Slashdot Mirror

You know nothing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...

Stop. Do not respond. Read. Do not respond. Think. Then after you've read and thought about it... Then respond.

Your comments are utterly ignorant and thoughtless.

As to fiber not being cheap or easy... it is cheaper and easier to run fiber than it is to run anything else. It is the cheapest fucking cable out there.

Look, you think the reason something doesn't happen is because it is expensive? Well, then why prevent people from doing something that isn't economical? Certainly the bad economics would stop people from doing it in and of itself.

The reason you have to make it illegal is because it is economical and they would do it. So you stop them to prevent competition. Absent those laws we'd have lots of competition in every city in the US as the operating ISPs that are providing poor service at inflated costs would lose market share.

https://motherboard.vice.com/e...

I'm not even trying here with these articles. It all too fucking easy. Do any kind of research. Literally anything. Pull your stupid head out of your ass and try again.

The good news is much like Charlie Rose gets embarrassed off the national stage, hopefully companies that don't take security seriously will be forced into bankruptcy.

Hoping for some unaccountable process to help users is no substitute for software freedom. Hoping is apparently flatly incapable of addressing purposeful choices to not fix remotely-exploitable problems (whether bugs put there by accident or weakening something on purpose like Microsoft did with the Skype protocol to make it easier to spy on Skype users).

Proprietary software is often malware and there are plenty of instances where the proprietor goes unpunished despite years of anti-user aggression (Apple's iTunes being vulnerable for years allowed spying, Microsoft Windows ignored user privacy settings, Google admitted it tracked user location data even when the tracking setting was turned off). Each of these problems and many more could have been fixed for virtually everyone by sufficiently skilled and motivated users if the software involved were free software, but users were not allowed to inspect the software, improve the software, or distribute improved variants to others.

There are no guarantees of program security so a useful perspective focuses on how users can improve the chances they'll get software that does what they want. Hoping for something better is foolish, passive, and completely unnecessary.

Pff! When our train workers go on strike, the government bails out the train companies so they can afford to make the strikes go on a bit longer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Lucky for us there is only one such standard. Oh, wait. No, there isn't. There is for example this. Just read the "how it works" section.

And how I know that they have control over the lock? Because else they couldn't do this.

Good point. This is an example of a common problem of understanding management. Who is responsible for Apple's success? What part of Apple's success is due to Tim Cook being CEO?

An extremely important contribution of Steve Jobs was making sure nothing flawed was released. The iPhone 4 was released with antenna problems on June 24, 2010. It was a mistake someone with experience with radio frequency transmission would easily have understood. Steve Jobs died on October 5, 2011, and was not managing long before that. Tim Cook officially became CEO of Apple on August 24, 2011.

Since then, management of Apple has apparently become far more sloppy, For example: iPhone X Is Everything Wrong With Tim Cook's Apple

Here are problems mentioned in that article:

1) Announced before being ready.

2) "Stop and ask what real world problems the iPhone X answers. There are a lot of cute answers but on a practical sense the iPhone X offers very little on top of the iPhone 8 or iPhone 8 Plus, which in turn are only incremental bumps over last year's models."

3) Product confusion: "Now it takes a ridiculous amount of research and comparison to find the iPhone that may suit your needs, and there is not a single device that offers all of features in a single package - every iPhone has some form of limitation and restriction designed into it."

To me, that looks like poor overall management. There is sloppiness that didn't exist when Steve Jobs was in control. Steve Jobs was far from perfect; he had wacky ideas about health care, for example: Steve Jobs 'regretted trying to beat cancer with alternative medicine for so long'.

Jobs was known for delivering an excellent customer experience. That's what made Apple different from competitors.

You ... you really believe that one can get rich by working?

Hey, folks, gather 'round, I found the dupe that still believes the "American Dream"!

It seems that among the disadvantages of being an apparently Marxist leaning nihilist is the many extra opportunities it provides to be wrong on so many things on so many levels.

15 Inspirational Rags-To-Riches Stories
19 of the most inspiring rags-to-riches stories in business
11 rags-to-riches underdog success stories
Top 10 Rags-To-Riches Success Stories Of All Time
The UK's 13 most inspirational rags-to-riches entrepreneurs

James Damore is the Rosa Parks of whiny MRA incel manbabies.

