 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
