I AM THE EGG MAN.
I AM THE EGG MAN.
...phone roots you.
However Trump has promised to bring those coal mining jobs back and make Wales great again!
He's going to bring back the whale oil industry.
That's unfair. Blender did undergo some big changes, but they were more than justified. It's not like they're just continuously changing it, or that the changes weren't warranted. I think Blender is a better tool today because of their changes.
I have much more of an issue with GIMP. Pushing forth changes that the vast majority of the userbase hated (and railed against on the forum), and got a big "FU, if you don't like it, use another tool" response from the developers. Comments on the "can only save XCF through the save menu, changes to other formats pester you about "unsaved changes" even if you do export" design change were over 10:1 against. The brush size slider is a mess. Text editing is broken in about ten different ways, from it forgetting what font size you're typing in to not rendering full text deletion in some cases. The general quality has gone way downhill. Meanwhile, things that have supposedly been "in the works" for years, like higher bit-depth colour, seem further away than ever. Even if I didn't want to export to a higher bit depth, if I want to do a gaussian blur on a high-res image I need to do a combination of dithers and blurs because of the loss of precision at 8 bits per channel.
Facebook is the classic example of terrible product evolution (particularly Messenger... have these people never heard of the concept of screen real estate?). I'd also like to zing Google for Google Maps. Today it's way slower, they took the very convenient full-length zoom bar out (and only put the tiny one in after user complaints), buttons with similar functionality are scattered out (e.g. satellite is on the bottom left, but landscape hidden in the menu top left), photo integration is terrible (no longer shows photos where they actually are, but in a giant "bar" on the bottom of the screen, opened by an ambiguous icon that looks like three different buttons, with lines that point to the map seemingly at random), make you zoom in twice as far to see the same amount of map information (ex. road labels), added icons to the upper right that have no connection to Maps at all just for "product consistency", and so on. And it's 2017, why is their landscape option still so terrible? Even little local companies' map services have vastly superior landscapes.
Seriously, that's the best you have, a case from over a decade and a half ago? No country is perfect, but when you have to reach back sixteen years to find something to damn them for., you're really stretching.
World Justice Project (which uses a peer-reviewed methodology to rank judicial systems from around the world; there are over 17 experts just for Sweden alone) ranks Sweden the best in the world in terms of fundamental rights. Their biggest weakness in the rankings? Letting criminals off too easily. But never mind that, because there was a single incident sixteen years ago involving two people who had no legal right to be in the country (versus Assange who has no legal right to *not* be in the country) and who had been misidentified as convicted terrorists being extradited, that means that the whole country is evil and corrupt and just loves to extradite people, right?
Yes, but we're both wise enough to know that was a crock of shit, and that it was actually done for profit.
Of course. That's why I'm so suspicious of moral crusaders. Scratch one, and you'll find an opportunist underneath.
Like Viet Nam, for example.
We're both old enough to remember that Vietnam, like most US wars, was sold to us as a moral crusade.
I'm a lot more suspicious of moral crusaders than I am of criminals who are looking to make a buck or just make mischief.
I don't think I have to list the atrocities that have been committed in the name of a "moral crusade". If you really don't know what I'm talking about, then you are probably already a moral crusader.
Indeed. There's a lot of skepticism here. When you factor in confounding factors:
Crucially, the association with stroke and dementia disappeared after adjusting for diabetes and vascular risk factors, such as high blood pressure and prior heart attack
The study appears to be an excellent example of the reverse causality effect. For example, let's say I was doing a study on on the effects of taking a heart medication on heart attacks. So I randomly collect thousands of people and study their incidence of heart attacks, and compare which people who had heart attacks were taking a heart medication and which weren't. Lo and behold, the people taking heart medication are far more likely to have a heart attack! Does that mean the medication is to blame? Not at all; it means that the people who are on heart medication are already more likely to be taking heart medication. It's the risk of a heart attack that's causing the taking of heart medication, not the heart medication that's causing the risk of heart attack.
Being rich != Corrupt
There's ample evidence that in late-stage capitalism, being rich does indeed equal being corrupt.
Not even the women who are the victims say it was rape.
1) According to the witness statements, SW told several people that she was raped.
2) AA did not, and denied that she was raped.
3) There were only rape charges concerning SW, not AA.
And this isn't an arrest, it's asking questions
Only if you play word games between "anklagad" and "åtalad". The Swedish judicial system, shock of all shock, isn't exactly the same as the US judicial system, and does not break down the concept of charging in exactly the same manner. Regardless, the British court system - at every level - ruled him as considered "charged", under the guidelines of an EAW.
Beyond that, from the sworn statement of the prosecutor herself:
10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our
The reality is that we now have the least-corruptible administration in a very long time. Many of the top personnel are quite independently very wealthy, which makes lobbying to them pointless and ineffective.
"Corrupt rich people can't be corrupted" is a very stupid argument. How do you think they got rich in the first place?
The benefit of having government made up of rich, corrupt people is that they're already corrupted, so the little dance around ethical barriers can be dispensed with from the get-go and you can go straight to the quid pro quo.
As it stands right now, if the US charged him and he were kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy, the following things would happen:
1) He would be surrendered to Sweden under the EAW, which takes precedence over extradition, and was also the first filing.
2) If tried and convicted in Sweden, he would serve his sentence.
3) Regardless of the outcome in #2, he would then be returned to the UK, as standard in the EAW surrender process (which does not allow for transfer to "third states")
4) He would serve time for skipping out on his house arrest and jumping bail in the UK, as he's already been convicted of that; it postdates the EAW filing but would predate any extradition request.
5) During the events of #1 - #4, the UK court system would rule on the US request. The UK government would also have the right to block the request. Because of brexit, the UK may well drop out of the ECHR; if so, that avenue of appeal would be lost. The US would likely have to guarantee certain standards, likely including no supermax prison, to get the extradition approved.
6) Assuming the extradition is approved, he would be sent to the US, tried, and if convicted, sentenced and serve. The details depend on the exact nature of the charges.
The real story was her comment during an all important meeting: Cant we just drone this guy?
Which was a fake story. That never happened. That story came from "True Pundit", which is a website famous for fake news stories.
If you think John Hinckley, Jr. was acting out of a sense of patriotism, then you're the fucking idiot. Hinckley was a batshit-crazy "Taxi Driver" wannabe who was trying to impress the object of his obsession, Jodie Foster. He considered killing Jimmy Carter, then switched to Edward Kennedy, before finally settling on Reagan.
You know what they say, even a stopped clock can be right twice a day.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption