You're right. From now on I'll refer to them using terms more appropriate for them. "Fags".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

How do you think a cop infiltrating a gang like, for example, the Hells Angels, gains their trust?

Also, and undercover cop can smoke a bowl with you and still arrest your ass for having/selling/using.

No need to bring Miranda into it. Before you are arrested, anything you say can be used against you, even if you have not been Mirandized. It is only after arrest that Miranda is an issue.

> And then the public defender you're assigned because you can't afford a decent lawyer

Hold on just a second. There are many fine public defenders who happen to be far better than just "decent". They will not, however, be able to dedicate much time to your case. THAT is the issue with many PD's. Not that they suck or are not "decent" but that they are over worked.

> I'm fine with (cops lying to people)

If you or I lie to a cop, we can get charged with obstruction of justice. If they lie to us, they can get a commonadation.

And you're "fine" with that.

Some days it's easier to be a misanthrope than others. This is one of those days. Fuck you.

Oh look! An advertisement from 1906 calling copyright infringers "pirates".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Using teh term "pirates" to refer to copyright infringers is nothing new.

Bitching about it, however, is.

> I'm running a browser in a VM... What malware?

Your faith in the security of VM sandboxes is misplaced.

It is trivial to write a program which can detect if it is in a VM. And then, attack the hypervisor and escape the protected environment. As virtualization has become more common, such malware has gone from academic exercises to real-world exploits.

http://www.symantec.com/avcent...

My favorite line:

Finally, the most interesting attack that malicious code can perform against a virtual machine emulator is to escape from its protected environment.

With virtualization becoming more and more common

The use of the word "pirate" to denote a copyright infringer is not a Microsoft invention.

Check out this advertisement from 1906:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

> I was most recently using Debian, but my computer got messed up after I did an update and that SystemD thing got installed.

Debian stable still uses initd. The only way you get systemd is by running unstable.

Saying that radio images translated so we can view them in at a freqency visible to us are not "real" is like saying images produced using night vision goggles are not real.

The waves involved in this issue are not part of the observable spectrum for humans. Converting them to visible frequencies for our observation does not make them any less "real" except to the pedantic or to those of us who go as far as to say that observable science can't prove anything.

> Why not image the center of a galaxy that's plane is perpendicular to us?

Another factor: on that video I linked, the scale on those images is 10 light days. I don't think modern astronomy can resolve individual stars on that fine a scale, which would be required to produce the same effect while viewing another galaxy.

That's another thing that makes that image amazing to me... how close those stars are. 10 light days is nothing, cosmically speaking.

Years. That is a time lapse loop, and the current year is in the upper left corner.

> There's roughly 25,000 light years of dust and stars to see through.

You're right... it would be impossible to view those stars using the optical spectrum. However, the scientists in this case, and for the multi-year time-lapse loop I linked to used radio waves which were unaffected by dust. One might think that interposing stars would block out the view (after all, the view is sideways through the "platter" of the galaxy) but given the far separation of the stars, the view is not blocked even at such vast distances.

I initially shared your incredulity, and I did the research, and that is indeed a radio image of the actual stars at the center of our galaxy.

Correction: It's called "Sagittarius A*" And NASA does not qualify it using terms such as "might be a black hole" or "theorised to be a black hole." They simply call it a "supermassive black hole"

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...