And this is where Nintendo comes in. They didn't call their system a video game system, they called it a toy, not to be sold in the now-banned video game section of the store, but where all the toys were.
That's some cute revisionism, but it's not exactly accurate. After the crash, Nintendo first attempted to position themselves as a full-fledged computer system. This failed, for various reasons. Following that, they then marketed their console as an "entertainment system" which was, as you say, listed as a "toy". However, all of your feminist editorialising is mostly bullshit; the idea that "toys have to be marketed either to boys or girls" is complete nonsense, which you could easily discover by walking into the nearest Walmart. There are entire sections of toys dedicated to things like puzzles, board games, science kits, and various other educational games, none of which are marketed to any particular gender.
I'll concede that Nintendo may have targeted boys specifically. I have no recollection of such a campaign, but I was very young at the time so I may simply not have noticed it. But the idea that they HAD to do so due to some quirk in how toys are marketed is complete nonsense. Moreover, those of us who went to purchase a Nintendo system knew exactly what we were getting: a video game conaole. I didn't beg my parents to buy me a "boys toy"; I wanted a fucking video game system, and that's how I got my first NES.
It's to prevent the 99% of people who won't bother to learn or take the time to hack their system.
99% won't learn, but they don't need to; as a 15 year old kid I made a booming business out of helping others modify their PlayStation consoles to play pirated discs, and then made more money selling them the actual games.
The majority of their user base might remain ignorant, but that's completely irrelevant as long as the users have access to a few guys who know what they're doing.
Because in every single case where a gaming system has been hacked, that hack is used to play games the person didn't pay for.
Sure, but given that every platform is hacked in a matter of months, you would think that sooner or later they might wise up and realize that all the effort they put into trying to "protect" their platform could be put to much better use on making the system more versatile and flexible so that more people would purchase the devices as general use platforms. Then take a lesson from Android and the apple ecosystem, and throw in an app store with many free-to-try games which are either supported by adds or require payment to get past the initial trial period.
Right now, with these platforms being locked in to the old model, many of us won't even bother with them until someone figures out how to throw a homebrew OS on them. If they designed them to be open and versatile from the getgo I would be much more inclined to buy one early on.
Politicians, corporate executives, and other dangerous sociopaths are looked upon so favorably in our culture because we have a long history of worshipping dangerous sociopaths.
No, that's stupid. You could equally argue that The Beatles and Beethoven are looked upon so favourably because we have a long history of worshipping sociopaths. The only difference being that, in that case, you would at least be accurately describing the perception of the vast majority of mankind, whereas in your example you're painting a silly strawman which may apply to some tiny fraxction of humanity. I know far more people who despise or, at best, mildly tolerate politicians and corporate executives than I do folks who "look favourably upon them".
There are always exceptions, of course; most of us look favourably on Elon Musk and Abraham Lincoln, for example. But if you're going to suggest that those of us who appreaciate their contributions are "worshipping sociopaths" then you are clearly far more unhinged than any of the people you're railing against.
Read the article. Has nothing to do with installing anything. Your Android phone can be infected with this malware without you doing anything and you'll never even know.
Bullshit. Neither of the linked articles state anything to that effect. As a matter of fact, both of them state that the malware is primarily spread via "web landing pages" which mimick various carriers websites, and the original Kaspersky article gives example. All of their examples are links to APK files.
So, essentially, what needs to happen is:
1. User is somehow directed to a webpage which looks like a cellphone carriers website. 2. Webpage asks the user to download an APK file. 3. User downloads the file and then manually runs it. 4. In most cases android pops up a warning saying that unknown sources are disabled by default, and refuses to install the APK. 5. User manually tells android that external sources are OK. 6. User runs the APK a second time and installs it.
There are multiple steps in that process where an even remotely competent user should realise that something is wrong. I'm not sure how much more hand-holding you want your phone to do for you.
Alternately, this malware could be bundled with a legitimate piece of software and somehow snuck on to the google play store, in which case android would not give you any warning about untrusted sources... but you're still knowingly installing some piece of crap which you almost certainly don't need.
Unless they stopped respecting the first world patents and copyrights, you know, like the US did to ascend.
They already do. The amount of knockoffs being pumped out of China and India is astounding, and when it comes to software and media use within their nations, the vast majority is pirated. Same goes for the rest of the third world; you can buy all the latest Hollywood blockbusters for $1 per disc in any Afghan market, but good luck finding a legit copy.
