Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Just let the investigations complete (Score 1) 6

by squiggleslash (#47719597) Attached to: What they want you to think

Eyewitnesses pretty much had consistent stories before the media circus started and while one biased, or two unbiased, eyewitnesses might be likely to be highly unreliable, when you start getting many (and 3U+1B seems many to me) all independently corroborating one another then you're getting into territory where only "Invisible gorilla" scenarios (and similar) start to play out in terms of their accounts being wrong. Ultimately it's hard to understand why witnesses would ignore some massive act of violence on the part of Brown.

Which is why I'm leaning towards something related to the door incident, as that was noticed at the time. I just don't quite understand, yet, the mechanism. And it doesn't really explain, however much in pain Wilson was, why he shot Brown if Brown subsequently ran and then put his hands up, as witnesses say.

Comment: Re:Check your local fracking mixture (Score 1) 267

by drinkypoo (#47719349) Attached to: Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

CCl4 is not soluble is water, and would not make hydrocarbons more mobile or more soluble. It would however, readily dissolve in hydrocarbon fluids

You mean like diesel fuel?

  where it would be difficult and expensive to separate.

The petroleum is going into a fractional distillation column. Its whole purpose is to perform this kind of separation. While the process might be difficult and expensive, it is a process which the petroleum will undergo anyway.

Comment: The Inconvenient Truth (Score 1) 141

by WillAffleckUW (#47716731) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

The inconvenient truth is that there is no actual way to stop a highly trained and capable team of individuals from weaponizing most things already INSIDE an airplane, and any trained individual could easily construct passable materials that could be easily reassembled on any airplane anyway.

You're doing it wrong.

Get rid of the TSA and stop wasting our time with this farce.

Want to stop terrorism on planes? Drill into passengers that they must throw coats and blankets and jump on all terrorists or they will all die.

That works.

The rest is crap.

Comment: Most likely a combination of things (Score 1) 267

by WillAffleckUW (#47716695) Attached to: Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

Partly a few rogue countries, but it's more likely high level photochemical reactions above high pollution zones over China where the level of pollution has gone way beyond safe levels. Throw some electrochemical processes and a highly unregulated "military" sector of Chinese companies and you've got a ready source.

Lightning cares nought for your political boundaries. Neither does pollution.

Comment: All of the Above (tm) (Score 2) 265

It's actually All of the Above (tm).

It's a way for you to turn off and disable a stolen phone.

And it's a quick way for the Thought Police to turn off all cell phones which take nasty pics and vids and audio when they go all East Germany Stasi on your First Amendment and other rights.

By the way, in case you didn't know, even when they "turn off" wireless and cell node tracers in urban centers that could track your cell phone, they can always turn them back on with 5 minutes. So those cities that "removed" them but never physically removed them still have them enabled for crackdowns on anyone who thinks they actually have rights.

Comment: Or you could just use the windows and screens (Score 1) 94

by WillAffleckUW (#47715935) Attached to: Your Phone Can Be Snooped On Using Its Gyroscope

Since a long long time ago (about 50 years now) we've been able to use nearby windows and computer monitors - even picture frames - to pick up sounds inside rooms.

Why bother with a cell phone if you're trying to get a good audio pickup?

If you need to isolate a person, it's not a bad choice, but you can also use the other signals your cell gives out or responds to for locating the person precisely, without technically "using" the phone, and thereby alerting the target.

But, hey, do it the hard way, if you must.

Open Source

At Home with Tim O'Reilly (Videos 3 and 4 of 6) 5

Posted by Roblimo
from the he's-a-publishing-business-upshaker-who-supports-the-builder-and-the-maker dept.
Today's videos are parts three and four of our casual interview with Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media and one of the most influential open source boosters around. (You supplied the questions. He supplied the answers.) We had a lot more to say about Tim yesterday when we ran parts one and two of our video interview with him. (Today's alternate Video Links: Video 3 ~ Video 4; transcript covers both videos.)

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 704

by squiggleslash (#47712491) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I wrote my bullet points because I really couldn't believe you wrote what you just did. If I'm interpreting your response correctly, you either are embarassed by what you wrote and are trying to walk it back in a way that doesn't admit you made the mistake at all, or you're trolling. You certainly haven't attempted to clarify how my interpretation is incorrect.

You said: "every woman on Twitter who says anything remotely prominent stops getting hundreds of rape threats in response". This is ludicrous hyperbole, an attempt to foster moral panic.

