Comment Re:Using CCTV (Score 1) 202
I would say "no problem", but it was harder than I thought to track down a link, so "almost no problem!"
I would say "no problem", but it was harder than I thought to track down a link, so "almost no problem!"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/photo_galleries/4252721.stm
Olympics 2012 bid: London visit
Picture 5:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40841000/jpg/_40841379_oly_tunnell300.jpg
Day two: The team pass through the tunnel that will link Kings Cross and Stratford when the Channel Tunnel link is complete
using CCTV to change traffic lights (apart from showing just how widespread the coverage in London is) is almost minor compared to some of the other bid stunts - they took the motorcade through the (at that time, not yet opened) railway tunnels from St Pancras to Stratford, as if to demonstrate how easy it was to get to the Olympic site - provided you didn't see any of that "get in the way" stuff. Like the city...
FACT: grouping all these types of chemicals as one by either side of a stupid argument should require using those idiots as guinea pigs in testing all known classes of chemicals in LD100 tests.
Only "LD100" tests?
But what if they come back as zombies? Would LD200 be sufficient? Or do zombies respnd better to shotguns?
According to his own page (https://www.facebook.com/AndrewNikolic4Bass/posts/327230677345451), "I have removed my response on this issue from Facebook"
Which means that the link up top no longer works.
The 9/11 strategy will never work again due to 1. Fortified cockpit doors 2. Most importantly, hostile passengers. The best you will get now is to blow up an airplane with a bomb and not use it as missle. There a million other vectors that a terrorist could use to kill about 300 people, not sure why air travel should be made such a pain for that. It's just a risk we have to manage. Also, if you figure in the fact that people are less likely to travel due to the invasive procedures at airports, the TSA has undoubtedly caused more deaths indirectly than the 9/11 hijackers.
Tell that to those who set insurance rates - the fact that they reckon the existence of TSA is "low risk" compared with not having it, then the TSA will stay.
But since insurers use "real" insurance to prop up the "fake" MBS type money market madness, then they will keep racking up the premiums to pay for the banksters.
Meanwhile, the black hats are rubbing their hands with glee - why go to the trouble of researching 0-day exploits, when they can merely use the FBI mandated back doors.
What could possibly go wrong?
Can Microsoft and Nokia really afford to be the "also rans" until October? (assuming that the marketing $ to accompany WP8 boost its share)
By then, the iPhone 5 will likely be out; Samsung will have a new Galaxy. New WP phones will need to be pretty kick ass to make a dent in that.
I am going to revert that comment, it's unsourced!
[citation needed]
Right, so your theory is that they stuffed a brand new building full of explosives to save a bit of time when it came to demolition in fifty years? And no one ever mentioned it, even after the events of 9/11?
It doesn't appear to violate any of the laws of physics, and at least there are no time-travelling Nazis involved, so I suppose it's not impossible.
Possible - yes
Probable - humankind has made some truly dumb decisions made over the years, but in this case on balance, probably not
Thinking about it ( I know, it's probably only feeding some "there must be a consipracy" troll, but I'll press on), in addition to your points, by the 1970s was the first time that skyscrapers were replacing skyscrapers, rather than replacing old, low-rise buildings. So, what if someone thought "wow, these things are really hard to demolish. Since we know this building will be replaced in - call it 50 years - why don't we build in the holes ready to take the demolition charges?" at which point someone then countered with "but why don't we save some effort, and put the charges in now, so we don't have to waste time partially dismantling it to load up the pre-drilled holes with explosive? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? Aircraft crashing into it? Not an issue - a B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building, and it's still standing!" (of course it wasn't built to a budget, and to a new design by a bankrupt city)
In other words, if (and I stress that it is a big, big, "if") someone had thought along those lines, it would be another triumph of stupidity over conspiracy.
Service guarantees citizenship
Ah, thanks for that. I knew that powers of 2 featured somewhere along the line
It was 49.7 days: http://news.cnet.com/Windows-may-crash-after-49.7-days/2100-1040_3-222391.html
And still inexcusable.
I remember that one - it wasn't a crash in the usual sense, where something stops working completely. It was far more insidious than that. Everything still looked as if it was working; the cursor moved when you moved the mouse, icons would highlight if single-clicked, but double-click would refuse to play...
IIRC, the 49.7 days is 2^16 seconds
I like this plan. Copyright fees would cross $1,000,000 by 20 years.
If Disney was to renew their Mickey Mouse copyright this year, it would cost them $19,342,813,113,834,066,795,298,816.
Now you know why they wanted that $45 trillion anti-piracy lawsuit - preparing for the day when they are forced to pay for copyright in those terms
This file will self-destruct in five minutes.