It certainly looked like a highly controlled flight into the trees.
That's basically what it was. They flew too low, and didn't realize their mistake in time. Going by the cockpit voice recorder there was less than 5 seconds between them realizing their mistake and the time they hit the trees. At the time when they realized that they had fucked up they were moving at the slowest possible speed for the aircraft to maintain lift. They immediately applied power, but 5 seconds was not enough time for the aircraft to increase speed to the point where it could safely climb.
The article you linked to says that they attempted to climb immediately after applying power, but that the aircraft overrode that decision. That's about the only point where some uncertainty exists. Had the aircraft allowed them to try and climb it's quite likely, given their slow speed and already high angle of attack, that they would have simply stalled the aircraft and plumetted to the ground. In that sense, the computer may actually have prevented a worse crash, allowing them to glide into trees instead of stalling and falling straight down. On the other hand there's some small possibility that they might have managed to climb enough to clear the trees without stalling.
It's hard to say for sure, but what we can say without a doubt is that the incident was largely due to the demonstration itself calling for risky manouvers, and the pilots making mistakes which led them to fly too low. If the software was a contributing cause, it was only the last link in an already incredibly weak chain.
When I was working support, I didn't blame laptops when users repeatedly installed bonzy buddy on them. I blamed the idiots who kept doing it over and over, and then kept bringing me the laptop whining about how slow it was.
I suppose you would have just taken away their laptops and told them to go back to using pencils and paper.
CopperheadOS, as great as it is, is only available for a few devices. And given that it supports all the typical accessibility features I suspect it would still be vulnerable to this.
What a 13 year old would choose has no bearing on what a foetus would choose. Or a newborn, for that matter. As much as I dislike the inequality between the sexes which have been created by easy access to abortion, I would much rather see 20 million abortions than 20 million children desperately praying that some kind couple will adopt them.
Failing the abortion thing, I still think the "eating them" solution has a lot going for it.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. American wages were steadily increasing until the liberalization of international trade, it's American wages being depressed to stay in competitive range of cheap labor from China, India and so on.
It's both; wages in the US can't rise so much as to be uncompetitive, but neither can wages in other narrations. What ends up happening is that wages in the better-off nation (the US) rise relatively slowly, while wages in the worse-off nation (China) rise much more quickly. Eg. an increase of 50 cents per hour in the USA is offset by an increase of, say 25 cents per hour in China, but the latter makes a much more significant difference to the standard of living for the average Chinese worker than the former does for the average American worker. Wages in both nations rise, but neither one rises enough to seriously affect their ability to compete with each other.
Of course the statistics you're quoting are somewhat misleading because the liberalisation of trade in the USA coincided with other factors like greater female representation in the workplace and a steady increase in wage equality between men and women. That also drove down the average "real" wage to some extent. But you're right to point out that free trade did indeed have a negative effect on salaries in the USA; you've essentially subsidised the corresponding increase in wages of other nations. Had trade not been liberalized, wages in the US would likely have continued to rise while wages in China and India continued to stagnate.
If they demanded better pay and treatment US workers would increase their rates too while the 1% would make less profit.
That's incredibly naive. An increase in worker salaries doesn't magically eliminate the need for corporations to turn a profit. Increases in costs get translated to increased prices for goods, which largely eliminates the benefit of increased wages. That's why corporations look for cheap labour in the first place; because it allows them to keep prices low, which is necessary in order to remain competitive. If you remove that cheap labour pool then no corporation can take advantage of it any more, so all of them will have to raise their prices.
The profitability of corporations also doesn't just affect "the 1%"; it affects anyone who holds stocks or bonds, whether directly or via retirement funds and such. Even if the corporations were to just take it on the chin and accept much lower profits, it would have a negative affect on millions of people, not just your eeeevil rich boogyman.
There is no reason most African countries would have to live in the stone age other than the fact that their resources and people have been repeatedly pillaged over thousands of years.
Right, because, say England, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea were completely free from repeated pillaging for thousands of years. Nobody ever invaded them or took any of their resources.
When you have countries actively trying to keep them down it is rather difficult for me to stand there and make such a callous supposition such as yours.
The history of mankind is basically a constant struggle between tribes and nations "actively trying to keep others down". At different times in history different groups did it with different degrees of success, but to use that as a cop-out is incredibly naive. When African nations were raiding and pillaging Europe, nobody suggested that Europe would be a utopian wonderland if only those damn Africans would cut it the fuck out. When Vikings were raiding England, there was nobody blabbering about how those poor besieged Britons would be just fine if only everyone else would leave them alone.
The rise and demise of nations is an incredibly complex subject; it's a fools errand to try and isolate it down to simplistic causes. Anyone who pretends to have "the answer" is an ignoramus at best. And if that answer happens to be "isolationism" then you're a dangerous ignoramus as well.
Yes, I suppose that living in the stone age is technically "self sustaining", but by that definition they're self sustaining now, too. Not sure what kind of change you're imagining, exactly.
Ah, OK. You're taking about an "automatic thrust restoration" system, but describing both it's operation and it's purpose incorrectly.
It has nothing to do with noise levels or whatever. There are many types of systems which provide some type of automatic control of thrust during takeoff. This is not "because some guy doesn't like it when pilots throttle down"; it's a safety feature. Most crashes occur shortly after takeoff or shortly before landing, so a bunch of safety systems have been designed to correct for various problems during these phases of flight.
The specific system in question here is one which is designed to ensure that the aircraft maintains sufficient thrust during the climb phase immediately after takeoff. In the case of a sudden engine failure the remaining engine is throttled up. In case of human error where too little thrust is selected, both engines can be brought up to provide sufficient thrust. In either case, the computer prevents a low-altitude stall, which quite likely prevents a crash.
During the accident you're talking about, the system worked as advertised; unfortunately the pilots were apparently unaware that their aircraft was equipped with this feature. At that time ATR was brand new; these days every pilot knows about it, and learning when and how to manually override it is part of standard training on any aircraft which has it.
Anyway, long story short, it wasn't a software problem, it was human error due to insufficient training.
As a side note, I'm not saying software is never the problem; there was a fairly serious software issue on the fleet which I worked on. Thankfully it didn't result in a crash, but the potential for a loss of aircraft was definitely there. However, software problems are relatively rare, and the vast majority of accidents are due to human error, followed by the physical failure of components. Software is way, way down on the list.
If all countries had laws that required the selling company to prove that their workers are treated and paid humanely...
... the third world would spiral further into poverty and desolation thanks to rich western doogooders taking away their only competitive advantage: cheap labour.
adopt them into loving families, because we are not actually wild animals and have empathy, love and altruism...
I think if you actually spoke to the kids unfortunate enough to go through the adoption racket many would vehemently disagree with your assessment of human nature.
As for the detail you mentioned on Stockholm not being British, I do admit I didn't know that.
That's kinda the most pertinent detail because it makes all of your math irrelevant.
Realistically none of the math would be all that useful even if Stockholm were a city in England, since, again, you would be looking at reports in one hospital and applying it against all users across an entire nation. It would have no hope of giving an answer that was even remotely informative. It would be like looking at traffic accidents in one tiny city and saying "well, this city only had 20 accidents this year, and the country as a whole has many millions of drivers, so clearly the accident rate is only 0.002%!!"
The fact that the city you're looking at happens to be located in a completely different country just makes it even more silly.
But to be fair that was primarily the summary writers mistake. My only mistake was repeating it verbatim out of ignorance. None the less, I apologize.
The Airbus crash you're taking about is, I assume, Air France Flight 296? If so, this was not a software problem either; while some controversy exists, the official cause was pilot error.
The third crash you mentioned... I have no clue what you're referring to there; I'm not familiar with any such crash and the details you've given sound like bullshit. If you can provide an actual reference on that one I would love to check it out.
Err. You're bolding the wrong parts there. Try this:
A contraceptive mobile phone app used by tens of thousands of British women
The 37 pregnancies were reported by a single hospital. In Stockholm. You may be surprised to hear this, but Stockholm is not British. Nor does 37 cases in one hospital equal all cases everywhere.
The number and gravity of things you're planning on using android to run scares the shit out of me. I really really hope that you never get put in a position to make such choices...
It's gotten to the point where many people are more afraid of the police than they are of the criminals
It's gotten to the point where many people are more afraid of vaccines than they are of disease. The fact that many people are afraid of something says nothing about whether those fears are justified. More often it says a lot more about how shitty your educational system and mass media are.
Slashdot Mirror
And this is where Nintendo comes in. They didn't call their system a video game system, they called it a toy, not to be sold in the now-banned video game section of the store, but where all the toys were.
