with the kind of presidents the USA churns out, is "it could be hacked" *really* the first thing that comes to mind when you ponder what could go wrong? how about this, it might NOT get hacked, and offer even more potential to murder and maim even more people with even less inhibitions, politically as well as on the level of individual soldiers? we had nintendo pilots for a long time. now there'll be nintendo grunts. fucking great. and the princess is STILL in another castle.
at best that would show he might have gotten that thing wrong. but how does that apply to anything else? (and that guy has been kicking ass before I was even born, so that's a lot of other stuff). I'd salute him just for exposing popoff, even if that was all he ever did other than doing magic tricks, and this advertisement suspense slashdot article (well, video), says he'll go for something that will be in the religious arena as well -- so while that is all very interesting about the water memory, I fail to see the connection... other than you have beef (your words) with randi so you brought it up:P
"the one time he stumbled in to something interesting with the case against Water Memory he created a perfectly blind study without taking in the error factor. Then did not follow up to find out why the two studies differed and were both repeatable getting the same data along the two different testing technics."
uhm, link? I'm sure that's described in parseable english somewhere. I like to read actually, very much so -- I just don't have much patience for empty words.
Why yes I do and there are way too many to jot down here.
LOL!!!!! that is the most fucking stupid thing I read in a long time, kudos.
All he does is cause doubt and never follows up to prove his point.
you clearly are projecting, thanks for the laugh:D
otherwise, I'll simply skip your blah-blah for that's what it is; feel free to offer any of the aforementioned evidence once you found even just a single thing, or figured out how to decide WHAT of the mountain of evidence to post. (here's a tip, you don't have to be exhaustive -- just one would suffice to make you seem like less of a liar).
"it's up to Randi to prove that his methodology is sound."
lolwhut? what "methodology" are you talking about? you just string words together... take how he exposed popoff for example, by tuning into the frequency of his earpiece with a radio scanner. what fault do you find with that "methodology" --- ? it's different in every case. he exposes specific frauds, and offered challenges with either have been ignored, or failed -- nothing more, nothing less.
and what is a "scientific test" in that context? all you do is blubber and try to smear the man, and you still haven't pointed out a single flaw. you ask for proof that is impossible to bring, and I guess you do so deliberately. "a representative set" of what, exactly? I note very carefully that you make no sense, but seem to be personally offended because some spirits or other. well, good for you.
Then why not simply say "no, I don't have any evidence to back up that statement" -- ? It's shorter to read and makes you seem like less of a tool, too.
The next Quake will have lots of brown colors, there will be lots of beasts with hooves and horns, as well as flying skulls, pentagrams and lava from the hell dimension/solar system. The final boss will be kinda gross and go "RARGBLARGBLARG" all the time. You're welcome!
On second thought, even *I* find the phrase "corporate cancer" stupid and needlessly offensive; but I was just rambling, you know... but what *really* gets you is that I exaggerate numbers (simply meaning "a very small part", exaggerating as to make sure it's not intended to be an exact figure), or "kinda bring up" that that Disney singlehandedly is responsible for a lot of copyright extension* --- ??? Just wow. So on second thought, I'd like to laugh even harder ^^
(* which is rather obviously NOT for the benefit of the authors, the goal that copyright bases its existence on. which is why they call it "intellectual property" now, as if questioning that would make you a commie or something -- I condense this stuff because I can't be arsed to write an essay, and unless you want to pay me to do otherwise, you can go and fuck yourself:P)
In economic theory, if consumers care how they are treated and whether businesses behave ethically, they punish corporations for doing the wrong thing, creating the economic incentive for corporations to behave ethically.
Sure, *unless* those customers don't have that choice, or are not aware of what is going on. So that is always preferable. Ethical behaviour is a property of people, not capitalism. And it's not a property that cannot be routed around or modified to quite the extent.
And stuff backfiring seems to be the exception, not the norm? Do you really think this will make any meaningful dent in Sony as a whole? I'd love to see that, I'm just not holding my breath for it. And the people who make such decisions surely will see to it that any boycott of Sony would not hurt them personally too much, you know? Why would they care if a few Sony janitors get fired?
"Many companies actually try to follow a code of ethics in the way they do business."
No, that would be some people in them. It simply doesn't apply to corporations, and if it did, that would be a defunct corporation in economical theory. Better wrap your head around that, the world will make much more sense.
Ethics is just something that is necessary, even though expensive. They would rather make it unnecessary than stay ethical. Any calculator can tell you that.
I'd rather support them by fighting for a sane society without disney copyright. Having Whitney Houston as a grandma is not a debilitating injury after all, more likely a boon. So I see zero logic in what you said. Your'e just echoing the cynicism of the coporate cancer: it points to and USES humans, but shares none of the concerns or insights.
Whitney Houston's grandchildren would benefit so much more if we simply burned down Sony and dispersed the ashes... but instead the idea is to buy her CD's, 0.000001% of the profites showing up in the checkbook of her relatives.... uhm, what? How about "no"?
Oh yeah, lest people give their feedback on things they actually use, or changes that might affect them (that is, make them switch window managers). It's not like that is actually relevant to the people who make this stuff supposedly for users.
Do you have any arguments why GNOME doesn't suck (more and more), or did you just want to announce boldly that you don't?
Slashdot Mirror
with the kind of presidents the USA churns out, is "it could be hacked" *really* the first thing that comes to mind when you ponder what could go wrong? how about this, it might NOT get hacked, and offer even more potential to murder and maim even more people with even less inhibitions, politically as well as on the level of individual soldiers? we had nintendo pilots for a long time. now there'll be nintendo grunts. fucking great. and the princess is STILL in another castle.
but oh noes, the chinese. you are so lost.
and what, pray tell, would be the sinister benefit of withholding a cure for cancer? I know our evil overlords are dumb, but that dumb?
