I'd mod that down to turn it into +1, Funny. It's like making fun of English people called Smith, and Germans called Mayer. I once saw an advertisement in a London bus (I can't remember who paid for it, maybe the humane society). It read "If you can't make a joke about it, it can't be taken seriously".
There's also the Spanish method. Take a friend of mine from university who had the best name I ever heard: Fernando Hernandez Fernandez Hernandez. Sounds great when you say it quickly. Anyway, I digress.
He explained that the children take three family names: The father's first family name, then the mother's first family name, and then the father's second family name.
So Fernando's father was ? Hernandez Hernandez ?, and his mother was ? Fernandez ? ?
There you go, a western culture that manages the job pretty well.
Couple this with the social unrest of the one-child per family, resulting in 30 million unmarried men [blogspot.com], and you have the fodder stimulating a revolution.
How is the imbalance caused by the one-child per family policy? It was caused by the selective abortion by short-sighted people who thought that having an unmarried male heir is better than a married female heir (either that or they thought that they were the only people with the genius idea of making sure they'd have a son)
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Alarmist headline - check Photo completely irrelevant to the story (32,250lb Eurohawk instead of this photo) - check Incorrect description of events - check Nonsensical sentence - "The drone passes under the left wing of the engine" - check
If you insist on reading a mindless tabloid, at least read one with T&A
Years ago I was doing the race results for the yacht club at home and had a private band VHF radio on my desk. I found that whenever I pressed the Tx button the dot matrix printer would go off line - very annoying when I would have someone trying to get hold of me half way through a print run.
I did almost post links to both of those articles as they were the nearest thing to what the GP had posted.
I the GP's article, it says
The UK Department of Health recently announced that it would loosen hygiene rules for Muslim and Sikh doctors and nurses. From now on, Muslim female staff will not need to wash their hands before procedures as it compromises their modesty.
Nowhere in the Telegraph and Daily Mail articles did I see anything about "not having to wash their hands". That is what I took issue with. The EU Times appears to make a habit of taking (albeit concerning) stories and then changing the facts a bit to get people to scream at their monitors.
Well, that's great, apart from the fact that I can find only one source of that story (and a huge amount of forums linking to the same story).
I'll google it for you. Not even the Daily Mail has a story with that headline.
I get this kind of shit emailed to me every day from colleagues. I've debunked every single email that I get, and have now set up a rule that deletes any email from certain people that are sent to the office.
The one this morning that I heard about was "Nigel Farrage's - Tory party's worst nightmare". If the man has such great policies, why do his supporters need to attribute thirteen year old diatribes to him?
Well, that's kind of my point. Ok, I admit it's highly unlikely (at least I hope it is) that they still store password in plain text, but the "no spaces" rule is probably a holdover from when they did.
Odds are they're doing something like using a char field to store the password which means that whitespace *may* be trimmed, so it's safer not to allow them. I'm surprised that some of them are advanced enough to accept the £ symbol as it's not in the standard ASCII set.
Not that I don't trust banks or anything, but they tell me to install Rapport every time I try to log in. One of these days I'm going to call and ask how to install it on Debian (for shits and giggles)
A few yeas ago a poll found that about 1/3 of Slashdotters are climate denialists.
I'm not a climate denialist, in fact quite the opposite, I truly believe that the climate does exist. Oh wait you mean a climate change denialist? Nope, I'm not one of those either, in fact I'd be pretty bloody concerned if the climate suddenly stopped changing. Oh wait, you mean a man-made climate change denialist? Um, not quite, I do believe that we're changing the climate around us. What I take issue is that we're continuously told about the disastrous effects that the rise in CO2 will have, only to find that the predictions were nowhere near the target, but that really big storm last week, that was the result of MMCC. Some of these climate change groups appear to be better at retconing their stories than at science.
Whenever I've run CFD calculation and got massive positive feedback I've gone back to work out how to correct it. With climate modellers, the opposite appears to be the case - if it's a shocking result, publish.
... although they have been sued for doing things like spraying Round-Up on seeds from cross pollinated plants to get the transgenic traits without paying for them.
So you're saying that it's ok to sue somebody for using a chemical that they would normally use on non-GM crops, just because the seeds happen to be cross-pollinated? Does that still stand if the farmer has no idea that the seeds were cross-pollinated? My dad is pretty intelligent, but I doubt he's got the knowledge or equipment to determine whether the seeds will cause him to be sued.
The difference is like the difference between finding a stray DVD on the ground and burning off a thousand copies.
Oh, I get it, you're saying that spraying Round-Up on a single cross-pollinated seed causes them to multiply massively.*
But, I believe your motives in defense of the Rodina are pure, so I will award you a link [youtube.com].
