... Linux just works.
389 posts • joined 28 Feb 2012
"Firearms are designed to kill, therefor saving lives is not what they are designed for. People think they need guns for protection."
Clearly you have never sat in a tent, late at night, and listened to a bear two meters away, waiting to see if it was going to come through the canvas.... with a rifle in your lap, as I have.
Nor have you spent the night in the woods, surrounded by a pack of wolves, and hoping you have enough wood to last till daylight, as a friend of mine, who got a bit turned around coming home, did.
Nor have you had to deal with a wounded bear, big enough to have paws the size of dinner plates, the rest of matching size, as my uncle did on more than one occasion.
Get this a lot in the MGM hotels in Vegas?
"in the US you can shoot someone dead for simply stepping onto your property"
Liar. You still need a good reason.
Postmen/delivery drivers have 'implied consent' until you tell them you remove it. If a kid kicks his ball into your yard, you are not legally entitled to shoot them as they come up to your door asking to get it back. If a car breaks down on the road outside your house, you can't just kill the driver for asking to use your telephone.
Just 3 examples of how your statement is wrong, and there are many more.
Christ alive, if someone with your attitude is allowed firearms, it really does prove that the psychological checks they are supposed to carry out don't work.
Pluto's orbit is so far off the ecliptic plane, that it goes nowhere near Neptune's orbital path. It is correct, however, to say that it does approach the sun nearer than Neptune, because its orbit is so elliptical. This is in common with comets, as much as anything else.
"It's not Trump's feed. It belongs to Twitter. Never, ever, forget that you do NOT own anything that you post to so-called "social media". It belongs to the company running the servers."
Well, if its not his feed, and it belongs to Twitter, Trump shouldn't have been named in the lawsuit. And, further, it is Twitter who should've been sued. So, the judge erred on that count, and the appeal will fully dismiss the findings of the first hearing.
So, now we've established Trump is innocent, and the court simply found him guilty through corruption, the judge involved and the prosecutors should be sacked immediately, right?
Indeed, as a non-American, I just see this as a CNN type of tactic to have a dig at him... "because I don't like him" instead of it actually being some valid thing.
They can read his posts, and can comment on the official POTUS account, so what's the deal? If he just copy/pastes stuff from @POTUS to his personal feed, it's just representing his personal views.
That he blocks them from replying on his personal feed, and is now under fire legally for doing so, tells me that the courts want to effectively tell us that blocking anyone from replying to anything posted by anyone, is now illegal.
"Respondents, whose children do homework, were asked ‘In terms of accessing the internet for homework and educational content'"
Context is key.
These surveys might as well say that 100% of non-educational Internet usage is non educational, so the Internet isn't educational.
Or that, 100% of educational use of YouTube is educational, with the inference that YouTube is an important educational tool. Obviously that's ignoring the fact that 99.9% of YouTube is non-educational, which flies in the face of it being useful for education.
On the whole, these types of surveys are set to prove something the survey setter believes, with wording used to come to a specific goal.
I mean, they asked people whose children used the Internet for study, and only wanted answers relevant to educational use. Completely ignorant of children who don't use the Internet educationally, and those who don't use the Internet at all.
Frankly, I'm surprised such a massive number of respondents said their kids didn't study on the Internet, when a prerequisite seemed to be that your kid DID study online.
"someone discovered the racing game easter-egg in excel 2000 which was a sort of developer credit roll. And being part of excel, it couldn't be removed."
Which is why it won't be long until school computers have keyloggers intentionally installed, and that brings a whole new darker privacy concern than we have here.
But, thats the breaks you get for abusing school property, I guess.
"due to my tendency to move apartments once the council tax people had started to get stoppy"
You mean you evaded paying council tax?
Two minor points.
1. Why the fuck should everyone else pay for services you undoubtedly used, and yet you think you shouldn't have to?
2. Now you have revealed yourself as a tax dodger, much like the corporations who eventually get a 90% discount on unpaid tax, your story seems somewhat less than credible.
"4 - Massively marked up cables and connectors"
Actually, my issue isn't with this, since you could just not buy them.
No, my issue is with stolen cables. My mum bought a TV that clearly advertised on the box that it came with an HDMI cable, only to have the pushy salesman try to sell her an HDMI cable.
Turns out that Maplin, and I've since found out other vendors, remove bundled cables SPECIFICALLY to drive up add on sales.
That is why I've never shopped there.
"they had managed to find information on how to kill people with a car."
Running over them would seem to be both pretty effective, and easier than more elaborate ways.
I'd think the fact this is such common knowledge, pretty much nullifies any attempt at praising them for a 'job well done'on the subject.
"Why the **** should she have to pull her cell phone out & turn off cell data?"
Pointing out the obvious... so that she doesn't use cellphone data when she's as home.
Have some personal fucking responsibility, or are you OK with being pigeonholed with the same kind of idiots who run lawnmowers over their kids, then sue the manufacturer because the handbook didn't specifically tell them not run the mower over their child?
"a startup that wanted to help people that lost their house keys"
Maybe I'm missing something, or this is the point you're making, but if I lose my house keys, how would I be able to let this company scan my key to get a copy printed at all?
The company might just be better off scanning keys into a database 'before' customers lost their keys!
I was shocked when I came back (to Britain) from America on a 2 leg journey, with my changeover at Boston.
Somehow, the US's 5 hour security checking (or queuing) system, which I went through twice on this journey) failed to spot the pressurised can of Axe deodorant I inadvertently packed in my carry on luggage.
My stepdad used to work for Maplin. He tells us that they routinely took out the included cables (be they USB, Scart, or HDMI) from boxed goods, specifically so they can sell them to you as add-on sales.
Perhaps an extension of bundling required cables in each device, should be a change in law to make it illegal for a firm to remove them to steal... er... generate extra sales.
:I think the first person to come up with a way of doing that could make a fortune
Not sure about that, sounds complicated, I think it will take four or five attempts before it works properly.
That kind of instability will likely be an additional non-essential part of normal operating capacity... I think we should call it something now to help identify it.
Lets call it Java.
"The simple fact is that yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre most assuredly is protected speech."
I understand this is conceptually theoretical, but I'm pretty sure if you cause panic in a public place (and potential harm to others) by falsely and knowingly yelling "FIRE!", the free speech protection no longer applies.
At least, that's according to:
"if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you."
"And in fact the line from Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States is "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.'"
"In that situation, you aren’t being punished for your speech; but for creating a commotion that violated the rights of other people."
"The most commonly used example of disorderly conduct is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when you know there is no such threat. Because people in the theater can suffer injuries as they trample over one another to escape, the criminal charges can be pretty serious."
Granted, any punishment is for public disorderly conduct, or endangering life, etc... but if the right to falsely yell "FIRE!" was protected, you would assumedly be immune from any prosecution.
I was told I'd get 40Mbps, and I get 40. That's fine.
But I'd be rightfully pissed off if I was getting anywhere near what my previous provider could muster, a mere 0-4. I think in those circumstances (ie: sold 40 but getting no more than 10% of what I pay for) I should have the guaranteed right to pay only 10% of the bill.
I get some factors may affect the ability to get the max advertised speed, but a tenth of the projected speed? Nope, that's blatantly lying and mis-selling!
"What's NASA going to do when China or SpaceX or Apple bring back a ton of moon rocks"
Knowing how patent law in in America works, probably just claim patent on owning moonrock. Isn't that how things like this are solved?
Of course, if Apple manage to land on the moon, they'll retroactively patent it anyway, and call it iMoon. Then sue everyone who's ever looked at it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020