"I can't get black duck eggs in San Francisco, let alone this little piece of crap town in the middle of nowhere." Stan's conclusion was that the Chinese restaurant was a front for a Chinese espionage operation targeting the Fortune 5 business.
Sounds like this security consultant is pretty quick to assume that we need more security. I wonder why.
And it's not just that one restaurant. Check out this menu, something definitely smells fishy about it to me. No doubt it's a north korean spy base.
Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article.
Correlation!=Causation: they may have been chanting that even if they DID read the article. Or if there was no study talking about causations or correlations. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of them just wander the streets mumbling "correlation is not causation" when they're not online. I mean, I do.
I seriously hope more EU countries will demand the same thing. It's outrageous how Google blatantly breaks laws, especially privacy ones, and get nothing for it.
Blatantly? Others more knowledgeable than me have suggested that this was an honest mistake. Furthermore, this may be reading too much into the summary's language, but this part sounds fishy
the German government wants to know what they've collected. They do not think that destroying the drives suffices for compliance with the laws.
Are we to understand that the german government has made laws and isn't exactly sure on what's legal and not legal according to those laws? Because if they don't know, how the hell would Google know how to abide by those laws.
Furthermore, why are you upset with google rather than the hypocrites in office who are clearly using this to bypass their own privacy laws? This is a bit like a cop busting a drug dealer and taking and selling the drugs himself, and you're mad at the drug dealer.
First global warming, now solar system-eating far galaxy monsters. What could possibly be worse?
Total protonic reversal. Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. That would be bad. [/ghostbusters]
the Republicans for... well, it's hard to say, exactly, except "if the Democrats are for it, then we're against it."
Well, I'm a Republican and really everything there is what I believe in and vote for.
GP likely meant republican as in "elected GOP politicians" not republican as in "people who vote for republicans."
Voters who describe themselves as republican obviously have values with substance. The GOP national strategy among politicians though definitely seems to be "Oppose everything the dems are for," and not "We're for this specific thing" aside from "prevent more immigrants from coming into our country."
The reasons for that might be that republican voters like yourself don't really seem to be asking their politicians for anything besides 1: to not be democrats 2: not raise taxes 3: prevent society from changing. Which, off topic, but it's going to. For instance anti-gay marriage? Why delay it? It's going to happen, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and really won't change anything for you even if it was tomorrow.
I agree. "Socialist" and "Communist" are what the GOP is using now because people started realizing the "Washington insider politician" label was absurd coming from other Washington politicians. Not because the republican party actually believes it's opponents are in favor of anything resembling communism.
"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
While this is a crime, it's helpful to remember that the teacher in the classroom exerts far more influence over the truth that is taught in the classroom than what is actually in the textbooks. You can de-emphasize evolution all you want, you can even put creationist crap into the text books. A creationist high school teacher would find ways of trying to preach to the students anyway. A teacher who doesn't have his head up his ass will teach evolution anyway.
Unfortunately, that's even worse, since we all know what kind of teachers we have in some classrooms.
The summary is a bit inaccurate, which is okay considering the original charges appear to be inaccurate, or rather completely wrong, as well. But Fox news was accusing* wiki of hosting -child porn- not just regular porn.
*accusing here in the sense of "finding one anonymous source willing to say what you want to broadcast to the world and then quoting them." Some people find this more credible than if Fox news were to just say it outright "We accuse Wikimedia of hosting child porn and to prove it we are going to repeat that a few times."
You have a much higher likelihood of developing cancer from UV light than from microwaves.
Citation needed. You're saying it's silly to investigate the likelihood of cell phones or microwaves causing cancer because you're more likely to get it from the sun. What is that based off of? Gut feelings about the relative likelihood?
In science and especially health-related scientific questions, you test a hypothesis, you don't just assume. At some point someone thought the question of "could the sun's rays be causing cancer" was silly because obviously the sun, giver of all life, could not be causing ill effects aside from some sunburn. We needed to investigate whether or not cell phones were causing cancer because we didn't actually know.
Furthermore, even if the sun did cause far more cancer than cell phones, you might want to take all the steps you can to avoid cancer, as most of us do. If cell phones -were- linked to cancer, you could stop using one and still reduce your threat of cancer, much like how we've taken steps to ensure we don't get skin cancer from UV rays.