Wow, I didn't see that coming. There I was thinking that I was citing a report from post-soviet Russia (which in no way supports the idea that it was switched on by accident, but that it was running as per usual). But it's interesting that you bring up the accusation of unerring defence of a nation, when you yourself appear (in comments on this article) to vigorously defend the actions of - from what I assume from your spelling of defence - you home country the USA. In fact, your apparent concern with Communism would have fitted in well in the 1950s!
It does state that
..and none of the workers present wanted to make or had no authority to make decisions about further actions regarding the turbine. It seems they were used to those high levels of vibration,
So, in stereotypical Russian fashion, nobody wanted to bring up the problem with the director. Something that appears to happen all too frequently in Soviet and post-soviet Russia.
Wow, so a computer operator 500 miles away badly repaired a 29yr 10mo old turbine which had a history of vibration, and caused it to lift out of its seat (by 15ft, not 50ft), and caused it to explode and kill 75. Well at least the Washington Times got one part correct. The accident happened in August 2009 and a report was released in October 2009, and in 2013 the Washington Post made up a fictional story on cause of the accident. I'm going to jump to conclusions here and say the they needed to pad out a shitty article with an example of "Cyber Terrorism" to reel naive reader in.
The report states that the accident was primarily caused by the turbine vibrations which led to the fatigue damage of the mountings of the turbine 2, including the cover of the turbine. It was also found that at the moment of accident at least six nuts were missing from the bolts securing the turbine cover. After the accident 49 recovered bolts were investigated from which 41 had fatigue cracks. On 8 bolts, the fatigue damaged area exceeded 90% of the total cross-sectional area.[2]
I've already made this reply once, but seeing as two people have used the exploding turbine as an example of "what could go wrong", I felt I needed to correct somebody who was "wrong on the internet".
Wow, so a computer operator 500 miles away badly repaired a 29yr 10mo old turbine which had a history of vibration, and caused it to lift out of its seat (by 15ft, not 50ft), and caused it to explode and kill 75. Well at least the Washington Times got one part correct. The accident happened in August 2009 and a report was released in October 2009, and in 2013 the Washington Post made up a fictional story on cause of the accident. I'm going to jump to conclusions here and say the they needed to pad out a shitty article with an example of "Cyber Terrorism" to reel naive ACs like you in.
The report states that the accident was primarily caused by the turbine vibrations which led to the fatigue damage of the mountings of the turbine 2, including the cover of the turbine. It was also found that at the moment of accident at least six nuts were missing from the bolts securing the turbine cover. After the accident 49 recovered bolts were investigated from which 41 had fatigue cracks. On 8 bolts, the fatigue damaged area exceeded 90% of the total cross-sectional area.[2]
I think it's more a contextual problem - Plato, Swift and Voltaire didn't publish 20 word quips, so their readers had enough to go on to realise it as satire. Here, it's very easy to come out with a comment - which would be easily detected as sarcasm in verbal conversation - that gives the reader very little to go on.
However, in this case I agree that it was quite clearly sarcasm. Just sometimes it's not so easy - I've been caught out before, and others have been caught out by my comments. If anything, it's made me think about what I write - I tend to think "will anyone actually get whether I'm not serious?"
One example I have is the following (it was in relation to an article about photographers having photos deleted by police misusing S.44 of the terrorism act in the UK):
Please run a poll Which concerns you more when visiting London? a). Being blown up whilst using public transport b). Being stopped by police under S.44 for taking a tourist photo of a "possible terrorist target"
I thought it was obvious that I was parodying the "Oh no, Al Qaeda are going to kill me in my bed fear that was going around", but the majority of people told me to go back to reading the Daily Mail as they thought the question was loaded towards (a). In fact one person told me:
Please save such vacuous remarks for your sycophants at the Daily Fail. They'll love you all the more for it. Thank you.
When I think about it, I use the big brother icon with the post, so it should have been even more obvious that I was more concerned about Rights rather than Terrorism. In that case it doesn't reflect well on people I like to think as the sane ones.
It teaches people that transsexual and transgendered people are dishonest and sexual deviants.
I never saw it teaching any such thing, in fact in the cases of transgender that I remember the bigoted characters tended to be shown in a bad light, or others highlighted how they were wrong.
You don't see too many people complaining about the fact that Fry had the piss taken out of him constantly for being stupid. Why, because apparently it's ok to make fun of somebody who was born stupid, but not somebody who was born in the body of the opposite sex.
It's a comedy, and Futurama took the piss out of all walks of life.
Slashdot Mirror
-1, Racist
I'd mod that down to turn it into +1, Funny. It's like making fun of English people called Smith, and Germans called Mayer. I once saw an advertisement in a London bus (I can't remember who paid for it, maybe the humane society). It read "If you can't make a joke about it, it can't be taken seriously".
There's also the Spanish method. Take a friend of mine from university who had the best name I ever heard: Fernando Hernandez Fernandez Hernandez. Sounds great when you say it quickly. Anyway, I digress.