In case you've forgotten, here's an unretouched photo of Mr Damore with two former co-workers who had just had their way with him. If you look closely, you can see that one is still holding the fork that Damore used to toss his salad. According to several other co-workers, it was entirely consensual.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con...
:

It's subsidized so that it's only $1.40/gallon instead of $8/gallon, but then it's taxed so it's $2.50/gallon? This doesn't make sense.

From what I can tell the US subsidizes between 18 and 50 billion dollars per year for the gas industry, depending on whether or not you want to include tax breaks which are pretty much the norm in any vertical in the US. Let's say you just simply want to crucify gas companies in the media, so we'll go with $50 billion.

In 2016 about 143 billion gallons of gasoline were consumed. In 2015 the average price of gas was $2.40. So let's see, $50 billion across 143 billion gallons gives you about $.35 per gallon in subsidies. So, if gas was $2.40 and all of the "subsidies" were removed, we'd be looking at $2.75 for that gallon of gas. Not $8.00.

According to the Telegraph in early 2014, residents of Great Britain get charged around 150% in taxes for their fuel, as ~60% is 1.5 as much as ~40%, and ~60% of their fuel cost is taxes.

Perhaps you should be looking at taxation for your scapegoat, as well as not ignoring the efficiency the US receives from its local refineries.

that only applies to the west, you should know better than that.

The east destroys "offensive" statues too

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

So "progressive" treatment of statues they don't like is just like the Taliban treatment.

That's ... illuminating.

that only applies to the west, you should know better than that.

The east destroys "offensive" statues too
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

https://news.vice.com/article/...

This is the third recorded death at the stricken Fukushima plant since the start of the decommissioning work. In March 2014, a laborer at the plant was killed after being buried under gravel while digging, and in January 2015, a worker died after falling inside a water storage tank.

Oh, by the way
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

From a UK perspective I'd prefer it if we copied Taiwan when it comes to immigration post BREXIT. Taiwan works like this

* If you can get a job that pays the national average wage plus some percentage
* and you have a degree

You get a Alien Registration Card which includes a work permit for one to two years

If you have five years of uninterrupted ARCs you can apply for a Alien Permanent Residence Card. You need to have a health check to make sure you don't have any nasty diseases and a clear criminal record check. Assuming all that passes you've got permanent residence.

The requirements are different if you want to come start a business and keep changing. However in practice it's not all that hard to do - easier than the US for example.

Permanent residence doesn't let you vote - you need citizenship for that. And you can only apply for that if you have no citizenship elsewhere. I.e. non Taiwanese have to resign their foreign citizenship if they want get Taiwan citizenship. This was obviously put in place to avoid having large numbers of Taiwan/Chinese dual citizens whose loyalty might be to China, but of course it catches Americans, Brits and Europeans too.

So Taiwan has relatively low numbers of foreigners resident, mostly on ARCs which are temporary. And the ones on APRCs cannot vote. Most of them teach English, a few run businesses. Taiwan is actually quite keen for foreigners to come to start a business and the rules are easier than the US ones.

Because of the 'above average salary' requirement foreigners do not force down wages. And because of the requirement for a clear criminal record criminal foreigners cannot become permanent residence.

It's an example of what a small, de facto independent democracy can do with immigration policy. Meanwhile inside the EU the UK was forced to accept any EU citizens regardless of whether they were going to work. ECHR Article 8 made it very hard to deport non EU migrants who had committed a crime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

I.e. UK immigration policy is much less well tuned than Taiwan because of the UK's EU and ECHR membership. Meanwhile Taiwan, despite being de facto but not de jure independent managed to run a pretty sane immigration system.

UK university principals and vice-principals earn megabucks just like drug cartels (around £260,000/year). Prime minister earns around £150K
Starting salaries for higher education (HE) lecturers range from around £33,943 to £41,709.
At senior lecturer level, you'll typically earn between £41,709 and £55,998. Head of department earns £70K
Stipends for a PhD are around £14K/year. TA duties are £5/hour. It was more cost effective Amazon Turking since the minute you do part-time work, you are liable for council tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/educ...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impacto...

