User Information - Ask Me

Cutter wrote on May 2, 2017, 11:16: How the fuck is Theranos still a thing at this point? [...] Because there are sufficient intelligent people assessing technological viability. The news headlines that crucified Theranos were a knee jerk reaction to Theranos' diagnostic statistics, made with the impression that conventional tests are much better. Little did they know... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8xlOm2wPAA -scheherazade

Re: Evening Legal Briefs

Apr 26, 2017, 01:20

News Comments > Overwatch Bastion Nerf Inbound

Bill Borre wrote on Apr 25, 2017, 22:52: Interesting article. I wonder what the problem is with just giving this guy his data back? It would be admitting that megauplaod had legitimate users - something that would go against the government's case. -scheherazade

Re: Overwatch Bastion Nerf Inbound

Mar 3, 2017, 14:43

News Comments > Next Overwatch Hero Greek?

As someone who actually played bastion and did well with him, I miss the old bastion. Removing headshots and adding spread to turret mode nerfed the DPS and effectiveness really hard. Bastion used to be an amazing ambusher, but now it takes 2x as long to kill your target from up close. 35% DR doesn't make up for taking damage for twice as long before you remove the damage source. He was a much better ambusher before, which is really where he shines. Ambush, reposition, ambush, reposition, etc. He was already a fine barrier buster before, and was even better when sitting behind a shield. They didn't need to "buff" him (to be clear, the bastion buff was really a hard nerf for turret mode...). I get that recon mode is now better... but it's not that much better. Heal on the move (while you still can't shoot) is nicer, but you want to grab cover before you heal either way, so whatever. Same thing with soldier... I preferred the old soldier with less spread. He had more effective DPS than new soldier when it comes to killing small ranged targets. Flanking and taking out supports is where he shined. That gameplay suffered with his 'buff'. In general, I'm miffed about all the 'add spread' changes that Blizz has been making. If it were me, I'd be doing the opposite. Reduce raw dps and tighten up the spread. Make damage more sensitive to player aim ability. They seem obsessed with reducing the impact of raw hitscan skill and pushing positioning as the major factor for engagement performance. -scheherazade

18.

Re: Evening Metaverse

Feb 21, 2017, 10:13

descender wrote on Feb 21, 2017, 10:05: What is there to even be offended about? The boy-loving part I guess? Greeks sexing up little boys must be one of the oldest jokes in history. Being able to see that they are generally hairy and love olive oil are really weird things to be offended by. Racism and stereotypes aren't the same thing. I've no time or concern for people being offended over jokes. Most PC idiots are only interested in suppressing speech without even attempting to understand the message they are suppressing. The idea that "only right wingers can hate PC culture" is absurd. I think most people here know I am a staunch supporter of free speech, even if that speech is shitty. It's a tragedy what modern Greece has become So you would say that it's a Greek tragedy? Thanks, I got a new book of PC Dad jokes and I'll be here all week. :p Here here. djinn wrote on Feb 20, 2017, 11:56: Needs bailout money from 'Reinhardt' for equipment. The irony being that the last straw that perpetuated the Greek public sector collapse was a kickback scheme where Greece purchased German arms so as to funnel money out of Greece to Germany via interest payments. Which after the global financial crisis they suddenly couldn't afford. -scheherazade

Re: Evening Legal Briefs

Feb 3, 2017, 01:44

Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:29: Scheherazade wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:26: Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:05: Scheherazade wrote on Feb 2, 2017, 23:57: We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded. Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact. -scheherazade if he was lying, then its not "giving their opinion"... lying is sorta the definition of "knew otherwise for a fact" Prove it. He could have easily "made a mistake". No intent, no crime. -scheherazade you were the one who said you were sure the expert was lying or retarded YOU prove it I'll refer back to my earlier post : "you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact." The 'prove they knew' part is key. Even if you can prove that an actual expert certainly should have known better, the expert need only say "I made a mistake". Unless there was intent and the guy decided to write down his intentions in a diary, you won't be able to prove it - hence why the phrase "prove it" is on point. To clarify, I was referring to 'Carmack googling how to secure erase a drive'. The man is an expert among experts among experts... having to look up a command that basic IT guys know of the top of their head is a stretch. Like claiming a car mechanic had to google how to change motor oil, or a carpenter googling how to swing a hammer. It's just too basic - makes it incredibly hard to believe. Keep in mind - I could be wrong. If Carmack did in fact google secure erase for his own purposes, then he must have had a massive stroke of negligence and complacency - which I concede is in the realm of possibility for anyone. He's certainly aware of all the various logs that are kept in IT, meaning he'd be aware that he'd be producing an "orgy of evidence". Which again, seems an unlikely thing to do if one is actively up to no good. edit : I'll end the posting here. I'm rambling on about earlier links that aren't even related to the non-literal copying element of the case (which is supposed to be the topic). -schehearazade This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2017, 02:55.

