Posts by Ign R. Amis

Microsoft airbrushes anti-Apple ad

Windows fanboys are a pathetic lot of whining douchebags

People like to complain about Jobs' "reality distortion field", yet these bozos with their Bill Gates fetish love nothing more than poorly built plastic pieces of crap prone to viruses, loaded with useless bloatware, and hideous to boot, just so they can console themselves that they haven't bought an Apple. Meanwhile, those of us who had the wisdom and foresight to abandon Microsoft and their shitty products will continue to use our superior products, and enjoy a much less painful computing experience.

Apple profits up 15 per cent (again)

Apple makes good products

And the PC whiners just can't bloody stand it.

It's easier to conclude that everyone buying Apple is simply brainwashed than to accept that people are tired of using Microsoft's crap OS. Every smart person I know in IT has abandoned Windows because it's a buggy, virus-prone piece of shit.

US Patent Office exposes Apple secret plan

Yo dawg

I heard you liked obvious April Fools jokes so I put an obvious April Fools joke in your Register issue so you can get fooled on April Fools day.

San Franciscans prep monument to US prez

@Robert Scott

"No matter what kind of lies and immoral behavior came out of that pile of poop, we still respected the office of the President."

If Bush respected the office of the President, this wouldn't be happening. His administration's thuggish approach and naked abuse of power are a far cry from Clinton getting his knob sucked. This is a fitting tribute to our nation's worst president.

Even Paris knows how useless Bush is.

God makes you stupid, researchers claim

@Richard Irvine

"I would say that blanket claims that atheists have not killed religious people for their beliefs are empirically false"

Really? Are you sure they were killed for their religious beliefs, and not because their beliefs prompted them to behave in ways contrary to the whims of the bloodthirsty dictators who headed those governments?

It's pretty stupid the way pro-god types routinely trot out Stalin and Mao as evidence for the evil of atheism. There should be some equivalent of Godwin's Law for this particular bit of nonsense.

It's a stillborn argument, because their behavior had nothing to do with the belief or lack thereof in a magical man in the clouds. One need look no further than the Spanish Inquisition, or the insane actions of any given group of Islamists. These are allegedly religious people, so persuaded they have the truth they're willing to slaughter anyone who disbelieves.

No matter how reprehensible the behavior of someone who happens to be atheist, that is not an affirmative argument for the existence of a god.

@Debbie Kean

Thousands of academics means nothing when schools have departments devoted to theology - the study of a bunch of made up fairy tales, lent weight by virtue of the fact that millions of people profess belief in them.

Even Paris is smart enough to know there's no such thing as god.

9/11 an inside job, says Irish pop folkster

@Mark

The fact that you don't see the logical fallacies (yes, plural) in your argument speaks volumes.

@Mark

The Reichstag fire proves nothing about the WTC. Put the foil on a little tighter.

@Mark

"The towers fell down from an event the designers had designed this building to withstand."

This is one of my favorite conspiracy nut arguments, because it's quite possibly the dumbest.

Since the designers of the Titanic claimed it was unsinkable, does that mean it was brought down by controlled demolitions as well?

You're also conveniently ignoring the differences between a 737 and a 767. Further, you're also ignoring that the buildings *DID* withstand the impacts of the jet liners, but that the damage done to them was simply too great for them to remain structurally intact.

Black helicopter because there's no foil hat icon.

@Mark

"I guess that the government is blameless and isn't hiding ANYTHING is a matter of faith to you."

I don't recall writing that either. But it's silly to say "the government", considering that an entity the size of the US Government is comprised of many thousands of people. If you were to ask me if I think it's possible that certain people in the government deliberately sat on intelligence that had to do with this attack, or removed certain names from watch lists to ensure the attack took place, then my answer might surprise you.

I know enough history about the US that I am not naive enough to think that there might not have been some level of complicity or willful ignorance. But there's a huge difference between allowing something to happen, and actively participating in it to the scale that would be required to match what the "Truthers" promote, and I just can't make that leap. It's illogical, and the evidence doesn't support it.

