The Symantec report quotes numbers - not reasons. The referenced "story" just quotes a summary of figures from the Report.
The biggest changes to email in the last year have not been arrests or deaths of spammers - but the implementation of SPF, DKIM and DMARC by email providers.
Especially in my experience, has greatly increased the amount of email rejected for delivery (so sorry, the claimed source is clearly spoofed, now filed in the big round grey folder). The "direct"/email marketing forums are full of "entrepreneurs" complaining about it (boo-fucking-hoo).
Primarily it stops forged From headers with providers that reject failures or missing authentication (e.g. Yahoo), Secondly it (DMARC) increases spam reports by providers that use the data, resulting in faster and more accurate spam filters from the suppliers.
Next year will be hell on spammers as many email providers follow Yahoo's lead and change their DMARC policy to "p=reject". Maybe then we'll see mailing list providers stop whining about the policy and work-around it (instead of continuing to do things the way they've always done things in a changing world), and they'll see a reduction in the amount of spam they are resending. Anecdotal evidence is that they've all seen an increase in spam as spammers target mail providers that don't enforce SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
Sure the full implementation will piss off some that aren't actually spammers (*cough*MailChimp*cough) but it'll also make phishing a lot harder. Eventually it may even shut up those who don't understand it, well, maybe. It isn't perfect, though it's not a bad as clueless Seltzer claims. In a perfect world people would deploy DNSSEC on their email servers so better sender authentication methods could be used - and all email senders and recipients would use and understand PGP (fat chance of that happening).
No, most places outside of the West still hate fags.
That doesn't mean "they" welcome fuckwits like the other Anonymous Coward - who's probably only welcome in a few dark recesses of the virtual world that value stupid and hatred as a contribution.
Tolerance for some things just makes sense. In an overcrowded world I extend that tolerance to non-breeders of all persuasions - with the usual caveat that they be consenting, informed adults. That type of intolerance represents a culture I won't embrace.
Historically most of the previous "civilisations" I'm familiar with welcomed them too, because they make valid contributions without the same resource drags of (us) breeders. Children, and child-reaching is costly across a range of resources. Most of those former civilisations are now wastelands - often partially created by the sheep and goats herded by the Iron Age mentality tribes that spew the same displaced hatred as that moron. The same type of conservative fundamentalist that often "rose up and threw off the shackles" (destroyed) of the same civilisation and then had trouble understanding how to operate, build, or manage the things they originally planned on "taking back" for themselves.
If your only "human contact" comes from retail staff you're doing something wrong. And no, that's not condoning "making friends" in lifts in lift by sharing your life story and your "problems" with women (or having to "bear distinctive tones" WTF that means).
[...]I thought, "That's the smartest and most modest thing I've heard in a year."
Agreed. He attributes the phrase to William Graham (NASA) in his memoir. Kirke Borne (NASA, Big Data) says he said it Homeland Security. Likely both version are true. Likely also that it's derived from Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Black Swan theory.
I would argue that a phrase like "unknown unknowns" are based on pure ignorance.
You would argue. Yes you would. It's to be expected. It's not rational, or helpful, but you would. It's what tossers do, argue purely for the sake of argument.
A phrase like "I know that I know nothing" hints at being an 'agnostic' (doubting true knowledge),
Or an honest assessment of a knowledgeable person on their confidence in the degree and importance of what they know about a given subject. Don't you think?
while "unknown unknowns" as idiotic ignorance is likely prone to sensationalistic ideas.
That is a patently idiotic display of sensational ignorance. You should stop preening now - your sister needs the mirror and you look stupid standing there with your dick in your hand.
It would have lowered the acceleration of the Google car, but it would have increased the (negative) acceleration of the car that failed to stop resulting in greater neck and back pain.
And run the risk of transferring shock to the car in front if they moved closer. The car stopped a safe distance from stationary traffic.
Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.
They caused the accident because they stopped at a red light?
The light wasn't red (according to the indicator top-right in the video). They stopped because they had no where else to go with two cars stopped in front of them. And, agreed - knightghost is an idiot, possibly a mult-skilled idiot. It's pretty obvious from watching the video at half speed in an endless loop that the Google car was exceeding the speed of the kerb.
No, they went to earnings calls and straight to market just on the strength of some nerd's multiplication skills, no one actually thought of getting into a car and timing it. Maybe you should call and let them know to try it.