That's some cute revisionism, but it's not exactly accurate. After the crash, Nintendo first attempted to position themselves as a full-fledged computer system. This failed, for various reasons. Following that, they then marketed their console as an "entertainment system" which was, as you say, listed as a "toy". However, all of your feminist editorialising is mostly bullshit; the idea that "toys have to be marketed either to boys or girls" is complete nonsense, which you could easily discover by walking into the nearest Walmart. There are entire sections of toys dedicated to things like puzzles, board games, science kits, and various other educational games, none of which are marketed to any particular gender.
I'll concede that Nintendo may have targeted boys specifically. I have no recollection of such a campaign, but I was very young at the time so I may simply not have noticed it. But the idea that they HAD to do so due to some quirk in how toys are marketed is complete nonsense. Moreover, those of us who went to purchase a Nintendo system knew exactly what we were getting: a video game conaole. I didn't beg my parents to buy me a "boys toy"; I wanted a fucking video game system, and that's how I got my first NES.
It's to prevent the 99% of people who won't bother to learn or take the time to hack their system.
99% won't learn, but they don't need to; as a 15 year old kid I made a booming business out of helping others modify their PlayStation consoles to play pirated discs, and then made more money selling them the actual games.
The majority of their user base might remain ignorant, but that's completely irrelevant as long as the users have access to a few guys who know what they're doing.
Because in every single case where a gaming system has been hacked, that hack is used to play games the person didn't pay for.
Sure, but given that every platform is hacked in a matter of months, you would think that sooner or later they might wise up and realize that all the effort they put into trying to "protect" their platform could be put to much better use on making the system more versatile and flexible so that more people would purchase the devices as general use platforms. Then take a lesson from Android and the apple ecosystem, and throw in an app store with many free-to-try games which are either supported by adds or require payment to get past the initial trial period.
Right now, with these platforms being locked in to the old model, many of us won't even bother with them until someone figures out how to throw a homebrew OS on them. If they designed them to be open and versatile from the getgo I would be much more inclined to buy one early on.
Politicians, corporate executives, and other dangerous sociopaths are looked upon so favorably in our culture because we have a long history of worshipping dangerous sociopaths.
No, that's stupid. You could equally argue that The Beatles and Beethoven are looked upon so favourably because we have a long history of worshipping sociopaths. The only difference being that, in that case, you would at least be accurately describing the perception of the vast majority of mankind, whereas in your example you're painting a silly strawman which may apply to some tiny fraxction of humanity. I know far more people who despise or, at best, mildly tolerate politicians and corporate executives than I do folks who "look favourably upon them".
There are always exceptions, of course; most of us look favourably on Elon Musk and Abraham Lincoln, for example. But if you're going to suggest that those of us who appreaciate their contributions are "worshipping sociopaths" then you are clearly far more unhinged than any of the people you're railing against.
Read the article. Has nothing to do with installing anything. Your Android phone can be infected with this malware without you doing anything and you'll never even know.
Bullshit. Neither of the linked articles state anything to that effect. As a matter of fact, both of them state that the malware is primarily spread via "web landing pages" which mimick various carriers websites, and the original Kaspersky article gives example. All of their examples are links to APK files.
So, essentially, what needs to happen is:
1. User is somehow directed to a webpage which looks like a cellphone carriers website.
2. Webpage asks the user to download an APK file.
3. User downloads the file and then manually runs it.
4. In most cases android pops up a warning saying that unknown sources are disabled by default, and refuses to install the APK.
5. User manually tells android that external sources are OK.
6. User runs the APK a second time and installs it.
There are multiple steps in that process where an even remotely competent user should realise that something is wrong. I'm not sure how much more hand-holding you want your phone to do for you.
Alternately, this malware could be bundled with a legitimate piece of software and somehow snuck on to the google play store, in which case android would not give you any warning about untrusted sources ... but you're still knowingly installing some piece of crap which you almost certainly don't need.
Unless they stopped respecting the first world patents and copyrights, you know, like the US did to ascend.
They already do. The amount of knockoffs being pumped out of China and India is astounding, and when it comes to software and media use within their nations, the vast majority is pirated. Same goes for the rest of the third world; you can buy all the latest Hollywood blockbusters for $1 per disc in any Afghan market, but good luck finding a legit copy.
Small followup on this:
It certainly looked like a highly controlled flight into the trees.
