Posts by SumDood 47 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Apr 2014
Clarification.
My original post:
>"The Japanese do all look the same to me, but it appears they must all sound the
> same too.
>I'd know if it was one of my lot on the phone."
>
>Know what? Much-speakee-no-thinkee people all sound the same to me. Must
>all look the same, too. I'd know if it were one of their lot anywhere.
was directed towards the AC whom I quoted, not his racist target.
I think the intended irony might have been lost.
"the Yanks have far greater ability to afford it than the crooked and backward economy that Russia is blessed with"
Afford, but not as we know it Jim.
Would be fascinated to learn how a debt of $17 trillion dollars, growing at $2.6 billion dollars a day translates to an ability to afford anything.
Such a debt could be a sign of a cooked and backward economy in denial, perhaps?
"micro$oft havent got a fucking clue"
You clearly have no significant understanding of software.
You've probably never written a substantial piece of software in your life.
You don't understand anything about software testing or complexity.
You might, possibly, believe the Fairy Dust story about software peddled to ignorant acolytes by Apple (whose own software is amongst the lower levels of reliability and whose approach to bug announcement and fixing is laughably babyish in the corporate world. I'm talking about the GUI, here, which is pretty much all that Apple write themselves: the rest - the substantial / robust part - is bought or is Unix).
Here's an idea. Learn about writing a program, go away and write one of more than 100 lines and then come back and tell us about it in a year or two. Show us your code, test plans, results. You don't even have to try designing it yourself, just start with someone else's design.
Then, if you've got the b*lls, say to us, 'Sorry, I now realise I was talking out of my arse and had no idea about software. At least I now understand a tiny bit of just how much I don't know.'
Just a suggestion for self-improvement. Please feel free to ignore it.
One day politicians will see this come home to roost in a big, big way.
It is their own sordid histories which, of all the personal data accumulated, will be the most used, abused and manipulated to their detriment.
Being ego-centric, greedy megalomaniacs they don't have enough spare brain cells between them to understand this.
"yet I get harangued for being "anti-science" if I mention it when CAGW proponents do it. As they do all the time."
(1) Perhaps if you also mention it when CAGW antagonists do it the haranguing might diminish?
(2) Perhaps if you acknowledged that the majority of scientists concur with AGW the haranguing might diminish as people saw that you were aligned with prevailing scientific opinion and not putting yourself up as the True Scientist in opposition to actual scientists who who do actual science as their profession?
Or perhaps they're all out to get you. Damn those nasty scientists and all who believe in them!
"Well....SURPRISE ! ! ! Planck based his "Law" on Kirchoff, who was WRONG, and then Stefan and Boltzman based their "Laws" on these errors. Then the AGW hypothesis photo-shopped this garbage to create their Chicken Little fable...."
Is that you shouting, Eadon?
Did you forget to finish with, "FAIL"?
"A site with a large number of readers well versed in technology and science and statistics is one of the places where we see more scepticism of claims made by CAGW proponents? Gosh."
>A site with a large number of readers
OK.
>Well versed in technology and science and statistics
Some are, some are patently ignorant of such things (but still interested in reading what the site has to offer). Some have an image of their own competence well beyond their actual competence. Some of those open their mouths wide and talk as if they know what they're talking about.
Some listen to the latter with mild amusement at their exaggerated sense of self-importance, and then just quietly smile or move swiftly on.
>One of the places where we see more scepticism of claims made by CAGW proponents
if you don't recognise the opinionated, unscientific point-of-view epitomised in that statement you are clearly one of the subset with an exaggerated sense if self-importance and a level of scientific understanding towards the bottom end of the readers of this site.
"So what this does is tear down one of the "humans must be responsible" arguments, which is that the rate of warming is faster than could possibly have occurred naturally."
I don't think it "tears down" anything.
However the current ability of humans to affect things on the planet to a much greater extent than ever before in their 1-2 million year history, as a consequence of:
(i) the rapid advances in technology and engineering in the last century or two (*1) and
(ii) the exponential growth in the number of humans (*2)
does tend to suggest that humans can be a little more disruptive these days than they could when they were relatively few in number and lived in caves.
(*1) i.e. the most recent 0.01% of the span of human existence
(*2) which will not last forever, of course, as nature has neat little tricks for curtailing exponential population growth
Except that today the hammer-wielder would represent, um, maybe Samsung or some incipient innovator.
And the mass of drones? Well, if you go into Starbucks you'll probably see rows of identical logo-displaying disciples... fascinating social phenomenon. (Probably all Scientologists, too).
>"Could care less" or "couldn't care less"?
>Both are correct. One is a common expression, the other is grammatically correct. Take your pick.
Doh!
Both are grammatically correct. (Both are even common expressions).
One (the latter) usually means just what the person intended to convey.
The other (the former) usually means the opposite of what the person was trying to convey but, having swallowed common expressions without digestion by brain en route to arse, aforesaid person is too thick (common British expression) to realise how illiterate and ignorant an impression they have just conveyed of themself.
The half-dozen or so people I know running XP on home computers haven't applied patches for years / ever. Nor have they been hacked.
Not saying it can't happen. But you can also walk down a road and get hit by a plant pot falling from a second story windowsill.
Interesting that none of the scary articles seem to include any risk analysis / probabilities. But I guess most journalists find the unknown unknowns of statistics even more scary than the known unknowns of dire MS warnings.
Don't panic Mr. Mainwaring! Don't panic!
"Some of my tax money has been spent on 'rebuilding' Afghanistan over the past 12 years. Most of that money, I suspect, have been used to build mosques rather than schools."
If you do the research you'll find that most of it has gone into the coffers of the military-industrial complex that a certain Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about 50 years ago.
""Here in the US, the last twenty years have seen a radical – and highly vocal – grou
...
While another bunch of highly vocal
...
And a third, highly vocal bunc
...
So *faith* and *faith-based authoritarianism* is clearly on the rise"
Yes.
But you omitted the fundamentalist myth-makers with the biggest following of blind believers: bankers.
"Chip & Pin is better than the magnetic strip/signature method"
Really?
The only evidence I've ever seen says it's different.
Granted, the pre-C&P-equipment-selling publicity /said/ it was better, but I always took that to be expected propaganda. (If there was solid evidence it would have served the proponents better than the unsubstantiated claims that they made do with).
"If you've got a problem with poor people having access to healthcare, fine. Say it. Argue your case. But don't lie and scheme and destroy your own nation out of anger and spite because most people disagree with you."
Or, alternatively, do lie and scheme and destroy your own nation out of anger and spite because many people will not be over-concerned if those who have a problem with poor people having access to healthcare, well, evolve themselves out of existence.
Just pondering alternative outcomes.
>Mindless prejudice is a silly, silly thing
So is innumeracy.
>Apple pays out about $25,000,000 every day to its iOS developers.
... and boasts over 1,000,000 "apps" are available in its "app" store.
Which means an average developer income of under $125 a week, or round about $6,000 a year.
>Sycophant on that, sucker.
Who's the sycophant?
Who's the sucker?
>Some people, some people...
Some fanbois, too, gullibly licking the arse that bleeds them.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
