not 'likely', 'definitely'
just witness the hoards of mucking forons spewing forth onto forums parroting bullshit from fox news / talk radio about 'da gubment taking my intertubes'
no solid proof on the existence of any kind of god.
There seems to be some liquid proof though, at least according to Benjamin Franklin who said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Atheist != anti-theist. An atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in religion, not necessarily someone who believes there isn't a god.
Oh, damn, and I've already commented so I can't mod this up.
"You can't fix stupid." - Ron White
And more importantly, a command and control structure, generally hierarchical. What use is a religion if you can't control anyone/anything with it?
Some of my previous jobs involved programmed AI game opponents for action games. As anyone who's faced an aim-bot knows, there's no real challenge for computers to perform many of the tasks humans find difficult, like putting a bullet through a moving target's forehead.
Then why did Steven Polge resort to making the ReaperBot cheat?
Surely there should be an X11 chip, for those that want to go louder and faster?
One of the more amusing aspects of astrology is that the tables that they use were not accurate to start with, and didn't allow for precession, stellar movement, etc. Now 800 years later when "Jupiter is in Orion" according to their charts it probably isn't actually anywhere near it.
It's like we found the dumbest guy in the country and elected him president or something.
We in the US have a head start, we elected Reagan in 1980. His wife Nancy's astrologer seems to have had a say in a number of policy decisions, especially later in his second term when the Alzheimers was setting in.
What may not be apparent to others is that the UK system of parliamentary 'seats' and first past the post ballots can lead to situations like this.
A party gets into power. They then get the boundaries commission to look at population densities and 'correct anomalies' so that each set has roughly the same number of voters [this is their job]. Of course what they actually do is to ring-fence areas where there is a great deal of support for them and spread areas with largely opposition support amongst many seats to dilute their effectiveness.
This leads to the concept of "safe seats" (where you could safely bet on an outcome because people would vote for a monkey if it had the right coloured rosette). In reality UK politics is decided by a relatively small number of 'marginal seats' where the outcome is less predictable.
What this means in practice is that the majority party in parliament rarely (almost never) has a majority of the popular vote (typically only around 35%). They are 'first past the post' in more seats but fewer supporting voters overall. It also means party officials can reward people with safe seats for following directions.
Two take away points:
1) Don't judge the British on the basis of the politicians we've got -- we are not all so inept/clueless
2) Even by the standards of most MPs this guy is seriously out of step with reality. He is in a party that would like to dismantle the NHS and farm it out to their chums in private medicine so it's no surprise he's on a committee that could cause sabotage.
I think the Gemalto response seems reasonable, actually. The documents suggest they weren't doing anything more sophisticated than snarfing FTP or email transfers of key files, which Gemalto say they started phasing out in 2010. And the documents themselves say they weren't always successful.
NSA/GCHQ are not magic. They do the same kind of hacking ordinary criminals have been doing for years, just more of it and they spend more time on it. If Gemalto are now taking much better precautions over transfer of key material and the keys are being generated on air gapped networks, then it seems quite plausible that NSA/GCHQ didn't get in. Not saying they could NEVER have got in that way, but these guys are like anyone else, they take the path of least resistance.
Besides, it's sort of hard for them to do something about a hypothetical hack of their core systems that they can't detect and which isn't mentioned in the docs.
You can not win the game, and you are not allowed to stop playing. -- The Third Law Of Thermodynamics