Posts by P_0

Re: Colossal, global stupidity

So, a person helped willing buyers buy from willing sellers - and this is wrong why?

It broke several federal laws. You're obviously implying selling illegal drugs is not wrong or unethical. But that's just your opinion. There are plenty of people who disagree with you. But regardless, it is illegal, and Ulbricht knew full well the gravity of the crime, as he even panicked after telling two confidants that he was DPR. His journal entries make it clear he knew just how serious a crime he was committing.

Even the fucking judge knew he was a good guy

No she didn't.

And she has two children - and I assume she loves them as much as we all love our own children. I wonder - what would she do if she heard one of her kids had had a spliff - would she immediately march them off to jail and throw them into one of the USA’s brutal gulags they call jail. No, probably not.

What has this got to do with anything?

What if someone became an e-bay/amazon seller and sold stuffed toys filled with illegal items, made both companies a lot of money and got caught? Does anyone honestly believe that even if the ceo's of those companies knew about it and proof of that emerged but turned a blind eye that they would ever see the inside of a jail cell?

This argument would work... if the jury was made up of five year olds. Ulbricht knew exactly what he was doing. His personal journals give mountains of evidence that he set up SR for the purpose of facilitating illegal drugs transactions. Not only that but he took a percentage of every transaction. He knew exactly what he was doing. Life is a harsh sentence, but Ulbricht wasn't some deer caught in the headlights.

Re: Take a good look

Iraq was attacked not for their oil, but for their audacity in thinking they could sell oil for gold and cut out Uncle Sam's petro-dollar, the basis of power for the beacon of freedom.

Evidence please.

War against Russia is next, not because of the Ukraine, which nobody gives two shits about, but because Russia didn't let themselves get pushed around by the Western bankers.

Evidence please.

Re: Integent ... Running Windows

Chess, like many other simple "wargame" simulations is simply memory and extrapolation from the current position. It is no more a sign of intelligence than is a bubble-sort or a Celsius-to-Fahrenheit conversion table.

In this case how is anything a sign of intelligence? And I think you'll find there is far more to it than memory and extrapolation. You do need insights into how other people think etc.

What you are saying reminds me of when people say Poker is a game of luck. In that case why do the same faces keep appearing at Poker Series Finals?*.

*example taken from the film Rounders (a good film by the way).

Re: @p_0

First and foremost I hope that whatever happened, whenever they do find the wreckage, that they find the crew and passengers were unconscious when they hit the water.

Fire or other inflight accident is almost impossible here. From the flightpath, it is known that the autopilot was reprogrammed and it was following an autopilot course all the way over Malaysia and into the Indian Ocean. So, the autopilot course set was not to get them back to an airport, so it doesn't make sense.

Up to a point I would agree that this is the weakest point in the "fire" theory. I don't know how the AP ended up in the Southern Ocean. And I won't pretend to.

Fumes disabling people is also not possible. The pilots are equipped with their own personal oxygen supplies, which may not have lasted 7 hours, but would have lasted long enough to get control and put out a mayday. We also know that the electrical systems of the aircraft were working at least to some extent (hence satellite 'pinging' etc.). Therefore, how did all the other electrical systems (such as transponder etc.) fail (and all backups) without being switched off?

Well, this is a bit of a stretch. In the panic and chaos we would never know what they were doing, or if the oxygen masks were working correctly, if the fire was a sudden flash fire, or if the succumbed to thick smoke. There is no way of knowing how long they had to put on oxygen masks. Even then, they could easily pass out form the heat.

As for the passengers, I don't know. But it may not be relevant to what happened if the flight cabin door was locked and inaccessible.

Also, bear in mind the debris spotted in the Indian Ocean is outside the 7hour flight time of the aircraft (it might have been carried by ocean currents) and is thought to be bobbing just under the surface.

I'm not sure that is entirely true. It seems to be within a reasonable distance of the tip of the southern arc.

The largest part is also believed to be 24m long. If the aircraft entered an uncontrolled descent (say due to fuel running out) and hit the ocean, there is almost no chance of a 24m piece of debris being left. It would hit at high speed (600mph?) and would be utterly destroyed. At that speed, it would be the same as flying into concrete.

