This "Nigerian scam" identification comes from a law blog. That's why it's bothersome.
Would you be this bothered if a law blog said a theory "had as many holes as Swiss cheese" but they were picturing Cheese made in America?? Seriously, at this point "Nigerian scam" is a name for a type of scam, not a place of origin, just as surely as "Swiss cheese" is no longer (in the US) a name for Cheese from Switzerland, but rather for a type of cheese.
... when the article clearly says it was a Malaysian doing the fraud, and the funds are transferred to a Hong Kong bank?
It's not even close to Africa.
News flash! Not all ponzi schemes are actually conducted by Charles Ponzi either, and some games of Russian Roulette are played by non-Russians outside of Russia...
Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.
Not to mention, those are also exactly the places where the children see nastier things offline than on anyway.
There is some sort of logical disconnect where the UK wants to block porn on the internet, but any idiot with some change change can buy a copy of the Sun and get glamour models IN THE F&@KING NEWSPAPER.
Because children don't have access to newspapers. Duh.
Who is it exactly that defines what is or is not pornographic? The ISP? The Government? The Christian church that threatens not to vote for politician X?
Hell most of the fetishes that exist today were directly responsible because of STD's(Chlamydia, Gonorrhea), Syphilis being the big ones) which led to various fetishes(feet, hands, bondage, kinks, etc).
Right at the beginning they would have asked my operating system and then told me, "We don't support Linux." Really helpful when the actual problem is their lines are down and I just want to know when they will be fixed.
They won't because most ISPs are already blocking child porn (and this was done some years ago with very little fuss, largely because nobody has yet invented a way to fuss about these things without coming across as a kiddie-fiddling pervert).
God I wish someone would. It's pretty ridiculous when anything can get passed if its proponents just manage to connect it to "preventing" kiddie-porn.
Most block access to the page with a generic error which looks very much like the web server you're trying to connect to is down (and I don't believe that's accidental).
Wow. That is exactly what China does with blocked content. This business in the UK is scarier than I thought.
There are plenty of things people do that they are not ashamed of, but that other people who have the power to make other peoples lives miserable/difficult/whatever might find objectionable.
For example, I'm not at all ashamed of espousing an ideology that calls for eventual overthrow of my country's government, but I'd sure rather said government not keep a list of such people with my name on it.
It's nice there are cool stories out there and people do great novels, films, etc but you really mustn't let that be your baseline for reality. "It happened in V for Vendetta so it'll happen in real life! eek!"
You realize that book was written as allegory, right?
It doesn't even look like porn, it looks like the face of an angry owl. In order to justify saying "FTW" you actually have to put it after something that does, in fact, result in a win.
I thought it was the Brits who felt that their country wasn't prudish enough who then went off to found America?
No, they just founded Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The rest of America was founded by Brits who felt their country didn't offer enough economic opportunity, or adventure, or right to keep your hat on when the king's around, or right to follow the pope instead of Britain's own store-brand mini-pope.
that is from eating too much of it, the point is that we need to eat less oil in general, rather than eating "unsaturated" because it's "better for us" no it's just bad for you in a different way
Sure, but OP didn't say anything about eating less fat, he said to eat saturated instead of unsaturated because, according to him, saturated is "better for us" than unsaturated. Although there are also quite a few studies showing that consuming large amounts of monounsaturated fats can actually be really good for us; OP made the inference that since polyunsaturated fats had bad effects, that all unsaturated fats must have the same, then tried to push that inference over on us by claiming saturated fats are healthy. Bullshit.
Not true at all. Saturated fats don't cause heart attacks,
Seriously? The link between increased saturated fat consumption and increased risk of coronary disease is one of the most well-established findings of modern dietary science.
there aren't any studies that show otherwise.
Just to start. It's only page one and over half of them show statistically significant links. You can say there are new studies that cast doubt on these results, or you can say there are methodological problems with these studies that make their results less valid, but to claim there aren't any studies showing the link is both false and irresponsible.
'If you ask most people on the street what causes aging, many would say free radicals, but it's a complex story.'
—Dr. Siegfried Hekimi, McGill University
I'm pretty sure if you asked most people on the street what causes aging, a handful would say free radicals, while most would say time or God. Then if you followed up by asking them, "Don't you think it could be free radicals?" their answer would be "WTF are free radicals?"
TFA doesn't say how these worms were genetically modified.