Fishy things about the hijackers, their origins, their planning, etc. are one thing, active involvement in demolitions quite another.

Dead vulture, because there's no dead horse icon.

Religious Fundamentalism

Every argument put forward by the conspiracy nuts has been debunked, numerous times, by people with many years of experience and training. It takes literally 2 minutes with Google to find this information, *if you want to*.

Many of the claims made in Loose Change were debunked by the BBC too, in an episode of "The Conspiracy Files". They made the director of Loose Change look very foolish by confronting him with the facts that he glossed over, and the out-of-context quotes from investigators he used to bolster his arguments.

Getting into minutiae with you is pointless, it dignifies your crackpot ideas in a way they shouldn't be dignified. It's like debating the finer points of Intelligent Design, or the accuracy of passages in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

If you want to find explanations based on actual science, actual math, and actual engineering knowledge of how the towers could have collapsed without the involvement of explosives, the information is out there and easy to find.

But that's not what you want. The uncomfortable truth for conspiracy nuts is that they *want* to believe this stuff.

I invite any of you who believe in these theories to read through the contents of 911myths.com with an open mind. Every one of the arguments made here is refuted thoroughly.

And for the guy who thinks I might be a CIA agent, you're Exhibit A proving that conspiracy nutters are totally batshit.

Sad, really

@Wayland Sothcott:

"However it is overwhelmingly obvious that the buildings were brought down under demolition charges."

Only if you know nothing about CD. Wiring a conventional building for CD takes approximately three weeks. The WTC towers were massive structures that would have taken considerably longer, and would have required the thousands of people in the building to ignore the packs of explosives strapped to the support columns and the thousands of feet of wire for the detonators. The only thing overwhelmingly obvious is that there's no way this scenario is plausible. Just because something bears a resemblance to CD doesn't make it CD. If you ever watch an actual CD video, you'll notice a number of significant differences between those and the WTC towers' collapse.

@Busted:

"Oh a few unburnt scraps of an AA plane pretty amazing seeing as the fire was so hot it melted the rest of it according to the official story."

Typical conspiracy nutter - cherry pick the evidence that supports your views, and come up with excuses for ignoring anything that doesn't fit. The lawn outside the Pentagon was littered with plane debris. If you look at photos taken close to the building, focusing on the lawn, you can see this.

http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_0.html

It's amazing to me you can look at these pieces of fuselage and blithely dismiss them. Yeah, a few scraps of the fuselage with AA livery on them, found at the scene of the crash. Pretty bleedin' obvious that they're from an AA jet.

Or maybe secret government elves managed to sneak them on the scene, in front of all the rescue workers, fire personnel, cleanup crew, and the traffic jam in front of the Pentagon!

You "Truthers" are as bad as ID proponents. Logic-free fantasies are what you have in common.

@John Watts

"Come on folks, pull your heads out of your arses."

I really hate the attitude of "Truthers". It's not possible that anybody could have looked at what you think passes for evidence and found it wanting. It's not possible that we could listen to your theories and conclude they're a load of cobblers. No, the only way to disagree with you is if we're being willfully ignorant. Sounds suspiciously like religious fundamentalists and their view of the bible.

There is no way on earth that the CD hypothesis is viable.

Keep in mind that if you're believing the crap pimped in Loose Change, or by Alex Jones, you're buying into theories promoted by people who hold no degrees, who have no engineering experience, and no architectural experience. The creator of Loose Change and Alex Jones are also both devout Christians, which means they already have a gift for believing in and proselytizing for evidence-free arguments.

Paris, because nutters make her sad.

@Mark

"Y'know, all those complaining about conspiracy theories believe that a small group of very recent terrorists based in Iraq/Afghanistan successfully conspired to setal several jetliners and plough them into buildings, possibly killing tens of thousands."

Of course.

And what's irksome to me about "Truthers" is their inability to draw a distinction between the two scenarios. You disingenuously argue that somehow this terror plot is equally as implausible as the "Truther" hypothesis, when in reality the two explanations are hugely different.

