Absolutely. People don't want their crap. That's why nobody downloads it illegally, it isn't shared on P2P networks and this whole thing is just a storm in a teacup that will be sorted out when we all sit down with a nice cup of tea to discuss it like adults.
Blu-ray was hardly mature when Sony included it in the PS3. I'm not saying it made sense from Microsoft's point of view to go with HD-DVD. Just that not having that sort of mass market distribution of a below-cost player when Blu-ray did was what actually killed HD-DVD. You're hung up on the question of the console wars here - that's not what this article is about, and it's not what I was addressing. Again, having millions of people world-wide equipped with Blu-ray players just because they wanted a PS3 is what gave Blu-Ray such a massive install base advantage over HD-DVD, and if HD-DVD had been the standard in a competing console, levelling the playing field, then it would most likely have been the winning format.
Toshiba was working hard at the bribery as well. That's not how Sony won the format war - they did it with the PS3, plain and simple. An excellent player, sold in a business model where it doesn't need to make a profit (and can even afford to make a loss), with millions of people who will buy it for its non-movie functionality and likely end up with at least one or two movies on top. HD-DVD lost when Microsoft didn't include it as the standard drive for the XBox 360.
Quit whining about this wonderful piece of technology. Sometimes you just need to break up a group of children, and this is a perfect device for doing it with. Also there is a real problem with threatening groups of kids, particularly around shops. This is exactly the solution we need.
Okay, next up a device which only causes discomfort to black people, then one which only causes discomfort to women. Research on the device that only causes discomfort to Buddhists is currently stalled...
How does this encourage B to carry on stealing? Instead of being liable for half the market value to C it leaves him liable for the full market value to A (or, more likely, A's insurance company). You're right that it encourages C to avoid questioning the purchase of dodgy goods, though.
Although, of course, "prikazyvat" actually means "to order", so wouldn't make much sense. I prefer the HK-47 approach, using the noun form "prikaz", meaning "order".
Prikaz: Start Firefox. Prikaz: Open new tab. Zamyechaniye: It would be quicker to use a mouse.
What a laughable question. What possible reason is there to split the userbase with incompatible drives just to satisfy you? Of course you pick a single format, that goes without saying. And the truth of the reasoning behind the format selected is almost certainly a combination of reasons - the increased capacity and the support for the BRD format will both have factored in to the decision.
I'm pretty sure those weapons are real, big, solid and fairly effective at causing damage. Is it a good sign or a bad one when the director of engineering at your company occasionally brings a sword to team meetings?
Really? It's pretty much compulsory round here. Ideally they should be able to withstand long bow and crossbow (proper crossbow, not the pussy one from that video) fire, and hold up well under assault with broad sword or mace. That pretty much covers the weapons we frequently have in the office. In a perfect world laptops and other field kit should be able to handle cannon and trebuchet fire as well, but those laptops tend to be a little on the pricey side.
Today I was browsing normally through Slashdot and was given a link that sent me to a blank website. I'm terrified that it might actually be a slasher or - worse - a telemarketer.
Of course it's also possible that he took an existing amusing checklist and added the references to Russia to it because they're relevant to this particular story. You can work this out by any of the following methods:
a) Comparing the posted version to the original linked above. b) Noticing that the additions were made in crayon. c) Getting a sense of humour, or borrowing one from someone who isn't using theirs.
It's also possible that not every attempt at humour is a thinly veiled assault on the former Soviet Union.
Um, the ones on the first link had plainly visible wires. From the pictures I saw, the girl's shirt had wires. Most suicide vests are worn as a vest, shirt or jacket. This girl's device was worn on her shirt... or hoodie. Most of the suicide vests that I've seen are "devices". This girl was wearing a device.
You're joking, yes? Anything that has wires might be a bomb? Anything that is worn as a vest, shirt or jacket might be a bomb? Anything that's a 'device' might be a bomb? I hope for your sake that you're Amish and like showing off your abs, because otherwise you must look like a suicide bomber everywhere you go.
I don't know how much more you need.
For it to look like a bomb. For which I'd need to see some explosives or any signs of some explosives being concealed somewhere (no, a small amount of putty in the hands of a person doesn't count - again, compare to the amount of explosive material in the pictures you so kindly showed us). The T-shirt shown in the article doesn't come close.
For that matter, I still don't see how you can say that there is no possible way for this to be a suicide vest.
I don't know, maybe it's the complete lack of explosives that does it for me. It's going to a very lonely suicide if it does turn out to be a suicide vest.
As for the security at the airport, they received the same description as above. "A girl went up to the counter at the airport wearing a device on her chest with visible wires. When asked about it, ignored the question and left."
Except, of course, we've already heard that she didn't ignore the question. And I'd expect them to be worried from that description, and then relieved to see the reality - which is no bomb.