In fact, TFA gives the impression they weren't even. It references genetic modification off the bat but then goes on to say the difference between experimental and control groups was exposure to the toxin (or lack thereof). Unless they mean that the toxin was the agent of genetic modification, TFA just doesn't make sense.
I have been enough to America, to know that msot of the folk is highly prejudicied for a reason or another. I am always polite, and try to speak the local language as good as possible. But once people remark my french accent, it is game over. I get cold shoulder and so on.
It's true: we are polite, friendly, and welcoming, until we determine you're in a group we don't like for whatever reason, and then all that goes out the window. Anyone claiming we're all polite, welcoming people deep down instead of just on the surface is being pretentious.
"Once Sweden extradites him, in all likelihood, he can't be extradited *from* Sweden by another country (say, US)."
Why all the worry about the US extraditing Assange from Sweden?
More importantly, why all this incoherent use of the word extradite? You don't extradite persons on foreign soil to your country, you extradite persons in your country to another country. You request extradition of persons in another country. By definition, he can't be extradited from Sweden by another country, but he could be extradited from Sweden by Sweden, to another country, which had previously requested extradition. And that would occur "once the UK extradites him to Sweden", not "[o]nce Sweden extradites him."
I don't get it. If congress can't set a federal drinking age how can they outlaw drugs? If the feds needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol how come one wasn't needed for the war on drugs?
Little known fact: The constitution was repealed by FDR shortly after Pearl Harbor.
Do you have anything at all to back up this "fact" other than that you want it to be true?
The first step if one wishes to act 'holyier than thou' is to rid yourself of all the skeletons in your closet & then lead a life beyond reproach.
...and the first step to leading a life beyond reproach is to spell "holier" correctly. To do otherwise leaves you vulnerable not only to undermining your message, but also distracting from what your Slashdot post is trying to accomplish...
Slashdot Mirror
This "Nigerian scam" identification comes from a law blog. That's why it's bothersome.
Would you be this bothered if a law blog said a theory "had as many holes as Swiss cheese" but they were picturing Cheese made in America?? Seriously, at this point "Nigerian scam" is a name for a type of scam, not a place of origin, just as surely as "Swiss cheese" is no longer (in the US) a name for Cheese from Switzerland, but rather for a type of cheese.
... when the article clearly says it was a Malaysian doing the fraud, and the funds are transferred to a Hong Kong bank?
It's not even close to Africa.
News flash! Not all ponzi schemes are actually conducted by Charles Ponzi either, and some games of Russian Roulette are played by non-Russians outside of Russia...
Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.
Not to mention, those are also exactly the places where the children see nastier things offline than on anyway.
There is some sort of logical disconnect where the UK wants to block porn on the internet, but any idiot with some change change can buy a copy of the Sun and get glamour models IN THE F&@KING NEWSPAPER.
Because children don't have access to newspapers. Duh.
Actually, in this case, not the big, bad Government, but this non-governmental and completely unaccountable entity. Does that make you feel any safer?
Who is it exactly that defines what is or is not pornographic? The ISP? The Government? The Christian church that threatens not to vote for politician X?
Potter Stewart. That's who.
Hell most of the fetishes that exist today were directly responsible because of STD's(Chlamydia, Gonorrhea), Syphilis being the big ones) which led to various fetishes(feet, hands, bondage, kinks, etc).
[citation needed]
Right at the beginning they would have asked my operating system and then told me, "We don't support Linux." Really helpful when the actual problem is their lines are down and I just want to know when they will be fixed.
They won't because most ISPs are already blocking child porn (and this was done some years ago with very little fuss, largely because nobody has yet invented a way to fuss about these things without coming across as a kiddie-fiddling pervert).
God I wish someone would. It's pretty ridiculous when anything can get passed if its proponents just manage to connect it to "preventing" kiddie-porn.
Most block access to the page with a generic error which looks very much like the web server you're trying to connect to is down (and I don't believe that's accidental).
Wow. That is exactly what China does with blocked content. This business in the UK is scarier than I thought.
There are plenty of things people do that they are not ashamed of, but that other people who have the power to make other peoples lives miserable/difficult/whatever might find objectionable.
For example, I'm not at all ashamed of espousing an ideology that calls for eventual overthrow of my country's government, but I'd sure rather said government not keep a list of such people with my name on it.
How is any consensual sexual act "depraved?"
