Tickets much? Who makes your hats - Barnum and Bailey?

"Personal Computers'", "Micro Computers", "Home Computers" - are all nebulous terms. .i.e the MCA bus and EISA were also in "Personal Computers", and "Business Computers". Some could argue that the IBM PS/2 was the first "true" PC (integrated VGA, mouse, keyboard, plus hard drive and floppy drive). At one point x86 was part of the "Personal Computer" criteria, then it became anything that would interpret x86 (AMD-64). Now ARM devices are "Personal Computers".

Semantic pedantics enjoy pointless arguments have no point of any importance to make.

If a PC runs business software is it still a PC? If you put it on the floor is a desktop? Did you see those pictures of Lady Gaga? (sigh). Oh, and you're grammer is wrong. (I was going to work the word "nowadays", and the phrase "moving forwards", but...)

And killing someone by any means when they don't want to die is not cruel? Do you prefer a particular shade of lipstick on your pig?

I never said it was fun. Don't kid yourself that nitrogen being "painless" makes the experience any less unpleasant the person being executed. Heroin overdoses are very pleasant (I know that first-hand from a misspent youth). But only the deluded or those sick of life would willingly submit the experience - no matter how "pain free" the process. All your "humanity" is nothing more than the moral high ground of someone out of touch with reality. Knowing you are going to die real soon by any means makes the situation real. Very few take that awareness gracefully - and all those that do, that I've known, gain a greater respect for all life as a consequence - all others theorize from the safety of denial. Knowing you will die someday is not the same. You'll know the difference when it happens - I hope you never have to be that aware.

And I support your right to hold the opinion your deserve - even when it's wrong.

No - I can't. Your logic is flawed. Executions don't prevent crimes, slapping a political approval on murder doesn't change the reality. Hence the lipstick on a pig metaphor. Making it "nice" is just butter for those without bread.

Again your logic is flawed (how's that confirmation bias working out?). It's akin to asking me for a defense plan against an invasion of Martians (or whether I want to be punched or kicked in the balls).

Wow! You really are one sick fucker.

If you're going to embrace state sanctioned murder you should realize that the pain and embarrassment of the method of execution are irrelevant to the person being executed at the time. It's the audience, and those twisted blood lusting promoters of execution that worry about the ironic "humanity" of the method. The dead get over it pretty quick.

CO2 works fine too, but the hand flapping and increased respiration attempts aren't real pretty to watch (though worrying about the aesthetics of how you kill someone is, um, just fucking weird). CO also works just fine - no hand flapping or straining to breath, but it also has aesthetic "issues".

Note: I don't support state sanctioned murder - if for no other reason than the abysmal record the US has for justice - even when the condemned was actually guilty of the crime, the crime was arguably that of the state, not the condemned (homeowner shoots unarmed petty thief, petty thief that is not shot dead is convicted). I doubt there are many people outside the US that don't believe there is something extremely wrong with the self-appointed moral guardian of the world (life imprisonment for a joint, fines for giving out food, secret trade agreements that breach US sponsored International Human rights, etc, etc).

If you can't bear to kill your 'criminal' by ripping off their heads with a rope tied to the back of a F100 you're just putting lipstick on a pig and calling it pretty. And yes, there really are a large number of US 'citizens' that'd like (Facebook style) the F100 method (sadly it's not unique to the US), just look at the comments on /. from people cheering the idea of prison rape, or the human hemorrhoid that gets all excited at the idea of using liquid nitrogen and a hammer for state executions. On second thought - maybe state execution is the answer, just not for the people you put inside the cells of your prisons with the world's highest percentage of incarceration[*1].

Disclaimer: I spent part of my youth in Missouri (pronounced "misery") within sight of Monsanto - it's not Denmark that reeks of something seriously rotten.

[*1] I know.. (sigh), those that deny their ugly blood lust will point to statistically insignificant data from countries with populations of less than 100K, and simultaneously justify their own countries imprisonment rate, and their "right" to armed self-defense - whilst remaining blind to all the inherent contradictions. i.e. if your prison and justice system worked your 'citizens' wouldn't need guns, and you'd have the safest nation on earth. Roll on the triumph of optimism over experience like the Sherman tank of freedom, and whenever you lose a hand - double up.

Nooooooo!! It should be decided by a house vote. Face-painters rule!

1. and?
2. so?
3. what?

a search engine that searches the internet. Not parts of the internet, all of the internet.

I'd also like the search engine to do Boolean and regex.

P.S. I couldn't give a flying fuck if it:- has ads; tries to profile my search queries. I can at least attempt to get avoid those things. But if it does not index the entire internet it's as useful as a range of shoes that consist of one size and one style only.. And no, I don't care if it doesn't come with a free set of steak knives and is 100% dolphin free and kind to puppies, as long as it indexes everything

I don't care if Bill Gates wrote the back end, hell, I'd use it even if it was run by the scumbag behind DuckDuckFuckADuck.

