Nope, it was a total misrepresentation of what I said, and your quoting one line out of context shows it again.
Repeating something doesn't make it true, neither does calling me names constitute a cogent argument, even if it takes you four paragraphs to do so. Your "terse" posts are nothing more than paragraph after paragraph giving reasons why you decided you didn't actually need to make an argument. Despite you not providing an argument, those arguing against you are wrong anyway, you're just not giving any reason why in the name of brevity. Also, any criticism of your non-existent points is wrong, because your points were "taken out out of context".
In other words, a whole lot of fluff and no substance.
In that case, you're not really using your iPad then are you? I mean, it's functioning as what, CPU and data storage? All the input and output are being redirected to peripherals. Hell, you could make the same argument about a Raspberry Pi. I can produce documents just as easily with that as I can with a PC, as long as I add a keyboard, mouse, and a monitor - that is, turn it into a PC.
Please post the names, addresses and photographs of every woman you've had sexual relations with. Publish your own home address, phone number, social security number and credit card details. Post a list of every digital purchase you've made, every website you've visited.
Failure to do so reveals you for the hypocrite you are. Yes, people have things to hide. No, things people are hiding aren't necessarily bad, or any of your freaking business.
It depends who the OP means by "we". I'm in Australia, and we didn't even get a connection into US ARPAnet until the early 1990s, and it was a satellite connection that served as the only outbound link for the entire country.
I hope you've never eaten corn in your life, then. Or wheat. Or tomato. Or basically any commercially grown crop. Because that would make you a filthy hypocrite.
Dude, he doesn't "run the internet". His job, apparently, is nothing more than finding new ways of polluting the gTLD namespace. If he didn't turn up for work for the next three months, the internet would not suddenly collapse.
Honestly, my interest in online voting isn't so much to make it easier for people to vote, but to increase the feasibility of allowing more frequent votes. Conducting a federal election is a very expensive undertaking; it means that you want to do it is rarely as possible. By lowering the barrier for entry, it means you could conduct a plebiscite on core issues much more easily.
Fine, if you want to argue semantics, I can ask a mathematician I trust to verify that they are cryptographically secure to the best of his knowledge of the field.
Of course my trusted mathematician can't prove that nobody has ever efficiently solved NP-complete problems, just like my trusted physicist can't prove that nobody's ever achieved apparent superluminal travel. That doesn't mean I'm going to by booking my flight to Epsilon Eridani any time soon.
Can you give me your name, and references to papers published regarding security flaws in existing public key cryptographic systems, so I can ask a mathematician I trust (as opposed to some random Anonymous Coward) their opinion on the matter?
I phrased my reply poorly. You can require that people only vote in a polling booth, while still using electronic voting. Electronic voting and online voting are not the same thing, and it's only online voting that has that vulnerability
Also note that with public key encrypted online voting, you could presumably just vote whatever the boss tells you, then go home and cast another vote, voiding the coerced vote.
I suggested Chromium rather than Chrome because it is open source - which means its processes are all open for inspection to avoid spyware, and it fits with Debians policies.
There just is no way to guarantee a safe, secret and pressure-free vote unless you actually require the voter to go to a voting booth where he can in solitude and secrecy colour one box red. It's that simple.
No, not really. You can still go to a voting booth and cast an electronic vote. Solitude and secrecy depend on having the voting area controlled, but on what technology's used to cast the vote.
Provide evidence that every voter of average intelligence will also understand it.
If you can't or they can't, it's asking you to rely on your masters. And that's not democracy.
No, that's saying people who are stupid, lazy or just don't care have to rely on their masters. That's the way it should be. Part and parcel of democracy is the responsibility of the individual. I may not understand the mathematics behind public key cryptography, but I can understand the general principles. For the hardcore maths, I can ask any mathematician I trust to verify them; I'm not relying on the government telling me they're secure. And the mathematics for these things are available for public scrutiny, which is the important part.
Besides, I'm not convinced the average voter understands all the complexities of the electoral system they're participating in now anyway.
Not yet. But if GNOME and/or Firefox start requiring the feature other distros have a choice between two bad options.
Actually, I think it leaves with one good option. Give GNOME the boot, Firefox the finger, and ship with KDE and Chromium. I used to use both, until GNOME3 and Firefox's general suckiness pushed me off onto the alternatives.
You know what my pet peeve is? People who don't even read what they've posted, then complain about others not reading it.
The Season Set DVDs would be $400 alone
At no point do you mention you're talking about the sets for then entire series. In fact, if did mean that, you should have pluralized "Season". Maybe learn how to communicate before attempting to next time.
Besides that, the pricetag of the DVD season box set has absolutely no relevance to the cost of producing the series. It's only relevance is to how much people are willing to pay. Economics 101.
You're treating the BBC like its a private corporation... stop that.
That's because the OP used them as an example of why TV was expensive. I took his numbers and ran with them. If you want to argue his case, and have the financials for a private production company that we can use, feel free to present them.
When the BBC does make a profit, that money is funnelled into other productions (news, web services, other shows) Doctor Who probably pays for a bunch of BBC shows.
So, basically what private production companies do with the profits from their successful shows then.
Except that we're talking about a life-threatening medical condition.
improves patients' chances of not dying a painful death by X%
team of doctors stand there and watch while they died
--
So yes, I'm aware that basal cell carcinoma is rarely fatal.
Your previous post suggests not.
You know, since I was responding to a post more-or-less arguing to throw out ethics since it doesn't allow you to test all conditions
No, you were responding to a post claiming that not including controls was not valid science. The GP made no claims about whether it was ethical or not, simply that it was required for good science. It's quite possible that it may not be possible to ethically conduct good science in that area.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, it was a total misrepresentation of what I said, and your quoting one line out of context shows it again.
Repeating something doesn't make it true, neither does calling me names constitute a cogent argument, even if it takes you four paragraphs to do so. Your "terse" posts are nothing more than paragraph after paragraph giving reasons why you decided you didn't actually need to make an argument. Despite you not providing an argument, those arguing against you are wrong anyway, you're just not giving any reason why in the name of brevity. Also, any criticism of your non-existent points is wrong, because your points were "taken out out of context".
In other words, a whole lot of fluff and no substance.
You, as a business, by engaging in Commerce with the Public subject yourself to the laws that are in place, which includes preventing discrimination.
Nope. My comment was an accurate representation of at least part of your position.
I just didn't feel a need to expound on why.
Which makes your post quite useless on a discussion forum. You should have just posted "No it's not, I said so" and saved us all some bandwidth.
Yeah, great argument:
OP: "This law is wrong"
You: "Nah-uh. It's the law, therefore it's right"
Sounds like you, with your worship of the status quo, are more likely to support Jim Crow laws. After all, it's the law!
In that case, you're not really using your iPad then are you? I mean, it's functioning as what, CPU and data storage? All the input and output are being redirected to peripherals. Hell, you could make the same argument about a Raspberry Pi. I can produce documents just as easily with that as I can with a PC, as long as I add a keyboard, mouse, and a monitor - that is, turn it into a PC.
Please post the names, addresses and photographs of every woman you've had sexual relations with. Publish your own home address, phone number, social security number and credit card details. Post a list of every digital purchase you've made, every website you've visited.
Failure to do so reveals you for the hypocrite you are. Yes, people have things to hide. No, things people are hiding aren't necessarily bad, or any of your freaking business.
I think the CSIRO had a connection in the 80s, but it wasn't always on. I think it connected on a schedule or something.
It depends who the OP means by "we". I'm in Australia, and we didn't even get a connection into US ARPAnet until the early 1990s, and it was a satellite connection that served as the only outbound link for the entire country.
I hope you've never eaten corn in your life, then. Or wheat. Or tomato. Or basically any commercially grown crop. Because that would make you a filthy hypocrite.
Dude, he doesn't "run the internet". His job, apparently, is nothing more than finding new ways of polluting the gTLD namespace. If he didn't turn up for work for the next three months, the internet would not suddenly collapse.
Honestly, my interest in online voting isn't so much to make it easier for people to vote, but to increase the feasibility of allowing more frequent votes. Conducting a federal election is a very expensive undertaking; it means that you want to do it is rarely as possible. By lowering the barrier for entry, it means you could conduct a plebiscite on core issues much more easily.
