I think that if you want to argue who is demonstrably stupid, it would have to be yourself, because I just demonstrated all the stupidity in every response you have so far made. I could go on.. but whenever your write anything, it's like an endless torrent of incorrect use of the English, non sequiturs and logical fallacies. I've already tried to keep up with it but you're like Usain Bolt, in the way you continually out pace me in the errors you make that I have no hope in describing and correcting them all.
It makes me wonder whether you picked up the term non sequitur, since you are guilty of espousing them so often, is that the term was used in response to you so many times, that it finally beat through the tremendously thick layers of your skull to your tiny pea sized brain, which then made the wonderfully woeful association, "saying 'non sequitur' means I win argument"
In plain terms that you might, maybe, possibly understand: Sorry, dude, it's over your head.
You should really learn the proper use of punctuation before calling people stupid.. And when did I ever say "only popular things are good"? You really have to learn to think things through before you write.
I'm not sure I can really fully understand the workings of your mind, (it's kind of like trying to diagnose issues from engine noise when there are twenty things wrong with it), but I'll try. I think the point that's lost on you is just because an action (ex. the video) appeals to a demographic that you consider stupid doesn't mean the production of the video is stupid itself. That video cornered a niche that no one else was able to find, and the creators were rewarded enormously.
The subject was the action of making the call, not the result of the call or the content of it. Just as the call produced an egregious action, *which was the caller's intent*, the video rewarded its creators immensely *which was their intent*. That's why what you wrote is a non sequitur. . If for some reason, you hated teenagers and wanted to put as many in jail as possible, this would be a fantastic way to do this. That was my point, and yes, my point does follow.
Finally, you still don't seem to get what it means to put quotes around something. If there was a plane crash, and you wrote "The loud bird machine fell from the sky", in a reply to you it would make sense for me to refer to "the loud bird machine" in quotes, designating that I'm referring to what you wrote, but I do not necessarily agree with the terms you used to describe it. However, when you quote "not stupid", not only did you seem to agree with use of the term "stupid", you also go ahead and try to tell me what it means. So why you put quotes around it is completely ambiguous, serves no point, and the only explanation I can assume is that you were trying to draw attention to it in another way than underlying it or using a bold typeface, just 'cause.
You're speculating on her motives... maybe she doesn't like teenagers in general. Maybe she is a bitter old lady who loves to manipulate other people into doing nasty things to each other without dirtying her hands herself. If so, this was a stroke of genius.
Your statement is a non sequitur. Rebecca Black's Friday was a huge monetary success. So how does that make what she did stupid?... And how do you define stupid, and why do you insist on putting quotes around it and at the same time imply you know its precise meaning?
The problem with this logic is that as long as the cost to produce bitcoin is below the reward received, the amount of mining will go up. So the more efficient mining equipment there is, the more of it will be bought and put into production, thereby nullifying any lessening of the environmental impact.
One Timex digital watch, broken. One unused prophylactic. One soiled. One black suit jacket, one pair black suit pants. One hat, black. One pair of sunglasses. $23.07. Sign here.
The government has the sole right to define terrorism, not the people. It's one of the checks and balances we have, so the people can't overpower the government at every turn by voting our elected officials out of office, protesting, or expressing dissent.
Even a single person's act could snowball into something which could throw a monkey wrench in the government's long term plans for shaping society. If someone does something that the severely upsets the government, but is technically within a constitutional right, what other recourse does the government have? Forming new laws takes time and a lot of arm wrenching of politicians to enact it. No politician wants to be directly identified with suppressing the people. And even if laws were formed, government does not have a crystal ball. It can't know what and how something that someone outside of it may turn out. No, for things that might actually affect the government, it must be able to act fast and decisively.
So, a broad interpretation of terrorism gives the government a way of dealing with this, by grabbing hold of people from its icy depths of bureaucracy, and no one knows who did it or why. In this way, the people have a right to make changes in the little things, but it keeps our government at the helm of the ship.
When a hunter eats its prey, what benefit does the prey have? You may question the morality of the experiments, but the point is in nature, one side benefits and one side does not. It's equal from a morality perspective, except that in one case, the winning side gains a meal, which is temporary, and the other we gain knowledge which is permanent.