Re: Evening Legal Briefs

Feb 3, 2017, 01:26

Agent-Zero wrote on Feb 3, 2017, 01:05: Scheherazade wrote on Feb 2, 2017, 23:57: We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded. Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact. -scheherazade if he was lying, then its not "giving their opinion"... lying is sorta the definition of "knew otherwise for a fact" Prove it. He could have easily "made a mistake"(optional sarcasm). No intent, no crime. What's obvious to computer literates, and what you can 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' to computer illiterate plebs, are two different things. I mean that regarding both the original case, and regarding the idea that the expert was full of crap. -scheherazade This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2017, 02:41.

Re: Evening Legal Briefs

Feb 2, 2017, 23:57

(edit : Regarding Carmack needing to google how to secure erase. This is my opinion. Clearly I can't give physical evidence for it.) We can be sure that the expert was either lying or retarded. All it takes to secure wipe a drive is : boot a linux live cd. dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/<the drive> [maybe even run it a few times over... if that makes you feel better] If I know that, carmack definitely does. (edit : in general regarding secure erasure artifacts - not specifically this case) You can prove that any drive has been 'secure erased in the past' with 2 simple conditions : 1) It contained compressed data (zip, video, etc) (secure erased data appears random - as does compressed data. Regularity allows for compression, which is why compressed appears irregular (random)) 2) It has been quick formatted in the past, and subsequently used. This will leave dangling chunks of random data with no file system entry associated. If the header of such files is overwritten, it can't be identified, and ends up appearing as previously secure erased blocks. (edit: regarding computer cases in court - not just this case) Given that juries are vetted for zero bias (i.e. they would be picked from computer illiterates that have no prior opinions), the 'experts' are considered unbiased authorities on the truth that the jury defers to for technical opinion. (edit : regarding false expert testimony - in general, not specifically this case) Also, you can't sue someone for giving their opinion - unless you can prove that they knew otherwise for a fact. -scheherazade This comment was edited on Feb 3, 2017, 02:08.

News Comments > etc.

Re: etc.

Dec 22, 2016, 10:48

News Comments > Descent: Underground in Development on GOG.com

Well, L, and maybe B. G and T are a stretch. Pigeon wrote on Dec 21, 2016, 15:18: Fion wrote on Dec 21, 2016, 14:15: I haven't read it yet but many of us Overwatch fans already knew that Zarya was gay. How do you know it's Zarya? Infusing IRL probabilities into the OW universe : hella butch woman = elevated chance of being in the L or T camp. But then again, I would be tickled if the authors decided to go for the twist/unexpected angle and just reverse all the stereotypical appearances. Zarya turns out to be the only straight character in game. Widow killed her husband because she no longer liked men and wanted to shack up with Mercy and he wouldn't giver her a divorce. Morrison and Gabriel split apart Overwatch because they had a bad breakup. Reinhart is Phara's dad, but only in the capacity of a sperm donor - because Ana and Mei wanted kids. Symmetra is really a man. So on and so forth. Come on Blizzard. Do it. I want to read the forums afterwards and get a good chuckle. Make my Christmas. -scheherazade

21.

Re: Descent: Underground in Development on GOG.com

Dec 22, 2016, 10:32

Esoteric wrote on Dec 22, 2016, 03:13: Why aren't there more modern games like Magic Carpet? Why aren't there more modern games like [most of what Bullfrog ever made]? (Personally, I loved Magic Carpet and Syndicate. Dungeon Keeper and Populous were pretty good too.) -scheherazade

17.

