On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:44:47 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>>> Well, it /does/ make it very much easier to quietly censor things
>>>>> you don't want people to see, right?
>>>>
>>>> Not so much, no.  The Internet does an amazing job "routing around
>>>> damage".
>>>
>>> Sure. Any technically sophisticated Internet user won't have too much
>>> trouble getting around the blacklist. The clueless newbies? Not so
>>> much.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think many of the users in Egypt were anything more
>> than normal users, but the techies made it easy for them to route
>> around the government-imposed outage during the uprising there.
> 
> Am I missing something?

You were aware that Hosni Mubarak is no longer in charge in Egypt and 
that they had a "small" revolution last year, weren't you?

>>>> Look at the number of times and ways various organisations have tried
>>>> to shut down The Pirate Bay.
>>>
>>> I have to admit, Wikipedia's blackout is the very first time I'd even
>>> *heard* of The Pirate Bay.
>>
>> <boggle>
> 
> What? Like it's famous or something?

Arguably the most famous torrent site in the world.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Actually, I don't think many of the users in Egypt were anything more
>>> than normal users, but the techies made it easy for them to route
>>> around the government-imposed outage during the uprising there.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>
> You were aware that Hosni Mubarak is no longer in charge in Egypt and
> that they had a "small" revolution last year, weren't you?

Nope. The politics of remote countries isn't something I generally keep 
up with. (Heck, the politics of *this* country isn't something I avidly 
follow...)

>>>> I have to admit, Wikipedia's blackout is the very first time I'd even
>>>> *heard* of The Pirate Bay.
>>>
>>> <boggle>
>>
>> What? Like it's famous or something?
>
> Arguably the most famous torrent site in the world.

And Edgar Froese is arguably the most famous band member ever to be in 
Tangerine Dream... Have *you* ever heard of him?

Fame is a relative thing.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
>>>>> I have to admit, Wikipedia's blackout is the very first time I'd even
>>>>> *heard* of The Pirate Bay.
>>>>
>>>> <boggle>
>>>
>>> What? Like it's famous or something?
>>
>> Arguably the most famous torrent site in the world.
> 
> And Edgar Froese is arguably the most famous band member ever to be in 
> Tangerine Dream... Have *you* ever heard of him?
> 
> Fame is a relative thing.

Are you really willing to compare the fame of a pretty obscure band to 
the fame of a website that serves every kind of content to pretty much 
everyone in the net?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> On 23/01/2012 10:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?
> 
> I wouldn't know; I don't read comic books.

he didn't say comic books, he tablets, you know, like iPad?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 23/01/2012 10:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> > Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?

> I wouldn't know; I don't read comic books.

  I don't know if that was just a jab at tabloids, or if you a honestly have
a confusion of terminology... Either way it's slightly amusing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/23/2012 9:33 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Actually, I don't think many of the users in Egypt were anything more
>>>> than normal users, but the techies made it easy for them to route
>>>> around the government-imposed outage during the uprising there.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> You were aware that Hosni Mubarak is no longer in charge in Egypt and
>> that they had a "small" revolution last year, weren't you?
>
> Nope. The politics of remote countries isn't something I generally keep
> up with. (Heck, the politics of *this* country isn't something I avidly
> follow...)
>
There was a poll done a while back which showed that Fox News viewers 
where like 80%, or something, less likely to know *anything* that was 
going on in their own country, or the rest of the world, including that 
Egypt, and several other countries, had recently had a revolution.

Apparently its possible to not watch Fox, and still have this problem. ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 1/23/2012 8:17 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Warp<war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>> Francois Labreque<fla### [at] videotronca>  wrote:
>>> Le 2012-01-22 02:09, Warp a écrit :
>>>>     The day after SOPA was rejected in the US congress, the US government
>>>> took down megaupload.com. Coincidence?
>>>>
>>>>     The prevailing theory is that they were planning on taking it down for
>>>> some time (after all, the bureucracy and paperwork involved in this kind
>>>> of operation is not something that's done in one day) and were only
>>>> waiting for SOPA to pass in order to shut down the site, so that they
>>>> would have a justification. It did not pass, so no justification. However,
>>>> rather than let all the hard work go to waste, they took the website down
>>>> anyways.
>>>>
>>> Using existing laws, proving that PIPA and SOPA were unnecessary after all.
>>
>>    And now the US government has the IP addresses if millions of people who
>> have uploaded and downloaded illegal material to megaupload.com. What do
>> you think they will do with those addresses?
>
> they'll put the whole of society in jail, aside from those running jailbreakers.
>
>
So much easier than just hoping they will all buy a few ounces of pot, 
and get thrown in jail for that...

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2012 9:39 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Fox News

??? :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2012 9:41 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> a few ounces of pot

Rich man. :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2012 6:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On 23/01/2012 10:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?
>
>> I wouldn't know; I don't read comic books.
>
>    I don't know if that was just a jab at tabloids, or if you a honestly have
> a confusion of terminology... Either way it's slightly amusing.
>

It was not a joke. He spoke the truth. ;-)
Also called "Red Tops" in the UK.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:33:42 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> Actually, I don't think many of the users in Egypt were anything more
>>>> than normal users, but the techies made it easy for them to route
>>>> around the government-imposed outage during the uprising there.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> You were aware that Hosni Mubarak is no longer in charge in Egypt and
>> that they had a "small" revolution last year, weren't you?
> 
> Nope. The politics of remote countries isn't something I generally keep
> up with. (Heck, the politics of *this* country isn't something I avidly
> follow...)