Plumbers earn up to £50/hour or £100K/year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Story explaining that when the data is available for peer review (Nothing from the CRU that deleted it), all warming is accounted by the data "adjustments".
Take the adjustments off and the warming disappears.

But AGW screamers aren't interested in truth, or peer reviewed science. They want censorship of people who might look at their methods.

The USA is an oligarchy where the president and congress are nothing but a little puppet show to keep the clueless peasants entertained and bickering, the real power is in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, lobbyists, and the bigwigs at the Pentagon. Nothing the peasants do or say will have any effect on that, elect Trump or Sanders or Batman, it won't matter as they quickly come and go while the same power brokers remain.

Read Butler's "War Is A Racket"and you will see that nothing has changed in the near century since his book was written, simply change the name of the countries involved and the corps calling for the wars and it could have been written in 2017.

They don't need to. It was known that ISP's themselves were doing deep packet inspection for advertising revenue purposes. There was a company in the UK called Phorm that was doing exactly this. They would sign a deal with ISP's. One of their little black boxes would be placed at the ISP's gateway to the rest of the Internet. This little black box would sift through internet traffic for keywords and other such things to present targeted advertising. They essentially looked through keywords of your Emails, web pages, blogs, forums and build up a profile associated with that IP address at that time. Then advertisers could subscribe to their service and whenever a match between the profile and the advertiser happened, a targeted advert would be displayed. Any other time it would be a random or blank advert. This would now be extended through to voice analysis by cloud computer systems. Any guesses who that has that kind of computing power these days?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...

Really screwed if you fly through these eight countries:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

And if people refuse to do what they are required they are denied treatment.

The NHS has previously removed treatment from patients who paid for a drugs that their doctors prescribed but the NHS refused to pay for. The NHS is a monopoly, and it punishes people who try to circumvent its authority. Occasionally that punishment results in those people dying.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

In the future, there are going to be a lot more cases like the one last week, when Nice recommended that the NHS should not pay for Avastin, a drug for those suffering from bowel cancer. Nice accepts that Avastin can lengthen the lives of some patients: it just doesn't think it's worth what it costs. If the NHS were to pay for it for every patient who might benefit, it would not be able to afford to buy better, more effective treatments for other patients suffering from other diseases. So, Nice concludes, patients as a whole are better served if the NHS doesn't buy Avastin.

If it was your life, or that of your spouse or child or parent, that might be lengthened by a course of Avastin, you would be unlikely to share that judgment. Indeed, as the NHS wouldn't pay for it, you would probably do all you could to raise the £21,000 needed for the 12-month course that might give you a new lease of life.

Until last year, the result of doing so would be that you lost your right to any care at all from the NHS. The case of Linda O'Boyle - who died of cancer not long after she was deprived of free NHS care, because she had the temerity to pay for a drug the NHS refused to fund - persuaded Labour to commission a report on "co-payments". That report led to new guidelines on the matter: "Patients who switch between NHS and private status should not be put at any advantage or disadvantage in relation to the NHS care they receive. They are entitled to NHS services on exactly the same basis of clinical need as any other patient."

So if you're suffering from bowel cancer and are languishing in an NHS ward, and your doctor thinks you would benefit from Avastin but can't prescribe it because the NHS won't pay for it, can you now pay for it yourself without losing your NHS care?

You would think the answer would surely be "yes". In fact, it is often "no". For the guidelines also state that any "additional private care" (that is, any drug that you have paid for yourself) "should be carried out separately from NHS care". And if it cannot be carried out separately - which in many cases it cannot be, because NHS trusts do not have separate facilities - then it should not be carried out at all.

Last March, the Department of Health ruled that, because it was impossible to provide the relevant treatment "separately", a patient who wanted a more sophisticated lens for his eye than the NHS was willing to provide could not pay for one and still occupy an NHS bed. So despite the adoption of guidelines that appear to proclaim the opposite, the ban on co-payments is still largely in place: whether your local hospital is considered to have "separate facilities" is down to the whim of its administrators, who may have ideological objections to co-payments.