Also: Today, it was 75 degrees Fahrenheit at Logan airport. A little warm for a "hoodie", don't you think?What does that have to do with anything? You think that just because it's a little on the warm side the average suicide-bomber in the streets decides that instead of wearing a large and heavy device with plenty of space for explosives they'll just leave the explosives out of their suicide bomb so that they don't have to sweat quite so much on their way to... well, to not blow everyone up, given that they left the actual bomb in their other jacket. Still, it's a lovely day to walk the detonator, isn't it?
It has all the components need to make a bomb; a battery, wires, a board to connect those wires and explosives (the putty in her hands). Yeah, I think it could have been a bomb.
Except, as you've already shown - and as I already knew - suicide bombs don't generally have such a board, they certainly don't tend to have blinking lights, they require far more explosives than a bit of putty in someone's hand, and they require the explosives to be connected to the device. If it's C4 you're worried about, then it also needs a substantial detonator.
Yet, they are both vehicles. This girl's shirt did not look exactly like any of the suicide vests in the links I provided, but it had all the same components.
Except, as you keep ignoring, room for sufficient explosives to do any real damage, or any form of detonator. Your specification also suggests that anyone wearing an MP3 player and carrying, say, a jar of jelly, is also a good target for shoot first, ask questions later.
Incidentally, anyone carrying a briefcase has something that looks far more like one of the bombs in your pictures than this. Better start shooting briefcase-carriers first and asking questions later, right?
Who said she wanted to do serious damage. Maybe she just wanted to kill five-fifty people. A few hand fulls of C4 would do the trick. Also, a hoodie is fairly bulky for 75.0 F with over 60% humidity.
None of the suicide bomb devices contains anything recognisable as electronics
I don't normally make a habit of replying to my own comments (I prefer to mutter to myself in the real world rather the virtual one) but since I can already feel the poster I was responding to attempting to jump down my throat on this one, I'd better clarify: none of the devices contain any visible electronics, and those that contain any contain a bare minimum, and nothing along the lines of a breadboard circuit. The triggering device is a simple switch, because if you've got someone who's willing to blow themselves up as part of the process, a human being is a much better trigger device than some homebrew electronics kit.
So any device with a breadboard circuit can not be a bomb? What else can a bomb NOT contain. I'm sure our guys at TSA would like to know.
Don't be so obtuse. You claimed that what she was wearing 'looked like a miniature version' of one of those bombs. It's evident to anyone with a working pair of eyes that this claim is garbage - it looks nothing like any of those devices. None of the suicide bomb devices contains anything recognisable as electronics - and with good reason, because they don't need anything like that.
Of course it's not the case that 'any device with a breadboard circuit can not be a bomb', and I didn't make that claim. But your argument was that the device looked like one of these bombs, and that isn't borne out by reality, unfortunately. There were other recognisable things in many of those designs, though. A briefcase. A cellphone. By your logic it's reasonable enough to gun down anyone carrying a briefcase or a cellphone because it looks like one of these suicide bombs.
So if it looks like a bomb, it's not a bomb because no one would make a bomb that LOOKS like a bomb. If it doesn't look like a bomb, then it can't be a bomb. Which one is it?
Neither. Again, you're off in your own little fantasy world, responding to things you imagined people might be saying. You claimed that it looked like a bomb. It didn't. End of story.
All of the bombs you showed had one very obvious common point, though - they were designed not to look like bombs, because they're intended to be smuggled into areas where they can cause damage without drawing attention to the person carrying them. Of course that doesn't mean that something that looks like a bomb can't be a bomb, if you believe in some bizarre terorist relying on a cunning double-bluff to sneak a bomb into an airport by making it look just like the ones in James Bond movies and saying "Oh, this? It's a bomb!" to any security guards who question him. Common sense suggests that anyone even approaching insanity is going to try to conceal their bomb, though.
Besides, none of those devices looked like any of the others. So tell me, what does a bomb vest look like?
Ah, so you're going for the argument that her T-shirt looked like these devices because it didn't look like them and that was what they had in common so therefore a thing that doesn't look like a bomb looks like a bomb? Wait, weren't you arguing against that just a second ago? Try to get some consistency in your drivelling, please.
As for what a bomb vest looks like, from those examples:
Bulky. You need a lot of explosives to do serious damage, so the device has to contain a lot of explosives. Contained explosives. The explosives themselves are in pipes or metal tubes, not loose. No flashing lights. Obviously the devices are intended not to draw attention to themselves. As simple as possible. There's a bare minimum of electronics - easier to make, less to go wrong.
No, it HAD a cell phone attached to, much like you do when you talk on it. Does that make you a cell phone when you are on the talking on one?
Funny. Symptomatic of an inability to parse sentences, but funny anyway. Let's try again with annotations.
One of them contained a cell phone. Which (the cell phone) looked like a cell phone. What with it (the cell phone) being a cell phone and all.
Following it this time? Or are you still trying to draw attention away from your stunning gaffe in presenting a page including pictures of a cell phone with the phrase "None of which, looks anything like a cell phone"?
There were common characteristics to look for. Wires are a pretty good giveaway.
No, wires weren't a good giveaway, given that on almost all of the bombs on those pages the wires were concealed while being worn. What was a pretty good giveaway was how bulky the devices were. Because a small amount of putty that you can play with in your hands isn't enough explosive to carry out a suicide bombing - the reason these bombs are constructed as hefty vests is so that you can actually have enough explosives there to have a real effect.
Are you even reading what you're posting? None of those pictures looks remotely like the breadboard circuit worn by the arrested girl. "None of which, looks anything like a cell phone, btw," you say. Except, of course, while none of them contains anything remotely like the girl's T-shirt, one of them does contain a fricking cell phone. Which looks, for your reference, like a cell phone. What with it being a cell phone and all.
But that's not what he's suggesting. He's talking about cuting their internet service, which presumably means installing some sort of filter that changes all links in HTML documents served from within the US to those outside the US to point to cuteoverload.com. Probably banned under the Geneva convention, but that's nothing for the US to worry themselves over.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. People don't want their crap. That's why nobody downloads it illegally, it isn't shared on P2P networks and this whole thing is just a storm in a teacup that will be sorted out when we all sit down with a nice cup of tea to discuss it like adults.
Or, you know, maybe not.
Blu-ray was hardly mature when Sony included it in the PS3. I'm not saying it made sense from Microsoft's point of view to go with HD-DVD. Just that not having that sort of mass market distribution of a below-cost player when Blu-ray did was what actually killed HD-DVD. You're hung up on the question of the console wars here - that's not what this article is about, and it's not what I was addressing. Again, having millions of people world-wide equipped with Blu-ray players just because they wanted a PS3 is what gave Blu-Ray such a massive install base advantage over HD-DVD, and if HD-DVD had been the standard in a competing console, levelling the playing field, then it would most likely have been the winning format.
Toshiba was working hard at the bribery as well. That's not how Sony won the format war - they did it with the PS3, plain and simple. An excellent player, sold in a business model where it doesn't need to make a profit (and can even afford to make a loss), with millions of people who will buy it for its non-movie functionality and likely end up with at least one or two movies on top. HD-DVD lost when Microsoft didn't include it as the standard drive for the XBox 360.
Given your description of the methodology, I think you may have got the 'S' at the wrong end of that abbreviation.
Quit whining about this wonderful piece of technology. Sometimes you just need to break up a group of children, and this is a perfect device for doing it with. Also there is a real problem with threatening groups of kids, particularly around shops. This is exactly the solution we need.
Okay, next up a device which only causes discomfort to black people, then one which only causes discomfort to women. Research on the device that only causes discomfort to Buddhists is currently stalled...
How does this encourage B to carry on stealing? Instead of being liable for half the market value to C it leaves him liable for the full market value to A (or, more likely, A's insurance company). You're right that it encourages C to avoid questioning the purchase of dodgy goods, though.
Although, of course, "prikazyvat" actually means "to order", so wouldn't make much sense. I prefer the HK-47 approach, using the noun form "prikaz", meaning "order".
Prikaz: Start Firefox.
Prikaz: Open new tab.
Zamyechaniye: It would be quicker to use a mouse.
How are you gentlemen!!
All your banana are belong to us.
You are on the way to the complete works of Shakespeare.
What a laughable question. What possible reason is there to split the userbase with incompatible drives just to satisfy you? Of course you pick a single format, that goes without saying. And the truth of the reasoning behind the format selected is almost certainly a combination of reasons - the increased capacity and the support for the BRD format will both have factored in to the decision.
I'm pretty sure those weapons are real, big, solid and fairly effective at causing damage. Is it a good sign or a bad one when the director of engineering at your company occasionally brings a sword to team meetings?
Really? It's pretty much compulsory round here. Ideally they should be able to withstand long bow and crossbow (proper crossbow, not the pussy one from that video) fire, and hold up well under assault with broad sword or mace. That pretty much covers the weapons we frequently have in the office. In a perfect world laptops and other field kit should be able to handle cannon and trebuchet fire as well, but those laptops tend to be a little on the pricey side.
So? When was the last time you saw anyone use 'sardoodledom' (one of the other nominees)?
I stopped reading when I saw it was an El Reg article. I love the guys, seriously, but they're not exactly neutral when it comes to Wikipedia. :D
Today I was browsing normally through Slashdot and was given a link that sent me to a blank website. I'm terrified that it might actually be a slasher or - worse - a telemarketer.
