Comment Re:"Just had"? (Score 1) 129
The burst was created en route about 6000 years ago: So actually it never happened.
(Please don't mod insightful)
Why not? That would be funny.
The burst was created en route about 6000 years ago: So actually it never happened.
(Please don't mod insightful)
Why not? That would be funny.
Wow, you Republicans are getting more brazen. Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves. The legal system would become instead of 80% biased for the Republicans like we have now to 100% against the normal people. That is a horrible idea.
Its already 100% biased against the poor. We just want all lawyers to work probono.
Bingo!
This is the correct answer. The Hawaian islands form over a "hot spot" under the sea floor that doesn't move with the plate. When the plate moves enough, a new volcanic vent appears. The entire chain of islands is the result of this process. Note that Hawaii, "The big island" is currently over the hot spot, and all the other islands are no longer active. The further away (in a line!) from the hot spot they are, they more they've eroded, so the smaller they are.
That looks suspiciously like compelling evidence for a >10000 year old earth.
Damn the devil is good! Hes obviously put alot of effort in to making the physical evidence as logical and consistent as possible.
Come to think of it, he would make a damn good engineer if he wasn't so evil. Its a real pity God lets this veritable mountain of evidence against a literal bible slide.
To be honest, He needs to lift His game a bit and put a stop to all this physical evidence thats fooling so so many intelligent humans...the plausible deniability argument is going to be pretty hard for Peter to refute at the Pearly Gates to be honest.
**Before the hate machine begins its inexorable slide over me, please note that this post is actually satire.
Ok, I'll bite. according the Christian Bible, Yahweh is omnipotent. By definition ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent 'having complete or unlimited power' 'having virtually unlimited authority or influence' 'arrant: being notoriously without moderation' This is what amuses with people. Why can't an entity who has all power and authority create a universe with spoken word instanteously just like it is now and then make it look old? Why couldn't he screw with people and simply keep changing the science? This is the whole point. When you interject an all powerful deity into the mix the answer will always be 'I don't know.' Yes, it could be 10k yrs old and look billions simply because he could. So if you want to believe that great. If you want to believe science is right great. Fighting about it is ignorant.
kim kardashian butt or brittney spears butt?
Kim's is far bigger.
Greetings Bob9113.
Please forgive me if I disregard all your academic arguments about economic philosophy that are based on one term I used ("free market") because that was the most concise term I could think of using the english language. There is no dogmatic and irrational belief in lassaiz faire at work here.
I'm not sure what features YouTube has that couple users to it, because I've never had a YouTube account, yet I can go to YouTube and watch absolutely anything (with the exception of a few vexing restrictions when using a mobile device). I'm not forced to use YouTube for anything, and plenty of videos I watch are provided by services other than YouTube. Lots of stuff is on YouTube, but I don't feel particularly coupled to it. In fact, I'd classify YouTube as the most uncoupled service on the internet because I am not forced to be a YouTube user in any way, yet I can watch any YouTube video I wish on just about any device I own.
More importantly, I can choose to NOT watch YouTube videos, and there is plenty of interesting information out there that does not use YouTube.
I'm not seeing the closed market you are describing, at least with respect to YouTube. I DO see a closed market with other services that require me to use that service exclusively to see something, but YouTube has been pretty egalitarian in my experience.
So what is your point exactly, and what service do you use that is more free than YouTube?
Have to ask this but how did you manage to watch porn on Youtube. (yes a bit pendantic but sorry it is a good argument)
other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.
So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok
You actually still use IE? How sad for you.
Pushing a new service (streaming) by exploiting a market-dominating position in another area (video sharing on YouTube) sounds like a gross violation of antitrust laws.
No just being anti competitive can do that. lets see At&T, Comcast, EA. Viacom etc (i could continue but then I would have a list of over 100)
The point is: Google isn't even giving us the choice.
And when has they ever? I seem to remember the death of igoogle even though it was popular.
Its a $1000 tax on (I think) all cars to support local police municipal revenues so they can continue to pursue criminals where there isn't a net payoff at the end... like nearly all of them.
so you don't object to simply paying regardless of your driving status?
Clearly that money to pay for regular police work is still going to have to come from somewhere.
Yes, we pay the police chief less. There has never been a need to pay people who set behind a desk a Sh!tload of money and the grunt a pittance. what needs to happen is all police officers get one flat wage. The only thing that changes is rank and access. Where did it say because I dont walk the street I get more. That is laziness. Don't give me the oh they went to school bit either. Most beat cops are far more skilled then the desk drivers.
