If one guy breaks his leg falling from a ladder, and another breaks his leg in a car accident, does the doctor treat that broken leg differently?
Actually a doctor most likely will treat those injuries differently. An impact with torn metal will probably be more serious than an impact with soil. For instance, it is more likely to result in a compound fracture. In general, different accidents cause different injuries.
Cancer can absolutely be categorized as one disease.
OMG.
You are going to need to know a heck of a lot more about a disease than "it is cancer" before you can even start considering treatment. In what type of tissue did the cancer originate? What organ is the cancer in now? What oncogenes / suppressor genes were affected by the mutation? Is it one of:
Breast cancer due to tumor suppressor gene BRCA1 mutation, metastasized to the lung
Prostate cancer due do mutation in Hereditary Prostate Cancer gene 1 (HPC1), unmetastasized
The question isn't whether they had a contract, but what the contract did.
Holy freaking guacamole. WHAT CONTRACT? The question is, why did RSA do what they absolutely incontrovertibly did? And here is what they did: they included an NSA-backdoored crypto RNG in their BSAFE product and made it the default RNG. In other news, RSA pocketed $10M of NSA's money.
Claiming that if they don't deny there was a contract [that] makes them "guilty" is playing games.
If it's a game, it sure is a fun one. Those pinpoint denials leave them plenty of wiggle room to say "We didn't know. We didn't know because when we asked, the NSA said 'You don't want to know' ". Or, "It wasn't a 'secret contract', it was a 'gentleman's agreement' ". Or "We did not have sexual relations with that agency. They gave us a choice: buttfuck or backdoor... helluva choice."
Now for god's sake please stop clinging to those ridiculous denials.
They didn't make a "non-denial." It appears to be quite explicit.
The only thing explicit is that RSA denied a bunch of highly specific scenarios. Let me highlight one word:
Recent press coverage has asserted that RSA entered into a “secret contract” with the NSA to incorporate a known flawed random number generator into its BSAFE encryption libraries.. We categorically deny this allegation.
Now change that one word to from "known" to "unknown". Did they deny that?
A government spokesperson states that any disclosure of classified material is harmful to our national security.
What a useless PR hack. Two points:
A large amount of classified material is over-classified, not in the least bit harmful to national security, and mostly just embarrassing to the government.
In circumstances such as this, it is actually government activity is that harmful to national security.
That was spot on about the carbon tax. But economics? Let me put it this way: Republicans don't care about the economy as much as they care about themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Dyslexia?
Mustache and a girly face?
It was mustache or a girly face. Logical operator precedence.
Who could this be? Let's see, something about defecation - Oh yes! Hello again, Shithouse Astronomer!
Caution: above video contains no explicit images of glam rockers.
The only difference is that there is no cat.
Obligatory Young Ones.
Neil: Alright, so most metaphor's don't bear close examination.
The Young Ones: Flood.
Unless, of course, Argument from ignorance going on.
So Non sequitur.
There, fixed that for you.
About that giraffe leg:
"I'll have the large horse leg meal please."
"Would you like to go supersize for an extra denarius?"
"Err - yeah. Supersize me."
If one guy breaks his leg falling from a ladder, and another breaks his leg in a car accident, does the doctor treat that broken leg differently?
Actually a doctor most likely will treat those injuries differently. An impact with torn metal will probably be more serious than an impact with soil. For instance, it is more likely to result in a compound fracture. In general, different accidents cause different injuries.
Cancer can absolutely be categorized as one disease.
OMG.
You are going to need to know a heck of a lot more about a disease than "it is cancer" before you can even start considering treatment. In what type of tissue did the cancer originate? What organ is the cancer in now? What oncogenes / suppressor genes were affected by the mutation? Is it one of:
In other words, what is the disease really?
Truly you have a dizzying intellect. Debunking exactly what the GP said didn't happen.
The question isn't whether they had a contract, but what the contract did.
Holy freaking guacamole. WHAT CONTRACT? The question is, why did RSA do what they absolutely incontrovertibly did? And here is what they did: they included an NSA-backdoored crypto RNG in their BSAFE product and made it the default RNG. In other news, RSA pocketed $10M of NSA's money.
Claiming that if they don't deny there was a contract [that] makes them "guilty" is playing games.
If it's a game, it sure is a fun one. Those pinpoint denials leave them plenty of wiggle room to say "We didn't know. We didn't know because when we asked, the NSA said 'You don't want to know' ". Or, "It wasn't a 'secret contract', it was a 'gentleman's agreement' ". Or "We did not have sexual relations with that agency. They gave us a choice: buttfuck or backdoor ... helluva choice."
Now for god's sake please stop clinging to those ridiculous denials.
As a physicist blithely dismissing another scientific discipline, you're a lousy physicist.
Me neither. My sister played one. I always thought they were weapons of malleus destruction.
They didn't make a "non-denial." It appears to be quite explicit.
The only thing explicit is that RSA denied a bunch of highly specific scenarios. Let me highlight one word:
Recent press coverage has asserted that RSA entered into a “secret contract” with the NSA to incorporate a known flawed random number generator into its BSAFE encryption libraries.. We categorically deny this allegation.
Now change that one word to from "known" to "unknown". Did they deny that?
Plausible deniability. The only truth with a hole in it!
Delighted to hear it. Let me know when you come up with a better theory.
... perhaps because for years deniers have been looking for observations that buck the trend.
Risking a whoosh ...
Relax. Comments as idiotic as AC's make a dull thud, not a whoosh.
Hey AC: Want to hang out with like minded people giggling inanely until they wet themselves? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/saving-the-antarctic-scientists-er-media-er-activists-er-tourists-trapped-by-sea-ice/#more-100034.
It seems that the "high efficiency incandescent" effort died in 2008. Why the brightest idea needs tinkering
True, but those were very small kids.
The law does not concern itself with trifles:
There was a young man named Rex
Who had diminutive organs of sex
When charged with exposure
He said with composure
De minimis non curat lex
Determining the size of the arresting officer's gonads is left as an exercise for the reader.
A government spokesperson states that any disclosure of classified material is harmful to our national security.
What a useless PR hack. Two points:
That was spot on about the carbon tax. But economics? Let me put it this way: Republicans don't care about the economy as much as they care about themselves.
You keep saying that as if it was an argument. It isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
Here, this Monty Python sketch may help.
Perhaps Merriam-Webster can simply change the definition of ownership.
With definitions like that, Merriam-Webster can literally do anything. Get lost, go jump, sod off ... anything.
... division of redundancies division, at 16:30 PM after afternoon tea.