You forgot to include a citation for that. Please link to your arse.
car past tests because things are not noted as broken because of some error or bad test or something else, I cant see how you fail too see that car gets cleared in rego tests even with faults
"Don't you have laws against unlicensed people fiddling with brakes?" That's all we need, some buracracy telling me I need a piece of paper to repair my brakes. We already have enough certificates that mean absolutly nothing.
So instead of putting my car on jackstands and switching out the pads and bleading the system my self for $80. I go to a "Certified" loser and pay $8,000 for a guy to mangle up the fasteners and use substandard parts. But that's ok, I have a piece of paper saying it was done so I am leagle.
P.S. I'm selling oil change insurance, would anyone like to buy?
What could go wrong? Brakes are simple. Not like it's hard to "figger it out" (you probably don't even need to read a manual to know the manual is unneeded)
AFAIK it's legal to repair your own brakes, in the USA. I doubt that'll protect you from civil action if your "gut instincts" about how good your work is, prove less than accurate.
It's probably worth noting that both times were in automatics. The scenario was: lift foot off brake ready to accelerate, car starts to creep forward, maneuver aborted due to cross traffic (possibly over-cautious), hit brakes...
It happens - no doubt about it, I've seen it. Also the "stuck half-way across the intersection because of congestion on the other-side" (sometimes results in nasty t-bones). Just because it happens doesn't make it OK. Unlike many people it happens to you aren't shirking the blame (commendable). I know how easy it is to succumb to the urge to fill a gap, hurry, or move forward due to pressure from impatient drivers behind.
Right turn on red is actually pretty nice though not appropriate in all situations.
It confused me for a minute - then I remembered why I don't drive when in the USA (we drive on the left here). I can, but it takes concentration and I don't trust my instinctive reactions in an emergency. It's your equivalent of our "left-turn permitted on red after stopping" (not very common).
Twice, I have been at a red light turning right, started to go and stopped, (having seen vehicles coming too quickly for me to pull out safely) and been rear ended by people who thought I was going. Clearly I was not at fault but that start-stop action was definitely a factor.
Frankly, it sounds like US drivers are just fucking terrible. I guess it's because you have very lax driving tests and never ban anyone from driving (in any kind of serious way), but I've NEVER been rear-ended in the UK because of something like that. People just fucking well pay attention.
It's a common "bingle" (it's not an accident) all over the world. Though in most of the world I'm familiar with you don't turn at a red light unless it's a specially marked intersections. In the quoted scenario it's the driver behind at fault, and the driver who was rear ended. If you move into an intersection before checking it's safe - you're at fault. If you run into a car that's started to move through an intersection, and then stopped, you are also at fault (and the latter is the one whose insurance company has to pay out).
its actually physically possible, one example is that the brake fails and the failing of the brakes is not something the driver could have done about, maybe some manufacturing fault, + that the driver might be in a middle lane and the left and right lane has cars as well so they couldn’t steer away
How did that hypothetical car pass a rego test? Don't you have laws against unlicensed people fiddling with brakes? And what the fuck has that got to do with a video that shows the car behind had 4+ car lengths to react to a car in front gently slowing to a stop behind two parked cars without any attempt at braking - even after the initial impact. Was their steering and gear box broken as well?
Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.
How interesting. I hope you don't pull bongs while you're driving anything other than the couch. Maybe the Google car should have floated over the cars that had stopped in front of it? Maybe the driver behind should have been watching the fucking road instead of pulling bongs?
Which rules of the road was the Google not following oh wise one?
By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
No need to invest so much in maybe - the video makes it pretty much not maybe. The video shows the Google car gently slowing to a stop from 17 mph, the car behind is 4+ car lengths away and still plows right into the back without slowing down at all. Not watching the cars in front until after the impact. More than 3 car lengths of space in a 35 zone and it's not the fault of the person sitting behind the wheel of the rear car? The Google car didn't suddenly stop, and it didn't have a choice about stopping. Note the car bounce back after the first hit - the "driver" still hadn't applied the brakes or it wouldn't have rolled forward again after the bounce.
I still don't feel comfortable about sharing the road with driver-less vehicles - but not because they're more unsafe than the ones with meatbags behind the wheel (even when they are paying attention, or conscious).
It feels weird agreeing with scientologists, but you know how it goes with a broken clock.
Correct 1 in 43200 instances? Or do you mean a 24 hour clock (1 in 86400 instances)? Either way it's an optimistic expectation of that cult.
Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.
If passed the bill won't mean a doctor would be committing you to an asylum (not locking you in the waiting room), or a cop (not putting you in a cell). A doctor or cop would be committing you to a psychiatrist at a psych ward or similar institution for assessment. Then you would be detained under existing guidelines (though, not for failure to comprehend or research - that'd require more facilities than there is empty buildings).
Sec. 573.005. TEMPORARY DETENTION BY CERTAIN FACILITIES.
(a) In this section, "facility" means:
(1) a mental health facility;
(2) a hospital, or the emergency department of a
hospital, licensed under Chapter 241; and
(3) a freestanding emergency medical care facility
licensed under Chapter 254.
Senate Bill 359
Relating to the authority of a peace officer to apprehend a person for emergency detention and the authority of certain facilities and physicians to temporarily detain a person with mental illness.
It doesn't solve the problem of under resourced psychiatric facilities. It just panders to a public desire to have nutters off the streets.
Please stop using the phrase or variants of the phrase "unknown unknowns", such a phrase so to speak lack poignancy, coherence and it doesn't have any resemblence of meaning. The very notion of unknown unknowns is ultimately something purely idiotic and thus isn't useful as knowledge. Also, the idiotic potential isn't even on par with phenomenology or anything philosophical to my knowledge, the phrase is so to speak similar to Sokrates' saying that "I know that I know nothing".
Stop this idiocy please and stop using the phrase "unknown unknowns".
Much simpler to say "you don't know what you don't know", right? That Socrates was a bit over-rated, don't you think?
At first read I though it might be a new Love Hotel - many of which already have no visible human staff (the low-rent US equivalent is usually rented hourly and you'd be well advised to don a full-body condom before entering). The Japanese versions are clean and classy, though often a little cramped (sex is not something sinful, or to be ashamed of in Japan). If it was it might of backfired as discrete guests scamper from the hordes of invading geeks wielding video cameras and selfie sticks. An amusing image.
That was so sarcastic and snide that I still can't figure out whether you were trying to diss him or defend him..
No sarcasm. I'm Australian (though I spent some of my youth in the USA) - we use sarcasm in the British way. Irony, and Satire. In the USA it's commonly, but not always, used in a nasty way (to acidly mock or convey contempt, what some call "brash" American "comedy", or a "sarcastic tone"). So not being snide. I'm surprised you interpret it that way. Maybe you're unfamiliar with Neil's work. He did not write "Rocking in the Free World" for Donald "Merkin" Trump (that's the mocking form of sarcasm) - that Trump used it demonstrates that who ever made the decision: never listened to it; didn't see the irony, or didn't hear the whoosh. He definitely didn't write "Vampire Blues" for BP - it's about petroleum companies and it's not complementary. And yes, he did get sued for "not being himself" (the only musician that has AFAIK) - I provided a link.
Definitely defending Neil Young's right to distribute his music in the format of his choosing. Any mocking is of those that don't (bully for them).
Sarcasm is often derided as "the lowest form of wit"- a false assertion made by the disingenuous whose humour doesn't extend beyond the toilet, or those simply too lazy to read the rest of the quote (see the end of this post). It can sometimes be done for those purposes, often appropriately i.e. describing Donald Trump's as hairstyle as resembling a pubic wig, or Ronald Reagan as a unrecognised genius. It's also often employed affectionately in colloquial jocularisms e.g. "Hey Shorty" (the tall guy), "Oy Bluey" (the red-headed person), "Wake up lazy" (to someone who's anything but). "You old bastard" (someone you like). The same thing said to someone you're not friends with is not friendly.
"sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence" ~ some dead Irish guy (which is satire, sarcasm, and irony).
Slashdot Mirror
The Symantec report quotes numbers - not reasons. The referenced "story" just quotes a summary of figures from the Report.
The biggest changes to email in the last year have not been arrests or deaths of spammers - but the implementation of SPF, DKIM and DMARC by email providers.
Especially in my experience, has greatly increased the amount of email rejected for delivery (so sorry, the claimed source is clearly spoofed, now filed in the big round grey folder). The "direct"/email marketing forums are full of "entrepreneurs" complaining about it (boo-fucking-hoo).
Primarily it stops forged From headers with providers that reject failures or missing authentication (e.g. Yahoo), Secondly it (DMARC) increases spam reports by providers that use the data, resulting in faster and more accurate spam filters from the suppliers.