Yes, thank you for your extended troll. It contributed greatly to our understanding of strawman arguments.
I think you mean "pirated"
Fine, if you want to argue semantics, I can ask a mathematician I trust to verify that they are cryptographically secure to the best of his knowledge of the field.
Of course my trusted mathematician can't prove that nobody has ever efficiently solved NP-complete problems, just like my trusted physicist can't prove that nobody's ever achieved apparent superluminal travel. That doesn't mean I'm going to by booking my flight to Epsilon Eridani any time soon.
Yes, notice the hypothetical if right bang at the start of that. Where's your efficient method for solving NP-complete problems?
Can you give me your name, and references to papers published regarding security flaws in existing public key cryptographic systems, so I can ask a mathematician I trust (as opposed to some random Anonymous Coward) their opinion on the matter?
I phrased my reply poorly. You can require that people only vote in a polling booth, while still using electronic voting. Electronic voting and online voting are not the same thing, and it's only online voting that has that vulnerability
Also note that with public key encrypted online voting, you could presumably just vote whatever the boss tells you, then go home and cast another vote, voiding the coerced vote.
I suggested Chromium rather than Chrome because it is open source - which means its processes are all open for inspection to avoid spyware, and it fits with Debians policies.
There just is no way to guarantee a safe, secret and pressure-free vote unless you actually require the voter to go to a voting booth where he can in solitude and secrecy colour one box red. It's that simple.
No, not really. You can still go to a voting booth and cast an electronic vote. Solitude and secrecy depend on having the voting area controlled, but on what technology's used to cast the vote.
Provide evidence that every voter of average intelligence will also understand it.
If you can't or they can't, it's asking you to rely on your masters. And that's not democracy.
No, that's saying people who are stupid, lazy or just don't care have to rely on their masters. That's the way it should be. Part and parcel of democracy is the responsibility of the individual. I may not understand the mathematics behind public key cryptography, but I can understand the general principles. For the hardcore maths, I can ask any mathematician I trust to verify them; I'm not relying on the government telling me they're secure. And the mathematics for these things are available for public scrutiny, which is the important part.
Besides, I'm not convinced the average voter understands all the complexities of the electoral system they're participating in now anyway.
He's not saying the patented method doesn't work; he's saying the boat doesn't use the method they patented. Nothing wrong with that.
Not yet. But if GNOME and/or Firefox start requiring the feature other distros have a choice between two bad options.
Actually, I think it leaves with one good option. Give GNOME the boot, Firefox the finger, and ship with KDE and Chromium. I used to use both, until GNOME3 and Firefox's general suckiness pushed me off onto the alternatives.
You know what my pet peeve is? People who don't even read what they've posted, then complain about others not reading it.
The Season Set DVDs would be $400 alone
At no point do you mention you're talking about the sets for then entire series. In fact, if did mean that, you should have pluralized "Season". Maybe learn how to communicate before attempting to next time.
Besides that, the pricetag of the DVD season box set has absolutely no relevance to the cost of producing the series. It's only relevance is to how much people are willing to pay. Economics 101.
You're treating the BBC like its a private corporation... stop that.
That's because the OP used them as an example of why TV was expensive. I took his numbers and ran with them. If you want to argue his case, and have the financials for a private production company that we can use, feel free to present them.
When the BBC does make a profit, that money is funnelled into other productions (news, web services, other shows) Doctor Who probably pays for a bunch of BBC shows.
So, basically what private production companies do with the profits from their successful shows then.
Except that we're talking about a life-threatening medical condition.
improves patients' chances of not dying a painful death by X%
team of doctors stand there and watch while they died
--
So yes, I'm aware that basal cell carcinoma is rarely fatal.
Your previous post suggests not.
You know, since I was responding to a post more-or-less arguing to throw out ethics since it doesn't allow you to test all conditions
No, you were responding to a post claiming that not including controls was not valid science. The GP made no claims about whether it was ethical or not, simply that it was required for good science. It's quite possible that it may not be possible to ethically conduct good science in that area.
And basic grammar not amongst yours. Write a coherent post and get back to me.