The resulting "policy" is unfair, arbitrary and cruel. It serves nothing except the meanest, dog-in-the-manger egalitarianism. No one is harmed when an NHS patient with bowel cancer uses his or her own money to pay for a course of Avastin. When the NHS refuses to provide care to those who do, it does not hurt those people alone: it also sacrifices a source of revenue that could be used to improve its services for everyone else - for example, by buying Avastin for people who can't afford it.

Or look at Charlie Gard. The NHS refused to treat him. His parents crowd funded the money for treatment in the US but Great Ormond Street Hospital fought them in court and refused to let him leave the hospital al

Its been 10 months! If there was real evidence of and actual crime that would get a President impeached it would have leaked by now.

Things don't go quite that quickly. It took over 2 years to go from the start of Watergate to Richard Nixon's resignation, for example.

"This was another thing that Steve [Jobs] taught me, actually," says Cook. "You've got to be willing to look yourself in the mirror and say I was wrong, it's not right." In a broader sense, Cook says that Jobs taught him the value of intellectual honesty -- that, no matter how much you care about something, you have to be willing to take new data and apply it to the situation. He advised his audience to "be intellectually honest -- and have the courage to change."

Judging by the changes made I'd say they were small superficial changes at best; nothing that would risk meeting the level Tim Cook claims Steve Jobs set out for himself, Cook, or Apple as a whole. Respecting a user's software freedom (the freedom to run, inspect, share, and modify published computer programs) is apparently not something Apple's leaders have the "intellectual honesty" or "courage to change".

After his first stint with Apple Steve Jobs headed up NeXT. NeXT distributed an OS and development software which included GCC (then the GNU C Compiler, later the GNU Compiler Collection because it compiles more languages than C-like languages). NeXT was GCC's first commercial copyright infringer, according to Brad Kuhn (former Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation).

NeXT needed a compiler for its new system, GCC was practical and extensible. NeXT extended GCC to compile Objective-C, a programming language used to make applications for NeXTSTEP (the OS on NeXT's computers). The problem came when NeXT distributed its developer system with only object code to its GCC variant, not the "complete corresponding machine-readable source code" GCC's license (GNU General Public License version 2) required. Fortunately for NeXT the Free Software Foundation (GCC's copyright holder) sought compliance with the license over litigation and stopping NeXT from further copyright infringement, so NeXT was allowed to continue distributing their GCC derivative only if they complied with the GNU GPL v2. NeXT eventually complied by distributing said complete corresponding source code (on a large set of ED floppies, if memory serves).

Steve Jobs likely never forgot that smaller non-corporate copyright holders can enforce their license. I believe he developed a perverse hatred of the GNU GPL which he carried back to Apple. Apple distributed MacOS X which came with a number of GPL-covered programs (the Common Unix Printing System or "CUPS" for printing support, GNU's Bourne-again shell or "bash", Apple's GCC derivative to name a few) but some years later (particularly after GPL v3 came out) Apple set out to remove and/or avoid GPL-covered programs from their proprietary (user-subjugating) OS. Apple takes a few different strategies to this end: Apple is replacing GNU GCC with a compiler licensed under a pushover license (a non-copyleft free software license which allows non-free derivatives) so Apple can have the power to distribute a proprietary variant of that compiler and not contribute changes back. Apple bought CUPS from Easy Software Products, CUPS' initial copyright holder, thus making Apple CUPS' copyright holder and switching Apple from being a GPL licensee to a GPL licensor (Apple can litigate the GPL over others but doesn't have to worry that anyone can do the same to it regarding CUPS). Apple ships an old version of GNU bash licensed under the GNU GPL v2.

But respecting a user's software freedom isn't on the list of changes Apple's higher-ups are willing to make. No matter how many insecurities remain in Apple's software (such as one that allowed spying for years), no user (even willing technically-skilled users) should be allowed to inspect the vast majority of Apple's software to figure out what's going on, fix problems and/or improve the software to meet their needs, distribute copies of the software to help other

The main motivation for Chinese to want to go abroad is to escape the hot smoggy climate, and move somewhere cool and green. They love the UK for this reason.

