Comment Re:Terrorists (Score 1) 270
Nope, I understood the post. They were attempting to try to put words in my mouth as if I support Obama.
Nope, I understood the post. They were attempting to try to put words in my mouth as if I support Obama.
Hey look a frothing-at-the-mouth idiot. I didn't vote for Obama and I've called him out dozens and dozens and dozens on times, but thanks for the amusement. I get no end of laughs when I say anything about Dubya and his defense squad blows their stacks. Then if I call out Obama, even in the very same story at some other point, I get the same thing from the Obama defenders who then bash me and decry "But Bush!!". I don't buy into your partisan bullshit, little troll.
They install it even on computers running on sensitive government networks. That is the baffling part.
He will? You actually believe campaign promises of a politician? How gullible are you?
That's interesting because terrorists have been announcing that one of their goals is to have an impact on the US economy.
Is the article's point saying that the terrorists have won?
The terrorists already won long ago when Dubya and a willing Congress shredded our civil liberties after 9/11.
Why would Intel pay McAfee? They own them.
They sell malware for computer OEMs to preinstall. Also for some reason the US government loves the product.
No, it is a scam. You would have to be working with shit equipment for electrical noise from an SD card to contribute anything meaningful to the quality of your audio playback/recording.
The big draw of the OUYA console was its binary compatibility with Android, letting it use well-known tools such as Eclipse and Xamarin. Yet OUYA fizzled for some reason.
"For some reason"? Were you one of those blind fanbois? It's many issues were pointed out all over the place. Penny Arcade pointed out that it was just mostly hype and then all the Ouya fanbois across the Internet got butthurt. Acting as if the failure of Ouya was some freak accident that no one expected, is revisionist history.
Actually many people were pointing out its numerous issues before its release. Its fanbois just didn't want to believe them.
There is no doubt the guy's a crank.
Calling someone a "quack like this guy", without any reason to do so, is embarrassing to those of us trying to be objective and scientific. However it is surprisingly common among academics.
He's given plenty of reasons for being called a quack. Mythical proof that he won't share in public, invents academic conspiracies, won't post it to places like arXiv for made-up and patently false reasons, and then falls back to wanting to keep it to himself so that he can work on it alone and because someone is going to steal credit for it. Those are all tell-tale signs of quackery.
I have seen outright hostility. I have seen expressed interest that leads to non-communication without reasons. I have had the "crackpot" label leveled against me. And I have seen, above all else, a total lack of expressed interest or any effort at analysis, by academics.
I'm sure you have, but that's because there are tons of charlatans out there hawking phony proofs. You actually have to work to prove yourself just like all the other scientists/mathematicians/etc in front of you.
These are the behaviors of a group who feel their gravy train is threatened. And yes it is.
Yep, the fallback of the quack. Despite the fact that there are numerous examples of scientists and mathematicians who have come along with ideas that threaten and change established theory and persevered to prove themselves. On the other hand, the quacks and charlatans just hide behind their persecution complex.
That's because they encounter tons of quacks like this guy and his elusive proof.
Because you act like one of those infomercial snake-oil people.
arXiv asks that you get an endorsement if you don't have an academic affiliation. What you claim has never been true.
6 Curses = 1 Hexahex