Next year will be hell on spammers as many email providers follow Yahoo's lead and change their DMARC policy to "p=reject". Maybe then we'll see mailing list providers stop whining about the policy and work-around it (instead of continuing to do things the way they've always done things in a changing world), and they'll see a reduction in the amount of spam they are resending. Anecdotal evidence is that they've all seen an increase in spam as spammers target mail providers that don't enforce SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
Sure the full implementation will piss off some that aren't actually spammers (*cough*MailChimp*cough) but it'll also make phishing a lot harder. Eventually it may even shut up those who don't understand it, well, maybe. It isn't perfect, though it's not a bad as clueless Seltzer claims. In a perfect world people would deploy DNSSEC on their email servers so better sender authentication methods could be used - and all email senders and recipients would use and understand PGP (fat chance of that happening).
No, most places outside of the West still hate fags.
That doesn't mean "they" welcome fuckwits like the other Anonymous Coward - who's probably only welcome in a few dark recesses of the virtual world that value stupid and hatred as a contribution.
Tolerance for some things just makes sense. In an overcrowded world I extend that tolerance to non-breeders of all persuasions - with the usual caveat that they be consenting, informed adults. That type of intolerance represents a culture I won't embrace.
Historically most of the previous "civilisations" I'm familiar with welcomed them too, because they make valid contributions without the same resource drags of (us) breeders. Children, and child-reaching is costly across a range of resources. Most of those former civilisations are now wastelands - often partially created by the sheep and goats herded by the Iron Age mentality tribes that spew the same displaced hatred as that moron. The same type of conservative fundamentalist that often "rose up and threw off the shackles" (destroyed) of the same civilisation and then had trouble understanding how to operate, build, or manage the things they originally planned on "taking back" for themselves.
For those with no interest in human contact.
If your only "human contact" comes from retail staff you're doing something wrong. And no, that's not condoning "making friends" in lifts in lift by sharing your life story and your "problems" with women (or having to "bear distinctive tones" WTF that means).
[...]I thought, "That's the smartest and most modest thing I've heard in a year."
Agreed. He attributes the phrase to William Graham (NASA) in his memoir. Kirke Borne (NASA, Big Data) says he said it Homeland Security. Likely both version are true. Likely also that it's derived from Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Black Swan theory.
Dear coward
I would argue that a phrase like "unknown unknowns" are based on pure ignorance.
You would argue. Yes you would. It's to be expected. It's not rational, or helpful, but you would. It's what tossers do, argue purely for the sake of argument.
A phrase like "I know that I know nothing" hints at being an 'agnostic' (doubting true knowledge),
Or an honest assessment of a knowledgeable person on their confidence in the degree and importance of what they know about a given subject. Don't you think?
while "unknown unknowns" as idiotic ignorance is likely prone to sensationalistic ideas.
That is a patently idiotic display of sensational ignorance.
You should stop preening now - your sister needs the mirror and you look stupid standing there with your dick in your hand.
It would have lowered the acceleration of the Google car, but it would have increased the (negative) acceleration of the car that failed to stop resulting in greater neck and back pain.
And run the risk of transferring shock to the car in front if they moved closer. The car stopped a safe distance from stationary traffic.
Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.
They caused the accident because they stopped at a red light?
The light wasn't red (according to the indicator top-right in the video). They stopped because they had no where else to go with two cars stopped in front of them. And, agreed - knightghost is an idiot, possibly a mult-skilled idiot. It's pretty obvious from watching the video at half speed in an endless loop that the Google car was exceeding the speed of the kerb.
I would rather be in a jail cell than in a psych ward.
O-K [slowly backs away]
No, they went to earnings calls and straight to market just on the strength of some nerd's multiplication skills, no one actually thought of getting into a car and timing it. Maybe you should call and let them know to try it.
You forgot to include a citation for that. Please link to your arse.
Now the fag marriage is legal, I can speed out of the US at even faster speed.
Except you aren't welcome anywhere. Better stick to your shack and your travel to the keyboard and the dual-purpose bucket.
Cue rabid mud-slinging between fossil-fuel addicted Morlocks and nuclear-power fearing Eloi.
I weep for the future.
You insensitive sod. Don't expect an outdoor heater from me this Xmas.
Sincerely, Tony Abbott - I'm the Prime Minister of Australia - didn't you know?