The terror plot explanation has very few points of failure. All the hijackers had to do was hijack planes, and fly them into their targets. That's it. And one of them failed to do even that, crashing the plane into a field.

They needed to find 4 flights departing about the same time, know enough about piloting to steer a jet already in flight, and smuggle weapons on the plane with which to subdue the crew members. They took advantage of our policies on hijackings, which were written for the scenario where a hijacker has demands to be met and isn't looking to die a martyr.

Now, the "Truther" explanation?

It requires two massive structures to somehow be outfitted with sufficient explosives to be brought down, with not one of the thousands of people in the building noticing them, which would be difficult given the open floor plan of the WTC.

It requires all the people who outfitted the structures with these explosives to keep mum about it.

It requires the planes hit the buildings in very precise locations, otherwise you'd have a problem with severed wires from the detonators to the explosives.

It requires some way of controlling where the fires happen, lest the explosives be triggered at the wrong time, or out of sequence.

Etc. etc.

Occam's Razor is useful.

@Busted

"I believe it was a plane that hit the pentagon just not the plane we were led to believe."

That's because you're a nutter.

http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_18.html

Sure looks like American Airlines to me.

I thought IT people were smart? WTF?

Windows XP SP3 sends PCs into endless reboot

Gratuitous Apple fanboi post

Boy, Apple sure does suck, huh?

:-P

@John PM Chappell

"Apple stuff is overpriced, underpowered, proprietary (hardware and software) and looks like shite"

Totally agreed. It needs a lot more cheap plastic doodads, blue LEDs, and a bajillon buttons on the keyboard to launch my email app.

Home Secretary goes crazy on drugs... policy

As an American, I'd like to apologize

Apparently the drug war hysteria that's been so prevalent over here is contagious. I always viewed England as a country that was far more rational than the US (chavs notwithstanding). I guess I was wrong.

Anti-Scientology crusader vaporized from YouTube

The list is long

@amanfromMars:

You'll get no argument from me that the Bush administration isn't a criminal enterprise. I think Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice should all be behind bars. If I were to start prioritizing action items in order of importance to humanity at large, taking down Scientology would be somewhat low on the list. So, too, would be the malfeasance of the Bush administration. Impending water and food shortages are at the top, followed by mitigating the effects of the changing climate, and finding workable, non-polluting alternatives to fossil fuels. Regardless, there's no reason whatsoever that this criminal cult should be permitted to keep operating.

Scientology is *not* like other religions

@anonymous coward:

"at least their 'beliefs' have a higher probability of being true compared to some other religions"

Um, what? I mean, yeah, I don't view the Bible as being true any more than I view the Qu'ran as being true, but to say that Scientology has a "higher probability" of being true is, frankly, insane. The notion that an evil galactic overlord buried millions of enemies in volcanoes and destroyed them with H-bombs, and their wandering souls attach to us, is as likely to be true as the legend of Queztlcoatl. All religious myths are equally ludicrous.

@anonymous coward:

"Of course Co$ is a Ponzie scheme. That's an inherent feature of any religion."

Not quite. You can get a free Bible anywhere. You can attend religious services for any of the actual religions free-of-charge. This is absolutely not the case with Scientology. Scientology has a fee structure, such that the minimum cost to complete the Bridge is in the neighborhood of $300,000, assuming you make it through each course on your first attempt. No other religion does this kind of thing.

Scientology makes it a practice to harass their critics, via litigation and intimidation. They sue people who speak ill of their belief system. No other religion does this, either.

I'm an atheist, and think all religion is bunk, however Scientology goes beyond mere bunkum, crossing the line into outright criminality. Google Lesa McPherson, and read about the numerous people who've lost the lives due to the "Church" of Scientology's actions.

@saatmarket

Assuming you're not a CO$ shill, while it may be true that you have met nice Scientologists, the organization as a whole is clearly a dangerous cult that uses hypnotic techniques to control its followers. I suggest you check yourself before you wreck yourself, amigo.

Hail Xenu!