$1,000 in road enforcement fees per driverless car.
This model's already being proposed for electric vehicles, on the grounds that they aren't paying fuel taxes. It's idiotic for EV's, since they serve an important purpose. But it's ideal for driverless cars.
How about the reverse. Instead of fining those who own driverless and EV why don't we just increase the base for all tickets. That way if you in a manually driven car decide to make a stupid decision you can get fined. I think parking and speeding should be $500 mininum. Now watch and the amount of people whine about this. But remember, why does Hollywood think they can break torrenting and why do other industries think they can stop forward progress? Because of that very reason above. No, I don't either model is viable because ev will decrease pollution in congested areas and driverless cars will end drunk driving, distracted driving and other driving abuses. That is far more important than podunkia's traffic fines. Poeple choose to drive poorly. They should be fined for that choice. People shouldnt be fined because they want to save the environment or others because some people still want the right choose poorly and cause an accident that will cost someone else thousands.
Bad news most likely on this front. I have worked University IT, and I can guarantee they are going to have problems.
For one, no matter how many layers of backups you have, when you are working with a bunch of 90 year old academics, they will always find a way to miss every single one.
And more grievous, Universities tend to have important data that absolutely cannot be backed up in any normal way. Data that is legally obligated to stay on one specific computer in one specific room and never leave; under penalty of legal action.
That level of insanity is why I am laughing. The bold parts specifically. When you allow people who have no clue how a system works to legislate how it works, you get this.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Restrictions like these are usually imposed by the legal IT people in the funding agency that funds the research, and they do very much understand exactly what they are doing (there are plenty of people in these agencies who are clueless, but the legal IT people are usually pretty good). Or suppose the project was doing research for the cops into identifying the makers of child porn; believe me that stuff would be locked down REAL tight.
You didn't understand the comment. I was referring to congress making laws. (federal, state what have you). Good IT people won;t be good lawyers anymore than good lawyers would be good IT people. You can't do both today there simply isnt enough hours in the day. As for pulling out the tired cp red herring, is it illegal to store and transmit CP on ANY computer? Yes it is. Georgia: House Bill 76 - Prohibits online transmission of fighting words, obscene or vulgar speech to minors, and information related to terrorist acts and certain dangerous weapons. 3/95 Signed into law.
See United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (“In Stanley v. Georgia, [394 U.S. 557 (1969),] the Court held that privacy interests protect the right to possess obscene materials in one’s own home, but subsequently clarified [in United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 141 (1973)] that this sanction does not extend to the distribution or receipt of obscenity, which may be regulated on interstate commerce grounds even if the transportation is for the recipient’s personal use.
Here's what you need to know:
1. Anyone over 17 can be charged as an adult in Georgia.
2. Anyone over 18 can be charged federally.
3. Pictures can be child pornography even though the sender is the person in the picture, so long as the person in the picture is under 18.
4. Transmission via a cell phone can be prosecuted federally, but doesn't have to be.
5. Much like statutory rape, the fact that the "victim" was an equal participant is no defense for the other participant.
6. A conviction could result in serious prison time and a LIFETIME as a registered sex offender.
Lets not play these games. You knew what I meant and wanted to be pendantic.
Knowing that people have been running various kinds of centralized update services, perhaps across multiple OSes, and spanning several years now, listening to a story about an update server literally going rogue and nuking everything attached to it, and then for the coup de grace, basically committing suicide at the end by reformatting itself, does not sound like an accident.
If it truly was, I'd hate to see what the hell purposeful intent looks like.
No that I think about it, you are right digital seppuku isn't an accident. This is something that I would hear on Coast to Coast AM under Illumanti or on Alex jones.
My point here was the focus on the amount of destruction that was caused by an "oops", not to shine a light on some batshit theory about uber-secret state-sponsored malware mass-injections.
Besides, we've already seen it's far easier to just compromise CAs anyway, and that's no batshit theory.
When update servers can be "weaponized" that easily against your own environment, it makes you wonder who really needs to be holding those keys, or perhaps why you even need to drive such a fancy update service.
I agree 100%. It was mostly likely massive epic fail by someone who incompetence rivals those who built Healthcare dot org. Howvere, one CAN"T overlook the fact that people WILL call this a conspiracy by said agents because it fits the profile too easily.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