He explained that the children take three family names: The father's first family name, then the mother's first family name, and then the father's second family name.
So Fernando's father was ? Hernandez Hernandez ?, and his mother was ? Fernandez ? ?
There you go, a western culture that manages the job pretty well.
Cocky bastard. It'd take at least 10.
Couple this with the social unrest of the one-child per family, resulting in 30 million unmarried men [blogspot.com], and you have the fodder stimulating a revolution.
How is the imbalance caused by the one-child per family policy? It was caused by the selective abortion by short-sighted people who thought that having an unmarried male heir is better than a married female heir (either that or they thought that they were the only people with the genius idea of making sure they'd have a son)
Other points - spot on.
Nope, but at west it supports SMTP.
They never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Alarmist headline - check
Photo completely irrelevant to the story (32,250lb Eurohawk instead of this photo) - check
Incorrect description of events - check
Nonsensical sentence - "The drone passes under the left wing of the engine" - check
If you insist on reading a mindless tabloid, at least read one with T&A
Years ago I was doing the race results for the yacht club at home and had a private band VHF radio on my desk. I found that whenever I pressed the Tx button the dot matrix printer would go off line - very annoying when I would have someone trying to get hold of me half way through a print run.
Kerbal Space Program
I did almost post links to both of those articles as they were the nearest thing to what the GP had posted.
I the GP's article, it says
The UK Department of Health recently announced that it would loosen hygiene rules for Muslim and Sikh doctors and nurses. From now on, Muslim female staff will not need to wash their hands before procedures as it compromises their modesty.
Nowhere in the Telegraph and Daily Mail articles did I see anything about "not having to wash their hands". That is what I took issue with. The EU Times appears to make a habit of taking (albeit concerning) stories and then changing the facts a bit to get people to scream at their monitors.
Well, that's great, apart from the fact that I can find only one source of that story (and a huge amount of forums linking to the same story).
I'll google it for you. Not even the Daily Mail has a story with that headline.
I get this kind of shit emailed to me every day from colleagues. I've debunked every single email that I get, and have now set up a rule that deletes any email from certain people that are sent to the office.
The one this morning that I heard about was "Nigel Farrage's - Tory party's worst nightmare". If the man has such great policies, why do his supporters need to attribute thirteen year old diatribes to him?
They had a whole range of them - Barracuda, Whale, Manta-ray and Shark repellent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJlHjf_E--4
Have I violated your patent?
In a sane patent system or the one used by the USPTO?
Well, that's kind of my point. Ok, I admit it's highly unlikely (at least I hope it is) that they still store password in plain text, but the "no spaces" rule is probably a holdover from when they did.
Odds are they're doing something like using a char field to store the password which means that whitespace *may* be trimmed, so it's safer not to allow them. I'm surprised that some of them are advanced enough to accept the £ symbol as it's not in the standard ASCII set.
Not that I don't trust banks or anything, but they tell me to install Rapport every time I try to log in. One of these days I'm going to call and ask how to install it on Debian (for shits and giggles)
A few yeas ago a poll found that about 1/3 of Slashdotters are climate denialists.
I'm not a climate denialist, in fact quite the opposite, I truly believe that the climate does exist.
Oh wait you mean a climate change denialist? Nope, I'm not one of those either, in fact I'd be pretty bloody concerned if the climate suddenly stopped changing.
Oh wait, you mean a man-made climate change denialist? Um, not quite, I do believe that we're changing the climate around us. What I take issue is that we're continuously told about the disastrous effects that the rise in CO2 will have, only to find that the predictions were nowhere near the target, but that really big storm last week, that was the result of MMCC. Some of these climate change groups appear to be better at retconing their stories than at science.
Whenever I've run CFD calculation and got massive positive feedback I've gone back to work out how to correct it. With climate modellers, the opposite appears to be the case - if it's a shocking result, publish.
... although they have been sued for doing things like spraying Round-Up on seeds from cross pollinated plants to get the transgenic traits without paying for them.
So you're saying that it's ok to sue somebody for using a chemical that they would normally use on non-GM crops, just because the seeds happen to be cross-pollinated? Does that still stand if the farmer has no idea that the seeds were cross-pollinated? My dad is pretty intelligent, but I doubt he's got the knowledge or equipment to determine whether the seeds will cause him to be sued.
The difference is like the difference between finding a stray DVD on the ground and burning off a thousand copies.
Oh, I get it, you're saying that spraying Round-Up on a single cross-pollinated seed causes them to multiply massively.*
* One ridiculous comment deserves another.
But they were the ones that donated the shark.
But, I believe your motives in defense of the Rodina are pure, so I will award you a link [youtube.com].