No need to go through lengthy procedures to buy "dangerous" chemicals, they are everywhere if you know where to look. And this free manual, courtesy of the US Army, teaches you where to look.
As deadly as ricin? According to wiki, a dose smaller than a grain of sand will kill you. That kind of sounds like it's in a higher class of toxin than, say, the bleach under my sink. I've heard of one successful assassination where the assassin seems to have dipped a needle in ricin, put it at the end of an umbrella, walked up to the guy and then "accidentally" poked him. You couldn't do that with any of the chemicals found in my lab (a research lab, not a meth or chemical weapons lab) let alone a house. Pretty sure anyway. I mean, I'm pretty clumsy and haven't died yet.
I wasn't saying "So that's good" I was saying "So that's why this won't work." You're not going to convince any individual american that they should not go to college because it would slightly help out some of the rest of us. That's just how it is.
Anyway, I reject the premise that education can be a complete waste. Horribly inefficient at doing anything beneficial to the point where it would be better not to fund it, yes, but a complete waste no. And I'd think we can all agree that there are far bigger wastes of taxpayer money.
Telling Americans to do something because Europe's been doing it is a lot like telling a 5-year-old not to go near the cookie jar.
Especially when you're using it to tell them their dream of being a "whatever they're going to college for" is unlikely and that for the good of society, they should skip the beer, attractive members of the opposite (or same) sex, freedom, and increased chances of finding a good job that go with going to college. Man, how selfish of them!
Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't care that "Europe does it this way."
Call it the American dream, or more accurately, point out that there are other differences between Europe and America.
Here the point is simple. They don't want a cheap generic drug to be proven helpful, they want an expensive patented drug that does the same thing.
It would be rash to say this drug is proven at this point based off of 5 test subjects, but yes I am aware of the case. I was specifically responding to AC's suggestion that the drug industry has no interest in actually curing people of cancer.
Skepticism is always warranted with an industry as large, corrupt, but ultimately essential as the pharmaceutical industry. Still, that goes into paranoia. No money in a cure? Perhaps you missed the very last line of TFA
[glioblastoma patient] average survival is 14 to 16 months with standard treatments.
This is not a disease that the industry is making money off stringing along patients rather than curing them. There's no stringing along. You die of it. You never become a continuous customer for the drug company. Hospitals might make a lot of money from them, and I don't know the standard treatment. I'd guess it's more surgical and pallative care with glioblastoma.
The second to last line also speaks against the idea that the cure is being suppressed: a quote by some professional suggesting that the drug would extend the lives of these patients. Not cure, extend. If you were right and they just want people to hang on to suck up more treatment, they'd be aggressively testing this, possibly in combination with a drug they -can- patent and make a bunch of money off of.
Anyway, any given research team has a huge interest in a bona-fide cure for cancer. That would probably be the quickest awarded nobel prize right there. Even if you were working for a company that had a financial interest in not actually curing cancer and you'd get fired, you wouldn't sit on it.
The problem isn't really with xkcd. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of idiots out there who think they're as funny as xkcd.
While I agree that unfunny idiots are a problem, I don't see how -this current event- is a "problem." Whether or not the made up word is on wikipedia, it doesn't matter one bit. I suppose there are some editors who have made it their mission in life to keep wikipedia "pure" or something like that, but there is no -real- problem here.
Slashdot Mirror
That seems to be all the evidence needed.
From TFA:
"I can't get black duck eggs in San Francisco, let alone this little piece of crap town in the middle of nowhere." Stan's conclusion was that the Chinese restaurant was a front for a Chinese espionage operation targeting the Fortune 5 business.
Sounds like this security consultant is pretty quick to assume that we need more security. I wonder why.
And it's not just that one restaurant. Check out this menu, something definitely smells fishy about it to me. No doubt it's a north korean spy base.
Unfortunately for the government, the Omega program is only in alpha release.
It's cool. Google's competing product (google search for "MS vulnerabilities"), has been in beta for 8 years now.
Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article.
Correlation!=Causation: they may have been chanting that even if they DID read the article. Or if there was no study talking about causations or correlations. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of them just wander the streets mumbling "correlation is not causation" when they're not online. I mean, I do.
What happened to "Do No Evil"?