Buy more coal - it's good.
Let us not forget that any disagreement is being postulated by paid shills and astroturfers regardless of merit.
Alex Jones has fans? The troof
https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/truthersexposed, Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas, and Jason Bermas is obviously a Jew, and a 100th degree Mason. Plus - Jason is a woody word.
car past tests because things are not noted as broken because of some error or bad test or something else, I cant see how you fail too see that car gets cleared in rego tests even with faults
Huh?
"Don't you have laws against unlicensed people fiddling with brakes?" That's all we need, some buracracy telling me I need a piece of paper to repair my brakes. We already have enough certificates that mean absolutly nothing. So instead of putting my car on jackstands and switching out the pads and bleading the system my self for $80. I go to a "Certified" loser and pay $8,000 for a guy to mangle up the fasteners and use substandard parts. But that's ok, I have a piece of paper saying it was done so I am leagle. P.S. I'm selling oil change insurance, would anyone like to buy?
What could go wrong? Brakes are simple. Not like it's hard to "figger it out" (you probably don't even need to read a manual to know the manual is unneeded)
AFAIK it's legal to repair your own brakes, in the USA. I doubt that'll protect you from civil action if your "gut instincts" about how good your work is, prove less than accurate.
It's probably worth noting that both times were in automatics. The scenario was: lift foot off brake ready to accelerate, car starts to creep forward, maneuver aborted due to cross traffic (possibly over-cautious), hit brakes...
It happens - no doubt about it, I've seen it. Also the "stuck half-way across the intersection because of congestion on the other-side" (sometimes results in nasty t-bones). Just because it happens doesn't make it OK. Unlike many people it happens to you aren't shirking the blame (commendable). I know how easy it is to succumb to the urge to fill a gap, hurry, or move forward due to pressure from impatient drivers behind.
Right turn on red is actually pretty nice though not appropriate in all situations.
It confused me for a minute - then I remembered why I don't drive when in the USA (we drive on the left here). I can, but it takes concentration and I don't trust my instinctive reactions in an emergency.
It's your equivalent of our "left-turn permitted on red after stopping" (not very common).
Twice, I have been at a red light turning right, started to go and stopped, (having seen vehicles coming too quickly for me to pull out safely) and been rear ended by people who thought I was going. Clearly I was not at fault but that start-stop action was definitely a factor.
Frankly, it sounds like US drivers are just fucking terrible. I guess it's because you have very lax driving tests and never ban anyone from driving (in any kind of serious way), but I've NEVER been rear-ended in the UK because of something like that. People just fucking well pay attention.
It's a common "bingle" (it's not an accident) all over the world. Though in most of the world I'm familiar with you don't turn at a red light unless it's a specially marked intersections. In the quoted scenario it's the driver behind at fault, and the driver who was rear ended. If you move into an intersection before checking it's safe - you're at fault. If you run into a car that's started to move through an intersection, and then stopped, you are also at fault (and the latter is the one whose insurance company has to pay out).
its actually physically possible, one example is that the brake fails and the failing of the brakes is not something the driver could have done about, maybe some manufacturing fault, + that the driver might be in a middle lane and the left and right lane has cars as well so they couldn’t steer away
How did that hypothetical car pass a rego test? Don't you have laws against unlicensed people fiddling with brakes? And what the fuck has that got to do with a video that shows the car behind had 4+ car lengths to react to a car in front gently slowing to a stop behind two parked cars without any attempt at braking - even after the initial impact. Was their steering and gear box broken as well?
Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.
How interesting. I hope you don't pull bongs while you're driving anything other than the couch. Maybe the Google car should have floated over the cars that had stopped in front of it? Maybe the driver behind should have been watching the fucking road instead of pulling bongs?
Which rules of the road was the Google not following oh wise one?
By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
No need to invest so much in maybe - the video makes it pretty much not maybe. The video shows the Google car gently slowing to a stop from 17 mph, the car behind is 4+ car lengths away and still plows right into the back without slowing down at all. Not watching the cars in front until after the impact. More than 3 car lengths of space in a 35 zone and it's not the fault of the person sitting behind the wheel of the rear car? The Google car didn't suddenly stop, and it didn't have a choice about stopping. Note the car bounce back after the first hit - the "driver" still hadn't applied the brakes or it wouldn't have rolled forward again after the bounce.