The same way anything is "depraved": The powers that be say so.
It's nice there are cool stories out there and people do great novels, films, etc but you really mustn't let that be your baseline for reality. "It happened in V for Vendetta so it'll happen in real life! eek!"
You realize that book was written as allegory, right?
(oYo) - ASCII FTW
It doesn't even look like porn, it looks like the face of an angry owl. In order to justify saying "FTW" you actually have to put it after something that does, in fact, result in a win.
I thought it was the Brits who felt that their country wasn't prudish enough who then went off to found America?
No, they just founded Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The rest of America was founded by Brits who felt their country didn't offer enough economic opportunity, or adventure, or right to keep your hat on when the king's around, or right to follow the pope instead of Britain's own store-brand mini-pope.
o-+-[
You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.
More important than being ashamed, you should go turn yourself in to the British police. You just violated the mandatory porn blocking.
that is from eating too much of it, the point is that we need to eat less oil in general, rather than eating "unsaturated" because it's "better for us" no it's just bad for you in a different way
Sure, but OP didn't say anything about eating less fat, he said to eat saturated instead of unsaturated because, according to him, saturated is "better for us" than unsaturated. Although there are also quite a few studies showing that consuming large amounts of monounsaturated fats can actually be really good for us; OP made the inference that since polyunsaturated fats had bad effects, that all unsaturated fats must have the same, then tried to push that inference over on us by claiming saturated fats are healthy. Bullshit.
Not true at all. Saturated fats don't cause heart attacks,
Seriously? The link between increased saturated fat consumption and increased risk of coronary disease is one of the most well-established findings of modern dietary science.
there aren't any studies that show otherwise.
Just to start. It's only page one and over half of them show statistically significant links. You can say there are new studies that cast doubt on these results, or you can say there are methodological problems with these studies that make their results less valid, but to claim there aren't any studies showing the link is both false and irresponsible.
'If you ask most people on the street what causes aging, many would say free radicals, but it's a complex story.'
—Dr. Siegfried Hekimi, McGill University
I'm pretty sure if you asked most people on the street what causes aging, a handful would say free radicals, while most would say time or God. Then if you followed up by asking them, "Don't you think it could be free radicals?" their answer would be "WTF are free radicals?"
TFA doesn't say how these worms were genetically modified.
In fact, TFA gives the impression they weren't even. It references genetic modification off the bat but then goes on to say the difference between experimental and control groups was exposure to the toxin (or lack thereof). Unless they mean that the toxin was the agent of genetic modification, TFA just doesn't make sense.
Safe oils are saturated, like butter, coconut oil, and lamb fat.
Sure, if your definition of "safe" is "less prone to accelerate aging but far more prone to give you a heart attack", that is.
I mean, how can anything with the word free right there as part of it's name be bad for you?
Free STDs! Today only, in my garage.
I have been enough to America, to know that msot of the folk is highly prejudicied for a reason or another. I am always polite, and try to speak the local language as good as possible. But once people remark my french accent, it is game over. I get cold shoulder and so on.
It's true: we are polite, friendly, and welcoming, until we determine you're in a group we don't like for whatever reason, and then all that goes out the window. Anyone claiming we're all polite, welcoming people deep down instead of just on the surface is being pretentious.
"Once Sweden extradites him, in all likelihood, he can't be extradited *from* Sweden by another country (say, US)."
Why all the worry about the US extraditing Assange from Sweden?
More importantly, why all this incoherent use of the word extradite? You don't extradite persons on foreign soil to your country, you extradite persons in your country to another country. You request extradition of persons in another country. By definition, he can't be extradited from Sweden by another country, but he could be extradited from Sweden by Sweden, to another country, which had previously requested extradition. And that would occur "once the UK extradites him to Sweden", not "[o]nce Sweden extradites him."
I don't get it. If congress can't set a federal drinking age how can they outlaw drugs? If the feds needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol how come one wasn't needed for the war on drugs?
Little known fact: The constitution was repealed by FDR shortly after Pearl Harbor.
Do you have anything at all to back up this "fact" other than that you want it to be true?
The first step if one wishes to act 'holyier than thou' is to rid yourself of all the skeletons in your closet & then lead a life beyond reproach.
...and the first step to leading a life beyond reproach is to spell "holier" correctly. To do otherwise leaves you vulnerable not only to undermining your message, but also distracting from what your Slashdot post is trying to accomplish...