That's basically what it was. They flew too low, and didn't realize their mistake in time. Going by the cockpit voice recorder there was less than 5 seconds between them realizing their mistake and the time they hit the trees. At the time when they realized that they had fucked up they were moving at the slowest possible speed for the aircraft to maintain lift. They immediately applied power, but 5 seconds was not enough time for the aircraft to increase speed to the point where it could safely climb.
The article you linked to says that they attempted to climb immediately after applying power, but that the aircraft overrode that decision. That's about the only point where some uncertainty exists. Had the aircraft allowed them to try and climb it's quite likely, given their slow speed and already high angle of attack, that they would have simply stalled the aircraft and plumetted to the ground. In that sense, the computer may actually have prevented a worse crash, allowing them to glide into trees instead of stalling and falling straight down. On the other hand there's some small possibility that they might have managed to climb enough to clear the trees without stalling.
It's hard to say for sure, but what we can say without a doubt is that the incident was largely due to the demonstration itself calling for risky manouvers, and the pilots making mistakes which led them to fly too low. If the software was a contributing cause, it was only the last link in an already incredibly weak chain.
Maybe just don't install random crapware?
When I was working support, I didn't blame laptops when users repeatedly installed bonzy buddy on them. I blamed the idiots who kept doing it over and over, and then kept bringing me the laptop whining about how slow it was.
I suppose you would have just taken away their laptops and told them to go back to using pencils and paper.
CopperheadOS, as great as it is, is only available for a few devices. And given that it supports all the typical accessibility features I suspect it would still be vulnerable to this.
What a 13 year old would choose has no bearing on what a foetus would choose. Or a newborn, for that matter. As much as I dislike the inequality between the sexes which have been created by easy access to abortion, I would much rather see 20 million abortions than 20 million children desperately praying that some kind couple will adopt them.
Failing the abortion thing, I still think the "eating them" solution has a lot going for it.
No, I do not. Please explain to me how a moderate approach to wage increases is an argument for slavery.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. American wages were steadily increasing until the liberalization of international trade, it's American wages being depressed to stay in competitive range of cheap labor from China, India and so on.
It's both; wages in the US can't rise so much as to be uncompetitive, but neither can wages in other narrations. What ends up happening is that wages in the better-off nation (the US) rise relatively slowly, while wages in the worse-off nation (China) rise much more quickly. Eg. an increase of 50 cents per hour in the USA is offset by an increase of, say 25 cents per hour in China, but the latter makes a much more significant difference to the standard of living for the average Chinese worker than the former does for the average American worker. Wages in both nations rise, but neither one rises enough to seriously affect their ability to compete with each other.
Of course the statistics you're quoting are somewhat misleading because the liberalisation of trade in the USA coincided with other factors like greater female representation in the workplace and a steady increase in wage equality between men and women. That also drove down the average "real" wage to some extent. But you're right to point out that free trade did indeed have a negative effect on salaries in the USA; you've essentially subsidised the corresponding increase in wages of other nations. Had trade not been liberalized, wages in the US would likely have continued to rise while wages in China and India continued to stagnate.
If they demanded better pay and treatment US workers would increase their rates too while the 1% would make less profit.
That's incredibly naive. An increase in worker salaries doesn't magically eliminate the need for corporations to turn a profit. Increases in costs get translated to increased prices for goods, which largely eliminates the benefit of increased wages. That's why corporations look for cheap labour in the first place; because it allows them to keep prices low, which is necessary in order to remain competitive. If you remove that cheap labour pool then no corporation can take advantage of it any more, so all of them will have to raise their prices.
The profitability of corporations also doesn't just affect "the 1%"; it affects anyone who holds stocks or bonds, whether directly or via retirement funds and such. Even if the corporations were to just take it on the chin and accept much lower profits, it would have a negative affect on millions of people, not just your eeeevil rich boogyman.
There is no reason most African countries would have to live in the stone age other than the fact that their resources and people have been repeatedly pillaged over thousands of years.
Right, because, say England, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea were completely free from repeated pillaging for thousands of years. Nobody ever invaded them or took any of their resources.
When you have countries actively trying to keep them down it is rather difficult for me to stand there and make such a callous supposition such as yours.
The history of mankind is basically a constant struggle between tribes and nations "actively trying to keep others down". At different times in history different groups did it with different degrees of success, but to use that as a cop-out is incredibly naive. When African nations were raiding and pillaging Europe, nobody suggested that Europe would be a utopian wonderland if only those damn Africans would cut it the fuck out. When Vikings were raiding England, there was nobody blabbering about how those poor besieged Britons would be just fine if only everyone else would leave them alone.
