"Similar" as in "different brand, different colour, and with a different number of people of different gender in it"?
They're scared. They've got twitchy trigger fingers. And they certainly aren't professional. They're not the kind of people who I would want policing me, that's for sure.
It's supposed to wait for MS to offer a sizeable discount on the s/w for hundreds of thousands of governmental machines, and then forget about this little "misunderstanding" forever.
But at least this way they only have to fix the bugs that white-box testing uncovers. If they had to fix every bug, that would be prohibitively expensive.
But you shouldn't translate "cookie" into "biscuit" - "cookie" should be left as "cookie" in English/Strine/etc. . Cookies are cooked once, but biscuits are, as the "bis-" + "cuire" roots attest, cooked twice.
> No CAT Scan, MRI or Cancer drugs would have been invented without patents
Can you please name an equivalent-sized economy and market without patent laws which didn't also see the invention anti-cancer drugs? Your stance is one of/post hoc ergo propter hoc/ - we had the patent system, then we had the inventions, therefore the patents caused the inventions. That's a classic logical fallacy.
Hey - don't forget us ignostics! (Those for whom the term "god" remains insufficiently defined for there to be any sense in discussing existence or non-existence thereof. (And even if it were to be defined, most definitions would cause us to dismiss the concept as meaningless.))
> Scientists have faith in the fact that there are laws and truths in nature.
Just plain wrong. Doubly wrong. Triply wrong, quadruply, even. It's hard to be more wrong, in fact.
Scientists strive to build a model that reflects how things behave accurately enough that it has predictive power, and attempt to improve that model by testing it until they find, ever smaller, cases where their current model fails. Whereby they refine it, and they then have a better model.
My favourite book about the evidence for whether Jesus existed or not was written by a (christian) biblical scholar. He spends 90% of the book explaining how the 3 years of Jesus' ministerial life are basically a repetition of the 3 year cycle of old testament readings, and how many of the things refered to are complete fabrications that don't (or didn't) exist. Which is brilliant. The final 10% is a rather pitiful "but I've wasted my fucking life studying this guy, and want him to exist, so I'm obliging myself to draw the conclusion that he did exist after all despite the supporting evidence being so weak, and there being plenty of contradictory evidence". Hilarious.
I wish I could remember the name of the book, it's only been 5 years since I read it. Fuck, I just spent 15 minutes wading through painful bullshit to find it - I'm 99% sure it was this: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-The-Evidence-Ian-Wilson/dp/0895262398 .
Highly recommended for every atheist - know your enemy...
> The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops.
It will come as a surprise to Archimedes that he didn't observe, create models, make predictions that could falsify their model, and test them.
> In more recent times the Catholic church has stated [...]... things that prove that they were never divinely inspired, as they were just plain wrong. And if they weren't divinely inspired back then, what has changed such that they are divinely inspired now? Unless their divine entity is as flawed as humans, and evolves knowledge about his creation slightly slower than humans do. (Which of course contradicts his own divinely inspired scripture, but that's perfectly consistent with how flawed he is.)
... to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers,
Then please inform us what life was really like back in the middle of the eighteen hundreds when the first feathered dinosaur was discovered? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Not just that, which is the brute force method, google themsleves are happy to tell you exactly how to block just images just for them (so your text content will still be scanned, and web searches will find you).
This story is just another "wah-wah-wah I'm stupid" rant. It's not even a rant, it's just a jibber.
It's also a bit dumb. It's been playing my webserver at a variant of reversi for the last 12 months (one of the links at the end of each game is to start a new game, which it duly follows...)
I accept your point, and certainly have no intention of trying to argue an opposite stance.
It's at points like this I recommend the Spike Lee movie/Bamboozled/. For some reason it never seemed to reach the fame or infamy of many of his other movies, but it's more poignant than most.
Working out who's driving things can often be difficult. Who, fictionally (in the above film), would you say was to propagating the "Timmi Hilnigger" brand? (Youtube has just that clip, but I recommend seeing it in context of the whole movie.)
But these correlations are not because of content *across the web*, are they? As I understand google's ads, they are chosen because of a positive correlation between things being advertised and known previously-viewed content, including searches (i.e. of the clicker's choice), and other ads that clickers are known to have clicked on in the past (so, again, their own choice). i.e. it's a function of the small bit of the web that the clicker choses to put in front of himself, not of the web at large.
Otherwise it wouldn't be targetted, as the web at large is identical for all people. And the alleged problem is that it is targetted.