Thanks

Maybe - it (might) be dependent on several things: definition of genius (high level abilities across a range of fields); reaction to competition.

Not being a genius I'd be guessing - and that'd be ironic given my experience with people who consider me "very intelligent" and then say "I don't understand why you don't waste your abilities" (i.e. why aren't I famous/richer/better fit their stereotype of what "smart" people do). My experience is that the smarter someone is - the less certain they are of their abilities (the more you know, the more you know you don't know). One perception is that society (the average) recognises and rewards those that are not as clever as they claim to be (or good). E.g. Not so smart. If you are so smart why don't you cure cancer/old age? Smarter. Because I can extrapolate. (none of those things would improve the world in which I live) Not so smart You are an idiot.

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread - expectation is an important component. One of the smartest people I know lives under a bush - his family had high expectations for him and got him scholarships in the "best" schools. Their expectations were that he would do much "better" than them (make more money, get more respect). He thought (correctly) that they were ignorant and relied too much on the opinion of those "who appointed themselves as peers". So he went the the "best" schools - on scholarships offered to raise the academic ratings in order to attract the offspring of the wealthy, and not surprisingly was victimized and did not get to join the exclusive boys clubs. I don't know whether the unrealistic expectations of his family or the first-hand insights into the lives and realities of those who society calls successful, caused him to reject societies expected standards. He's clean and healthy - and one of the happiest people I know.... so I have no reason to doubt he's still very, very smart.

Some things he's said:- the very smart are a threat to those that are not so smart - so if you're smart, play dumb; the only way to get smarter is to challenge people who are even smarter (so being surrounded by morons might have several effects); most people are too stupid to know how stupid they are; approval is a prison - pick your jailer carefully; most things are without reason or purpose and the dumbest thing is to search for reason where there is none; happiness is a choice; don't ask me - if you can't work it out the answer is valueless.

My point - if I have one, is that I'm not sure "smarter" people are unhappier because the smartest people I've ever met are not obviously smart (they hide their abilities). There is a myth that those that are much smarter than the average have an advantage - which is like believing that because you have 20 years experience at fighting you can beat someone twice your weight who has no experience. Numbers of people is like the weight of your opponent. It also overlooks the fact that in life we rarely get to chose the games we play - you may be much smarter than your colleagues, but they may have devoted their lives to licking arses - and if you are so much smarter than your boss unless he takes advantage of your superior abilities you are of no greater value than your dumber colleague. You are also more cautious about implementing changes - your dumb colleague is not. Perhaps being smarter means that you are unwilling to shit upstream because of the perceived consequences (you drink that water) - your dumber competition is not so constrained and achieves greater financial success.... Does your extra smart make you aware of this? Does your extra smart make you realise that there is no point in trying to educate your dumber competitor or their customers?

Tricky..

Apropos of little - what I hate most is the happiness of the stupid.

Call me a cynic - but if Twitter chose Ireland for "privacy" purposes then it's a huge coincidence it just happens to be cheaper - as well

Switzerland is not as private as Ireland, because, um, CERN is just another name for GCHQ, unless.... oh crap, GCHQ is an NSA partner (cough* we keep the data, NSA keeps the index/metadata*cough).

Never mind, I'm obviously delusional - GCHQ doesn't have access to Ireland, what was I thinking? As you were, carry on, nothing to see here...

Is it even possible? Seller of free stuff....

Yes....

So they stole from IBM. Yes, it's coming back to me now. OS/2. Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh wait, I see the problem - you're equating networking and internet. Networking was easy - little resistance from Bill there, the "internet" was something he hoped was a passing fad (tcp stack was trickier than cifs, and then their was the whole browser thingie - damn standards). Netscape, Mosaic, that's a whole 'nuther barrel of fish in the sun.

Are you simply retarded or serving a Monsanto agenda? Burbank did no genetic engineering. The Chihuahua was the result of selection over a long period of time and comes without patents or engineered infertility.

Good science is not claiming that designing monkeys that glow in the dark is the same things as selecting wolves that aren't scared of humans.

Selection over successive generations for desirable characteristics != genetic engineering. Claiming that it is, is either ignorance (the enemy of science) or sophism (the enemy of intelligent discussion). The only things stupider and more dishonest is: equating those that differentiate between the two methods of engineering a desirable change in an organism are somehow the enemies of progress/science; claiming that all engineered change is good.

The Romans had a quaint habit of making those the made bridges sit under them while a legion marched overhead. The same should be considered for genetic engineering. Not all bridges should be trusted just because the builders say it's safe.

Trust if you want - but verify. Anyone who lobbies to have the new bridges kept secret should have a legion set on their arses. If it's so fucking safe what do the builders have to hide?