The rise and demise of nations is an incredibly complex subject; it's a fools errand to try and isolate it down to simplistic causes. Anyone who pretends to have "the answer" is an ignoramus at best. And if that answer happens to be "isolationism" then you're a dangerous ignoramus as well.
Or, they would be self-sustaining
Yes, I suppose that living in the stone age is technically "self sustaining", but by that definition they're self sustaining now, too. Not sure what kind of change you're imagining, exactly.
Ah, OK. You're taking about an "automatic thrust restoration" system, but describing both it's operation and it's purpose incorrectly.
It has nothing to do with noise levels or whatever. There are many types of systems which provide some type of automatic control of thrust during takeoff. This is not "because some guy doesn't like it when pilots throttle down"; it's a safety feature. Most crashes occur shortly after takeoff or shortly before landing, so a bunch of safety systems have been designed to correct for various problems during these phases of flight.
The specific system in question here is one which is designed to ensure that the aircraft maintains sufficient thrust during the climb phase immediately after takeoff. In the case of a sudden engine failure the remaining engine is throttled up. In case of human error where too little thrust is selected, both engines can be brought up to provide sufficient thrust. In either case, the computer prevents a low-altitude stall, which quite likely prevents a crash.
During the accident you're talking about, the system worked as advertised; unfortunately the pilots were apparently unaware that their aircraft was equipped with this feature. At that time ATR was brand new; these days every pilot knows about it, and learning when and how to manually override it is part of standard training on any aircraft which has it.
Anyway, long story short, it wasn't a software problem, it was human error due to insufficient training.
As a side note, I'm not saying software is never the problem; there was a fairly serious software issue on the fleet which I worked on. Thankfully it didn't result in a crash, but the potential for a loss of aircraft was definitely there. However, software problems are relatively rare, and the vast majority of accidents are due to human error, followed by the physical failure of components. Software is way, way down on the list.
If all countries had laws that required the selling company to prove that their workers are treated and paid humanely ...
... the third world would spiral further into poverty and desolation thanks to rich western doogooders taking away their only competitive advantage: cheap labour.
adopt them into loving families, because we are not actually wild animals and have empathy, love and altruism...
I think if you actually spoke to the kids unfortunate enough to go through the adoption racket many would vehemently disagree with your assessment of human nature.
As for the detail you mentioned on Stockholm not being British, I do admit I didn't know that.
That's kinda the most pertinent detail because it makes all of your math irrelevant.
Realistically none of the math would be all that useful even if Stockholm were a city in England, since, again, you would be looking at reports in one hospital and applying it against all users across an entire nation. It would have no hope of giving an answer that was even remotely informative. It would be like looking at traffic accidents in one tiny city and saying "well, this city only had 20 accidents this year, and the country as a whole has many millions of drivers, so clearly the accident rate is only 0.002%!!"
The fact that the city you're looking at happens to be located in a completely different country just makes it even more silly.
But to be fair that was primarily the summary writers mistake. My only mistake was repeating it verbatim out of ignorance.
None the less, I apologize.
Yes, I agree that the article is shit.
TWA 800 was not a software problem.
The Airbus crash you're taking about is, I assume, Air France Flight 296? If so, this was not a software problem either; while some controversy exists, the official cause was pilot error.
The third crash you mentioned ... I have no clue what you're referring to there; I'm not familiar with any such crash and the details you've given sound like bullshit. If you can provide an actual reference on that one I would love to check it out.
Err. You're bolding the wrong parts there. Try this:
A contraceptive mobile phone app used by tens of thousands of British women
The 37 pregnancies were reported by a single hospital. In Stockholm. You may be surprised to hear this, but Stockholm is not British. Nor does 37 cases in one hospital equal all cases everywhere.
You know, it's pretty sad that as a race, we decide to abort our mistakes.
Agreed. It would be WAY cooler if we would just eat them after they're born, the way other races do!
Creimer might be a retard, but you are FAR more fucked up than he is.
Thanks for your input spammy. You've given me so much to think about.
The number and gravity of things you're planning on using android to run scares the shit out of me. I really really hope that you never get put in a position to make such choices ...
It's gotten to the point where many people are more afraid of the police than they are of the criminals
It's gotten to the point where many people are more afraid of vaccines than they are of disease. The fact that many people are afraid of something says nothing about whether those fears are justified. More often it says a lot more about how shitty your educational system and mass media are.