The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.
And as to your opinions of my needs
My opinion merely agrees with yours: Australia and you are a poor match. In the event, I was also agreeing with your main point, to wit, that Australians enjoy too few civil rights. But that's merely incidental, this is all about YOU.
I told you that you'd find my views incomprehensible
And in that you could not have been more wrong. You are (at least in respect of this topic) an open book. A book, notwithstanding your quirky self-image as "DANGEROUS," read many times before. The only thing approaching "baffling" is how someone who so compulsively writes about themselves can imagine they are any less transparent than a clear plastic bag. You're a legend in your own lunchtime mate.
Its what I need to immigrate. Without that... I refuse. You're not offering me real citizenship in my opinion if you don't offer me a reasonable set of iron clad rights in the package.
We're not offering you citizenship at all. This is for wealthy and successful business people and by invitation only. And with all due respect, if you have such a great need to be DANGEROUS
OTOH a Bill of Rights (along the lines of the 4th and 5th rather than the 2nd) for Australia might be a good thing. A basket of "iron-clad rights" would be nice just about now. Unfortunately changing the Australian Constitution is exceedingly difficult and a Bill of Rights is unlikely to make it past a population which harbours a (to me) baffling scepticism regarding such instruments.
The job of the NSA is to spy and if they don't spy on everything spyable they aren't doing their job. Can't even figure out why this would worthy of a
The issue here is not so much that the NSA spied on the French president. The issue is that said spying has been revealed. That will always rate a mention.
I imagine the French, and anyone else, fully expect US (and every other nation's) intelligence services to try to spy on them. However, once the beans have been spilled the French President can hardly respond with a simple 'méh!'
What is interesting for the rest of us, and the reason it merits a
If you have one bucket that holds two gallons and another bucket that holds five gallons, how many buckets do you have?
An unknown number of buckets where n>=2.
Well if it were not measurable it wouldn't be a placebo either, would it? What do you think 'placebo' means?
Hence why I specifically said that the mandatory label should clearly state that they have no medical efficacy. I doubt they'd sell many "remedies" that way, but if they want to try, I don't see why not.
The problem with that is that because the effect of homeopathy relies exclusively on the belief in its efficacy, requiring such labels runs the risk of lowering the rate of desirable placebo cures. If someone can drink a little vial of water and be cured of, say, electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome (and remember, modern medicine has no treatment for EHS
The real issue is how to stream patients who require something more substantial than water away from homeopathy and towards that suitable therapy.
the critical question for a programming language is less whether it is itself open source and more whether it's feasible to make open source software with it.
I have to disagree - a language which only has one single implementation which is closed source means that the developers using it is locked in and completely at the mercy of the owners of this implementation. Just like with VB6.
The point that was being made was simply to raise the question: Will an open-sourced Swift have any realistic application other than writing software exclusively for iOS and OSX. If it can't, you should find yourself every bit as locked in and at the mercy of the owners of the ecosystem, as if you were locked in by the owners of a proprietary language.
... and I'd like to add
Wake up SHEEPLE!!! Italian dressing ISN'T REAL!
You should apply some kinetic energy to a mixture of oil and water sometime, and see how it looks.
Better still use a mixture of vinegar and oil, (with a little added pepper, salt and dried herb), and then apply some kinetic energy. That way you can have your demonstration and eat it too.
[Y]ou must be one of the people who think 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2.
Well obviously 2 + 2 never equals 5, duh!
2 + 2 approaches 5 as the value of 2 grows
there is a limit to everything
And thus those few defeat us.
It's only those posting as ACs that favour privacy too much.
[The judges] do not want to give the impression of colluding with fugitives, since that could undermine the public confidence in the legal system.
You've just hit the nail on the head. Bear in mind they were not merely listening to Mr Assange, but were to appear along with him as fellow speakers.
But the judges instead give the impression of not understanding
I was under the impression that they had, in effect, been ambushed. The inclusion of Mr Assange as a fellow speaker was, to quote the Judicial Office, "at short notice and without consultation." So they freely admit they did not know this was going to happen. (If this is what you meant by not understanding what is going on).
Now the judges seem biased in favor of the established powers, blind to the allegations of abuse of powers.
They should seem so only to those ignorant of the reason the judges felt compelled to withdraw. Since you have enunciated that reason so succinctly, you of all people ought not to succumb to that unfounded interpretation.