So you didn't hear about any of the so-called "Arab Spring" events?

You do know that the US pulled out of Iraq, yes?  Or were you unaware 
that the US (and the UK) were at war in Iraq?  You know there's a war in 
Afghanistan too, yes?  And that's still going on?

And that Osama Bin Laden is dead?

>>>>> I have to admit, Wikipedia's blackout is the very first time I'd
>>>>> even *heard* of The Pirate Bay.
>>>>
>>>> <boggle>
>>>
>>> What? Like it's famous or something?
>>
>> Arguably the most famous torrent site in the world.
> 
> And Edgar Froese is arguably the most famous band member ever to be in
> Tangerine Dream... Have *you* ever heard of him?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have - because I have a fair collection of 
Tangerine Dream albums here. :)

> Fame is a relative thing.

It is relative, but there's been a *lot* of news about illegal downloads 
and torrents in the past 5 years or so.  TPB has figured into a lot of 
that news, because the providers keep blocking access, and they keep 
getting unblocked.

I've found it kinda hard to avoid news about that.  I'm wondering how you 
managed it without even trying.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:10:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 23/01/2012 9:39 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Fox News
> 
> ??? :-P

Some over here refer to them as "Faux News" - because a fair bit of the 
opinion side is "manufactured rage".

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2012 12:50 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:10:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 23/01/2012 9:39 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Fox News
>>
>> ??? :-P
>
> Some over here refer to them as "Faux News" - because a fair bit of the
> opinion side is "manufactured rage".
>

I saw a bit of it last year in NM. I did not go back to that hotel.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Fame is a relative thing.
>
> Are you really willing to compare the fame of a pretty obscure band to
> the fame of a website that serves every kind of content to pretty much
> everyone in the net?

No, I'm pointing out that they do *not* serve "everyone in the net".

I'm on the net, I've never heard of it, and even now that I have, I have 
no particular desire to go visit.

Post a reply to this message

>>> You were aware that Hosni Mubarak is no longer in charge in Egypt and
>>> that they had a "small" revolution last year, weren't you?
>>
>> Nope. The politics of remote countries isn't something I generally keep
>> up with. (Heck, the politics of *this* country isn't something I avidly
>> follow...)
>
> So you didn't hear about any of the so-called "Arab Spring" events?

No.

> You do know that the US pulled out of Iraq, yes?

I've heard multiple rounds of "We're pulling out. Oh, wait, we're 
pulling out in 6 month's time. No, we're pulling out next month. Oh, 
actually, make that 2 years. Actually, wait, make it a month. No, hang 
on..." It's news to me that they *actually* did it at last.

> Or were you unaware that the US (and the UK) were at war in Iraq?

Hehehe, is *that* why every FPS made in the last 10 years happens in the 
Middle East with Iraqis as the enemy? :-P

> You know there's a war in Afghanistan too, yes?  And that's still going on?

Wait - Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the same place? o_O

> And that Osama Bin Laden is dead?

Actually, no. I heard Saddam was dead, but I didn't know they ever found 
Osama.

>> And Edgar Froese is arguably the most famous band member ever to be in
>> Tangerine Dream... Have *you* ever heard of him?
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact, I have - because I have a fair collection of
> Tangerine Dream albums here. :)

I knew there was a strictly positive probability that this might happen. 
*facepalm*

>> Fame is a relative thing.
>
> It is relative, but there's been a *lot* of news about illegal downloads
> and torrents in the past 5 years or so.  TPB has figured into a lot of
> that news, because the providers keep blocking access, and they keep
> getting unblocked.
>
> I've found it kinda hard to avoid news about that.  I'm wondering how you
> managed it without even trying.

I've heard a lot of talk about "illegal downloads". I haven't heard 
anybody mention TPB.

It did tickle me when ISPs were talking about various ways to "detect 
and prevent downloading". Uh, you realise that the entire /point/ of 
ISPs is to enable downloading, right? Perhaps you meant prevent 
*illegal* downloading? :-P

(That and the talk of ISPs charging YouTube money because they're "using 
up all the bandwidth". Translation: "our profit model depends on 
customers using only a fraction of the bandwidth that they pay us for, 
and now people are using /all/ of what they rightfully paid for, waaaaa!")

Post a reply to this message

On 23/01/2012 06:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> On 23/01/2012 10:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?
>
>> I wouldn't know; I don't read comic books.
>
>    I don't know if that was just a jab at tabloids, or if you a honestly have
> a confusion of terminology... Either way it's slightly amusing.

