Adapters? To what standard? Are you, for example, reasonably certain that whoever digs it up from the moon rock millenia from now will have access to a USB port?
You're absolutely right, even though I suspect you were half-joking. We all know by now that programs tend to expand to use the available resources and there's little reason to think this will be any different. If we're loading pages "34% faster" then we can soon expect those pages to be filled with 34% more ads!
Okay, I know this is off topic and I apologize, but can we agree that its time to stop calling them "Cybercriminals"? It's not 1997 anymore and internet-enabled devices are deeply integrated into most aspects of all our lives - they're just criminals.
I'm serious by the way, this isn't an attempt to be funny. Appending the cyber- prefix automatically sets them apart and I think that's a bad thing. They're thieves, and we already have plenty of words for those.
If you think stories like this aren't important, just remember the fact that each of those people has the same number of votes in our glorious democracy as you do. There is no such thing as 'too much' when it comes to shaming stupidity in public.
Well, because the latter may result in the world's first genetically modified human baby. If you don't understand why that's a big deal, go take a look at all the fuss they make about GM food and then imagine it amplified by an order of magnitude.
I'm sure I'm being incredibly naive, but what's wrong with a plain old popular vote? I don't know why there's always this obsession with districts, electoral colleges, all of that bollocks. If you get the most votes you get the job, why must that be complicated? I'm not trying to be facetious here I'm honestly curious.
I think that generally speaking, Atheists respect the scientific process because it is the same one that leads them to conclude there probably isn't a god. A good scientist is always ready to be proven wrong and the null hypothesis is central to the entire process. These principles are anathema to Theism which is, by definition, based on claims without supporting evidence - aka "faith". From a personal standpoint, the idea that anyone could actively oppose the ideals and principles of the scientific method seems completely insane, but then I'm not American.
Ah yes. "I have no ethics and would do this if I could get away with it, therefore nobody has any ethics and would do this if they could get away with it."
Good logic! The next part is where you try to deflect by calling me naïve.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, how could one possibly think otherwise after such an incredible demonstration of cutting wit from one of its attendees?
It's their "nag you about upgrading to windows 10" software - GWX: Get Windows 10
On the contrary, it embiggens his point perfectly.
Adapters? To what standard? Are you, for example, reasonably certain that whoever digs it up from the moon rock millenia from now will have access to a USB port?
He was giving an interview to the Guardian so I rather doubt he expects most Twitter addicts to see it.
You're absolutely right, even though I suspect you were half-joking. We all know by now that programs tend to expand to use the available resources and there's little reason to think this will be any different. If we're loading pages "34% faster" then we can soon expect those pages to be filled with 34% more ads!
Suuuuuure. Is this like when they said copied VHS tapes would break your player?
I'm serious by the way, this isn't an attempt to be funny. Appending the cyber- prefix automatically sets them apart and I think that's a bad thing. They're thieves, and we already have plenty of words for those.
Well yes, but then he also said that AIDS was "the special curse of the homosexual" so perhaps he's not the best place to go in search of wisdom, eh?
If you think stories like this aren't important, just remember the fact that each of those people has the same number of votes in our glorious democracy as you do. There is no such thing as 'too much' when it comes to shaming stupidity in public.
I love when someone's sig so perfectly matches the content of their post.
I followed the link to his blog and he managed to be patronizing inside the first three sentences. That's certainly efficient I guess.
The court that convicted him was a Sanhedrin, which is a jewish.
Well, because the latter may result in the world's first genetically modified human baby. If you don't understand why that's a big deal, go take a look at all the fuss they make about GM food and then imagine it amplified by an order of magnitude.
A foole & his money,
be soone at debate:
which after with sorow,
repents him to late.
Thomas Tusser, 1573
No, you're thinking of 'du jour', which is indeed French for 'of the day' and isn't the same thing.
Whichever one will get us more funding, obviously.
So does a shotgun. That's why you need to be specific about your use cases.
Yeah, its one of my favourite kind of comments where you can't quite decide if the author is a genius or an idiot.
I think some people need to double check what 'insightful' means.
I'm sure I'm being incredibly naive, but what's wrong with a plain old popular vote? I don't know why there's always this obsession with districts, electoral colleges, all of that bollocks. If you get the most votes you get the job, why must that be complicated? I'm not trying to be facetious here I'm honestly curious.
Demoblicans would be a great name for the bad guys in an 80s video game. "Commander Keen versus the Demoblicans!" just sounds right.
At 35,000 feet "what's going on outside" is nothing. You could just record a panoramic view once and play the passengers a looped tape.
I think that generally speaking, Atheists respect the scientific process because it is the same one that leads them to conclude there probably isn't a god. A good scientist is always ready to be proven wrong and the null hypothesis is central to the entire process. These principles are anathema to Theism which is, by definition, based on claims without supporting evidence - aka "faith". From a personal standpoint, the idea that anyone could actively oppose the ideals and principles of the scientific method seems completely insane, but then I'm not American.
Ah yes. "I have no ethics and would do this if I could get away with it, therefore nobody has any ethics and would do this if they could get away with it."
Good logic! The next part is where you try to deflect by calling me naïve.