Oh, good, no one has thought of that. I guess you were right, and everything in the article is a piece of horseshit. Glad it worked out that way, and you were able to figure out the core reason for these false positives, which have never been a concern since 2001, which was at least 14 years ago.

I'm going to hire you to think for me for the next 50 years. Give me your telephone number, and other biometric data to confirm your personality.

I have TWC and I watch the hell out of Netflix, for $35/mo. It's 15 mb/s, 10x what I paid AT&T for (1.5mb) for $49.

It;s not Comcast, but it seems relevant since the merger was given the big finger.

What's my upload? I'd rather not upload one goddamned thing. How does my upload matter? I don't give a shit. My Netflix experience hasn't suffered, and for fuck's sake I don't intend to create more content than I consume.

Do you?

The comparison is not remotely appropriate. You're not helping, and you should shut the hell up until you have something to contribute.

"Our President" did little in the way of programming, and that is obvious. I haven't read the code, and now I don't even care, because you sound like a retarded fart.

I'd like to promise to come back when you have a point, but that's like promising to give birth to a Martian.

Since Dice, and really well before, fuck all of that technicality. If the dude can solve sudoku in anything other than a pencil, should we really nitpick?

What in the actual fuck are you doing on the internet?

You have the worst pharmacy, worst insurance, or worst information. And not changing at least one of those suggests inferior decision making skills. So since you can't determine this yourself, go fix things and then have a probationary try at being online again.

I could paste my prescription history, available for tax reasons, but you would claim I made it up. So just stop.

No, that means latest, as in bleeding edge.

Ie 11 has compatibility settings for Edge, 10, 9, 8, 7. How could it implement compatibility with a non existent browser?

You are defending the ability, and allowing for abuse of that ability. And you offer no citation for how you define "most".

Aside from the other responses, you are just biased from personal experience. Try again.

Are you saying that among the piles of natural things assaulting an infant, the 7 or so man-made and unnatural things we inject are harmless, just because of statistics?

If the first dose has a stronger reaction, it being foreign when the other doses are familiar stuff, that kinda suggests foreign stuff is bad.

I think anti-vaxxers are retarded. But your argument is just as ignorantly stupid. Try again.

It's fucking Kevin Spacey. You shut your whore mouth!

First off, does that even mean anything? What units is the "scale" of a universe expressed in?

Scale doesn't have units - if I have a 200x zoom it could be meters or feet or idiotic statements. If only there were an article to answer your fucking questions:

the largest observable scales are âoeonlyâ 92 billion light years or so (from one edge of the observable Universe to the other), while the smallest theoretical scale, the Planck scale, is down at around 10^-35 meters. All told, this is just 62 orders of magnitude

So, did you expect it to be on a scale of a googol squared? Because that's the scale here according to the fucking article.

Weâ(TM)ve managed to zoom in by more than a factor of 10^200, or more than a googol squared, and we still find this same self-similarity, and the same remarkable, intricate structures.

But isn't it mathematically proven that the Mandelbrot set has the same "complexity" at all scales?

Are you telling or asking? Because these videos are pretty damned amazing, and the human brain is a lot better at pattern recognition than computers, and at a zoom of 10^200 the patterns are still self similar. The *theory* of self-similarity either was proven or not proven. I like to see it for myself if possible, and I saw it for myself. I'm not sure I'd understand the proof, but I understand the video.

Was it proven or not?

I'd have thought it would be more interesting to talk about...

Then why didn't you?

That was a supplemental fact from 2002 in a story about stuff encompassing decades. You are missing a lot of information. Did you stop reading at that point?

This is not a mistake.

This is presuming that the arresting officers or investigators must have done their job right, so we should support their side of the story.

The same, effectively, as telling a jury that the defendant must be guilty because why would an innocent man be arrested and in court?
It's not justice, but so far beyond just covering up mistakes.

If what you say were remotely possible, many of these problems would not exist.

'Fixing this is simple" almost always translates to "Here's my oversimplified misunderstanding"

Monsanto products are apparently Round-Up resistant, so you can spray herbicides on otherwise edible plants.

The objections are not against breeding pesticide generation. The objections are against being

1) Unnaturally bred, and therefore largely untested in nature, even if by science
2) Okay with large amounts of herbicides, which will end up in the herb

I assume you drink round-up regularly and have no objection to it in your vegetables, if you object to the objections.

And your objection to resistant weeds is really scare-monger territory. There are much better reasons to object, like exactly what I just typed.

Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops

WTF, moron, "relentless" is not "one". And of course he's going to eat the low hanging fruit. That's what his audience likes, appreciates, and wants. That's why people oppose him, because he has an audience that wants the low hanging fruit.

I'm over 40, my fruit hangs low. His audience is likely to like my fruit nonetheless. I'm not judging.

But he can sway a whole lot of people, while peer reviewed journals don't have that sort of audience. Care to rebut?