Wow, I didn't see that coming. There I was thinking that I was citing a report from post-soviet Russia (which in no way supports the idea that it was switched on by accident, but that it was running as per usual). But it's interesting that you bring up the accusation of unerring defence of a nation, when you yourself appear (in comments on this article) to vigorously defend the actions of - from what I assume from your spelling of defence - you home country the USA. In fact, your apparent concern with Communism would have fitted in well in the 1950s!
It does state that
..and none of the workers present wanted to make or had no authority to make decisions about further actions regarding the turbine. It seems they were used to those high levels of vibration,
So, in stereotypical Russian fashion, nobody wanted to bring up the problem with the director. Something that appears to happen all too frequently in Soviet and post-soviet Russia.
At least IPv6 day was mentioned before hand.
Wow, so a computer operator 500 miles away badly repaired a 29yr 10mo old turbine which had a history of vibration, and caused it to lift out of its seat (by 15ft, not 50ft), and caused it to explode and kill 75. Well at least the Washington Times got one part correct. The accident happened in August 2009 and a report was released in October 2009, and in 2013 the Washington Post made up a fictional story on cause of the accident. I'm going to jump to conclusions here and say the they needed to pad out a shitty article with an example of "Cyber Terrorism" to reel naive reader in.
From Wikipedia
The report states that the accident was primarily caused by the turbine vibrations which led to the fatigue damage of the mountings of the turbine 2, including the cover of the turbine. It was also found that at the moment of accident at least six nuts were missing from the bolts securing the turbine cover. After the accident 49 recovered bolts were investigated from which 41 had fatigue cracks. On 8 bolts, the fatigue damaged area exceeded 90% of the total cross-sectional area.[2]
I've already made this reply once, but seeing as two people have used the exploding turbine as an example of "what could go wrong", I felt I needed to correct somebody who was "wrong on the internet".
Wow, so a computer operator 500 miles away badly repaired a 29yr 10mo old turbine which had a history of vibration, and caused it to lift out of its seat (by 15ft, not 50ft), and caused it to explode and kill 75. Well at least the Washington Times got one part correct. The accident happened in August 2009 and a report was released in October 2009, and in 2013 the Washington Post made up a fictional story on cause of the accident. I'm going to jump to conclusions here and say the they needed to pad out a shitty article with an example of "Cyber Terrorism" to reel naive ACs like you in.
From Wikipedia
The report states that the accident was primarily caused by the turbine vibrations which led to the fatigue damage of the mountings of the turbine 2, including the cover of the turbine. It was also found that at the moment of accident at least six nuts were missing from the bolts securing the turbine cover. After the accident 49 recovered bolts were investigated from which 41 had fatigue cracks. On 8 bolts, the fatigue damaged area exceeded 90% of the total cross-sectional area.[2]
I remember campaign - "Incinerators mean dioxins, dioxins mean death".
All I could think was that I saw plenty of healthy people in Vienna where they have a (pretty cool looking) incinerator slap band in the city.
I also remember hearing about the plan for a crematorium in Ovens in Cork, that would have been gas.
Yes, but only to stop you getting free porn on the internet so that you have to pay them for access to the adult channels.
I think it's more a contextual problem - Plato, Swift and Voltaire didn't publish 20 word quips, so their readers had enough to go on to realise it as satire. Here, it's very easy to come out with a comment - which would be easily detected as sarcasm in verbal conversation - that gives the reader very little to go on.
However, in this case I agree that it was quite clearly sarcasm. Just sometimes it's not so easy - I've been caught out before, and others have been caught out by my comments. If anything, it's made me think about what I write - I tend to think "will anyone actually get whether I'm not serious?"
One example I have is the following (it was in relation to an article about photographers having photos deleted by police misusing S.44 of the terrorism act in the UK):
Please run a poll
Which concerns you more when visiting London?
a). Being blown up whilst using public transport
b). Being stopped by police under S.44 for taking a tourist photo of a "possible terrorist target"
I thought it was obvious that I was parodying the "Oh no, Al Qaeda are going to kill me in my bed fear that was going around", but the majority of people told me to go back to reading the Daily Mail as they thought the question was loaded towards (a). In fact one person told me:
Please save such vacuous remarks for your sycophants at the Daily Fail. They'll love you all the more for it. Thank you.
When I think about it, I use the big brother icon with the post, so it should have been even more obvious that I was more concerned about Rights rather than Terrorism. In that case it doesn't reflect well on people I like to think as the sane ones.
It teaches people that transsexual and transgendered people are dishonest and sexual deviants.
I never saw it teaching any such thing, in fact in the cases of transgender that I remember the bigoted characters tended to be shown in a bad light, or others highlighted how they were wrong.
You don't see too many people complaining about the fact that Fry had the piss taken out of him constantly for being stupid. Why, because apparently it's ok to make fun of somebody who was born stupid, but not somebody who was born in the body of the opposite sex.
It's a comedy, and Futurama took the piss out of all walks of life.