0.0000000000001 is infinitely more than zero. big whoop.
earlier today:
*trollface*
fixed, sorry.
so your criticism is that he's not the messiah, or superman? oh boo-hoo. and why do you read "A fraudulent organization" as "any and all of them"?
uhm.
at best that would show he might have gotten that thing wrong. but how does that apply to anything else? (and that guy has been kicking ass before I was even born, so that's a lot of other stuff). I'd salute him just for exposing popoff, even if that was all he ever did other than doing magic tricks, and this advertisement suspense slashdot article (well, video), says he'll go for something that will be in the religious arena as well -- so while that is all very interesting about the water memory, I fail to see the connection... other than you have beef (your words) with randi so you brought it up :P
well, duh! you can *never* prove that something is not caused by some other X what leads to the same results. *facepalm, accompanied by groaning*
"the one time he stumbled in to something interesting with the case against Water Memory he created a perfectly blind study without taking in the error factor.
Then did not follow up to find out why the two studies differed and were both repeatable getting the same data along the two different testing technics."
uhm, link? I'm sure that's described in parseable english somewhere. I like to read actually, very much so -- I just don't have much patience for empty words.
LOL!!!!! that is the most fucking stupid thing I read in a long time, kudos.
you clearly are projecting, thanks for the laugh :D
otherwise, I'll simply skip your blah-blah for that's what it is; feel free to offer any of the aforementioned evidence once you found even just a single thing, or figured out how to decide WHAT of the mountain of evidence to post. (here's a tip, you don't have to be exhaustive -- just one would suffice to make you seem like less of a liar).
"it's up to Randi to prove that his methodology is sound."
lolwhut? what "methodology" are you talking about? you just string words together... take how he exposed popoff for example, by tuning into the frequency of his earpiece with a radio scanner. what fault do you find with that "methodology" --- ? it's different in every case. he exposes specific frauds, and offered challenges with either have been ignored, or failed -- nothing more, nothing less.
and what is a "scientific test" in that context? all you do is blubber and try to smear the man, and you still haven't pointed out a single flaw. you ask for proof that is impossible to bring, and I guess you do so deliberately. "a representative set" of what, exactly? I note very carefully that you make no sense, but seem to be personally offended because some spirits or other. well, good for you.
Then why not simply say "no, I don't have any evidence to back up that statement" -- ? It's shorter to read and makes you seem like less of a tool, too.
enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=randi+debunks
The next Quake will have lots of brown colors, there will be lots of beasts with hooves and horns, as well as flying skulls, pentagrams and lava from the hell dimension/solar system. The final boss will be kinda gross and go "RARGBLARGBLARG" all the time. You're welcome!
On second thought, even *I* find the phrase "corporate cancer" stupid and needlessly offensive; but I was just rambling, you know... but what *really* gets you is that I exaggerate numbers (simply meaning "a very small part", exaggerating as to make sure it's not intended to be an exact figure), or "kinda bring up" that that Disney singlehandedly is responsible for a lot of copyright extension* --- ??? Just wow. So on second thought, I'd like to laugh even harder ^^
(* which is rather obviously NOT for the benefit of the authors, the goal that copyright bases its existence on. which is why they call it "intellectual property" now, as if questioning that would make you a commie or something -- I condense this stuff because I can't be arsed to write an essay, and unless you want to pay me to do otherwise, you can go and fuck yourself :P)
Sure, *unless* those customers don't have that choice, or are not aware of what is going on. So that is always preferable. Ethical behaviour is a property of people, not capitalism. And it's not a property that cannot be routed around or modified to quite the extent.
And stuff backfiring seems to be the exception, not the norm? Do you really think this will make any meaningful dent in Sony as a whole? I'd love to see that, I'm just not holding my breath for it. And the people who make such decisions surely will see to it that any boycott of Sony would not hurt them personally too much, you know? Why would they care if a few Sony janitors get fired?
have an argument handy, or are you just moaning?
haha! no.
"Many companies actually try to follow a code of ethics in the way they do business."
No, that would be some people in them. It simply doesn't apply to corporations, and if it did, that would be a defunct corporation in economical theory. Better wrap your head around that, the world will make much more sense.
Ethics is just something that is necessary, even though expensive. They would rather make it unnecessary than stay ethical. Any calculator can tell you that.
I'd rather support them by fighting for a sane society without disney copyright. Having Whitney Houston as a grandma is not a debilitating injury after all, more likely a boon. So I see zero logic in what you said. Your'e just echoing the cynicism of the coporate cancer: it points to and USES humans, but shares none of the concerns or insights.
Whitney Houston's grandchildren would benefit so much more if we simply burned down Sony and dispersed the ashes... but instead the idea is to buy her CD's, 0.000001% of the profites showing up in the checkbook of her relatives.... uhm, what? How about "no"?
yur so rite.
Dude, I was actually starting to type out a serious reply to your post haha. Congrats :D
Oh yeah, lest people give their feedback on things they actually use, or changes that might affect them (that is, make them switch window managers). It's not like that is actually relevant to the people who make this stuff supposedly for users.
Do you have any arguments why GNOME doesn't suck (more and more), or did you just want to announce boldly that you don't?
unless it's not "presumed", but legal reality.
maybe the US can try out the whole "privacy is dead. get over it." thing, while the EU checks out the benefits ad pitfalls of another approach?