I wonder what google adsense would make of this little bit of statistical correlation: the single most common middle name for murderers in the US is "Wayne"?
I suspect "Nigel"'s gonna be picked on and victimised in the 'hood! Reminds me of Shel Silverstein's/A Boy Named Sue/. Then again, "Clarence" might end up on SCOTUS.
> I do not believe the Nazis bothered to determine what someones precise mix if they did not think it was pure Arian.
History was never my strong point, but I thought that the Nazis indeed were quite pedantic about that, at least when it came to Jewishness. Just from memory, if you were 1/4 Jewish, you were considered Jewish. Grandparental christening records were consulted in order to tally the non-Jewish fractions. At least in theory.
``` Employee Relations - Google Books Result books.google.com/books?isbn=0273655868 Graham Hollinshead, Peter Nicholls, Stephanie Tailby - â€Z2003 - 587 pages In the twenty-first century, displaying notices saying 'No blacks or Irish' would be considered unacceptable, yet in the 1950s such signs were openly seen on... '''
One of course has to adopt the looser modern sense of "race", but I have no problem letting that part of the language evolve that way. The physical anthropological definition hasn't proved to have any worth at all nowadays.
Without the bankers (and by which I suppose you mean influential people who work in banking, not just clerks or managers at a local branch), there might not have been the wealth disparity that lead to the 10 guys being drawn into a life of crime in the first place.
> Some of my upper class acquaintances... vandalism.... would pay for any damages.
Bing "Bullingdon Club".
The fucking prime minister and fucking chancellor of the exchequer of the fucking united kingdom were such criminals. Oh - and the mayor of london too. Sorry, fucking mayor of london.
Slashdot Mirror
Google yields the obvious from a search for ``LAPD guide to vehicle identification''. e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022347147
"Similar" as in "different brand, different colour, and with a different number of people of different gender in it"?
They're scared. They've got twitchy trigger fingers. And they certainly aren't professional. They're not the kind of people who I would want policing me, that's for sure.
It's supposed to wait for MS to offer a sizeable discount on the s/w for hundreds of thousands of governmental machines, and then forget about this little "misunderstanding" forever.
But at least this way they only have to fix the bugs that white-box testing uncovers. If they had to fix every bug, that would be prohibitively expensive.
But you shouldn't translate "cookie" into "biscuit" - "cookie" should be left as "cookie" in English/Strine/etc. . Cookies are cooked once, but biscuits are, as the "bis-" + "cuire" roots attest, cooked twice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJsMRDyC9eY
"This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on depiction of harmful activities. "
One could repeat the very first comment about centralised services here too.
> insurmountable advantages
Please feel free to say that phrase as often as you like - it's wonderful!
> No CAT Scan, MRI or Cancer drugs would have been invented without patents
/post hoc ergo propter hoc/ - we had the patent system, then we had the inventions, therefore the patents caused the inventions. That's a classic logical fallacy.
Can you please name an equivalent-sized economy and market without patent laws which didn't also see the invention anti-cancer drugs? Your stance is one of
It's not totally irrelevant, it's the /sine qua non/ for Christianity.
A Jesus chappy is *necessary but not sufficient* for Christianity.
Unless you can imagine a Christianity that's happy to admit that there was no Christ. I can't.
Hey - don't forget us ignostics! (Those for whom the term "god" remains insufficiently defined for there to be any sense in discussing existence or non-existence thereof. (And even if it were to be defined, most definitions would cause us to dismiss the concept as meaningless.))
> Scientists have faith in the fact that there are laws and truths in nature.
Just plain wrong. Doubly wrong. Triply wrong, quadruply, even. It's hard to be more wrong, in fact.
Scientists strive to build a model that reflects how things behave accurately enough that it has predictive power, and attempt to improve that model by testing it until they find, ever smaller, cases where their current model fails. Whereby they refine it, and they then have a better model.
No "faith", no "fact", no "laws", no "truths".
My favourite book about the evidence for whether Jesus existed or not was written by a (christian) biblical scholar. He spends 90% of the book explaining how the 3 years of Jesus' ministerial life are basically a repetition of the 3 year cycle of old testament readings, and how many of the things refered to are complete fabrications that don't (or didn't) exist. Which is brilliant. The final 10% is a rather pitiful "but I've wasted my fucking life studying this guy, and want him to exist, so I'm obliging myself to draw the conclusion that he did exist after all despite the supporting evidence being so weak, and there being plenty of contradictory evidence". Hilarious.