We have no way of knowing what the angle of incidence was, what the speed was, etc. So none of the above is fact. In fact I doubt very much that it is the case that in the event of a crash caused by lack of engines that the whole plane would be utterly destroyed (as in no fuselage).

So, could they have tried to land on the Ocean? Maybe, but why fly there and then try to do that? All in all, this doesn't make any sense at all.

I'm not sure you understand the "fire" theory. Nobody was flying the plane down there. The pilots and and passengers were unconscious or dead.

I'm sorry, but all in all, anything but deliberate act (by someone unknown) seems almost impossible. The known information (assuming what we're told is right) seems to rule it out. Whether it's the pilot(s) or someone else, who knows. The known movements of the aircraft seem to rule out accident, as does the inability to find the debris (so far) and the information that some of the known flightpath seems to include segments designed to avoid radar (flying low for instance, but whilst seemingly under control).

There are no theories that make much sense. Terrorism or Suicide don't really hold up to scrutiny. But by and large the fire theory (or some catastrophic event) fits better than any other. Clearly we don't have anywhere near enough information to make better theories.

And again, as I said in the OP, if the debris is indeed the missing plane, the fire theory makes more sense. Why would terrorists deliberately fly to the middle of nowhere to run out of fuel and crash? And if it wasn't for Inmarsat's data, which presumably any terrorist wouldn't have known about, we would never have known where to begin looking.

Re: Schol Reform

He also said:

I'd estimate that you get 5 hours lessons from a 9-3:15 day and at least 7 hours from an 8-5 day, which would more than make up for the difference. I think the anonymous coward actually made some pretty good suggestions.

One small problem with that idea. The NUT(ters).

Re: "[N]othing is ever straightforward"

Regardless the reason or whether the Norks' own actions can be taken as justifications for these muscle-flexing numbers, is it really so surprising they might be put off by the sight of armed troops playing D-day on the other side of the trench?

What could the US/SK troops be preparing for? Hmmm.

I can't imagine. Presumably they want to deter the NK regime from shelling SK civilians, which it does on occassion, or sinking SK warships. The USA and SK have actually been incredibly restrained, considering after the sinking of the Cheonan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking

they were within rights (remember they are still at war) to bomb the living hell out of NK military positions.

But it's all the USA's fault, of course. That's the post-Iraq narrative that everyone likes to spout, forgetting what is actually happening in the world. For 6 decades the only thing standing between SK and a totalitarian nightmare has been the US marine corp ad SK military.

The US troops could perfectly take the wait, it isn't like their wars are going anywhere anyway.

No they couldn't. Military training exercises are planned months in advance and cost a lot of money.

Re: I sea swelling

Its really sad when someone posts the sort of thing you just did, you claim its a scam etc and refuse to see any other possibility, that is as bad as what you accuse the majority of the worlds scientists of, they beleif in global warming but have different opinions of cause and effect.

The majority of the world's scientists? Let's be clear, we are talking about climate scientists here. And saying "most" indicates that you know very well that some scientists doubt the full supposed threat of AGW.

You just refuse to accept it, oh and please if no model can show climate change how do you know for sure that the climate isn't changeing ?

That's not the issue. The issue is whether we have enough (or any) evidence to supposet that humans are causing massive climate change. Three years ago, you'd be lucky to get an AGW believer to admit that our supposed "catastrophic climate change" has paused. Now the obvious fact is inescapable, there is not one iota of a thought int he general body of AGW believers that their model and their theory could be wrong. Even though the observed data has contradicted their theory. We get excuse after excuse for why the models failed. We still get Al Gore bleating incessently about "deniers" and "the facts are in". Well no, the facts are not in. The observed data has destroyed your theory.

Re: I thought my marching days were over

What action? And just out of interest, what change do you want to happen?

Re: It is a valid adversary - it is Eu which is "not us"

According to UK current prime minister, he is a legitimate target.

It is not like this step has been made for the first time either. Belgacom anyone?

Why exactly isn't he a legititmate target for spying? He obviously know his work crosses into the realm of national security for a lot of countries. I expect any country with a well-funded spy agency would want to "watch him closely". The only issue here is the USA/UK seem to have been caught.

Re: I thought my marching days were over

And yet you and I both took time to comment on the story, Obama takes time out of his day to comment on it, the CBC, NY Times and NY Post to articles on it.

Come on. The stories are slowly sliding off the front page. Once they're off the front page they might as well not print them. With each new "revelation" we become more and more accustomed, or desensitized if you like, to these headlines.

Obviously my post is getting hammered with downvotes, since this is the Reg. But what are they actually downvoting? I didn't say anything incorrect. Downvote me when you go on your protest marches.

People care, just not enough.

Not enough for you.

They don't realize how serious this is.

How serious is this? When did spy agencies ever respect anybody's privacy?

Re: I thought my marching days were over

Would there be other grey haired geeks out on the streets, I wonder.

Doubt it. The world doesn't care any more. Only the Reg and the Guardian still think this is news. 99% of people don't even really understand what the NSA's technology is capable of. In the UK, there has been barely a murmer (outside the proffessional naggers at the Guardian) about this. When I talk to non-tech friends they barely care that the NSA/GCHQ may or may not be spying on their emails. A lazy, illogical approach, maybe. But that seems to be the case.

I guess, at the end of the day, the British public trust their spies. At least a lot more than the Americans trust theirs.

Re: みんな

Why? 皆様 is a polite term, obviously not the friendly casual term Google wants to use.

Re: Sceptical

Its not that this stuff couldn't have been done. I just feel is is highly unlikely that it could be done without some inquisitive individual finding it.

I too am skeptical about this, and the fact that none has been discovered.

Re: Proving His Enemies Right

mainly because they have a hierarchical electoral system, so yes they have local votes, but in reality it is unlikely a non CPC member will get elected, although it happens, the reason being if you want to get into power you join the CPC, there are people in the CPC who took part in protests in China, they know change takes time...

Yes, never mind the fact that the largest army on earth, the PLA, is the military wing of the CPC. That's just a happy coincidence.

Re: Point 3

What will reduce us to poverty is the fecking banks and the USA constantly developing better ways to kill people.

The banks are creating ways to kill people?

As for nuclear power plants, if they are so safe why can't we all have one in our homes?

Why would anyone want or need a nuclear reactor in their home? Nuclear power is not totally safe. Of course there are risks, but judging by the costs and benefits of the alternatives nuke plants seem to be a much better bet.

Re: United Kingdom

That came into existence under the Act of Union 1707. Independence will result in being "disunited". England can call itself anything it likes. Will also need to apply for membership of EU, NATO, and all the rest because the entity under which it took its place will cease to exist.

The Act of Union is not half as important as you may think. How a nation came together is not of so much importance during breakups. This is a historical fact. The Soviet Union "ceased to exist" once the Baltics declared independence. But Russia just became, legally speaking the USSR by another name as far as the international community was concerned. This is the precedent and the standard.

You may have a logical and legalistic point that the UK will "cease to exist", but in reality it means nothing. The Act of Union is just a footnote in history.

I guess the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist after Irish independence? Nope, just a change of name and carry on as usual.

But the Act of 1801 joined the kingdoms of Great Britain (England and Scotland) with that of Ireland.

There is no rUK whatever wishful thinkers might imagine. No UK at all at that stage. r or otherwise.

Wrong. Absolutely, hopelessly wrong. The name may change, but not much else.

Re: EU

Since the UK as it was recognised when it joined the EU (or Common Market as was) would effectively cease to exist if Scotland left, why would either of the two new countries have any more right than the other to remain in the EU, both or neither as far as I can see.

This is not true at all. There will be no "velvet divorce". The UK will cease to exist canard is an SNP favorite but flies in the face of international norms. rUK will carry on the UK's responsibilities to the treaties the UK signed. Just as Russia did for the Soviet Union. This is international precedent and no foreign government in its right mind will decide that the UK has been liquidated and everything is up for grabs. Maybe the Security Council seat can be raffled off.

Whose benefit is it to see all these trade, defence, research treaties voided because 8% of a country decided to cleave itself from the whole?

And absolutely no EU nation will decide (even if they could make that decision) that the rUK loses its place in the EU, since an awful lot of them have their own separatist movements.