I didn't look up the figure. I guess I was a bit too unconcerned for the fuzzy little animals... until they're on my plate I suppose... Anyway, I suggest a viewpoint, and you call me a moron and and a sociopath? And then you tell me that I'm impossible to reason with?
Must be awesome being right all the time. Too bad all of us morons have to ruin it for you by opening our mouths without knowing the true and higher path *ahem*.
It seems my point went over your head. You may need some review. Ask yourself this, what was the point I was trying to make? And how does what you wrote address my point in any way?
Nature itself is one constant experiment to promote successful genes and weed out unsuccessful ones. That fear of falling from a great height you have? Millions or billions of creatures had to fall from cliffs for that. Those wonderful ocular orbs which are versatile to see in bright sunlight and very dim night light, millions or billions of creatures that could not see as well were caught and eaten by predators, too.
These experiments that scientists are doing, what maybe at most a 100 thousand creatures died in the last century for them? And what about all the people that were saved by that? The ratio of benefit vs suffering is much better from the experiments we carry out on our own, rather than the giant wasteful experiment that nature carries out.
There may not be bad intent here. The company may have wanted him to do this so anyone trying to contact the author would contact him, rather than you, who are no longer part of the company (and may have bad things to say about the company or the product).
You should really just contact them and work it out from there.
So tell me Mr. Crypto Wizard, is "512" twice as much encryption as "256"? If a dog can crack a "256" key in one day, how fast can a 4.4 GHz dog crack a "512" key? (Please, others that have a clue, don't respond. I'm trying to enjoy the humor in the ridiculousness of this)
Slashdot Mirror
I think that if you want to argue who is demonstrably stupid, it would have to be yourself, because I just demonstrated all the stupidity in every response you have so far made. I could go on.. but whenever your write anything, it's like an endless torrent of incorrect use of the English, non sequiturs and logical fallacies. I've already tried to keep up with it but you're like Usain Bolt, in the way you continually out pace me in the errors you make that I have no hope in describing and correcting them all.
It makes me wonder whether you picked up the term non sequitur, since you are guilty of espousing them so often, is that the term was used in response to you so many times, that it finally beat through the tremendously thick layers of your skull to your tiny pea sized brain, which then made the wonderfully woeful association, "saying 'non sequitur' means I win argument"
In plain terms that you might, maybe, possibly understand: Sorry, dude, it's over your head.
You should really learn the proper use of punctuation before calling people stupid.. And when did I ever say "only popular things are good"? You really have to learn to think things through before you write.
I'm not sure I can really fully understand the workings of your mind, (it's kind of like trying to diagnose issues from engine noise when there are twenty things wrong with it), but I'll try. I think the point that's lost on you is just because an action (ex. the video) appeals to a demographic that you consider stupid doesn't mean the production of the video is stupid itself. That video cornered a niche that no one else was able to find, and the creators were rewarded enormously.
The subject was the action of making the call, not the result of the call or the content of it. Just as the call produced an egregious action, *which was the caller's intent*, the video rewarded its creators immensely *which was their intent*. That's why what you wrote is a non sequitur. . If for some reason, you hated teenagers and wanted to put as many in jail as possible, this would be a fantastic way to do this. That was my point, and yes, my point does follow.
Finally, you still don't seem to get what it means to put quotes around something. If there was a plane crash, and you wrote "The loud bird machine fell from the sky", in a reply to you it would make sense for me to refer to "the loud bird machine" in quotes, designating that I'm referring to what you wrote, but I do not necessarily agree with the terms you used to describe it. However, when you quote "not stupid", not only did you seem to agree with use of the term "stupid", you also go ahead and try to tell me what it means. So why you put quotes around it is completely ambiguous, serves no point, and the only explanation I can assume is that you were trying to draw attention to it in another way than underlying it or using a bold typeface, just 'cause.
Huh? Where did I put my foot in my mouth?
You're speculating on her motives... maybe she doesn't like teenagers in general. Maybe she is a bitter old lady who loves to manipulate other people into doing nasty things to each other without dirtying her hands herself. If so, this was a stroke of genius.
Your statement is a non sequitur. Rebecca Black's Friday was a huge monetary success. So how does that make what she did stupid? ... And how do you define stupid, and why do you insist on putting quotes around it and at the same time imply you know its precise meaning?