I wish I could remember the name of the book, it's only been 5 years since I read it. Fuck, I just spent 15 minutes wading through painful bullshit to find it - I'm 99% sure it was this: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-The-Evidence-Ian-Wilson/dp/0895262398 .
Highly recommended for every atheist - know your enemy...
> stated [...] ... things
Why did slashcode remove the *2* carriage returns (i.e. 1 entirely blank line)?
Hopefully it's clear what was my new material.
> The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops.
... things that prove that they were never divinely inspired, as they were just plain wrong. And if they weren't divinely inspired back then, what has changed such that they are divinely inspired now? Unless their divine entity is as flawed as humans, and evolves knowledge about his creation slightly slower than humans do. (Which of course contradicts his own divinely inspired scripture, but that's perfectly consistent with how flawed he is.)
It will come as a surprise to Archimedes that he didn't observe, create models, make predictions that could falsify their model, and test them.
> In more recent times the Catholic church has stated [...]
... to put forth the idea that some dinosaurs had feathers,
Then please inform us what life was really like back in the middle of the eighteen hundreds when the first feathered dinosaur was discovered? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Not just that, which is the brute force method, google themsleves are happy to tell you exactly how to block just images just for them (so your text content will still be scanned, and web searches will find you).
This story is just another "wah-wah-wah I'm stupid" rant. It's not even a rant, it's just a jibber.
> Google does NOT behave itself.
It's also a bit dumb. It's been playing my webserver at a variant of reversi for the last 12 months (one of the links at the end of each game is to start a new game, which it duly follows...)
I accept your point, and certainly have no intention of trying to argue an opposite stance.
/Bamboozled/. For some reason it never seemed to reach the fame or infamy of many of his other movies, but it's more poignant than most.
It's at points like this I recommend the Spike Lee movie
Working out who's driving things can often be difficult. Who, fictionally (in the above film), would you say was to propagating the "Timmi Hilnigger" brand? (Youtube has just that clip, but I recommend seeing it in context of the whole movie.)
Sorry to hear that, Ignatius, but can you help me out - what's "boom boom"?
(Actually, that's not a bad name, shorten it to Iggy, become a singer, and hump speaker stacks on stage whilst half naked! Chicks dig that!)
But these correlations are not because of content *across the web*, are they? As I understand google's ads, they are chosen because of a positive correlation between things being advertised and known previously-viewed content, including searches (i.e. of the clicker's choice), and other ads that clickers are known to have clicked on in the past (so, again, their own choice). i.e. it's a function of the small bit of the web that the clicker choses to put in front of himself, not of the web at large.
Otherwise it wouldn't be targetted, as the web at large is identical for all people. And the alleged problem is that it is targetted.
I wonder what google adsense would make of this little bit of statistical correlation: the single most common middle name for murderers in the US is "Wayne"?
"Need to buy a spade?"
I suspect "Nigel"'s gonna be picked on and victimised in the 'hood! Reminds me of Shel Silverstein's /A Boy Named Sue/. Then again, "Clarence" might end up on SCOTUS.
> I do not believe the Nazis bothered to determine what someones precise mix if they did not think it was pure Arian.
History was never my strong point, but I thought that the Nazis indeed were quite pedantic about that, at least when it came to Jewishness. Just from memory, if you were 1/4 Jewish, you were considered Jewish. Grandparental christening records were consulted in order to tally the non-Jewish fractions. At least in theory.
Cross the pond!
...
Searching for ``"no blacks or irish"'' yields:
```
Employee Relations - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=0273655868
Graham Hollinshead, Peter Nicholls, Stephanie Tailby - â€Z2003 - 587 pages
In the twenty-first century, displaying notices saying 'No blacks or Irish' would be
considered unacceptable, yet in the 1950s such signs were openly seen on
'''
One of course has to adopt the looser modern sense of "race", but I have no problem letting that part of the language evolve that way. The physical anthropological definition hasn't proved to have any worth at all nowadays.
Without the bankers (and by which I suppose you mean influential people who work in banking, not just clerks or managers at a local branch), there might not have been the wealth disparity that lead to the 10 guys being drawn into a life of crime in the first place.
> Some of my upper class acquaintances ... vandalism. ... would pay for any damages.
Bing "Bullingdon Club".
The fucking prime minister and fucking chancellor of the exchequer of the fucking united kingdom were such criminals. Oh - and the mayor of london too. Sorry, fucking mayor of london.
(Use of Bing is purely ironic, swearing less so.)