What a load of BS. We have fewer than 1000 "athletes" there. So that would be more than one protector per athlete. If we do that then everyone who leaves the country should get a government provided personal bodyguard, more than one when going to hostile nations. The Olympic committee is making a fortune on the games (with little or no accountability where that money goes), they should be providing any security that the host nation can't or won't (or provide security FROM the host nation in some cases).
The US has no legal authority here. Consider how we would react, next time we host the games, if the Russians, the Chinese, North Korea and every Muslin nation decided to send their security forces or their spies with their athletes.
Don't even ask what we are doing spending taxpayer money to server as law enforcement in a foreign country. We are the GD U.S.A. and the world police. We do things even if we have no right to do them.
Sure seems to me that a special exemption for one particular work of fiction is a clear violation of separation of church and state. That, of course, is no surprise, as we live in a country where a family just trying to get by and raise their children is taxed on both income and property, but big rich churches go tax free.
What a nice story, full of meaningful technical details, with no political motivation at all. I guess we will not be seeing any stories on Hillary's lesbian lover or corruption with Tyson food or Wall Street or the murder of Vince Foster or even Obama's warning that Hillary will say anything to get elected, 'cause that would be taking sides.
I don't care if GSK and Google are behind it, it just sounds like wishful thinking and quackery to me. Reminds me of the bogus medical devices that you find in old snake-oil museums.
...swiping it near the screen caused an message to show up on the reader..... but this means it has an active radio signal
Maybe you are not presenting your experience with proper English, but if you swiped the card and were then told to use the chip reader, that does not imply that the card has any RFID capability. It simply means that the swipe passed along enough information that the reader learned that there was also a chip. I've seen this on multiple credit cards and have confirmed that the card has no RFID. Maybe you shouldn't have used the word swipe and only mean to say that you were told to use the chip when you got the card near the card reader, but if you actually swiped it then you know nothing about if RFID is present. It does not seem to be as common as many fear mongering commercials for cheap crappy wallets would have you believe.
As to what to do if your card really does have RFID, I suggest doing the same thing that I do with my card without RFID, keep a close eye on your charges and alert the issuing bank if there are any discrepancies. Beyond that, don't worry. It is the problem of the idiots who put RFID chips in the cards if their cards get sniffed, and it is the problem of the issuing bank if they accept bogus charges on your card. Your only issue is to not be completely stupid and pay the credit card bill without checking it for accuracy (and there are certainly some people who do).
I call B.S. Hillary herself has assured us, under oath, that her email has not been hacked. And since the server absolutely had no sensitive information on it there would be no reason for Russia or any other foreign government to hack it. Yup, lots of B.S.
This is pointless. Microsoft already owns enough lawmakers and judges so that they can do whatever they want. As to any class action joke, Microsoft would end up giving the legal firm a token few million dollars and the members of the class would end up with coupons for "free" upgrades to Windows 10.
I'm sorry. That comment was in no way intended as a slight to the homosexual community. If you people want to sign up for "House of Cards", so be it. It was insensitive of me to suggest otherwise.
So many thing wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. Looks to me that it was more of an ego trip on the part of the author than a valid study.
First of all, cable is obviously a screw job. There is no way that I can pretend that cable has any merits. But still...
NetFlix content is generally older than cable content. While Netflix is creating some new shows, it is unlikely that many people are signing up for NetFlix for their "look, we made a little show" content.
People who are watching NetFlix have to be paying for Internet too. And many pay for a faster speed than they otherwise would to watch NetFlix. So Internet prices should be considered. Once that is done, since NetFlix is watched less, it might even end up costing more per hour, but "per hour" is just stupid.
Computing the cost per hour is pointless. Both are unmetered. People turn cable on even though they might not be paying attention to it, it becomes just something that's there and might occasionally be interesting. The same isn't quite as true for NetFlix since you have to actively select what you want to see. But realistically NetFlix is likely watched less simply because there is less to watch. If NetFlix had live shows such as news feeds then it might get watched more in a month making its meaningless "hourly cost" less, but it does not.
All that you can really say is that cable is more expensive than NetFlix, as long as you are not getting screwed too bad on Internet access.
So Obama pretends to be everyone's President, but when it comes down to threats to the Democrat Election Fraud machinery, it suddenly becomes an issue of color.