Re: Evening Safety Dance

Dec 16, 2016, 03:42

News Comments > Out of the Blue

Quboid wrote on Dec 13, 2016, 00:22: Scheherazade wrote on Dec 12, 2016, 14:54: In any case, it's important to keep game theory in mind, as a filter. Simply accepting that someone is your enemy, because someone else tells you so, is insufficient. They have to actually _be_ an enemy - by their actions. -scheherazade They do plenty of things that I'm not going to bother listing out. I don't mean they plan to declare war any time soon but there are plenty of people in positions of power who don't like us and as powerful competitors they will exploit any weakness. They wanted Trump elected because he has and will create plenty of weaknesses in the West. The actions of the US and other countries are irrelevant. There is plenty about our foreign policies that I don't like but that does not mean we shouldn't care about danger, be it economic, political, cyber or military. Disbanding NATO won't stop the Vietnam war from being a colossal screw-up. Plan to declare war (or are at war) is a primary criteria for being an enemy. Simply competing for influence isn't being an enemy, It's just competing. And that's fine. People like to conflate existential danger with danger of performing worse in markets. They're not the same. Although I get how the rhetoric can help sell things like sanctions, which help to suppress competitor market performance, certainly to the delight of some big money (and big donors). Sometimes it's the opposite effect, like if sanctions can topple a closed regime, then it could open a market to sell goods, which is also something big money likes. Regarding disbanding NATO, Trump flipped on that ages ago. He's now pro-NATO.(Really, who knows what the guy wants...) I can infer from his cabinet choices that he wants to grow the influence of large industry (well, at least the few big players that come to play ball), which honestly may or may not be good in the long run. Industry tends to not see national borders, and prefers the money to keep flowing, so he may prefer to normalize relations all around regardless. Industry also tends to not care about worker welfare (unless it needs to), a path which would provide for an ironic twist to the labor protectionist voter base that went so heavily Trump. It's also important to keep in mind that the Russian military is in utter shambles. Practically, there is no amount of weakening Russia can do to the US or NATO that would make Russia competitive in a conventional force sense. Just look at their navy... the bulk of it is in storage or scrapped, with what remains hanging on with shoestring and sellotape. Their air force can't afford to fly and train. Every branch lacks support. Sure, they're powerful enough compared to the little places in the world, but that's not saying much. As a side note, regarding hacking : Everyone is hacking everyone. And the sky is blue. You can always say "_____ was trying to hack us prior to the election" (Write in any nation you wish, odds are it's a true statement). ~Every country has an intelligence agency, and hacking is just part of what they do. Plus there are plenty of bored nerds doing it just for a laugh. Was/is Russia trying to hack the US? 99% yes (and we're hacking them too). Were they the ones who did the DNC leak? Not proven with any public evidence. Russia gets name dropped real quick, way too quick for forensics to back it up at the time they are called out - and that specifically is the eyeroll worthy part of things. It doesn't make any difference to me who did it, and if it's Russia, then it's Russia. It's the neo-cold-war behavior-isms that seemingly no one even pretends to try to make look neutral that are face-palm worthy. Re the history stuff, you mentioned 'history of Russia being our enemy', so I went down the list of US/Russia conflict based interactions (proxy wars), and how they were not patently Russian aggression, but rather Russian involvement was more of a mixxed bag - often as a check against our own efforts (A 'pot, meet kettle' sorta thing...). Most the other complaints that are not based on US/Russian interaction also had their reasons. Cuban missile crisis (a Russian/Cuban interaction that we didn't like) was a hedge against our own missile installations in Turkey. The communist purges were done to secure the country from any opportunistic efforts to restore the monarchy. While the effort was certainly Machiavellian, there was a real risk of the previous power players rallying support from those that had benefited under them (along with foreign supporters which didn't care for nationalization of industry and the idea that such concepts could spread to their own nations). It's certainly not unique to Russia. The Jacobins were far harsher in France... and they failed, the monarchy was restored some years later during the Bourbon Restoration (albeit the cat was out of the bag, and they never had the level of power of the previous monarchy). Point being, it wasn't anything new or unusual, as just about every country has had multiple events like this throughout history. It was rather common practice after any lord conquered another lord, to purge the family and supporters of the previous lord. The initial totalitarianism, while labelled a communist trait, was actually a common symptom if revolution that you can see throughout history in various revolutions. Usually, incumbent power does not give up power, it has to be taken by military means. In order to face an incumbent military, the people need to coordinate into a paramilitary of their own - which requires leadership. Should they succeed, their subsequent civil leader is almost always their previous paramilitary leader. The initial period following, this leader still has the stature and loyalty of his military past, and like in a military, his word is final. But this is something that (unless well maintained) fades away as lower level power brokers vie for influence, and eventually the leader ends up depending on them more than vice versa. You can see this in how Lenin and Stalin were powerful figures, but by the time Gorbachev was in power, he was barely more than a bobble head for the party. In the beginning, the party fears the leader. Later, the leader fears the party. Again, not unique or unusual, historically speaking. The only real dick move in recent history is Russia not letting Georgia leave freely. Then again, Georgia showed how it's no better during the situation with South Ossetia, so 'meh' to Georgia. -scheherazade This comment was edited on Dec 16, 2016, 04:25.

16.

Re: Out of the Blue

Dec 13, 2016, 19:53

Pigeon wrote on Dec 13, 2016, 11:07: Which one of those squares in Al Gore's house ? Also I take it operating in the glacial tundra that is Wisconsin in the winter is the only way the battery in a hover board won't overheat and explode. AFAIK Al Gore's involvement was in legislation that gave the public access to the internet (instead of the internet being a defense-and-related only closed program). -scheherazade

15.

Re: Evening Safety Dance

Dec 12, 2016, 14:54

Quboid wrote on Dec 12, 2016, 09:30: "Since when is Russia our enemy?" Open a history book. What, a grade school history book? All we did was do our best to contain a political system that, if it spread to the U.S., would have put the industrialists (the people that pay our politicians) out of business. But sure, let's break down some history : (The other viewpoint to what we are told in grade school) Preface : Russian communism was birthed from a society living under a monarchy, where people worked in factories 16 hours a day 7 days a week since childhood - for barely enough pay to not starve, make rent, and buy some clothes. The only way to get ahead was via military prowess (enlisting and working your way up). It was a popular (democratic) revolution where the unwashed peon masses took over (with the help of their family/supporters in the military) and created what in their uneducated eyes was what they considered utopia : No worries about work/food/shelter. All basics provided, no fear of starvation, abuse by some robberbaron, etc. To western industrialists, the idea of worker underlings taking over industry, was an abomination. A reversal of the natural order. Much like how monarchies viewed the U.S./French republics as abominations : the people rising above the monarchy was a reversal of the natural order. This fear, that the incumbent powers could be toppled and made redundant by those beneath them - that was the source of the anti-communist effort in the west. Everything and everyone in power (in the west) stood against such a change - as a matter of self preservation. In the span of a single generation, Russians elevated a largely backwater society into near complete literacy and a high rate of college education. They raised the common person's quality of life to a level they wouldn't have imagined possible just years earlier. The flaw was that the system outlived its usefulness. After people are provided for, and after society becomes educated, the system could not answer a simple question : "Now what?". It had no future, nowhere to go. The method it used to bring about change (universal government employment, guaranteed wages, guaranteed jobs), had no room to grow. People wanted to take their new wealth and knowledge, and apply it to personal gain. They wanted to start their own private businesses and industries - but that was against the law. Newer generations grew up always assured of employment no matter how poorly they perform. People would go to work, sit on their hands, drink, screw off, produce damn near nothing, and get paid. People would go to college, become professionals, and be given jobs for which there is no demand. Lazy unproductive complacent workers meant empty store shelves, and unhappy people. People whose relatives in the west could buy things like jeans, could send them to the east, and make everyone jealous of cousin Vassily's new pants that they can't buy for themselves. Envy and unrest doomed communist Russia. Even though the west likes to take credit, pointing to its efforts as a success, but in fact Russia imploded under the weight of its own complacency. WW2 : We sat on our hands before joining the fight against mainland Germany, hoping Russia/Germany would mutually eradicate one another - running around picking up colonial assets in Africa - only entering the war against Germany ~8 months before it was over, mostly to grab some land before everything German can surrender to Russia. (Aside : BTW, this is when the west promised Syria independence from Turkey if they help fight Turkey, so Syria joined the Allies. Afterwards Britain/France betrayed Syria and chopped up Syria into Lebanon/Jordan/Syria and turned the pieces into British/French colonies. The reason France hates Assad so much is because his father's government kicked out the French occupiers in the 70's). Korea : WW2 partisan resistance to the Japanese forms a government after the war. It's a popular government behind which Koreans rally. US/Russia promise to cede control of N/S Korea to this government after custodianship expires. After expiration, Russia hands over North Korea. US Refuses to hand over south, and props up the U.S. South Korean provisional government. Korean people in SKorea protest. US SKorean provisional government kills around 150'000 protesters. Going as far as hunting down protesters that ran off to hide in caves. There are literally cave monuments to the people mass executed in caves. Korean proxy war ensues. (To be clear, modern NK govt is a steaming pile of shit, and I'm sure that in the long run no one in SKorea regrets how things went down.) Vietnam : FOIA request came out a few years ago that showed that the in the 1st gulf of Tonkin incident the U.S. captain swam into a Korean bay and ordered any ship that comes within 10km to be fired upon - upon which the U.S. ship attacked a korean ship. And later lied about being attacked. The 2nd gulf incident (regarding 'aggressive' sonar contacts) ended up being literally nothing. Proxy war ensued. Communists eventually win... and nothing. People moved on with their lives. Afghanistan : Afghan government enacts land reforms - abolishing feudalism. Religious plebs and their local lords protest because the Koran says that feudalism is the right way to live. They form an insurgency - emboldened by the Muslim takeover in Iran. Afghan president Taraki asked for Russian help in defeating the insurgents. Russia joins the Afghan government in the fight against Muslim terrorists (because it doesn't want 'another Iran' on its border). U.S. arms the terrorists, and bribes the afghan opposition party to leak battle plans to the terrorists, and later to assassinate key politicians. Russia finds out about the Afghan internal government treason, and kicks out the traitors. The Afghan army joins sides with Russian forces and continues fighting the terrorists. The war draws out and the Afghan people get sick of it, and get tired of Russia running the show. Russia gets tired of stingers shooting down their helicopters, and after a while Russia goes home. U.S. declares the 'Russian invaders defeated', and the afghan war over... Afghan army continues to fight the U.S. armed Muslim terrorists all the way until the 90's (long after the U.S. declared the war 'over' and forgot about Afghanistan.) And only a few years after the terrorists win : 9-11. Point being, we've had to sell a lot of political containment and proxy wars to the U.S. public across the years. That in turn bleeds into the surface-level history we teach. Going beyond the surface, Russian involvement in our proxy conflicts hasn't been as malicious as is popularly presented here, and neither are we as nice as we like to think of ourselves. The 'big stick' era did not disappear - it simply moved from South America to the globe. It reminds me of a saying, something along the lines of : don't piss on someone and call it rain. Modern capitalist Russia's greatest fault is that they are one of the few countries that has the means to stand up for itself, and actually has enough pride to try, even if it means economic losses. They are a competitor. They enforce their own laws, their own trademarks, their own copyrights, their own trade agreements, and that's annoying to business interests abroad who would prefer that Russia homogenize. There is a canyon's worth of difference between 'being a competitor/annoying/standing up for one's self', and 'being an enemy'. Especially when mutually assured destruction makes it extremely unlikely that either the U.S. or Russia will ever be real enemies. At worst disgruntled neighbors (so long as NeoLiberal antagonistic policies don't get worse). In any case, it's important to keep game theory in mind, as a filter. Simply accepting that someone is your enemy, because someone else tells you so, is insufficient. They have to actually _be_ an enemy - by their actions. -scheherazade This comment was edited on Dec 12, 2016, 19:37.

13.

Re: Evening Safety Dance

Dec 12, 2016, 03:47

Quboid wrote on Dec 11, 2016, 10:53: Scheherazade wrote on Dec 11, 2016, 02:55: I presume you are referring to 'Trump elected = ruin'? No, the Russians. They didn't influence the election because they have your best interests at heart, they wanted to get Trump elected because that is best for them and worst for their biggest enemy. I'm not saying anyone should ignore the message, but one party isn't as important as your entire system of democracy and that's Russia's target. The Republicans in general are weird right now. Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave. Since when is Russia our enemy? I mean, other than according to empty words in the media... It's not like they've _done_ anything to us. Even the crap the media complains about is vapid. Media complains about Russia bombing Syria? ... like we are? At least they are there with the invite/permission of Syria's government. So Russia supports Assad - a secular leader behind which Christians/atheists/moderates are hiding, while we support the moderate rebels (the 2nd hama uprising, trying to bring about sharia law). Meh'. Media complains about Syrian cities running out of medical supplies, and Russia is making it worse? How about mentioning that the west has an embargo on Syria (U.S. led afaik), and those medical supplies are Russian sourced to begin with. Given the context, it's not a very weighty argument. Media complains about Russia supporting independence of eastern Ukraine? Unlike us who support the neo nazi (literally, not hyperbole, look up 'right sector') coup government of 2014 that overthrew Ukraine's democracy... and for what? Because the coup government hates Russia and likes the EU (and persecutes the enthnic Russians living in the east), so we like them? Again, meh'. Every media talking point I've dug into, soon as you get below the surface, looks like elementary school 'nuh uh' type arguing. Things happen for reasons, and I've yet to see any case of clear outright villainous behavior. I'm still waiting for someone to show something concrete that proves Russia is an actual enemy of the U.S.. Oh yeah, Russia scapegoats gays. There is that. Not exactly an attack on the U.S.. Dickish as it may be. If Trump can make nice and put an end to all the posturing, that would be a good thing. I know every government loves an enemy, and nothing sells arms for as low a cost as a cold war, but I'd rather not resurrect that era. There's a really short list of countries capable of paving us flat inside of 15 minutes, I'd rather not poke those countries, especially when the reasoning for doing it is iffy at best. -scheherazade This comment was edited on Dec 12, 2016, 03:57.

Re: Evening Safety Dance

Dec 11, 2016, 02:55

Quboid wrote on Dec 10, 2016, 09:20: Scheherazade wrote on Dec 10, 2016, 05:40: I'm amused how people care more about who was the messenger, than they do about the message. I'm surprised by how some people like the message so much, they don't like discussion about who the messenger was or what the messenger might want to achieve. Perhaps when you like how the people who would turn your country to rubble are interfering, introspection is unpleasant. Let's be clear, the information provided was from the democratic party itself, and it exposed how the democratic party was subverting democracy by working to bias the primary election. The 3rd party that facilitated leaking of that information, did not author that information, and was itself not stating that they are the primary source. The primary source (DNC) did not deny the legitimacy, and only complained about the fact that it even happened (the leak). Personally, I say "thank you" to whoever leaked it. These are the kinds of leaks we _need_ in order to have legitimate elections. I presume you are referring to 'Trump elected = ruin'? Given how close Bernie was to Hillary in the primary, and how he could have been the candidate had the democratic party not worked to undo him, and how he likely would have shat all over Trump in the general election (polls had him favored against trump by a significantly larger margin than Hillary) ... tbh, the democratic party deserved to get crapped on in the election. Maybe they will learn to not be aholes to their own supporters. In any case, dems will be back in 2 years. The government shits the bed every year no matter who is in charge, hence folks are always tired of whoever they have, and it flip flops dem rep election over election. Hence the legislature will go dem in 2 years. Then we can go back to the stalemate and inaction that keeps this country from getting completely picked apart by regulatory capture. eRe4s3r wrote on Dec 11, 2016, 00:37: Scheherazade wrote on Dec 10, 2016, 05:40: I'm amused how people care more about who was the messenger, than they do about the message. And yet in your sidenote you make clear that the only thing that matters when we know the facts, is who tells you otherwise and why. Not what he says specifically. The messenger is far more important than the message. If you don't know the intention of the former, you can't trust the latter whatsoever. Hence, establishing that CIA says thing X, means it's 100% bullshit no matter what is said. An agency built upon lies, will never ever tell you the truth. Critical analysis matters. Arbitrary claims depend heavily on the messenger. Leaked documents whose apparent author in no way denies are legitimate (but rather cries about how unfair it is that someone other than 'whoever they intended/desired' got a chance to read them), are another. The point of the side note was to illustrate how the government likes to accuse 'whoever they don't like' of 'anything undesirable that happens' - immediately, off the cuff, and without evidence. And whenever evidence comes along that shows otherwise, instead of saying 'sorry', they just fall quiet and hope no one pays attention. It pertains to how they blame Russia for the hack, without actually knowing if Russia did or didn't commit the hack, because the evidence they point to is tangential and not specific to Russia (hacking style). Simply : Who did it? Russia. BAM. Answer is immediate. The investigation follows later - and let's be honest, they are only interested in finding and presenting information that corroborates. Any info that doesn't corroborate or disproves : that info gets filed away and it's crickets about that info from then on. You don't find out until some FOIA request 30 years later after it's ancient history. But in any case, this is academic. The DNC doesn't deny the documents are real... which is why I couldn't care less who delivered the message. And it's why no other unbiased person should either. I should add : The leaked info was no surprise for me. I expect that every party will make an effort to sell its incumbent interests and the candidates that champion those interests. I'm 100% confident Republicans do the same, and were simply fortunate enough to not get compromised. It in no way affected my vote. The only thing it did was give me a chuckle from watching politicians squirm after people see the shit stains on their dirty laundry. -scheherazade This comment was edited on Dec 11, 2016, 05:11.