Don't shoot the puppy!
Surely that means you can make any machine a supercomputer by slowing down its I/O? :)
Good analysis.
Of course it's also possible that he took an existing amusing checklist and added the references to Russia to it because they're relevant to this particular story. You can work this out by any of the following methods:
a) Comparing the posted version to the original linked above.
b) Noticing that the additions were made in crayon.
c) Getting a sense of humour, or borrowing one from someone who isn't using theirs.
It's also possible that not every attempt at humour is a thinly veiled assault on the former Soviet Union.
From a brief scan I find this book terrifying.
Mostly because it contains instructions for:
FERTILIZER AN-AL EXPLOSIVE
I do not want to know why anyone would want to make a fertilizer-based anal explosive that "can be detonated with a blasting cap".
*shudder*
You're joking, yes? Anything that has wires might be a bomb? Anything that is worn as a vest, shirt or jacket might be a bomb? Anything that's a 'device' might be a bomb? I hope for your sake that you're Amish and like showing off your abs, because otherwise you must look like a suicide bomber everywhere you go.
For it to look like a bomb. For which I'd need to see some explosives or any signs of some explosives being concealed somewhere (no, a small amount of putty in the hands of a person doesn't count - again, compare to the amount of explosive material in the pictures you so kindly showed us). The T-shirt shown in the article doesn't come close.
I don't know, maybe it's the complete lack of explosives that does it for me. It's going to a very lonely suicide if it does turn out to be a suicide vest.
Except, of course, we've already heard that she didn't ignore the question. And I'd expect them to be worried from that description, and then relieved to see the reality - which is no bomb.
Don't be so obtuse. You claimed that what she was wearing 'looked like a miniature version' of one of those bombs. It's evident to anyone with a working pair of eyes that this claim is garbage - it looks nothing like any of those devices. None of the suicide bomb devices contains anything recognisable as electronics - and with good reason, because they don't need anything like that.
Of course it's not the case that 'any device with a breadboard circuit can not be a bomb', and I didn't make that claim. But your argument was that the device looked like one of these bombs, and that isn't borne out by reality, unfortunately. There were other recognisable things in many of those designs, though. A briefcase. A cellphone. By your logic it's reasonable enough to gun down anyone carrying a briefcase or a cellphone because it looks like one of these suicide bombs.
Neither. Again, you're off in your own little fantasy world, responding to things you imagined people might be saying. You claimed that it looked like a bomb. It didn't. End of story.
All of the bombs you showed had one very obvious common point, though - they were designed not to look like bombs, because they're intended to be smuggled into areas where they can cause damage without drawing attention to the person carrying them. Of course that doesn't mean that something that looks like a bomb can't be a bomb, if you believe in some bizarre terorist relying on a cunning double-bluff to sneak a bomb into an airport by making it look just like the ones in James Bond movies and saying "Oh, this? It's a bomb!" to any security guards who question him. Common sense suggests that anyone even approaching insanity is going to try to conceal their bomb, though.
Ah, so you're going for the argument that her T-shirt looked like these devices because it didn't look like them and that was what they had in common so therefore a thing that doesn't look like a bomb looks like a bomb? Wait, weren't you arguing against that just a second ago? Try to get some consistency in your drivelling, please.
As for what a bomb vest looks like, from those examples:
Bulky. You need a lot of explosives to do serious damage, so the device has to contain a lot of explosives.
Contained explosives. The explosives themselves are in pipes or metal tubes, not loose.
No flashing lights. Obviously the devices are intended not to draw attention to themselves.
As simple as possible. There's a bare minimum of electronics - easier to make, less to go wrong.
Funny. Symptomatic of an inability to parse sentences, but funny anyway. Let's try again with annotations.
One of them contained a cell phone. Which (the cell phone) looked like a cell phone. What with it (the cell phone) being a cell phone and all.
Following it this time? Or are you still trying to draw attention away from your stunning gaffe in presenting a page including pictures of a cell phone with the phrase "None of which, looks anything like a cell phone"?
Are you even reading what you're posting? None of those pictures looks remotely like the breadboard circuit worn by the arrested girl. "None of which, looks anything like a cell phone, btw," you say. Except, of course, while none of them contains anything remotely like the girl's T-shirt, one of them does contain a fricking cell phone. Which looks, for your reference, like a cell phone. What with it being a cell phone and all.
Idiot.
But that's not what he's suggesting. He's talking about cuting their internet service, which presumably means installing some sort of filter that changes all links in HTML documents served from within the US to those outside the US to point to cuteoverload.com. Probably banned under the Geneva convention, but that's nothing for the US to worry themselves over.
No. 'Orrible, 'orrible XML.