What kind of smog have you been inhaling? The UK climate is almost universally hated, it is one of the single worst things about the country and people from the hot-humid cope exceptionally poorly. Additionally the Chinese tend to concentrate within major cities, which would put them in places like London, one of the smoggiest and most polluted cities in Europe which can on a bad day match the air quality of Beijing.

So while you're posting pictures from the Telegraph: Try this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con... There's some doom and gloom articles too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci... Mind you this is telegraph grade reporting at it's finest. You will find another article talking about how much cleaner the air is in London. They couldn't tell their heads from their asses.

Anyway point is that while Chinese are flocking to the UK, the wonderful sunshine and clean air have nothing to do with it. Education system, very easily obtainable visas for certain age groups, and easily convertible status to permanent residents after study combined with the good economic prospects of the UK is what brings them over. This has increased in the past 5-10 years as other previously hot destinations like Australia have increasingly raised the bar to foreign nationals, not for study, but for settling, working, and investing.

Stay tuned for 2017 figures. Pulling the pin on the metaphorical Brexit hand-grenade has changed that dynamic quite a bit.

The main motivation for Chinese to want to go abroad is to escape the hot smoggy climate, and move somewhere cool and green. They love the UK for this reason.

What kind of smog have you been inhaling? The UK climate is almost universally hated, it is one of the single worst things about the country and people from the hot-humid cope exceptionally poorly. Additionally the Chinese tend to concentrate within major cities, which would put them in places like London, one of the smoggiest and most polluted cities in Europe which can on a bad day match the air quality of Beijing.

So while you're posting pictures from the Telegraph: Try this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con... There's some doom and gloom articles too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci... Mind you this is telegraph grade reporting at it's finest. You will find another article talking about how much cleaner the air is in London. They couldn't tell their heads from their asses.

Anyway point is that while Chinese are flocking to the UK, the wonderful sunshine and clean air have nothing to do with it. Education system, very easily obtainable visas for certain age groups, and easily convertible status to permanent residents after study combined with the good economic prospects of the UK is what brings them over. This has increased in the past 5-10 years as other previously hot destinations like Australia have increasingly raised the bar to foreign nationals, not for study, but for settling, working, and investing.

Stay tuned for 2017 figures. Pulling the pin on the metaphorical Brexit hand-grenade has changed that dynamic quite a bit.

The main motivation for Chinese to want to go abroad is to escape the hot smoggy climate, and move somewhere cool and green. They love the UK for this reason. When they can't see the skies for the pollution, the government has no option to act. Just do an image search for pollution in China. Those pictures look like something out of a dystopian futureworld.

http://static4.businessinsider...

http://www.museumofthecity.org...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/ima...
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/stati...

On a clear day:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multi...

Is that so? There is no shortage of these types, even on Slashdot.

Atheism isn't particularly rational.

“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

There seem to be a lot of atheists on Slashdot that are "certain." I take it you are among them? How did you arrive at that "certainty"?

Over the past few years I've watched with a kind of sickened admiration as Amazon has grown from an online bookstore to a purveyor of 'all things'. Really, their expansion to a definitely-not-a-monopoly player within a market, their subsequent embrace of another market, followed by expansion within that market, and so on, is a thing of beauty. In a sense it's been like watching the growth and evolution of a living organism.

One perfect example of this effect hit the news only the other day: After its retail sales had reached a certain size it made perfect sense, from an economies of scale perspective, for it to start performing its own logistics and deliveries to the detriment of long standing logistics companies. The obvious end point, again benefiting from economies of scale, is to then actually enter the logistics business.

I can't help feeling like a bit of a doomsayer here, but we all know the step that follows embrace and extend.

I suspect that I know what some of you are thinking right now: Amazon is not a monopoly. Amazon has tons of competition. Amazon isn't anything like Microsoft. Amazon doesn't even make a profit. (I could go on, but I'll save us all the time...)

