"Why do vacuum clear suck ? "

Has a question mark, but can't really be answered with yes or no.
I see it more like : any headline, which poses a question which can be answered with yes or no , is not really worth the read.

Which makes sense : If it can't even answer a question with yes or no, what can it answer ?
Reading the above headline tells you right away, they don't know if there is surface water on titan. Otherwise it would have been an assertive statement "Surface water on Titan !"

They should change the headline to : "scientists researching possibility of water on Titan" , which would be accurate ( but I guess it wouldn't sell ).

I thought it , posted it in almost the same way, and then realized someone else had posted it earlier :-)
Guess I should read comments before replying.

No.

No.

Also, unhappy people may be so deep they feel they can't change.
If they sell it as 'easy to lose weight' , many people might be tempted, but it's not going to work. It's just taking money from people who are already unhappy.

I would like to see honest advertisements, about things I really want, with the information I want,and nothing else.
Do that, and not only will it be much less annoying, it will also be more effective ( as you targeting people who actually want to buy it ).

You either have a majority which dictates what will happen ( democracy ) , or a minority who dictates what will happen ( tyranny , oligarchy , etc... ) .

Democracy may not always work well, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.

Everyone is a majority and a minority, depending on your view of legislation ( there will be things you agree with the majority, and other things where you don't, making you a minority ).

You just have to trust that people are diverse enough to make a collective decision which benefits everyone.

They are at least partially right : a big fuss is made about it, and then it's proven to be false.

But that's not the fault of the scientists, it's the media that makes a big fuss out of it.
However, the skeptic in me wonders if this isn't nice publicity for the scientists ( capturing the public's imagination, and maybe some big wallet at the same time ).

No !

Mod parent up.

I wouldn't recommend it. They have a mean bite.

True, the analogy is wrong.
They should calculate how much water that would be , and what the effect would be on human beings.

One thing to take into account is the position of the body and area of impact : I have a feeling that if you put the amount of water on someone head while standing up, it would be harder to withstand than if you were crouched down , and the water is put on your back.

The point is that a checksum doesn't contain all the data , so it's theoretically possible that two sets of content produce the same checksum ( it's very,very unlikely , but not impossible ).

So by altering the checksum continuously, the chance rises that it matches another, harmless file, which then gets blocked.

This is different from the point about wikipedia, where google would block an entire site if it finds a file with this checksum.
Put both together, and you get a lot of collateral damage, while only being mildly successful in blocking the intended content.

they are red,blue, yellow, black and white. And the enemy is green.

They are both part of the same thing : finding dissident voices and shutting them up.
And I want neither.

The government can certainly try to control the internet.
They can block a few websites, or even firewall off must parts of it, but people will always find a way to get around it, just like they have gotten around other forms of government control.

The internet is more than the hardware, it's also an idea. And that's not so easy to take down.