Its become "Do No Evil (*)"
(*)intentionally
It was a mistake. Mistakes happen no matter what your intentions. Prove to me google was trying to profit off of this or shut up.
I seriously hope more EU countries will demand the same thing. It's outrageous
how Google blatantly breaks laws, especially privacy ones, and get nothing for it.
Blatantly? Others more knowledgeable than me have suggested that this was an honest mistake. Furthermore, this may be reading too much into the summary's language, but this part sounds fishy
the German government wants to know what they've collected. They do not think that destroying the drives suffices for compliance with the laws.
Are we to understand that the german government has made laws and isn't exactly sure on what's legal and not legal according to those laws? Because if they don't know, how the hell would Google know how to abide by those laws.
Furthermore, why are you upset with google rather than the hypocrites in office who are clearly using this to bypass their own privacy laws? This is a bit like a cop busting a drug dealer and taking and selling the drugs himself, and you're mad at the drug dealer.
I can't walk out on my porch and yell sensitive information then fine you for having heard it.
Only because you're not the government.
Does it really count as a donation if they foresee these AHA-branded games generating at least that much in profit?
Yes. I guess you could instead call it a "good faith investment" since it's not certain to pay off for nintendo.
First global warming, now solar system-eating far galaxy monsters. What could possibly be worse?
Total protonic reversal. Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. That would be bad. [/ghostbusters]
If I were the POTUS I would offer them back to Mexico. Mind you if I were the Mexican president I'd turn the offer down.
The US did not acquire Texas from Mexico. Texas won its independence from Mexico and then joined the US many years later as an independent nation.
I don't see how that should affect our ability to give it to Mexico.
the Republicans for ... well, it's hard to say, exactly, except "if the Democrats are for it, then we're against it."
Well, I'm a Republican and really everything there is what I believe in and vote for.
GP likely meant republican as in "elected GOP politicians" not republican as in "people who vote for republicans."
Voters who describe themselves as republican obviously have values with substance. The GOP national strategy among politicians though definitely seems to be "Oppose everything the dems are for," and not "We're for this specific thing" aside from "prevent more immigrants from coming into our country."
The reasons for that might be that republican voters like yourself don't really seem to be asking their politicians for anything besides 1: to not be democrats 2: not raise taxes 3: prevent society from changing. Which, off topic, but it's going to. For instance anti-gay marriage? Why delay it? It's going to happen, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, and really won't change anything for you even if it was tomorrow.
I agree. "Socialist" and "Communist" are what the GOP is using now because people started realizing the "Washington insider politician" label was absurd coming from other Washington politicians. Not because the republican party actually believes it's opponents are in favor of anything resembling communism.
That's why when I hear someone say "we want our country back" I want to ask "back to what?"
Back... TO THE FUTURE. As in the 80's vision of the future. Where my hoverboard at?
"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future."
While this is a crime, it's helpful to remember that the teacher in the classroom exerts far more influence over the truth that is taught in the classroom than what is actually in the textbooks. You can de-emphasize evolution all you want, you can even put creationist crap into the text books. A creationist high school teacher would find ways of trying to preach to the students anyway. A teacher who doesn't have his head up his ass will teach evolution anyway.
Unfortunately, that's even worse, since we all know what kind of teachers we have in some classrooms.
The summary is a bit inaccurate, which is okay considering the original charges appear to be inaccurate, or rather completely wrong, as well. But Fox news was accusing* wiki of hosting -child porn- not just regular porn.
*accusing here in the sense of "finding one anonymous source willing to say what you want to broadcast to the world and then quoting them." Some people find this more credible than if Fox news were to just say it outright "We accuse Wikimedia of hosting child porn and to prove it we are going to repeat that a few times."
You have a much higher likelihood of developing cancer from UV light than from microwaves.
Citation needed. You're saying it's silly to investigate the likelihood of cell phones or microwaves causing cancer because you're more likely to get it from the sun. What is that based off of? Gut feelings about the relative likelihood?
In science and especially health-related scientific questions, you test a hypothesis, you don't just assume. At some point someone thought the question of "could the sun's rays be causing cancer" was silly because obviously the sun, giver of all life, could not be causing ill effects aside from some sunburn. We needed to investigate whether or not cell phones were causing cancer because we didn't actually know.