I know Amazon is not a monopoly, any more than (another perfect example of the strategy) Google is. They're very cleverly making sure of that. Any time they're in danger of being considered a monopoly they simply expand into another market and bingo they're in competition with dozens of other players. As this market consolidates, or rather as Amazon (or Google) grows into the main player in this market, they expand into another.

I must admit though I hadn't thought of prescription drugs (although I had wondered about when or if they'd start selling pot - in the US at least) as one of their next markets. Somewhat blinkered there. And I'd actually thought they'd go with fairly high quality frozen ready meals first, rather than outright buy a supermarket chain. Just goes to show I wasn't thinking Bezo's-big enough.

^ And it's this last thought that's starting to worry me!

You jest, but according to research ...

Researchers at the University of Texas discovered that people are worse at conducting tasks and remembering information if they have a smartphone within eye shot. In two experiments they found phones sitting on a desk or even in a pocket or handbag would distract users and lead to worse test scores even when it was set up not to disturb test subjects.

The effect was measurable even when the phones were switched off, and was worse for those who were deemed more dependent on their mobiles.

In other words, if you are near your phone, and even if it's off, and especially if you're a slave to your phone ... then it is absolutely damaging to your cognitive ability. It literally makes you dumber, it's like withdrawal.

For those of us who aren't addicted to our phones, we have seen this in action. It's alarming how many people can't put their phone down for even a short period of time -- alarming but not surprising, because we see it all the time.

Learn to put the phone down and walk away.

In terms of Nobel prizes per a capita the US isn't even in the top 10 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/countries-nobel-prize-winners-per-capita/. It is a combination of the high US population and a somewhat high per a capita that has this impact. Note by the way that this data does have a few which are a bit silly since a single Nobel for a very tiny country immediately pushes it to the top of the list, but Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, and others are all on the list without relying on really tiny populations. The situation is similar with the Fields Medal (which is roughly the equivalent of the Nobel for math) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Fields_Medallists where the US per a capita is well above average but not at all the highest, and it is the large US population which then puts it in the top. Note by the way, that this data is approximate: a lot of people (especially the US ones) are immigrants from other countries or have dual citizenship, so these sorts of numbers are necessarily approximations. The really striking thing though is that China and India have very large populations with surprisingly few such prizes; similarly, one way of seeing how much trouble Russia was having scientifically during the Cold War was how few per a capita Nobels and Fields Medals they had (although to some extent this may have also been connected to political issues).

where sextants and typewriters may be brought out of mothballs before it's all said and done.

I think the Russians have already done that.

Did I miss anything that people actually post about?

Attempting to star nuclear war with North Korea?

'We could destroy you,' Obama warns 'erratic' North Korean leader

Damn that warmonger Obama.

My point is that your average citizen of China isn't granted permission to leave by default. You need a good reason as defined by the state.

A good reason like wanting to have a holiday? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tra...

when you see a muslim get on and have to watch in case he tries to set his underpants or his shoes alight all through the flight.

It's hilarious that Trump, who spread that racist lie about Obama's birth place is a stone cold traitor.

FYI: That was hillary clinton. It was her idea in order to stop him from being a candidate in the DNC primary. Enjoy your craziness for the day. You can also find WAPO articles on it if you want, including articles from the guy that the Clinton campaign passed the info to and was sent to Africa and tried to find out if it was true or not.

They're made in the same fabs, but they're not the same cores. Apple designs their own cores (they're an ARM architecture licensee, which means that they're allowed to build chips however they want as long as they pass ARM's architecture conformance tests). Their CPU design team was originally bought from PA-Semi, who designed low-power, high-performance PowerPC chips, and has been growing steadily for the last decade. Apple doesn't license these cores to anyone else.

Not to mention that Apple has more ARM experience than pretty much anyone else, and in fact, was instrumental in bringing the ARM to the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...

That may well be and it's good to know this, however it makes little sense lowering your risk of death due to serotonin absorption blockers when you in turn either run a risk of throwing yourself off the next bridge

Another side effect of serotonin reuptake inhibitors is suicide.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci...

or don't have any fun living anyway.

Unless the serotonin reuptake inhibitors cause anhedonia.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multi...