Hellboy helmsman to direct The Hobbit

Hackson

Peter Jackson already destroyed one of Tolkien's books, does he need to put his grubby little mitts on this one, too? Looking at the rampant liberties he took with the story in LOTR, this stands to be yet another disgraceful, dumbed-down adaptation. I can't wait for more dwarvish hilarity like drinking contests and inexplicable Scottish accents.

Mac is the first to fall in Pwn2Own hack contest

@Matthew Gray

"I really hope that this report knocks some of those mac users off their pedestals."

You appear to be one of the people who a) didn't actually read the article, and/or b) didn't comprehend what you read.

The rules of the contest were that no PREVIOUSLY KNOWN exploits were to be employed. Considering Windows storied history of being pwned in every way imaginable, that doesn't leave many options to the contest participants.

Secondly, the guy who cracked OSX did so using an exploit he'd been working on for several weeks prior to the contest.

I don't think it's surprising that there would be a vulnerability in some of the software on OSX, but the crowing about this by the Windows drones is stupid. When someone actually finds a real virus or malware for OSX in the wild, then I'll consider getting off the pedestal. Until then, I'll continue enjoying my far superior, and more secure, OS.

Mozilla CEO blasts Apple for putting security of the internet at risk

@Ivan Headache

You're correct. Safari 3 is a huge improvement over Safari 2.

A lot of the ignoramuses who post here, who complain about sites that don't look correct in Safari, are obviously ignorant of the fact that lazy web developers often don't test their sites in a wide range of browsers. I've encountered a lot of sites that plain don't work in either Safari OR Firefox because they were developed for IE6's broken rendering engine and/or proprietary Micro$oft JScript.

What a bunch of whiny little c*nts

Good lord somebody needs to call the whaaaaambulance.

Are you forced to install the software? No.

Is there something preventing you from reading the text and unchecking the box? No.

Fuck me the irrational Apple hate on here is absurd.

I also see a lot of people making comments about Firefox's supposed superiority to Safari. The only thing that's better about it is that it has Firebug. Firefox's font rendering is for shit, its form elements are fugly, and it sounds like Safari is being judged based on version 1 or 2, not the much-improved version 3.

I think it's great that Windoze users are being given an option besides Exploder.

AJAX patent threat to giants under the hammer

Absurd

Another patent that will be shot down due to obviousness.

Sun dreams the impossible Java on Jesus Phone dream

@Laxman

Apple are so much worse than Microsoft?

Really?

How many companies have they bought to keep from competing with them? How many technologies have they "embraced and extended" to incompatibility with the original standards? Which markets have they monopolized?

I think you need to relax and take a stress pill.

Apple iPhone storms world smartphone biz

@Andy

"you have to be a moron, a pedant, or just flamebaiting to try to claim it's not a smartphone."

Bears repeating. The anti-Apple fanaticism of Reg readers is astounding.

Scientists warn on climatic 'tipping points'

Crichton? You mean the guy who writes all those crappy novels?

@3x2

Why are you citing Michael Crichton? He's not a scientist, he's just a guy who converts scientific principles into turgid potboilers.

Fuck me

What a depressing load of comments.

"We already have evidence that the planet has already recovered from situations far worse"

Yeah, maybe the *planet* has, but that doesn't mean that *humanity* will.

How to speed up Windows Vista: official and unofficial tips

I have a better solution

Buy a Mac.

Just how cute are cats? W3C can help

Some bad HTML here

It's easy to poo-pooh semantic markup if you don't understand what it is, or why it's desirable. Y'all probably still use table-based HTML for layout, too.

Oh, and also...

@Steve Roper:

I've made countless layouts using floating divs and CSS, and my sites look equally good in any browser. Granted, at first coding for IE6 is a pain, but once you understand its quirks, there's very little you can't do. IE7 is a huge improvement, and has very few CSS bugs. If you use conditional comments, then it becomes even easier to deal with Microsoft's browsers.

If you're interested in learning more, I suggesting checking out the #css IRC channel.

http://www.css-standards.org/