I take it you've never actually used a 3-D printer?
I'm not claiming they didn't simply photoshop the images
I am! In fact, I'd be willing to be dollars to pesos they did not use Photoshop on the images. I'm sure they used Aperture.
RTFP (read the fucking paper).
While I'm sure you're much more of an expert then the researches who actually conducted this study, they do specify that the strains present are from livestock based on genetic testing. The introduction in the paper specifies why those strains are livestock-associated and what that means.
Here's the link, since you seem to have missed it even though the link is the first two words of the summary:
So it seems to me that responsible researchers would go a bit farther before reporting: Like by doing genetic testing on the strains of bug in the various workers and the livestock, and running models on the results to try to identfy whether the bugs are from the herd or the workers.
So it seems to me that a responsible commenter would go a bit farther before accusing the researchers of not thinking of something that they in fact did think of and went to great effort to do genetic testing on hundreds of samples for. But I guess you couldn't be bothered to at least RTFA (read the fucking abstract).
I'm actually pretty impressed that the summary linked to the actual paper and not just the journalist article. I'm not impressed that you didn't at least read the abstract before commenting.
Hey, bribery is just part of unfettered capitalism, isn't it?
Except bribery does not exist in capitalist US. Instead, we call it "lobbying" and "campaign contributions."
RT is directly controlled by the Russian govern.. well, Putin. I would say that makes Fox News slightly more trustworthy.
In US, Fox News controls the government.
I bet Apple does though. The last thing they want is "iPad" becoming so generic they lose the trademark, like hoover or cellophane or escalator or sellotape.
You mean like "Kleenex" or "Band-Aid"? Oh wait, those are still under trademark, aren't they?
It doesn't saying Boeing's design is the safe choice. It says Boeing the company is the safe choice. Publicly, that means they have been around a long time, are reliable, and we can have confidence that they'll succeed (@see Lockheed Martin with the F-35). Privately, that means they can be relied on to give campaign contributions, kickbacks, and/or highly paid consulting jobs after retirement the right people.
Drones do not use wifi.
Unless you're trying to be an ass and split hairs over the definition of "drone," yes they fucking do. Most off-the shelf drones (for the colloquial use of the word "drone," anyway), including the most popular ones like the Parrot AR.Drone and The Phantom use Wifi.
Other than this (FTA):
it also has an "All Out Mode" that would let you knock devices off of any wireless network, not just yours.
The big problem with that is not just that it's not your network, but also that if you switch the device on and it interfered with a drone that's already in the air, it could come crashing down and either seriously hurt somebody or at least cost the drone owner a lot of money. If somebody is spying into your backyard, fine, crash that sucker into the ground (after making sure nobody is around to get hurt), but obviously that's not always the case.
It uses the unique hardware signature that all Wi-Fi devices have to recognize what it's seeing before sending a "deauthentication packet" blocking access.
Okay, so it identifies by mac address, then sends a deauthentication packet (some sort of ARP spoof maybe)? That ought to count as "false signals," do that to somebody else's device and you should get busted for computer intrusion. If it's your own network, then easy peasy, just block the MAC address.
I wonder how much they are duped.
It's not that hard for them to find a dupe. They blast out messages through email and Yahoo chat all the time from textile companies looking for "agents" in the US. They usually have some excuse about how they got your contact info. They blast out enough so the hit ratio can be minuscule. Not everyone is savvy about things related to technology. Most who fall for it are probably idiots, but even people who are intelligent in other things have fallen for it.
The scam goes something like this: You're dupeA, they need an agent in the US to process payments, because the tax law is such that it makes the business taxes they have to pay significantly less than if the payments were processed offshore. Sometimes they do indicate that their avoidance of taxes is a gray area, which discourages people from talking about it with their friends who might tell them what's up. It is your job to simply print the checks (dupeB sent you the blanks) and mail them in the amounts and destination they tell you. In exchange, you get a commission, which essentially means writing yourself a check and depositing it into your bank. DupeB's job was to order the checks online, supposedly because they can only be sent to a US address, and DupeB is given a real bank account number to have put on the checks. DupeC is who gets the check you sent them. DupeC is selling something on craigslist, and the Nigerians have contacted him saying they want to buy his item and they'll arrange for their shipping agent to ship it to them, but the only way they can send DupeC money is by having their client, who already owes them money, send them a check. However, the amount the client owes them is more than the sale price of the craigslist item. So, DupeC needs to go deposit the check from the client (actually DupeA) in his bank, then send the difference to Nigeria via Western Union, minus a little extra for the inconvenience.
And of course, once the checks fail to clear, your bank takes back the amount of the check from your account, and DupeC is screwed out of whatever amount he sent via Western Union.
When was the last time you saw anyone smiling on a plane?
Last time a flew. It was a 2 year old. They're short so the lack of legroom isn't an issue. Of course, the kid started screaming her lungs out right before takeoff because mommy and daddy made her turn off her iPad, but she was smiling before that.
Oh yeah, and don't forget that if you're not flying by yourself you have to multiply that cost by the number of people in your family.
Why is it scummy for airlines to charge extra for better seating?
What's scummy is that they have reduced the "standard" to be so intolerable that it forces people to purchase the premium. If the "standard" was tolerable, but then they charged you extra for something more luxurious, then it wouldn't be scummy. There is a huge difference.
At check-in, United Airlines offers economy seats with much better legroom for a modest upcharge. On a transcontinental flight it's usually around $60 - $70.
But that's per flight, right? So a round trip itinerary with only 1 stop would be $60 x 4 = $240? That's not so modest for many people. Even if it were $60-$70 each way and not each flight, $120 - $140 round trip is not trivial.
If you don't want people stealing your money don't store money online. Don't use credit/debit cards, an online brokerage account, web access to your checking account, etc. If it's out there someone is going to steal it.
Great analogy. Most everyone knows that it's possible for your credit card number to get stolen. Heck, many of us have had our banks cancel our credit card (and send us a new one of course) because it was stolen from some merchant we purchased something from. So, just like using a credit card, if you're going to put nude pictures of yourself on the Internet (or anything on the Internet) then you should know there's a reasonable possibility that it is going to get stolen.