No, it's a reasonable depiction of the current environment. You, thus far, have claimed it isn't because (1) you claimed only Valenti was getting the threats, and then, when it became clear that wasn't true, that (2) it was only "feminists" who were getting them (and somehow implied this isn't a problem then.)

I'm leaning towards the "I'm being trolled" hypothesis when it comes to your commentary. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but at this point I'd like you to start by:

- Agreeing that it's not just Valenti getting the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That NOTHING Valenti has said justifies the threats of physical and sexual violence.
- That it is actually misrepresenting someone to post a picture of them wearing what's obviously a joke T-shirt and imply that it isn't a joke, rather than address directly what they've written.
- That the subset of threats of physical and sexual violence I've pointed you at directly were unjustified
- That Feminists do NOT deserve threats of physical and sexual violence.

Once you say, explcitly, the above, I'll respond. But based upon how you've commented thus far, I'm not interpreting it as anything other than how I've described, and I'm concerned you're not arguing in good faith.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 0) 704

by drinkypoo (#47712321) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'm a different AC, but I think you made his point. "You are unlikely to see another human being for days" in those hundreds (is it really thousands?) of square miles precisely "because practically nobody lives there or will ever go there."

Yes, I did. I also made the point that his point is irrelevant. We're talking about a minuscule proportion of the population. It's not that their wishes should be ignored, exactly; I believe that creation and protection of rights is a valid pursuit. But "It is virtually impossible for people to not run into each other," is still a completely valid statement. Virtually nobody lives in a situation where they won't see other people. Someone always turns up, if only for a sample of something. Maybe you. And frankly, there really is nowhere like you describe in the USA, either. There's a number of large private ranches of thousands of acres; those guys often have stories of trespassers. And a large portion of the country is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which regularly portions big sections of it off for military and police training, and which patrols it regularly and investigates fires, target shooters in hunting season and hunters out of season, and the like. Then there's the big state parks, which are full of state park rangers on horses and in Jeep of various types, and IIRC Chevy trucks. They manage to cover quite a bit of ground.

So yes, it is virtually impossible to not run into people. You have to go to significant lengths, especially since people are actually looking for people in those supposedly empty places. Sure, you could get lost in the asscrack of some mountain somewhere, but even getting there is beyond the reach of many people. Only a tiny slice of the world population even lives away from someplace where you can avoid seeing people for more than a few minutes at a time.

Comment: Re:I hope it's just me (Score 1) 704

by squiggleslash (#47711885) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

I'll bullet point what I'm reading and you can tell me what I'm misunderstanding from your post, if anything:

- The women receiving rape threats are, in your view, Feminists, and so it's not an issue. You don't explain why it's OK if Feminists receive rape threats.
- Michele Malkin has never retweeted numerous death and rape threats despite widespread coverage when it happened. (She's probably a Feminist too, amirite?)
- Valenti has made a career of demonising men, as can be evidenced by one joke T-shirt, which is totally not misrepresenting her views because she wore it in public and even showed a picture of it online which nobody ever does with a joke shirt.
- You bringing up male suicides in response to someone complaining they're seeing more PCism because women online keep getting rape threats is not deflection. Me pointing out that it has nothing to do with the topic at hand is.


Here's the truth, which you appear to be completely unable to comprehend:

1. No, Valenti does not hate men, nor has she made a career of demonizing them. I've actually read some of Valenti's stuff, and while she says a lot of nonsense, most of the idiots complaining about misandry are the ones who respond to "Wouldn't it be nice if men didn't ${badthing} women" with "Not all men ${badthing}" despite the fact the sentence was never "It's terrible that ALL MEN ${badthing} women, it should stop!"
2. No, Valenti is not the only one getting rape threats.
3. Sorry to bring up Valenti again, as this issue has nothing to do with her save for her being one of the numerous victims, but asking about the existence of subsidized tampons should not result in you receiving threats of physical and sexual violence, including rape.
4. Thinking it would be nice to have Jane Austin on a banknote does not mean you deserve to be threatened with physical and sexual violence, including rape. Jane Austin is fucking awful, but that is a disproportionate response. BTW, that wasn't Valenti. Valenti is not the receipient of all or most of the rape threats.
5. Even hating liberals should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence.
6. Politely asking men not to hit on women in public spaces like cons should not make you a target for threats of physical or sexual violence. In fact. Rebecca's request was an entirely reasonable one regardless of your views on women.
7. Actually, pretty much no action should result in you getting those threats. None. Not even over-reacting to men making sexist jokes behind you in a way that gets both one of them and yourself fired.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman