Re: Xtree Gold ftw.
I'm a major Xtree fan, which is why I have been using Ztree for probably going on 10 years now.
387 publicly visible posts • joined 19 Oct 2012
"P.s. in where did that statement refer directly to Trump?..."
Well not by name, but the following does prettty much imply the current incumbent.
"The big dog in DC is in bed by 6:30PM and still snoozing around 10AM. During the awake period, he's not too bright so please don't bring in any critical items, other than USA Today and his standings with the fox viewers."
"...missed the chance to pay of their mortgages by risking only a few tens/hundreds/thousands of quids..."
"What are the odds that if you had some bitcoins that you'd mined (or bought to buy drugs) in 2010 that you still have them today, as opposed to either losing them or cashing out when it hit $100?"
I've just heard of a FOAF who has recently done this. He mined 65 BTC back in the day and has just paid off his mortgage with half of it. Of course all that money has come from all those thousands of punters who have bought into tulips- sorry, Bitcoin- over the past few years.
"And Yes, Minister DELIBERATELY didn't have any scenes in either House."
Not only that, but it was never made clear what political party was in Government at the time, and hence what party Hacker was in. In some ways that was the scary icing on the cake, the fact that it didn't actually matter who was in, because they all behave exactly the same.
I second the comment earlier that the NHS episode is very good - a half-hour of comedy that explains more about the NHS than a hundred documentaries ever could.
"sending a screenshot by saving it inside a Word document"
Worse than that is when they screenshot an error for us, paste it into an email, and then drag the corner anchors to resize it down.
We then receive a shrunken screenshot that is blurred and indecipherable if we try to enlarge it.
" I don't remember any character EVER finding it necessary to point out they were not gay."
Well certainly not in Doctor Who, where prior to the new series the subject of romantic or sexual relationships was strictly off-limits, but scenes where a heterosexual character has to continually fight off persistent advances from a stereotypical gay character who won't take no for an answer were 10 a penny on US and UK TV even as late as the 1980s (particularly in comedy shows). Characters like Bill Potts are simply redressing the balance.
Yeah but "Nurse Who"? Really? 2/10. Can Do Better.
Do you not realise that both professions of Doctor and Nurse have practitioners of both sexes, and have had since before the Classic series of your (alleged) favourite TV programme ended? My mum was a senior staff nurse in the 1970s and frequently referred to the many male nurses she worked with jokingly as "brother".
I'm not sure when the early birds are cashing out and burning all those that bought in much later..."
That supposed lump sum of 14,400 BTC that was cashed out yesterday at $15400. That equals over $200 million. How? What exchange could provide that much cash? This is where I think things might go wrong. Once the value has inflated beyond the fiscal capacity of any one organisation to trade, what happens then? Actually while writing that I realised what they'd do - continue dealing in fractions of BTC, but have a slowly-lowering ceiling of the highest amount they'll trade in.
Google "bbc bias against labour".
The New Statesman, the Indy, and the Guardian seem to agree the that BBC (and other media) have given Corbyn and the labour party a bad time.
Now Google "bbc left-wing bias"
The Daily Mail and the Express run with this one. Oh and the Independent...hang on...
Basically if you think the BBC has a bias against your personal political leanings, you will find "evidence" (mainly in the tabloids and social media) to support your assertion...no matter what your political leanings actually are. In the same way as you will find evidence to support your view that the Moon Landings never happened, that JFK was killed by the Mob/CIA/FBI/Oswald, that the World is flat, and that the British Royal Family are all lizards.
"If it came from income tax, it would be related to ability to pay, rather than being exactly the same for a mansion owned by a Baron, with a household of servants and dependants, as it is for a single mum in a bedsit in a council flat in Sunderland."
Yes but now you're proposing a system where the more you earn, the more your proportion of Telly Tax is...regardless of whether you watch TV or not! By making it payable out of general Taxation you've completely negated what a lot of comments here are saying - "Why should I pay the TV Tax when I don't watch TV."
"Not necessarily. It is equally reasonable to assert that the bias at the BBC is the same as the bias at Ofcom, so Ofcom's people don't "see" the BBC bias (and therefore the complaint is incorrect)."
So what you seem to be saying is that even though you don't know what proportion of those 1,868 complaints were about left-wing political bias and which were right-wing...the BBC is still biased. And because Ofcom has not upheld any of them, then Ofcom has the same Bias as the BBC.
You do realise how absurd that sounds? No, it is not reasonable to assert that Ofcom is biased in the BBC's favour...when you have no evidence of what that bias is.
The reason the BBC keeps reporting negative Brexit stories is because that's all there are. I've not heard anything positive about Brexit reported in any medium so far. Oh sure we have positive opinion about how this will be better and that will be improved, but very few independent reports about how things will have improved after 2019. All the reports I've heard so far are predictions of things getting worse, or where things actually have got worse. What's the BBC to do? Make up positive spin? That's the Government's job.
"I don't know how this works in all different countries but the Army and the NHS are payed through taxation so why not the BBC too..."
The Beeb gets £3.7Bn from the License fee. At present only those who have TV broadcast receiving equipment pay it. If you pay for it out of General Taxation, then every Tax Payer will be contributing, regardless of whether they watch TV or not. I thought this was what people were complaining about.
Exact figures of how many complaints were received of political bias by the BBC are difficult to come by, although the BBC themselves have stated that the proportion of complaints of right-wing bias vs left-wing bias are roughly equal (ha ha what a surprise).
However, regardless of how many complaints there were on each side, this report from Ofcom is very telling:
Ofcom received 1,868 complaints of political bias between 2014 and 2017, none of which were upheld. Since this is the only objective criteria we currently have for measuring it, the only conclusion we can make is that the BBC is indeed politically neutral.
It is hard to believe this on a personal level, but this is almost certainly because we all feel very strongly about our own political leanings, and therefore it is difficult to not see a derogatory comment by the BBC against Corbyn and the Labour party as political bias, when in fact the same criticisms are also aimed at the Government and Tory party. You only have to look at terms such as "Brexiteer" and "Remoaner" (and the spirit in which they are employed) to see that most people cannot be objective about anything political.,
"What if most of the antimatter ended up in black holes?
No idea why it would, however it would be convenient."
It certainly would. Imagine at the end of Time all the black holes evaporate, and the universe finally collapses into the Big Crunch. Now play that backwards, and there's your anti-matter, all being tidily locked up into black holes in a second universe that is really only our own universe seen from an altered perspective. Very neat...in a sci-fi kind of way.
"And on the seventh day, while he was sleeping, the Devil stole the antimatter to have enough fuel to power hell's flames until the end of time?"
Unfortunately he would have to steal an equal amount of matter to provide the energy from mutual annihilation. Which kinda puts us back at square one.
"But this is just the mathematics. The physics content is the identification of a mathematical construct with a physical "reality". You start with a physical situation, map it into the appropriate mathematical construct, perform mathematical operations, and map the result back to a physical situation. The intermediate calculations don't map to reality - especially in quantum field theory."
Ah gotcha. Like the imaginary number "i". There isn't a "real" dimension where numbers are all imaginary, it's just a construct to allow you to continue past the thorny "square root of minus one" bit.
"Time reversing Big Bang-Big Crunch scenarios do exist. I think yours has the added disadvantage that all matter has to be converted into antimatter."
That's the bit I'm not sure about. If we could somehow view this hypothetical universe, would we see it like a movie being run backwards? (ignoring the fact that photons would presumably be absorbed where in our universe they would normally be emitted, so we wouldn't see anything) So from our point of view we would see matter falling out of black holes and coalescing into suns? I can't get my head round the concept that a universe formed in a Big Bang that then proceeds backwards in time, hasn't emerged from a played-backwards collapse.
This is the trouble with reading sci-fi but not understanding cosmology.
"So the Big Bang spawned two universe one with positive and one with negative time."
Hmmm...so if this is the case, we have a universe composed of anti-matter (call it the "anti-verse") moving backwards in time, and a universe (the "posi-verse") of matter moving forwards in time.
What we know of the posi-verse (where we live) is that it appears to have no naturally-occurring anti-matter in it. So one could assume that the anti-verse has no naturally-occurring positive matter in it.
But if the anti-verse is created in the Big Bang, and goes backwards...then presumably it is created at the end of its life, in the same way as the posi-verse is created at the beginning of its life. So this would mean the anti-verse starts out running backwards from a Big Crunch. Which means the anti-verse has a definite beginning and end...only from our POV seen in reverse. But if that is the case, then it must mean that our universe also has a beginning and end - it dies in a Big Crunch, which occurs in tandem with the anti-verse's Big Bang.
Ok, so we have two universes essentially moving "past" each-other in parallel, both heading from Big Bang to Big Crunch, but in opposite directions. Who's to say that they're not actually the same universe, only seen from different perspectives? Presumably there is a singular moment halfway through each of their long existances where both universes are absolutely identical...before they move apart once more, one compressing backwards in time, the other expanding forwards.
Does rather sound like the sort of story Isaac Asimov would have written.
"How about we review your life history and for everything we deem wrong we get to punch you."
I assume you don't have kids, seeing as you think "smack" means the same thing as "punch". I have two children (14 and 19) and although I have on occasion smacked them, I have never punched them. And before you say it's the same thing...it isn't.
"I care that we have a world leader that is taking the piss out of everyone and leading us down the path to war while the stupid main stream press allow him to do it. I also care that I make a valid point which everyone seems to disagree with though that is your right to do so however I'm not going to change my mind because carrying on down the same path we are going is not going to change anything. It's like bashing your head against a brick wall. Trump is clearly a master at playing negative press and turning it into a positive."
I actually agree with your initial point, which seems to me not to be a case of "don't keep attacking Trump" (which invites downvotes) but the rather more subtle "attacking Trump isn't working, so let's try something different."
Trump may not be quite suited to the Presidential role, but as a businessman he knows exactly how to deal with an attack, which is shout loudly so nobody can hear what his opponent is saying, and then punch back.
The problem is, as you say, that attacking him in the way everyone has...simply doesn't work. People have been trying it for the last year and it's not affected him one bit. Trump has contradicted himself, gone back on promises, and even shown evidence of being a deplorable human being with misogynistic, xeonphobic, sexist and racist tendencies. All these things he has done publicly, and yet still manages to successfully deflect any criticism. So yeah I agree that everything everyone has tried just bounces off him. But I don't think changing tack is going to work either. Trump's too clever for that (we're talking animal cunning here, not IQ). Frankly I believe there are only two things that will see Trump off. The first is a changing tide of public opinion, and the other is simply time. He's only got two terms, and if the vote doesn't get rid of him after his first term, you'll have to wait 8 years to finally see the back of him.
I'd like to say thank God he's not my President, but unfortunately our UK Government isn't much better.
"Get some advice from experts, and try actually listening to it for once."
I think this is just what we've seen before with the big Encryption arguments from governments on both sides of the Pond. I strongly suspect that the politicians have already got the correct advice from their Civil Servants (and whatever the equivalent is in the US).
In other words, what the Public want done isn't possible (you can't compromise encryption without compromising internet banking for example, and you can't block all suspect content without also blocking legit content), and the politicians know this.
However if they come out and say this, the Public will just blame them for not making the effort. So they do the next best thing: charge 3rd parties with doing it (Google & FB must block terrorist content, ISPs must block encryption).
That way, when nothing happens, the politicians did what the Public wanted, and the evil Internet companies are therefore to blame for not making it so.
Further examples are Trump's calls to shut down the Internet (it's Bill Gates' fault that it isn't happening), block Muslims (that's the fault of the Justice Department) and repeal Obamacare (the Democrats are to blame for that not happening).
"Aww yes, JP Morgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon, came out proclaiming BitCoin as a fraud. When it temporarily plummeted he and everyone in his company jumped in with both feet and bought up everything they could get their hands on. Typical banking crooks. True story .. look it up."