"The TSA's job is to make airline passengers feel safer...."
Yea, right. I'm going to feel safer with these obvious deviants and criminals groping me, taking dirty pictures of my family, and stealing what they can from my luggage? I simply refuse to fly any more.
Actually, you're a stupid AC so it is understandable that you would just spout such nonsense, but H2 certainly does use proportionally more O2 that hydrocarbons when burnt. But that wasn't even my point. Supposedly we are close to being out of hydrocarbons (or so the eko-kooks would have us believe), so I'm not too concerned that burning the little left could deplete our oxygen. On the other hand, if someone has found a "vast" reserve of hydrogen and can tap it as a fuel source, then we are likely to focus less on renewable sources and just use that. And as we do there will be less and less free oxygen, particularly since we seem to use energy at rates faster than the planet restores oxygen by photosynthesis (otherwise there would be no "greenhouse gas" problem).
H2 doesn't use more oxygen than hyrdocarbons when burning,
I thought that much was obvious, but for those who have not been paying attention, we are close to using up our hydrocarbons. And we have scientists talking about ways to store the resulting CO2 rather than let it stay in the atmosphere for eventual photosynthesis. So now if we have found a fresh source of hydrogen, will we not exploit it to further extremes? How much breathable oxygen will that use up in a world that is said to already be past its tipping point?
Worse yet is that the tests are based on 100% gasoline. But meanwhile the congress is passing laws that effectively force (or at least subsidize) the fuel companies to sell up 90% gasoline contaminated with 10% alcohol. I'm sure someone with no real knowledge about this will want to post how there is "only" a 3% energy content difference, but in my experience that is complete bullshit. You can still buy 100% gasoline if you are willing to pay a premium for it (see http://www.pure-gas.org/) but that premium is much greater than 10%, often 30% or higher. I've found that, for my 2013 vehicle, if I buy 100% gasoline that I get at least 15% better mileage, some times as much as 20% better than alcohol diluted gas. So I would be much better off if the oil companies simply sold me 9/10 of a gallon of gasoline for the price of a gallon rather than selling me 9/10 of a gallon poisoned with 1/10 of a gallon of alcohol. I would get better mileage, I wouldn't have to lug around the extra weight of the unwanted alcohol, and I could put more real gasoline in my tank, giving me a better range. But because of the political clout of some farmers in Iowa and Arthur Daniels Midland Corporation, I have to pay to have my gasoline watered down with alcohol.
And, of course, this doesn't even consider the insanity of driving up food prices and forcing us to waste grain for political reasons rather than using it for food. I'm not going to give you some bullshit about starving kids in Africa (there will always be starving kids in Africa), but I've seen prices for my own food and my dog's food (no matter if I feed him something that includes corn or not) driven up just by the extra demands for corn this stupid policy causes.
If invisible to humans, the power could also be increased without danger of harming someone
You got it. If you can't see it then it can't hurt you. Or at least you can't protect yourself from it and will have a hard time proving that we were the one who did something to you.
OMG! A DoS on the Library of Congress! What has this world come to? How can we survive? The humanity! I'm just going to go and kill myself now, I don't want to live in a world like this!
The reason for the order was not known due to legal secrecy in an ongoing case
That's strange, because I know what the article author claims not to know. Brazil wants information that they can't legally get. So they are (illegally) forcing a shut down of Whatsapp to put pressure on Facebook to try to get the information. If that works Watsapp will be turned on again. If it doesn't work and there isn't a lot of blow back from the population, then Facebook itself may be next, but in reality they expect that shutting down Facebook would draw too much attention to their tactics so it is unlikely to occur.
Phooey on you. You are just Cowards, and Anonymous Cowards at that. You just serve as Patsies, as anyone who understand the truth of Building 9 understands that you couldn't even destroy the World Trade Center without Bush's help. And your pitiful shameful dog of a god is so weak that you can't even harm any of our beloved political leaders. Our leaders laugh at you and your little god, almost as much as they laugh at us.
Slashdot Mirror
What a load of BS. We have fewer than 1000 "athletes" there. So that would be more than one protector per athlete. If we do that then everyone who leaves the country should get a government provided personal bodyguard, more than one when going to hostile nations. The Olympic committee is making a fortune on the games (with little or no accountability where that money goes), they should be providing any security that the host nation can't or won't (or provide security FROM the host nation in some cases).
The US has no legal authority here. Consider how we would react, next time we host the games, if the Russians, the Chinese, North Korea and every Muslin nation decided to send their security forces or their spies with their athletes.
Don't even ask what we are doing spending taxpayer money to server as law enforcement in a foreign country. We are the GD U.S.A. and the world police. We do things even if we have no right to do them.
But she might have posted a video before they got her. Clearly she had to be put down immediately.
Sure seems to me that a special exemption for one particular work of fiction is a clear violation of separation of church and state. That, of course, is no surprise, as we live in a country where a family just trying to get by and raise their children is taxed on both income and property, but big rich churches go tax free.
What a nice story, full of meaningful technical details, with no political motivation at all. I guess we will not be seeing any stories on Hillary's lesbian lover or corruption with Tyson food or Wall Street or the murder of Vince Foster or even Obama's warning that Hillary will say anything to get elected, 'cause that would be taking sides.
Thank goodness for this crackdown. It is well past time that someone did something to improve the quality of Internet porn.
I don't care if GSK and Google are behind it, it just sounds like wishful thinking and quackery to me. Reminds me of the bogus medical devices that you find in old snake-oil museums.
Maybe you are not presenting your experience with proper English, but if you swiped the card and were then told to use the chip reader, that does not imply that the card has any RFID capability. It simply means that the swipe passed along enough information that the reader learned that there was also a chip. I've seen this on multiple credit cards and have confirmed that the card has no RFID. Maybe you shouldn't have used the word swipe and only mean to say that you were told to use the chip when you got the card near the card reader, but if you actually swiped it then you know nothing about if RFID is present. It does not seem to be as common as many fear mongering commercials for cheap crappy wallets would have you believe.
As to what to do if your card really does have RFID, I suggest doing the same thing that I do with my card without RFID, keep a close eye on your charges and alert the issuing bank if there are any discrepancies. Beyond that, don't worry. It is the problem of the idiots who put RFID chips in the cards if their cards get sniffed, and it is the problem of the issuing bank if they accept bogus charges on your card. Your only issue is to not be completely stupid and pay the credit card bill without checking it for accuracy (and there are certainly some people who do).
I call B.S. Hillary herself has assured us, under oath, that her email has not been hacked. And since the server absolutely had no sensitive information on it there would be no reason for Russia or any other foreign government to hack it. Yup, lots of B.S.
So now we are calling "Radiation Poisoning" "Heart Disease". Might as well, we also call Getting Shot "Lead Poisoning".
This is pointless. Microsoft already owns enough lawmakers and judges so that they can do whatever they want. As to any class action joke, Microsoft would end up giving the legal firm a token few million dollars and the members of the class would end up with coupons for "free" upgrades to Windows 10.
I'm sorry. That comment was in no way intended as a slight to the homosexual community. If you people want to sign up for "House of Cards", so be it. It was insensitive of me to suggest otherwise.
So many thing wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. Looks to me that it was more of an ego trip on the part of the author than a valid study.
First of all, cable is obviously a screw job. There is no way that I can pretend that cable has any merits. But still ...
NetFlix content is generally older than cable content. While Netflix is creating some new shows, it is unlikely that many people are signing up for NetFlix for their "look, we made a little show" content.
People who are watching NetFlix have to be paying for Internet too. And many pay for a faster speed than they otherwise would to watch NetFlix. So Internet prices should be considered. Once that is done, since NetFlix is watched less, it might even end up costing more per hour, but "per hour" is just stupid.
Computing the cost per hour is pointless. Both are unmetered. People turn cable on even though they might not be paying attention to it, it becomes just something that's there and might occasionally be interesting. The same isn't quite as true for NetFlix since you have to actively select what you want to see. But realistically NetFlix is likely watched less simply because there is less to watch. If NetFlix had live shows such as news feeds then it might get watched more in a month making its meaningless "hourly cost" less, but it does not.
All that you can really say is that cable is more expensive than NetFlix, as long as you are not getting screwed too bad on Internet access.
So Obama pretends to be everyone's President, but when it comes down to threats to the Democrat Election Fraud machinery, it suddenly becomes an issue of color.