Furthermore, even if the sun did cause far more cancer than cell phones, you might want to take all the steps you can to avoid cancer, as most of us do. If cell phones -were- linked to cancer, you could stop using one and still reduce your threat of cancer, much like how we've taken steps to ensure we don't get skin cancer from UV rays.
I'm not filled with happy thoughts that everything will all get put right just like that.
Shhh! Don't say that so loud! You'll get arrested for not thinking like a good citizen!
No need to go through lengthy procedures to buy "dangerous" chemicals, they are everywhere if you know where to look. And this free manual, courtesy of the US Army, teaches you where to look.
As deadly as ricin? According to wiki, a dose smaller than a grain of sand will kill you. That kind of sounds like it's in a higher class of toxin than, say, the bleach under my sink. I've heard of one successful assassination where the assassin seems to have dipped a needle in ricin, put it at the end of an umbrella, walked up to the guy and then "accidentally" poked him. You couldn't do that with any of the chemicals found in my lab (a research lab, not a meth or chemical weapons lab) let alone a house. Pretty sure anyway. I mean, I'm pretty clumsy and haven't died yet.
Frictionless? This is almost too good to be true, there has to be some catch
Well, first you do have to listen to a pitch for a timeshare, and then it turns out it's only a 1/2000 chance it will actually be frictionless...
I wasn't saying "So that's good" I was saying "So that's why this won't work." You're not going to convince any individual american that they should not go to college because it would slightly help out some of the rest of us. That's just how it is.
Anyway, I reject the premise that education can be a complete waste. Horribly inefficient at doing anything beneficial to the point where it would be better not to fund it, yes, but a complete waste no. And I'd think we can all agree that there are far bigger wastes of taxpayer money.
Telling Americans to do something because Europe's been doing it is a lot like telling a 5-year-old not to go near the cookie jar.
Especially when you're using it to tell them their dream of being a "whatever they're going to college for" is unlikely and that for the good of society, they should skip the beer, attractive members of the opposite (or same) sex, freedom, and increased chances of finding a good job that go with going to college. Man, how selfish of them!
Gee, I wonder why they wouldn't care that "Europe does it this way."
Call it the American dream, or more accurately, point out that there are other differences between Europe and America.
For someone so stuffed full of himself, you don't read very well do you?
Nah, I've never been impressed with the reading skills of people who think too much of themselves, I'd say he's about middle of the pack.
Here the point is simple. They don't want a cheap generic drug to be proven helpful, they want an expensive patented drug that does the same thing.
It would be rash to say this drug is proven at this point based off of 5 test subjects, but yes I am aware of the case. I was specifically responding to AC's suggestion that the drug industry has no interest in actually curing people of cancer.
I believe he was saying a more disturbing problem was that most people don't care about the issues you mentioned.
There is no money in a cure....
Skepticism is always warranted with an industry as large, corrupt, but ultimately essential as the pharmaceutical industry. Still, that goes into paranoia. No money in a cure? Perhaps you missed the very last line of TFA
[glioblastoma patient] average survival is 14 to 16 months with standard treatments.
This is not a disease that the industry is making money off stringing along patients rather than curing them. There's no stringing along. You die of it. You never become a continuous customer for the drug company. Hospitals might make a lot of money from them, and I don't know the standard treatment. I'd guess it's more surgical and pallative care with glioblastoma.
The second to last line also speaks against the idea that the cure is being suppressed: a quote by some professional suggesting that the drug would extend the lives of these patients. Not cure, extend. If you were right and they just want people to hang on to suck up more treatment, they'd be aggressively testing this, possibly in combination with a drug they -can- patent and make a bunch of money off of.
Anyway, any given research team has a huge interest in a bona-fide cure for cancer. That would probably be the quickest awarded nobel prize right there. Even if you were working for a company that had a financial interest in not actually curing cancer and you'd get fired, you wouldn't sit on it.
The problem isn't really with xkcd. The problem is that there are tens of thousands of idiots out there who think they're as funny as xkcd.
While I agree that unfunny idiots are a problem, I don't see how -this current event- is a "problem." Whether or not the made up word is on wikipedia, it doesn't matter one bit. I suppose there are some editors who have made it their mission in life to keep wikipedia "pure" or something like that, but there is no -real- problem here.