I assume the same thing happened to the £ after the Brexit Referendum result. In fact instead of waiting for a dip and taking an advantage, why not cut out the middle man? Actually cause the dip by selling under the pretense of market panic. Oh...you mean that's what already happens...?
"Call me cynical but I'll wager a few people got filthy rich playing that currency dip!"
You're not cynical at all. This is the way everyone makes money on the markets. A work colleague who knows I have an interest asked me what would happen if the price crashed, and would it mean the end of Bitcoin. Not at all, I said. If the price drops low, the first thing people do is buy when cheap. Which causes the price to go back up. From the look of things over the last day or so this is exactly what has happened. TBH Bitcoin does this every 18 months or so, and has been for the past 5 years. Every time Forbes, the FT, etc all predict the end of the "Bubble", and it never happens. Probably because in the case of most Bubbles, when the prices plummet, the company behind them goes bust and the shares become worthless. But Bitcoin doesn't have a company behind it. It has a software algorithm and no matter what happens, that will still be there.
I suspect the manufacturers had no choice but to remove the ability to get YouTube because Google either wanted an exorbitant price for the licence or (more likely) wanted them to remove it. Google would probably prefer you watch YouTube on your Smartphone or your PC or your tablet, most likely because they get far more data back from those devices than they do from a SmartTV. It's also likely that there's the lingering threat of legal action if any comment from the Manufacturers over the reasons for removing YouTube serve to show YouTube or Google in a bad light. Hence LG remove YouTube from your Smart TV but don't tell you why. Doubly sad for Samsung as they need to keep sweet with Google or they might lose the YouTube app on their Android phones.
This is of course only speculation, but you got to admit it sounds more likely than Samsung just deciding to remove one of the biggest assets of a Smart TV (the ability to play videos from YouTube) for no reason other than shits & giggles.
I admit to have read few of his novels, but his collections of short stories published by NEL (New English Library) definitely started me on my love for Science Fiction. He was the master of the weird and scary and his stories often took a 90 degree turn to the left. I was particularly impressed with the way he populated his future worlds with invented jargon, something I do myself in my own writing. Who but Aldiss could write a novel about aliens who fly wooden spaceships and like to wallow in their own faeces? ("The Dark Light Years")
"As far as i am concerned the internet should be open to all no matter what they think, its only with the rise of social media that we are getting all this red tape, im a true supporter of " if you cant handle what your reading, close the page and walk away" i dont agree with neo nazi's, and i also cant abide the antifa thugs either but im happy to let them all write whatever they please, just like being allowed to comment right here, with my opinion."
The problem comes when people either believe what has been written as truth, or use it as justification for their acts. Not because they're evil and malicious, but because they're ill-informed.
Think about it, nobody's opinion comes from nowhere. From the past to the present, a person's opinion has been formed from what they are told by another person in authority (be it a teacher, or a politician), or what they have read in a book, or seen on the stage, or in a movie, or on TV, or by conversations with their friends, neighbours and peers.
Now we have a new information source - the Internet. Your opinion (which you are free to express) seems to be that anyone should be free to write whatever they want on the Internet and that if the person who reads it doesn't like it, they should be allowed to either walk away or stay and either agree or disagree with what is written.
But this supposes that the person who reads what is written, already has a formed opinion that either agrees or disagrees with what they are reading. But what if the person is not sure what they think about race or gender issues? Or equality? Or rights? If we leave it up to them to make their own choices from what they read, what kind of person do we end up with? The Internet has evolved from being a niche preserve of nerds and geeks to the most ubiquitous and powerful source of information on the planet, but is unique in that it is arguably more influential and far-reaching than TV or politicians, but is almost totally devoid of any checks or balances.
I don't agree with Donald Trump's policies or attitudes, but he's nailed one thing on the head - Fake News. Only it doesn't quite exist where he thinks it does. It doesn't just come from the right or left wing, or anyone with an agenda. Absolutely everything on the Internet has the potential to be Fake News, and there's nothing to help anyone identify which is and which isn't. How does a person struggling to make sense of the world separate out the honest opinion from the outright lies, when everything they read is followed by an endless stream of comments, 50% of which debunk what they're reading, and 50% support it?