"The TSA's job is to make airline passengers feel safer ...."
Yea, right. I'm going to feel safer with these obvious deviants and criminals groping me, taking dirty pictures of my family, and stealing what they can from my luggage? I simply refuse to fly any more.
Actually, you're a stupid AC so it is understandable that you would just spout such nonsense, but H2 certainly does use proportionally more O2 that hydrocarbons when burnt. But that wasn't even my point. Supposedly we are close to being out of hydrocarbons (or so the eko-kooks would have us believe), so I'm not too concerned that burning the little left could deplete our oxygen. On the other hand, if someone has found a "vast" reserve of hydrogen and can tap it as a fuel source, then we are likely to focus less on renewable sources and just use that. And as we do there will be less and less free oxygen, particularly since we seem to use energy at rates faster than the planet restores oxygen by photosynthesis (otherwise there would be no "greenhouse gas" problem).
H2 doesn't use more oxygen than hyrdocarbons when burning,
I thought that much was obvious, but for those who have not been paying attention, we are close to using up our hydrocarbons. And we have scientists talking about ways to store the resulting CO2 rather than let it stay in the atmosphere for eventual photosynthesis. So now if we have found a fresh source of hydrogen, will we not exploit it to further extremes? How much breathable oxygen will that use up in a world that is said to already be past its tipping point?
Is there enough that, if we tap it as a fuel source, we could use up all this pesky oxygen in the air?
Worse yet is that the tests are based on 100% gasoline. But meanwhile the congress is passing laws that effectively force (or at least subsidize) the fuel companies to sell up 90% gasoline contaminated with 10% alcohol. I'm sure someone with no real knowledge about this will want to post how there is "only" a 3% energy content difference, but in my experience that is complete bullshit. You can still buy 100% gasoline if you are willing to pay a premium for it (see http://www.pure-gas.org/) but that premium is much greater than 10%, often 30% or higher. I've found that, for my 2013 vehicle, if I buy 100% gasoline that I get at least 15% better mileage, some times as much as 20% better than alcohol diluted gas. So I would be much better off if the oil companies simply sold me 9/10 of a gallon of gasoline for the price of a gallon rather than selling me 9/10 of a gallon poisoned with 1/10 of a gallon of alcohol. I would get better mileage, I wouldn't have to lug around the extra weight of the unwanted alcohol, and I could put more real gasoline in my tank, giving me a better range. But because of the political clout of some farmers in Iowa and Arthur Daniels Midland Corporation, I have to pay to have my gasoline watered down with alcohol.
And, of course, this doesn't even consider the insanity of driving up food prices and forcing us to waste grain for political reasons rather than using it for food. I'm not going to give you some bullshit about starving kids in Africa (there will always be starving kids in Africa), but I've seen prices for my own food and my dog's food (no matter if I feed him something that includes corn or not) driven up just by the extra demands for corn this stupid policy causes.
If invisible to humans, the power could also be increased without danger of harming someone
You got it. If you can't see it then it can't hurt you. Or at least you can't protect yourself from it and will have a hard time proving that we were the one who did something to you.
OMG! A DoS on the Library of Congress! What has this world come to? How can we survive? The humanity! I'm just going to go and kill myself now, I don't want to live in a world like this!
The reason for the order was not known due to legal secrecy in an ongoing case
That's strange, because I know what the article author claims not to know. Brazil wants information that they can't legally get. So they are (illegally) forcing a shut down of Whatsapp to put pressure on Facebook to try to get the information. If that works Watsapp will be turned on again. If it doesn't work and there isn't a lot of blow back from the population, then Facebook itself may be next, but in reality they expect that shutting down Facebook would draw too much attention to their tactics so it is unlikely to occur.
Phooey on you. You are just Cowards, and Anonymous Cowards at that. You just serve as Patsies, as anyone who understand the truth of Building 9 understands that you couldn't even destroy the World Trade Center without Bush's help. And your pitiful shameful dog of a god is so weak that you can't even harm any of our beloved political leaders. Our leaders laugh at you and your little god, almost as much as they laugh at us.
How dare these third world dictatorships try to censor Facebook. That's America and Israel's job!
That's so cute. He thinks he will get to talk at the convention. Actually we have him scheduled for the Leviticus 20:13 event.