I still don't feel comfortable about sharing the road with driver-less vehicles - but not because they're more unsafe than the ones with meatbags behind the wheel (even when they are paying attention, or conscious).
Geeks are too mainstream now.
That's why no one will pay a nickel to see them.
I'm a nerd, thank you very much.
It's relative.
Your distant relatives are waiting to evolve thumbs. You aren't, therefore you are a nerd. A label to wear with pride.
It feels weird agreeing with scientologists, but you know how it goes with a broken clock.
Correct 1 in 43200 instances? Or do you mean a 24 hour clock (1 in 86400 instances)? Either way it's an optimistic expectation of that cult.
Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.
If passed the bill won't mean a doctor would be committing you to an asylum (not locking you in the waiting room), or a cop (not putting you in a cell). A doctor or cop would be committing you to a psychiatrist at a psych ward or similar institution for assessment. Then you would be detained under existing guidelines (though, not for failure to comprehend or research - that'd require more facilities than there is empty buildings).
Sec. 573.005. TEMPORARY DETENTION BY CERTAIN FACILITIES. (a) In this section, "facility" means: (1) a mental health facility; (2) a hospital, or the emergency department of a hospital, licensed under Chapter 241; and (3) a freestanding emergency medical care facility licensed under Chapter 254.
Senate Bill 359
Relating to the authority of a peace officer to apprehend a person for emergency detention and the authority of certain facilities and physicians to temporarily detain a person with mental illness.
It doesn't solve the problem of under resourced psychiatric facilities. It just panders to a public desire to have nutters off the streets.
Please stop using the phrase or variants of the phrase "unknown unknowns", such a phrase so to speak lack poignancy, coherence and it doesn't have any resemblence of meaning. The very notion of unknown unknowns is ultimately something purely idiotic and thus isn't useful as knowledge. Also, the idiotic potential isn't even on par with phenomenology or anything philosophical to my knowledge, the phrase is so to speak similar to Sokrates' saying that "I know that I know nothing".
Stop this idiocy please and stop using the phrase "unknown unknowns".
Much simpler to say "you don't know what you don't know", right? That Socrates was a bit over-rated, don't you think?
They had a protest outside a psych ward in Sydney - more recruiters than placard holders. At least it's easy to spot the placard holders.
At first read I though it might be a new Love Hotel - many of which already have no visible human staff (the low-rent US equivalent is usually rented hourly and you'd be well advised to don a full-body condom before entering). The Japanese versions are clean and classy, though often a little cramped (sex is not something sinful, or to be ashamed of in Japan). If it was it might of backfired as discrete guests scamper from the hordes of invading geeks wielding video cameras and selfie sticks. An amusing image.
A better article is here.
I'm sorry you find it so hard to interpret.
That was so sarcastic and snide that I still can't figure out whether you were trying to diss him or defend him..
No sarcasm. I'm Australian (though I spent some of my youth in the USA) - we use sarcasm in the British way. Irony, and Satire. In the USA it's commonly, but not always, used in a nasty way (to acidly mock or convey contempt, what some call "brash" American "comedy", or a "sarcastic tone"). So not being snide.
I'm surprised you interpret it that way. Maybe you're unfamiliar with Neil's work. He did not write "Rocking in the Free World" for Donald "Merkin" Trump (that's the mocking form of sarcasm) - that Trump used it demonstrates that who ever made the decision: never listened to it; didn't see the irony, or didn't hear the whoosh. He definitely didn't write "Vampire Blues" for BP - it's about petroleum companies and it's not complementary. And yes, he did get sued for "not being himself" (the only musician that has AFAIK) - I provided a link.
Definitely defending Neil Young's right to distribute his music in the format of his choosing. Any mocking is of those that don't (bully for them).
Sarcasm is often derided as "the lowest form of wit"- a false assertion made by the disingenuous whose humour doesn't extend beyond the toilet, or those simply too lazy to read the rest of the quote (see the end of this post). It can sometimes be done for those purposes, often appropriately i.e. describing Donald Trump's as hairstyle as resembling a pubic wig, or Ronald Reagan as a unrecognised genius. It's also often employed affectionately in colloquial jocularisms e.g. "Hey Shorty" (the tall guy), "Oy Bluey" (the red-headed person), "Wake up lazy" (to someone who's anything but). "You old bastard" (someone you like). The same thing said to someone you're not friends with is not friendly.
"sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence" ~ some dead Irish guy (which is satire, sarcasm, and irony).