vote, wasn't it?
There is no such thing as a proper homeopathic practitioner. Any GP prescribing a homeopathic treatment would either be doing so as a placebo, as an adjunct to proper treatment, or to 'treat' a psychosomatic illness, or be guilty of malpractice. It's not like they don't spend five years at medical school learning how to treat patients scientifically, followed by two years of junior doctor training in a hospital setting before even starting to train as a GP.
You have to be careful looking at things like survival rates for cancer, as the numbers can be misleading due to a combination of two factors:
- firstly the figures quoted are often survival rates over a period of time (e.g. five year survival rate), since as time tends towards infinity, survival tends towards zero.
- secondly, due to much better tests and diagnosis over the last 20 years or so, people are getting diagnosed earlier.
So, if you get a tumour that will kill you if it is untreated, but only get diagnosed when it has metastasised, your survival rate is essentially zero, but if you get diagnosed when it is at an early stage, removing the entire growth and completely curing you is a very real possibility. In these cases, you will often be given chemotherapy as well as an insurance policy against there being a few abnormal cells remaining.
The problem with chemotherapy is not that it doesn't work - it can be very effective, but that cancer is not a single disease. With few exceptions, every single cancer is its own unique disease, so what works for one patient may not work for another. Cancers are categorised by the type and location of the tumour, so for example, you might get a melanoma, but it won't be the same as someone else's melanoma even if the symptoms are the same.
It must be wonderful to exist in a world where science, mathematics, and rational deduction play no part, and where 1+1=potato.
The universe may or may not be infinite. However, its age (since the big bang) is not infinite, and neither is the speed of light, meaning that the furthest we can actually see is a smidge under 14 billion light years.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017