...the charges were dismissed. And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling internet watchdogs:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/28/charge-dropped-against-student-who-refused-to-remove-nra-shirt/
She wanted him jailed and she succeeded in her goal. So, therefore what she did wasn't stupid.
The problem with this logic is that as long as the cost to produce bitcoin is below the reward received, the amount of mining will go up. So the more efficient mining equipment there is, the more of it will be bought and put into production, thereby nullifying any lessening of the environmental impact.
One Timex digital watch, broken. One unused prophylactic. One soiled. One black suit jacket, one pair black suit pants. One hat, black. One pair of sunglasses. $23.07. Sign here.
The government has the sole right to define terrorism, not the people. It's one of the checks and balances we have, so the people can't overpower the government at every turn by voting our elected officials out of office, protesting, or expressing dissent.
Even a single person's act could snowball into something which could throw a monkey wrench in the government's long term plans for shaping society. If someone does something that the severely upsets the government, but is technically within a constitutional right, what other recourse does the government have? Forming new laws takes time and a lot of arm wrenching of politicians to enact it. No politician wants to be directly identified with suppressing the people. And even if laws were formed, government does not have a crystal ball. It can't know what and how something that someone outside of it may turn out. No, for things that might actually affect the government, it must be able to act fast and decisively.
So, a broad interpretation of terrorism gives the government a way of dealing with this, by grabbing hold of people from its icy depths of bureaucracy, and no one knows who did it or why. In this way, the people have a right to make changes in the little things, but it keeps our government at the helm of the ship.
When a hunter eats its prey, what benefit does the prey have? You may question the morality of the experiments, but the point is in nature, one side benefits and one side does not. It's equal from a morality perspective, except that in one case, the winning side gains a meal, which is temporary, and the other we gain knowledge which is permanent.
Because he subverted the authority of the UK government or one of its super friends.
But he could potentially sneak out, in the trunk of a car or something. I think that is what they are worried about.
I didn't look up the figure. I guess I was a bit too unconcerned for the fuzzy little animals... until they're on my plate I suppose... Anyway, I suggest a viewpoint, and you call me a moron and and a sociopath? And then you tell me that I'm impossible to reason with?
Must be awesome being right all the time. Too bad all of us morons have to ruin it for you by opening our mouths without knowing the true and higher path *ahem*.
It seems my point went over your head. You may need some review. Ask yourself this, what was the point I was trying to make? And how does what you wrote address my point in any way?
Fuck nature.
Nature itself is one constant experiment to promote successful genes and weed out unsuccessful ones. That fear of falling from a great height you have? Millions or billions of creatures had to fall from cliffs for that. Those wonderful ocular orbs which are versatile to see in bright sunlight and very dim night light, millions or billions of creatures that could not see as well were caught and eaten by predators, too.
These experiments that scientists are doing, what maybe at most a 100 thousand creatures died in the last century for them? And what about all the people that were saved by that? The ratio of benefit vs suffering is much better from the experiments we carry out on our own, rather than the giant wasteful experiment that nature carries out.
The wikipedia entry explains tDCS a lot better than TFA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_direct-current_stimulation
Oh Jesus! The wrench thing again... doesn't apply here.
At least it would send a message.
There may not be bad intent here. The company may have wanted him to do this so anyone trying to contact the author would contact him, rather than you, who are no longer part of the company (and may have bad things to say about the company or the product).
You should really just contact them and work it out from there.
Check out ecryptfs. It's a little weird to setup but works great with dropbox.
So tell me Mr. Crypto Wizard, is "512" twice as much encryption as "256"? If a dog can crack a "256" key in one day, how fast can a 4.4 GHz dog crack a "512" key? (Please, others that have a clue, don't respond. I'm trying to enjoy the humor in the ridiculousness of this)
It's been answered: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm
Also, do not ever copy and paste commands directly in your terminal from an untrusted website, even if you do understand them:
http://thejh.net/misc/website-terminal-copy-paste
The Wii U is doing pretty poorly. Even the original Wii is outselling it.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05/14/pachter-wii-u-sales-hit-55-000-in-april-20-000-below-wii/