Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Next step - beer! (Score 1) 308

Nope. Google 'spelt beer'...there are a few commercial ones and many homebrew recipes.

There are even einkorn beers out there. Outside of experimental GMO grains or truly extinct species, I'd guess that...no, there's no grain known to man that someone has not tried to add in some quantity to their mash.

Comment: Re:The whole article is just trolling (Score 1) 794

by QRDeNameland (#47967113) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Yep, that's pretty much my take. My first clue was that he does not use the word "hypothesis" once in the entire article. And though I can't say I can quote Francis Bacon chapter and verse, isn't "abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things" (based on initial observations) the very definition of formulating hypotheses, which are then subject to the rigors of experimentation and further observation?

It almost seems as if this guy read Feynman's famous quote...

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

...and took from it that experiment is the *only* aspect of science that matters.

That's about as "botched" an understanding of science as any.

Comment: Re:Alright smart guy (Score 1) 504

by QRDeNameland (#47960627) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is iOS 8 a Pig?

What did you load it on? An iPhone 1? A 4? An Osborne Executive?

Funny...I had to google "Osborne Executive", and by whatever coincidence, the picture of it on the WP page has an iPhone next to it. I presume it's for size comparison, but I couldn't help but chuckle at the idea that it was taken by someone trying to get the iOS image running on it.

Comment: Re:law enforcement scams (Score 5, Informative) 462

by QRDeNameland (#47884441) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

If Republicans had their way, the government would have no power whatsoever to confiscate anything from you without first convicting you of a crime.

Utter and complete bullshit. The asset forfeiture regime was introduced under the Presidentâ(TM)s Commission on Organized Crime in 1986, at which time the President was Republican Saint Ronald Reagan, and was ramped up through the GHW Bush administration.

Not that I absolve the Democrats in any way of their part is this travesty, but make no mistake...when Republicans have their way, this is *exactly* the sort of corrupt power grab they are famous for.

Comment: Cue the cop apologists... (Score 0) 462

by QRDeNameland (#47884189) Attached to: CBC Warns Canadians of "US Law Enforcement Money Extortion Program"

The cops have a tough job and the vast majority are not predators and have our best interests at heart. As long as I know they're keeping us safe, what's a little shakedown here and there? Just make sure you don't like someone who deserves it and take heart that they can only steal what's in the car or on your person. Just be *reasonable* about it, that's all.

And please, stop the nonsense about being in a police state. In a police state, they stick the plunger handle all the way up your ass, here they stop at 2/3 the way. Clearly *not* a police state....yet.

/Stockholm Syndrome

Comment: Re:Too much good content is deleted at Wikipedia. (Score 1) 239

by QRDeNameland (#47725419) Attached to: Latest Wikipedia Uproar Over 'Superprotection'

I do have some vague feeling that I heard it used in the way you describe once several decades ago, but I'd hardly say that such a meaning is "well recognized".

If you check the Urban Dictionary page for "Nimrod", I'd say that it appears to be pretty well recognized. According to one entry, the usage dates to a Bugs Bunny cartoon where Elmer Fudd is referred to as such.

I can't say it's universally common among the entire English-speaking world, but where I grew up (East Coast US in the 70s/80s) it was a common synonym for 'dimwit'.

Comment: Re:Er, that's a bit confusing (Score 2) 166

by QRDeNameland (#47570519) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing

Not to be seen as a classist biggot, but if someone homeless or destitute, but understand the nature of the proposition, why shouldn't they be able to enter an agreement to test drugs that 1) might help whatever the condition being treated is and 2) render them with some income? The same opportunities should be afforded them as others. You can't exclude someone because they are homeless or destitute.

Well, putting aside the question of whether or not this practice is exploitative, I see a greater concern in the fact that they are testing on a group that may not be representative of the general population. If, for example, the people you are testing on are disproportionately severe alcoholics or drug addicts, you might get a disproportional incidence of side effects that will skew your results. Ethics aside, it seems like bad scientific practice to me.

Comment: Re:Chrome? (Score 2) 436

by QRDeNameland (#47561993) Attached to: Which Is Better, Adblock Or Adblock Plus?

The real question is: If you value privacy and dislike ads, why would you ever use Chrome?

Well, I keep Chrome installed as my secondary browser because I run Firefox by default in "hazmat suit" mode (ABP, NoScript, Ghostery, RequestPolicy, etc.) which does break a lot of sites. For sites that I trust, oftentimes it is easier to just use Chrome than figure out what I need to whitelist in which plugin using FF. In terms of using it as your only/default browser, I agree with you, but even for a moderate paranoid like me, there is a case to be made for 'ever' using it.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...