Al Gore - the self-proclaimed inventor of the internet - had planned on suing everyone after milking his carbon-credit scheme for all it's worth.

Al Gore actually said that he helped create the internet through passing legislation, etc. It was just one of the key legislative accomplishments that he listed. It was re-worded to look like he was claiming that he had invented the Internet and the meme stuck. The fact that the meme still exists today, when there is ample evidence that Al Gore never made the claim, shows a lack of critical thinking in the general population.

I guess PT Barnum was right: "There is a sucker born every minute"

PS: PT Barnum is attributed to the saying in common knowledge but historians have been unable to find any proof that he actually said it.

Al Gore - the self-proclaimed inventor of the internet - had planned on suing everyone after milking his carbon-credit scheme for all it's worth.

I'm surprised they didn't burn it.

You're confusing Christianity with Islam.

After 1,700 years, Buddhas fall to Taliban dynamite

The propensity of Muslims to destroy things even has multiple Wikipedia pages.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm sure some Thalidomide-brained idiot is going to drag up the Crusades or something else that happened a thousand fucking years ago in order to justify Islamic barbarity TODAY.

This asshole insists on filming peacekeepers doing their jobs...

Ah, now peacekeepers is one epithet I've never heard anyone here call the polis...most of them could never be repeated in polite society (but there's a lot of fuckers, bawbag, cunts etc. etc. involved)
 

..in the hope that he will catch one of them slipping up.

Slipping up? sorry but that's endemic in the current disorganisation from the top down...

Yeah,I lived there a long time ago (1990's). I even had the idea,being an avid RC plane nerd, of equipping them with an auto pilot as had been available for RC helicopters for a couple of decades and using them as remote location drug delivery vehicles. But I never had the time nor resources. Now you buy complete electronics packages for under $100, drop them in a senior telemaster and deliver 5kg of supplies 1000km away for a few dollars a trip.

It's not without precedent, even fifteen years ago. (He was successful)

Time to plant trees. Lots of trees.

You could cover the entire planet surface with trees and it still wouldn't be enough. It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.

Okay. But until we have such machines, the most readily available carbon-sink, cost-effective and easily deployed with unskilled labour, is the tree.

OK, let's calculate. Here's a source talking about CO2 absorption by trees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... , and here's a source saying "A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.": https://projects.ncsu.edu/proj...

This one says that trees absorb 40% of the 28 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted per year: World's forests absorb almost 40 per cent of man made CO2

If we take just that last figure, it's easy: we need to increase the number of trees to 250% of the existing number: plant an additional 150% as many trees as already exist on Earth.

Google tells me that 30% of the Earth's land area is covered by trees ( ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/0... ), so the quick estimate is that we need to plant enough trees to change this to 75%.

Time to plant trees. Lots of trees.

You could cover the entire planet surface with trees and it still wouldn't be enough. It's time to start using technology to produce billions of machines that actively and permanently remove carbon from the air.

Okay. But until we have such machines, the most readily available carbon-sink, cost-effective and easily deployed with unskilled labour, is the tree.

OK, let's calculate. Here's a source talking about CO2 absorption by trees: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... , and here's a source saying "A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and can sequester 1 ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old.": https://projects.ncsu.edu/proj...

This one says that trees absorb 40% of the 28 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted per year: World's forests absorb almost 40 per cent of man made CO2

If we take just that last figure, it's easy: we need to increase the number of trees to 250% of the existing number: plant an additional 150% as many trees as already exist on Earth.

Google tells me that 30% of the Earth's land area is covered by trees ( ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/0... ), so the quick estimate is that we need to plant enough trees to change this to 75%.

"German Law" hasn't done anything to curtail free speech. Just don't be a Nazi.

Ahem. Though please please please, tell me how this comedian was a Nazi.

Officers have become increasingly frustrated with criminals who refuse to hand over the passwords for their encrypted mobiles, denying them access to vital information.

But the Metropolitan police have come up with a novel solution, by snatching an iPhone from a suspect on the street before he had a chance to lock it.

Officers investigating a credit card racket realised that crucial evidence was stored on the phone of suspect Gabriel Yew, 45, that would be inaccessible without his password.