"Trying to define hate is rather difficult - because you tend not to see the hate you perpetrate..."
I hate that black guy over there. Because he's less intelligent/educated/civilised than me. Also he hates me back because I'm white. Oh and there's his religion too. And the fact that he has more rights than me. But actually this is just post-hoc justification. I really just hate him because he's different to me.
You hate me because I hate him. You think you are right to hate me because I am wrong to hate him, and all the things I say about him are incorrect.
I disagree with you, and show sources that prove my facts are correct. You dispute my sources and show yours that prove I am wrong. But really you just hate me because I think differently to you.
We meet in the street and fight.
The rest of the world endlessly debates who's right and who's wrong.
Does that sum it all up pretty well?
Welcome to Humanity.
We should only try a "nudge" if it's definitely going to hit, because "trying it out" on one that is going to safely miss might result in it's next pass being "on target".
Though of course then we'll be able to give it another nudge, and since we've had practice we'll be more confident that it will work.
I don't know which scenario is for the best...
"Not really fair to compare all of the new ones with all of the old ones."
Difficult one this. Although I'll agree that many Doctor Who episodes between the 60s and 80s were indeed very well acted and produced for the time , they can be difficult to watch after being used to the snappier direction and editing of modern Who.
Much as I love the programme myself, I find them slow and padded in comparison to the sometimes breakneck pace of the new series. Since I was "brought up" on late Troughton, all of Pertwee, and early Tom, I find those the easiest to watch. Whether that is due to them actually being "snappier" than Hartnell's stories, or whether it is due to watching them through nostalgia-tinted glasses is difficult for me to determine, though I suspect it is the latter, because I have made several abortive attempts to watch Davison, Colin, and McCoy, and I just can't manage to get through them.
You would expect that the closer you get to the present, they would be easier to watch, but for me they're not, so I can only put this down to the fact that I never saw them when young, and therefore there is no "inner child" to offset my 21st Century expectations.
This was particularly noticeable with the 1996 release of "Tomb of the Cybermen". I watched it both through the eyes of an adult (who was appalled at the slow pace and bad acting) and the inner child of the 1960s who was still thrilled and scared by it.
To be honest I have the same problem with Shakespeare. I know that it is classic literature, but I just can't sit through all that iambic pentameter.
I've always thought the best Doctor was the one you watched between the ages of 7 and 10 (which in my case was Pertwee). This also means that you can make a reasonable guess at someone's age from their best Doctor. For example if Davison was "your" Doctor you were probably born around 1976, give or take 2 years either side.
It always bugs me that certain "fans" accuse the BBC of doing this to further some kind of "lefty PC agenda", while being completely ignorant of how casting in done for TV shows. The Beeb don't hover over Doctor Who like some nebulous Big Brother, pointing at Chibnall and intoning "Thou Shalt Cast a Female Doctor for Lo it is the next stage in the great LGBT Master Plan".
Chibnall has total control of who he auditions and who he casts. Yes he's admitted he's always wanted a female Doctor, because he like strong female roles, and wants to see what JW will do with it.
Oh and the other complaint is that he's picked her because she was in his show Broadchurch. Well, duh, yeah why not? He'll contact the agents of actors whose work he is familiar with and ask them to come in and audition. Same reason why RTD auditioned and cast Tennant, who he'd worked with on "Casanova". If Whittaker hadn't pleased him in the audition he wouldn't have cast her, simple as that. But apparently she aced it, so she's the 13th Doctor.
Sometimes (probably most times) there isn't a hidden agenda. There isn't a plot. Sometimes actors get the job because they're damn good at it.
Personally I've never look forward to a new series of Doctor Who this much since 2005.
Yeah. Like you "wind the window down" in your car, whilst listening to an internet "Radio station" and "dialing" a friend on your cellphone...who tells you they've just booked a cruise on an ocean liner that's going to "sail" round the world. Then, after you've "hung up" on them, you decide to read some emails that have been "carbon copied" to you.