Comment If you can't plug it in (Score 1) 260
If you can't plug it in, you're not getting online here.
One Wifi device with encryption enabled slows down my router so badly that it has trouble resolving domain names. Screw that.
Comment Re:Easy, India or China (Score 0, Troll) 303
So why has every environmental initiative in the past 40 years been pushed by the Democrats and resisted by the Republicans?
You mean like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Odd. I didn't know Bush was a Democrat.
What about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Where are the Democrats pushing this bill and Republicans opposing it?
And although I'm stepping outside your 40-year limit, who created the Environmental Protection Agency in the first place? I'll give you a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Comment Re:perhaps now that he is gone they may have a cha (Score 1) 142
Office is their last line of defence. But the walls will not hold. Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead.
Comment Re:true reaon for leaving! (Score 1) 142
When you are spending your $20B fortune in $2B chunks it goes pretty quick.
Comment Re: C (Score 1) 142
Frankly, they can keep the source. Burn it with fire.
Comment Re:No surprise here (Score 1) 170
The whole reason they made noise was the leak. It was public, so they had to Do Something(tm), There was no real surprise at spying allegations, just a public show.
Comment This is a civil case (Score 2) 231
So guilt does not apply. It is to determine responsibility, not guilt. There is a major legal difference, and trials proceed differently. Hence you can have OJ Simpson found innocent of a murder, but civilly responsible for causing wrongful death of the same individual.
Comment You've never ordered from a government contractor (Score 1) 64
Govconnection, which is one of our vendors, quite often has no pictures on their products, and minimal descriptions. Ordering the wrong thing because two products had a similar name would be a real possibility.
Journal Journal: Mars, Ho! Chapter Forty Two
Boarded!
Me and Bill hauled ass out of there towards Mars as fast as his crippled boat would take him. I did another inspection because first, I hadn't done a full inspection yet that day, second because I'd pushed her pretty hard, and third because I sure didn’t need any new surprises. We were at a third gravity because of Bill, and he was having a hard time keeping up. A third gravity? On batteries? I need to have him teach me some of that nerd
Comment Re:The Average Cat (Score 1) 66
a black dot on a white canvas
$360,000
-
Comment Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (Score 5, Insightful) 376
You cannot prove a negative.
Sure you fucking can. Anything defined in such a way as to exclude other possible definitions can have the latter definitions be proven in the negative just as surely as the former definition can be in the positive.
3 != 4. A triangle is not a square. Red is not blue. Hydrogen is not helium. A dog is not a cat. If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up. If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C. You are not smart.
In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen). You are proving that something is not possible or could not have happened.
Possible or not possible are easy by comparison. Proving a negative means, "take this thing that really could have possibly happened, and prove that it didn't happen". A shape cannot both be a triangle and a square. A pure color at a single wavelength cannot both be red and blue. You are drastically underestimating the scope of how difficult it is to prove a negative. "This couldn't have happened because it is impossible" is actually a positive claim and as such, can be proven.
Comment Re:M.C. Escher (Score 1) 74
Once, the program somehow found itself in an infinite loop and had to be killed with -9. This despite it having been proved terminating.
Comment Re:Naming contest entries (Score 1) 426
Microsoft Bib. Bob for the Internet.
Comment No, he just never gets it in the first place (Score 1) 299
Diplomatic status is granted by the host country, it is not automatic. What happens is a country says "We want this person to be our ambassador to you." The host country, if they are ok with that person, says "Ok we grant this person status as an ambassador and the immunity that comes with that." However there's no immunity, and related things (like an amount of time to leave the country) until then.
Immunity is not a one-way street. A country can't say "This person is a diplomat, you have to give them immunity."
Comment Re:Desperate to have a wank. (Score 2) 299
Yep, prior to that, he wasn't in any legal trouble in the UK. They were going to ship him off to Sweden, because they'd received an extradition request that their courts had determined legal, but he was in no trouble there.
However, as soon as he fled to the embassy, he broke UK law. So now he's in trouble in the UK, if nothing else. Regardless of the validity of the allegation in Sweden, he broke UK law by fleeing the extradition.