Re: Evening Safety Dance

Dec 10, 2016, 05:40

I'm amused how people care more about who was the messenger, than they do about the message. sidenote : Apparently some Romanian hacker took credit and wikileaks corroborated him as the source - rather early, prior to election, and no one cared. The govt's evidence is only that the hack was in a 'Russian style' (which happens to be the style of all eastern European hackers that frequent the same forums). Reminds me of the Syrian gas attack noise (albeit that went real quiet after it turned out that it was most likely the rebels that did it), and even the relief convoy bombing (that also went quiet after it turned out that it was most likely shelled by nearby combatants and not bombed by Russian/Syrian planes). -scheherazade

News Comments > etc.

20.

Re: etc.

Jul 19, 2016, 20:28

News Comments > Out of the Blue

KS wrote on Jul 17, 2016, 09:40: Scheherazade wrote on Jul 16, 2016, 13:31: #CulturalAppropriationOnlyExistsInTheUSAOtherPlacesAreHappyToSeeFolksAppreciateTheirCulture -scheherazade Cultural appropriation, as a "bad thing", is an inherently racist idea. Humans are minds, not DNA, and minds see successful ideas and learn them. To say you can't, because your DNA is not regulation-approved, is grotesquely racist. What's your point? The idea of getting mad about other people appearing as something of your own culture is uniquely of the U.S.. Other nations don't get upset about these things. eg. A white person(s) wearing kimono in the U.S. at a Japanese themed party is called out as "cultural appropriation", and they're called racist. Show that same person(s) to a Japanese national, and they think it's cool that they're doing a Japanese theme, and rather than be offended they're pleased. You'd have to search far and wide to find exceptions. -scheherazade

Re: Out of the Blue

Jul 16, 2016, 13:38

Oh well. Looks like this time the Turkish military failed to preserve secularity in Turkish government. Wonder how much more totalitarian/churchy/rightwing the Turkish government will become before it happens again. -scheherazade

News Comments > etc.

Re: etc.

Jul 16, 2016, 13:31

News Comments > GeForce 10 DPC Latency Issue

#CulturalAppropriationOnlyExistsInTheUSAOtherPlacesAreHappyToSeeFolksAppreciateTheirCulture -scheherazade

13.

Re: GeForce 10 DPC Latency Issue

Jul 15, 2016, 15:28

News Comments > GeForce 10 DPC Latency Issue

Peter M. Smith wrote on Jul 15, 2016, 15:21: Scheherazade wrote on Jul 15, 2016, 14:51: Mine was doing this real bad. Ran DDU and installed latest drivers - it helped a lot, but still was janky. Then I restored a clean image of my OS (fresh install with no drivers added), and installed only the latest drivers all-around. Night and day difference. Silky smooth and stutter free. -scheherazade When you installed the drivers originally, did you check the "Get rid of everything, install fresh" option? Always. But that's not the same as DDU. The 'fresh install' option just does an uninstall of the current version before installing the new version. It's not a system sweep of any/all files/references/etc like DDU tries to do. Realistically, the only way to guarantee that there is no junk/infestation from old drivers, is to load a clean image and install fresh. Can't be infested by something that didn't yet exist (in that system). -scheherazade

10.

Re: GeForce 10 DPC Latency Issue

Jul 15, 2016, 14:51