To get round the problem covert officers from Operation Falcon, the Met police team that investigates major fraud, seized the mobile from Yew's hand as he took a call in the street. They then tapped the screen to prevent it from locking while the evidence was being downloaded.

Looks like the pacific islanders and middle east comprise the top 20. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tra... and as far as measured data it's Mexico http://www.oecd.org/els/health... and according to this list http://gazettereview.com/2016/...

Rent control is in general a terrible idea which results in more economic problems rather than less. It destroys most incentives to make new housing. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/08/economist-explains-19 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10802231/Low-rent-Labour-is-positioning-itself-as-the-Ukip-of-the-Left.html are both detailed discussions of the many problems.

Like the UK's policies??

I don't think "reasonable" crossed the minds of those in charge of these cases. When the State forces issues like this against the involved's will, it's a decidedly authoritarian action. Not something you associate with a free country.

Giving a speech gassing anyone.

Why can't you morons discern between speech and actions?

why can't YOU realize that some speech IS action. yelling fire in a crowded room. calling for the lynching of black people. screaming for a "whites only" country. stop being naive or bluntly obtuse, whatever you're doing.

Funny how I only hear about blacks excluding whites in college gatherings:

Students' union backs excluding white people from ‘anti-racism’ events

The irony just drips out of that headline, doesn't it? "Keep whitey out of our anti-racism event!"

Or blacks shouting down a white speaker for no other reason than she's white:

Stacey Evans gets shouted down at Netroots conference

Democrat Stacey Evans’ speech to a conference of progressive activists descended into chaos on Saturday, as protesters interrupted her repeatedly and she struggled to make herself heard over chants of “support black women.”

Evans, a Smyrna state legislator who is white, expected a tough audience at the Netroots Nation event, where her rival Stacey Abrams was treated like royalty. But she said she at least expected to be able to make it through her remarks.

That didn’t happen.

Almost as soon as she took the stage, a ring of demonstrators – some holding stark signs criticizing her – fanned out in front of Evans. The chanting soon followed. Pleading repeatedly for the room to speaks – “let’s talk through it,” she implored – the demonstrators at times drowned her out.

...

One of the demonstrators, Monica Simpson, said she made her stand because she wanted to show she was “true to progressive values.” [what value is that? shouting down whites just for being white?]

Asked why Evans hasn’t met that standard, Simpson couldn’t point to any votes or policy stances. But she said she wants “a candidate that truly speaks to my community.” [Gee, I wonder how she identifies who can do that? Racism much?]

“This is our opportunity, especially as black women, to make it known or clear that this is standing on true progressive values,” said Simpson, who lives in Atlanta. “And if you’re not, we’re going to make that clear.” [Yep - racism]

What you've said is that if a more qualified woman or black person applies for the job, an employer is in no way obligated to accept a while, male candidate.

No, that's not what I said. Oh, and here's a reference for hiring women purely on the grounds of their gender:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Here's one where the BBC are defending and claiming legality for offering paid work to people that must be non-white:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente...

OTOH, there is no law stating a less qualified candidate who is not white or male must be accepted. You're pretty much trying to do what Damore did in his memo, insinuate a conclusion and lie by omission.

No, I'm just better informed than you and able to back up my statements with references. You merely throw around insults.

White males are not discriminated against in any way

Except the ways I mentioned in my original post, none of which you've been able to disprove.

Not even the Guardian tries to say that white men are evil, that shit is entirely the DM's area.

No one is attacking you for being white or male

Well, since you mentioned the Guardian, even they acknowledge that "In America, as in Europe, older, white men are the only group that liberals can abuse and exclude with impunity."
https://www.theguardian.com/co...

you're being attacked because you spout a lot of bullshit and the rest of us are sick of it

When even the fucking Guardian acknowledges the issue I think it shows that you're either ignorant, in denial or maliciously trying to prevent conversation.

So call bollocks on whatever the fuck you like, but do try and provide some fucking evidence next time.

Traffic cameras, security cameras... Hell London alone probably already has a 5.9 million of them just watching the streets, and that was in 2013.