Even I'm not quite /that/ dense. ;-)

Seriously though, from what I've seen, your typical tabloid is about as 
factually accurate as your typical comic book. Like comics, they 
sometimes reflect real things which are actually happening in the real 
world... aaaaand then most of the time they contain complete fiction. 
(E.g., MMR causes autism - a claim that to this day has not one shred of 
scientific evidence behind it.)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-24 04:30, Invisible a écrit :
>>>> You were aware that Hosni Mubarak is no longer in charge in Egypt and
>>>> that they had a "small" revolution last year, weren't you?
>>>
>>> Nope. The politics of remote countries isn't something I generally keep
>>> up with. (Heck, the politics of *this* country isn't something I avidly
>>> follow...)
>>
>> So you didn't hear about any of the so-called "Arab Spring" events?
>
> No.
>

Do you watch tv?
Do you listen to the radio?
Read newspaper?
Walk by a newspaper stand on your way to work?
Talk to people?

I think I facepalmed hard enough to break my nose.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>>> So you didn't hear about any of the so-called "Arab Spring" events?
>>
>> No.
>
> Do you watch tv?

No.

> Do you listen to the radio?

No.

> Read newspaper?

No.

> Walk by a newspaper stand on your way to work?

I can't actually remember the last time I *saw* a newspaper stand in 
this country... Usually you have to walk indoors to look at newspapers.

> Talk to people?

Sure, all the time. :-P

> I think I facepalmed hard enough to break my nose.

Good for you.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-23 05:25, John VanSickle a écrit :
> On 1/19/2012 12:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:56:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> If they were planning to make it legal to lock Americans up without
>>> trial, *that* would be seriously disturbing.
>>
>> They already have that. It was part of the most recent defense
>> appropriations bill that was signed into law.
>>
>> Obama issued a 'signing statement' saying that his administration
>> wouldn't use indefinite detention on American citizens, but there's
>> nothing to stop the next administration from doing that.
>
> So the next President could round up the Congressmen who wrote that
> provision, toss them in prison, and tell them that they can go free when
> they repeal it.
>
> I hereby announce my candidacy...
>
> Regards,
> John

Nope.

Article I, section 6.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-23 09:27, Warp a écrit :
> Francois Labreque<fla### [at] videotronca>  wrote:
>> Le 2012-01-22 02:09, Warp a écrit :
>>>     The day after SOPA was rejected in the US congress, the US government
>>> took down megaupload.com. Coincidence?
>>>
>>>     The prevailing theory is that they were planning on taking it down for
>>> some time (after all, the bureucracy and paperwork involved in this kind
>>> of operation is not something that's done in one day) and were only
>>> waiting for SOPA to pass in order to shut down the site, so that they
>>> would have a justification. It did not pass, so no justification. However,
>>> rather than let all the hard work go to waste, they took the website down
>>> anyways.
>>>
>> Using existing laws, proving that PIPA and SOPA were unnecessary after all.
>
>    And now the US government has the IP addresses if millions of people who
> have uploaded and downloaded illegal material to megaupload.com. What do
> you think they will do with those addresses?
>

Use existing laws to prosecute the offenders, if they decide to do so. 
Further proof that PIPA and SOPA were unnecessary.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> So you didn't hear about any of the so-called "Arab Spring" events?
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > Do you watch tv?
>
> No.
>
> > Do you listen to the radio?
>
> No.
>
> > Read newspaper?
>
> No.

curiously, I too pretty much have ditched traditional media.  I still dig news
on the web though...

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:30:17 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>> You do know that the US pulled out of Iraq, yes?
> 
> I've heard multiple rounds of "We're pulling out. Oh, wait, we're
> pulling out in 6 month's time. No, we're pulling out next month. Oh,
> actually, make that 2 years. Actually, wait, make it a month. No, hang
> on..." It's news to me that they *actually* did it at last.

There was an agreed-upon timeline with the Iraqi government for the 
pullout to be completed by December 31, 2011.  They met that timeline.

>> Or were you unaware that the US (and the UK) were at war in Iraq?
> 
> Hehehe, is *that* why every FPS made in the last 10 years happens in the
> Middle East with Iraqis as the enemy? :-P

It seems that that probably doesn't have a lot to do with reality.  There 
were a couple of Star Wars games that came out as well, yet the Empire is 
still a work of fiction.

>> You know there's a war in Afghanistan too, yes?  And that's still going
>> on?
> 
> Wait - Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the same place? o_O

Um, no, they're not.  Are you serious?

>> And that Osama Bin Laden is dead?
> 
> Actually, no. I heard Saddam was dead, but I didn't know they ever found
> Osama.

<facepalm>

>>> Fame is a relative thing.
>>
>> It is relative, but there's been a *lot* of news about illegal
>> downloads and torrents in the past 5 years or so.  TPB has figured into
>> a lot of that news, because the providers keep blocking access, and
>> they keep getting unblocked.
>>
>> I've found it kinda hard to avoid news about that.  I'm wondering how
>> you managed it without even trying.
> 
> I've heard a lot of talk about "illegal downloads". I haven't heard
> anybody mention TPB.

Do you read slashdot?  The Register?

> It did tickle me when ISPs were talking about various ways to "detect
> and prevent downloading". Uh, you realise that the entire /point/ of
> ISPs is to enable downloading, right? Perhaps you meant prevent
> *illegal* downloading? :-P
> 
> (That and the talk of ISPs charging YouTube money because they're "using
> up all the bandwidth". Translation: "our profit model depends on
> customers using only a fraction of the bandwidth that they pay us for,
> and now people are using /all/ of what they rightfully paid for,
> waaaaa!")

Actually, not YouTube, but Netflix; it's streaming has been claimed to 
take more bandwidth than illegal downloads.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:20:41 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> I think I facepalmed hard enough to break my nose.

Actually, I nearly literally did that last week.  I was talking with a 
support engineer about an odd support question I answered myself earlier 
in the week, and I went to facepalm and missed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:03:06 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 24/01/2012 12:50 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:10:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/01/2012 9:39 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> Fox News
>>>
>>> ??? :-P
>>
>> Some over here refer to them as "Faux News" - because a fair bit of the
>> opinion side is "manufactured rage".
>>
>>
> I saw a bit of it last year in NM. I did not go back to that hotel.

I've news for you - the hotel wasn't hte problem. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> You do know that the US pulled out of Iraq, yes?
>>
>> I've heard multiple rounds of "We're pulling out. Oh, wait, we're
>> pulling out in 6 month's time. No, we're pulling out next month. Oh,
>> actually, make that 2 years. Actually, wait, make it a month. No, hang
>> on..." It's news to me that they *actually* did it at last.
>
> There was an agreed-upon timeline with the Iraqi government for the
> pullout to be completed by December 31, 2011.  They met that timeline.

I heard so many conflicting reports about what they were or weren't 
going to do, I stopped paying attention.

>>> Or were you unaware that the US (and the UK) were at war in Iraq?
>>
>> Hehehe, is *that* why every FPS made in the last 10 years happens in the
>> Middle East with Iraqis as the enemy? :-P
>
> It seems that that probably doesn't have a lot to do with reality.  There
> were a couple of Star Wars games that came out as well, yet the Empire is
> still a work of fiction.

Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had 
never even *heard* of Iraq.

>> Wait - Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the same place? o_O
>
> Um, no, they're not.  Are you serious?

Oh. Crap...

>>> I've found it kinda hard to avoid news about that.  I'm wondering how
>>> you managed it without even trying.
>>
>> I've heard a lot of talk about "illegal downloads". I haven't heard
>> anybody mention TPB.
>
> Do you read slashdot?  The Register?

Nope, never. Why would I?

>> (That and the talk of ISPs charging YouTube money because they're "using
>> up all the bandwidth". Translation: "our profit model depends on
>> customers using only a fraction of the bandwidth that they pay us for,
>> and now people are using /all/ of what they rightfully paid for,
>> waaaaa!")
>
> Actually, not YouTube, but Netflix; it's streaming has been claimed to
> take more bandwidth than illegal downloads.

Maybe in the US. In Britain, it seems to be YouTube and iPlayer that 
everyone was whining about.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escreveu:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:20:41 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
> 
>> I think I facepalmed hard enough to break my nose.
> 
> Actually, I nearly literally did that last week.  I was talking with a 
> support engineer about an odd support question I answered myself earlier 
> in the week, and I went to facepalm and missed.

http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/tt255/813780/Extreme_Facepalm.png

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2012 4:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I saw a bit of it last year in NM. I did not go back to that hotel.
> I've news for you - the hotel wasn't hte problem.;)

No, most likely the clientele.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2012 4:49 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
> never even *heard* of Iraq.

Come on! What about Mesopotamia or Babylonia, then?
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)?
Iran-Iraq War?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen escreveu:
> On 24/01/2012 4:49 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
>> never even *heard* of Iraq.
> 
> Come on! What about Mesopotamia or Babylonia, then?
> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)?
> Iran-Iraq War?

ask him if he knows something about Celts...

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2012 8:27 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2012-01-23 05:25, John VanSickle a écrit :
>> On 1/19/2012 12:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:56:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>>> If they were planning to make it legal to lock Americans up without
>>>> trial, *that* would be seriously disturbing.
>>>
>>> They already have that. It was part of the most recent defense
>>> appropriations bill that was signed into law.
>>>
>>> Obama issued a 'signing statement' saying that his administration
>>> wouldn't use indefinite detention on American citizens, but there's
>>> nothing to stop the next administration from doing that.
>>
>> So the next President could round up the Congressmen who wrote that
>> provision, toss them in prison, and tell them that they can go free when
>> they repeal it.
>>
>> I hereby announce my candidacy...
>>
>> Regards,
>> John
>
> Nope.
>
> Article I, section 6.

Wait until the go into recess.

Or declare that making this law violates their oath to uphold the 
Constitution, which is perjury, which is a felony, which is an exception 
to the item you cite.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2012 5:27 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Stephen escreveu:
>> On 24/01/2012 4:49 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
>>> never even *heard* of Iraq.
>>
>> Come on! What about Mesopotamia or Babylonia, then?
>> T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia)?
>> Iran-Iraq War?
>
> ask him if he knows something about Celts...

A Glasgow football team who play against Rangers in the Scottish league? 
;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:03:01 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 24/01/2012 4:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I saw a bit of it last year in NM. I did not go back to that hotel.
>> I've news for you - the hotel wasn't hte problem.;)
> 
> No, most likely the clientele.

Ah, point. :)  (Though it's not uncommon in hotels in more liberal parts 
of the country as well - I'm pretty sure it was in the Marriot on Times 
Square in NYC as well)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:01:47 -0200, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson escreveu:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:20:41 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> 
>>> I think I facepalmed hard enough to break my nose.
>> 
>> Actually, I nearly literally did that last week.  I was talking with a
>> support engineer about an odd support question I answered myself
>> earlier in the week, and I went to facepalm and missed.
> 
> http://i617.photobucket.com/albums/tt255/813780/Extreme_Facepalm.png

LOL

Yeah, it was going in that direction, that's for sure.  I had to check 
afterwards to see that I hadn't caused a nosebleed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:49:57 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> You do know that the US pulled out of Iraq, yes?
>>>
>>> I've heard multiple rounds of "We're pulling out. Oh, wait, we're
>>> pulling out in 6 month's time. No, we're pulling out next month. Oh,
>>> actually, make that 2 years. Actually, wait, make it a month. No, hang
>>> on..." It's news to me that they *actually* did it at last.
>>
>> There was an agreed-upon timeline with the Iraqi government for the
>> pullout to be completed by December 31, 2011.  They met that timeline.
> 
> I heard so many conflicting reports about what they were or weren't
> going to do, I stopped paying attention.

That was actually (AFAIK) always the plan, agreed to while our last 
President was in office, in fact.

>> It seems that that probably doesn't have a lot to do with reality. 
>> There were a couple of Star Wars games that came out as well, yet the
>> Empire is still a work of fiction.
> 
> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
> never even *heard* of Iraq.

Except for everyone who remembers the first Iraq war (back in the 90s), 
or everyone who heard of Saddam Hussein, or everyone who took the 
slightest interest in where oil in the US came from.

>>> Wait - Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the same place? o_O
>>
>> Um, no, they're not.  Are you serious?
> 
> Oh. Crap...

When's the last time you looked at a map, young'un?

>>>> I've found it kinda hard to avoid news about that.  I'm wondering how
>>>> you managed it without even trying.
>>>
>>> I've heard a lot of talk about "illegal downloads". I haven't heard
>>> anybody mention TPB.
>>
>> Do you read slashdot?  The Register?
> 
> Nope, never. Why would I?

Because you're in technology and keeping up on technology trends is 
important to furthering a career in technology - and those are two places 
where LOTS of news about technology are posted or linked from?

>>> (That and the talk of ISPs charging YouTube money because they're
>>> "using up all the bandwidth". Translation: "our profit model depends
>>> on customers using only a fraction of the bandwidth that they pay us
>>> for, and now people are using /all/ of what they rightfully paid for,
>>> waaaaa!")
>>
>> Actually, not YouTube, but Netflix; it's streaming has been claimed to
>> take more bandwidth than illegal downloads.
> 
> Maybe in the US. In Britain, it seems to be YouTube and iPlayer that
> everyone was whining about.

iPlayer I could see.  YouTube?  I haven't heard that, but I could see 
that it does take up a fair bit of bandwidth.  There was a report 
yesterday that they've exceeded an hour of video uploaded *per second* of 
actual video runtime.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/23/2012 5:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:10:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 23/01/2012 9:39 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Fox News
>>
>> ??? :-P
>
> Some over here refer to them as "Faux News" - because a fair bit of the
> opinion side is "manufactured rage".
>
> Jim
And, the fact that their "main" news has a habit of citing their 
manufactured rage, from their own talk shows, to defend their version of 
events. And, well, the fact that you can sometimes find the different, 
or even the exact same, ragers contradicting their own less than 24 hour 
ago statements, without batting an eye, or being willing to admit, even 
when they are shown the film footage, that their "opinion" magically 
changed over night.

The basic view of lefties I know is:

Faux reports gibberish, repeats the gibberish as fact, while convenient, 
then cuts its own throat, when ever it stops being convenient to think 
its true.
MSNBC reports bias, but admits it, and admits making mistakes, when they 
do, and does try to back up their facts, even on their opinion shows 
(usually without quoting the other pundant, without any supporting facts).
CNN, et al, report what ever the other two say, and anyone else tells 
them, with little or no fact checking, since its way easier to let 
someone else do your news for you, than actually make sure any of it is 
real.

Sort of a case of listening to the people that admit they have a clear 
side, versus people that have no clue which side to take, or the ones 
insisting, as Faux does, that, "We don't take sides, we just report the 
facts, even when they change mid-week, mid-day, mid-show, or even 
mid-sentence!"

I sometimes wonder how people can live with the cognitive dissonance of 
religion vs. reality, then I am reminded of Fox News viewers, and have 
to conclude that this is a bit like asking how someone can stand on 
their head, while someone behind you is standing on one finger, while 
holding an elephant up, by their feet, while riding a roller coaster. By 
comparison, believing in science, and god, at the same time, has got to 
be pretty damn trivial to thinking that what Fox says is true, and so is 
the 50 billion pieces of bloody obvious information that contradicts 
them, at the same time.

As someone put it, if they said the sky was blue, they would have to 
consult a meteorologists *and* check for themselves, before they could 
be sure that "fact" was being reported accurately by them.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2012 2:30 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> And that Osama Bin Laden is dead?
>
> Actually, no. I heard Saddam was dead, but I didn't know they ever found
> Osama.
>
Yeah, Obama had a tiny number of troops slip into Pakistan, to his **in 
bloody plain sight** compound, using some sort of stealth copters 
(special blades, which cancelled most of the usual noise, and other 
stuff), and took him out in very short order, before the Pakistanis even 
had a clue anything was going on. Its unclear which embarrassed them 
more, the fact that we found him, while they didn't have a clue who was 
in that compound (or at least no one higher up seemed to), or that we 
did it without them even having a clue it was happening.

Only minor hickup was that they tapped on blade of one chopper on the 
wall, on the way in, and had to leave it there after the mission. I 
assume they got it out since, but last I saw there where just pictures 
of it floating around, with confused Pakistani soldiers looking it over.

But yeah, lot of idiots claiming this is the worst president we ever 
had, and a lot legitimate complaints about him, but he managed in a few 
months what Bush and Co. couldn't do in a decade, along with a fair long 
list of other things, none of which would have happened with one of the 
idiots calling him "the worst" in office instead.

Could have been better, but hell.. what can you do when you couldn't 
probably even pass a law saying, "The sky is blue", without having the 
less insane Republicans first agree with it, then tack on 50 idiot 
things that undermine civil liberties, or mandate insane shit, at the 
behest of the Tea Party, then claim, due to pressure from the same Tea 
Party crazies that they disagree with it, then finally come out 
insisting they never thought it was blue in the first place (because 
they might lose their job, if they went against the crazies now running 
the Republicans), and all, at least in part, because they want to, "make 
Obama a one term president".

We are dealing with some true nuts right now, like the one Senator that 
has just proposed a bill banning the use of fetuses in human food, on 
the theory that this is the **only** possible thing that someone might 
use "recombinant methods" to do, in food manufacturing... WTF?

Post a reply to this message

On 1/24/2012 2:34 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 23/01/2012 06:13 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> On 23/01/2012 10:29 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>>> Wait, isn't Pipa some gal who's in the tabloids a lot?
>>
>>> I wouldn't know; I don't read comic books.
>>
>> I don't know if that was just a jab at tabloids, or if you a honestly
>> have
>> a confusion of terminology... Either way it's slightly amusing.
>
> Even I'm not quite /that/ dense. ;-)
>
> Seriously though, from what I've seen, your typical tabloid is about as
> factually accurate as your typical comic book. Like comics, they
> sometimes reflect real things which are actually happening in the real
> world... aaaaand then most of the time they contain complete fiction.
> (E.g., MMR causes autism - a claim that to this day has not one shred of
> scientific evidence behind it.)
Yeah. Here in the US, the, "Bat boy born to blah blah family" rag went 
bankrupt, and got bought up by the National Enquirer, thereby proving, 
beyond all doubt, that there wasn't any real news in the latter either. lol

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:27:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Faux reports gibberish, repeats the gibberish as fact, while convenient,
> then cuts its own throat, when ever it stops being convenient to think
> its true.
> MSNBC reports bias, but admits it, and admits making mistakes, when they
> do, and does try to back up their facts, even on their opinion shows
> (usually without quoting the other pundant, without any supporting
> facts).
> CNN, et al, report what ever the other two say, and anyone else tells
> them, with little or no fact checking, since its way easier to let
> someone else do your news for you, than actually make sure any of it is
> real.

I've been really disappointed in CNN the past few years.  They *used* to 
be pretty decent.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2012 10:44 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> But yeah, lot of idiots claiming this is the worst president we ever
> had, and a lot legitimate complaints about him, but he managed in a few
> months what Bush and Co. couldn't do in a decade, along with a fair long
> list of other things, none of which would have happened with one of the
> idiots calling him "the worst" in office instead.

I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most 
wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard 
him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be 
correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea 
which one to believe.

> Could have been better, but hell.. what can you do when you couldn't
> probably even pass a law saying, "The sky is blue", without having the
> less insane Republicans first agree with it, then tack on 50 idiot
> things that undermine civil liberties, or mandate insane shit, at the
> behest of the Tea Party, then claim, due to pressure from the same Tea
> Party crazies that they disagree with it, then finally come out
> insisting they never thought it was blue in the first place (because
> they might lose their job, if they went against the crazies now running
> the Republicans), and all, at least in part, because they want to, "make
> Obama a one term president".

...OK, you *do* sound like you're constantly angry.

Also: WTF is this "tea party" I keep hearing about?

> We are dealing with some true nuts right now, like the one Senator that
> has just proposed a bill banning the use of fetuses in human food, on
> the theory that this is the **only** possible thing that someone might
> use "recombinant methods" to do, in food manufacturing... WTF?

...the HELL?! o_O

Post a reply to this message

>>> It seems that that probably doesn't have a lot to do with reality.
>>> There were a couple of Star Wars games that came out as well, yet the
>>> Empire is still a work of fiction.
>>
>> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
>> never even *heard* of Iraq.
>
> Except for everyone who remembers the first Iraq war (back in the 90s),
> or everyone who heard of Saddam Hussein, or everyone who took the
> slightest interest in where oil in the US came from.

Seriously? You get oil from Iraq? The entire country appears to be a 
barren desert wilderness; where is the complex infrastructure necessary 
for oil extraction?

>>>> Wait - Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the same place? o_O
>>>
>>> Um, no, they're not.  Are you serious?
>>
>> Oh. Crap...
>
> When's the last time you looked at a map, young'un?

Of the Middle East? Never.

I'm the guy who thought that Brazil was in Europe, remember? Geography 
was never my strong point. (Or history, actually.)

>>> Do you read slashdot?  The Register?
>>
>> Nope, never. Why would I?
>
> Because you're in technology and keeping up on technology trends is
> important to furthering a career in technology

Really? In what sense?

> and those are two places
> where LOTS of news about technology are posted or linked from?

Well, that's news to me.

>>> Actually, not YouTube, but Netflix; it's streaming has been claimed to
>>> take more bandwidth than illegal downloads.
>>
>> Maybe in the US. In Britain, it seems to be YouTube and iPlayer that
>> everyone was whining about.
>
> iPlayer I could see.  YouTube?  I haven't heard that, but I could see
> that it does take up a fair bit of bandwidth.  There was a report
> yesterday that they've exceeded an hour of video uploaded *per second* of
> actual video runtime.

An hour of *uploaded* video per second of video runtime? Wow.

PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2012 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:03:01 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 24/01/2012 4:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I saw a bit of it last year in NM. I did not go back to that hotel.
>>> I've news for you - the hotel wasn't hte problem.;)
>>
>> No, most likely the clientele.
>
> Ah, point. :)  (Though it's not uncommon in hotels in more liberal parts
> of the country as well - I'm pretty sure it was in the Marriot on Times
> Square in NYC as well)
>

No sense of class. Aim for the LCD (no pun intended).

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-25 05:03, Invisible a écrit :
>
> Seriously? You get oil from Iraq? The entire country appears to be a
> barren desert wilderness; where is the complex infrastructure necessary
> for oil extraction?
>

http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&q=iraqi+oil+fields

>>>> Do you read slashdot? The Register?
>>>
>>> Nope, never. Why would I?
>>
>> Because you're in technology and keeping up on technology trends is
>> important to furthering a career in technology
>
> Really? In what sense?
>

Ow!  Damn it.  Broke my nose again.

> PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?

Netflix is a company that sells movies by mail and online.  They 
currently only operate in the USA and Canada.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-01-25 04:57, Invisible a écrit :

>
> Also: WTF is this "tea party" I keep hearing about?
>

In the late 1700s, the British colonies in America were getting fed up 
of the King of England raising taxes without letting them have a voice 
in Parliament, so they decided to rebel against the King and declare 
their independence.

One of the first incident of the American revolution was the "Boston Tea 
Party" where tea growers decided to punish the king by dumping all the 
tea bound for England into the harbor.  There! Neener! Neener!  No you 
can't have tea. Not yours!

Flash forward 240 years.

Groups of people angry about the rising taxes on the working class and 
the runaway government deficit decided to form a protest movement called 
"Taxed Enough Already" or T.E.A. for short.  Thus were formed the modern 
day Tea Parties.

Nevermind the fact that taxes on the working class had been going down 
for a few years, that these people were mysteriously very silent while 
the previous president was spending money he didn't have playing war 
games all over the world and that these people - who were for the most 
part very angry at having an uppity negro in the White House - were 
being lied to by millionaires and talk show hosts who were trying to get 
the government to ease restrictions on their investments.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:50:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 24/01/2012 7:32 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:03:01 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/01/2012 4:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> I saw a bit of it last year in NM. I did not go back to that hotel.
>>>> I've news for you - the hotel wasn't hte problem.;)
>>>
>>> No, most likely the clientele.
>>
>> Ah, point. :)  (Though it's not uncommon in hotels in more liberal
>> parts of the country as well - I'm pretty sure it was in the Marriot on
>> Times Square in NYC as well)
>>
>>
> No sense of class. Aim for the LCD (no pun intended).

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:03:26 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>>>> It seems that that probably doesn't have a lot to do with reality.
>>>> There were a couple of Star Wars games that came out as well, yet the
>>>> Empire is still a work of fiction.
>>>
>>> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
>>> never even *heard* of Iraq.
>>
>> Except for everyone who remembers the first Iraq war (back in the 90s),
>> or everyone who heard of Saddam Hussein, or everyone who took the
>> slightest interest in where oil in the US came from.
> 
> Seriously? You get oil from Iraq? The entire country appears to be a
> barren desert wilderness; where is the complex infrastructure necessary
> for oil extraction?

I really wonder sometimes if you're just trying to wind people up with 
statements like this, or trying to see if you can invoke an 'extreme 
facepalm' incident.
 
>> When's the last time you looked at a map, young'un?
> 
> Of the Middle East? Never.

Maybe that's part of the reason why you have little sense of how the 
world actually is.  Just a thought.
 
> I'm the guy who thought that Brazil was in Europe, remember? Geography
> was never my strong point. (Or history, actually.)

That's correctable, but you have to correct it.  Both of these things are 
quite important.

>>>> Do you read slashdot?  The Register?
>>>
>>> Nope, never. Why would I?
>>
>> Because you're in technology and keeping up on technology trends is
>> important to furthering a career in technology
> 
> Really? In what sense?

If you don't know what technology is out there, how do you expect to know 
when a proposed solution is good or not?

Seriously, that would help your job prospects a lot.  Not knowing what 
trends are taking place in IT is kinda like not being aware of the 
development of the automobile when you are a driver for hire of a hansom 
cab.  (Yes, I'm going to make you look that up)

>> and those are two places
>> where LOTS of news about technology are posted or linked from?
> 
> Well, that's news to me.

<boggle>

>>>> Actually, not YouTube, but Netflix; it's streaming has been claimed
>>>> to take more bandwidth than illegal downloads.
>>>
>>> Maybe in the US. In Britain, it seems to be YouTube and iPlayer that
>>> everyone was whining about.
>>
>> iPlayer I could see.  YouTube?  I haven't heard that, but I could see
>> that it does take up a fair bit of bandwidth.  There was a report
>> yesterday that they've exceeded an hour of video uploaded *per second*
>> of actual video runtime.
> 
> An hour of *uploaded* video per second of video runtime? Wow.

Yes.

> PS. What is Netflix? And does it only operate in America?

It's a streaming movie service, and if you'd been reading Slashdot or The 
Register, you'd know they've just started operating in Europe as well. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:25:33 -0500, Francois Labreque wrote:

> They currently
> only operate in the USA and Canada.

Not any more:

http://www.itworld.com/software/215983/netflix-streaming-europe

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:57:25 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>> But yeah, lot of idiots claiming this is the worst president we ever
>> had, and a lot legitimate complaints about him, but he managed in a few
>> months what Bush and Co. couldn't do in a decade, along with a fair
>> long list of other things, none of which would have happened with one
>> of the idiots calling him "the worst" in office instead.
> 
> I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most
> wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard
> him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be
> correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea
> which one to believe.

It's subjective.

You could probably learn a lot by reading his Wikipedia entry.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I've noticed that some people regard Obama was the Messiah, the most 
> wonderful thing ever to happen in American history. And others regard 
> him as pure, liquid evil. Clearly these two viewpoints cannot both be 
> correct. Having no clue what Obama has actually done, I have no idea 
> which one to believe.

  I think that the major problem is that he promised to do a lot of things
to make Americans' lives better, but in the end he didn't. Instead of
standing firm and pushing his original agenda no matter what, seemingly
he started making compromises and caving in. (Sure, the president cannot
pass laws, but in the US the president, AFAIK, has quite a lot of influence
which he can use to influence law making.)

  Most prominently, he promised to bring the health care system to the
same level as the western European ones, but in the end he failed.
I haven't really followed that lately, but I get the impression that he
simply gave up or something. Also, he promised to close Guantanamo, but
he didn't. On the contrary, during his term even more egregious laws were
passed than during Bush's.

  But that's not all. Apparently big companies have had a big influence
on his policies. For example, he has appointed several members of the
RIAA to high governmental positions, and he is a proponent of ridiculously
harsh and disproportionate penalties for minor copyright infractions (such
as fining people 110000 dollars for each illegally downloaded song).

  There's a hypothesis that he was a big corporation puppet all along
(just like Reagan was), and that his initial "let's make America better"
policies were all just an act to get elected. Now that his term is coming
to an end, he isn't even pretending anymore. We'll probably never know if
that was the case.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:53:36 -0500, Warp wrote:

>   I think that the major problem is that he promised to do a lot of
>   things
> to make Americans' lives better, but in the end he didn't.

Anyone who runs for president of the US makes promises they're not going 
to even come close to being able to keep - because they promise things 
the president doesn't have control over.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/25/2012 3:03 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> It seems that that probably doesn't have a lot to do with reality.
>>>> There were a couple of Star Wars games that came out as well, yet the
>>>> Empire is still a work of fiction.
>>>
>>> Well, sure. But I suspect before all this happened, most people had
>>> never even *heard* of Iraq.
>>
>> Except for everyone who remembers the first Iraq war (back in the 90s),
>> or everyone who heard of Saddam Hussein, or everyone who took the
>> slightest interest in where oil in the US came from.
>
> Seriously? You get oil from Iraq? The entire country appears to be a
> barren desert wilderness; where is the complex infrastructure necessary
> for oil extraction?
>
Umm. Actually, we probably don't. Two reasons -

1. We wouldn't know anyway, since our own trade agreements *require* 
that any oil we get has to be bought from the global market (including 
what is pumped in the US, then sold to that market, before being bought 
back from it, which is one reason, beyond the strange idea that 
imaginary jobs, for a new pipeline, which will just ship the stuff to 
the coast, to be loaded on a ship, to be sent to Opec, with no other 
projects *at all*, will, "benefit the US", and solve a problem of 32 
million jobs not existing).

2. I certainly haven't heard anything to indicate, at all, that any sort 
of real agreements where ever made to acquire any of their oil. And, you 
would think, if such an agreement existed, Bush would have been 
trumpeting it, during the period in which he was still in charge, and 
supposedly working with Iraq on such things.

Yeah, love to see some numbers on how much "oil" we get from Iraq... lol

Post a reply to this message