GunlogAlm

Even the name... Zucktown.

That's a really good analogy to use, and resonates with me a lot (ADHD-PI). Thanks for this, I'm going to use it.

It's not different. As in: both are fine. It's not a crime to link to a site that links to content; TPB itself hosts no content. Linking is not a crime.

https://thepiratebay.org

Hundreds of Comcast users, to be clear. And that's just the article's random number, I doubt there's anything backing it up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the vast majority of cases of hypercalcaemia caused by excessive D consumption involve daily doses of 40-50,000 IU? I'm sure I've read this before. If 20,000 IU is high, 50,000 IU must be enormous, so I too would very much doubt 2,000 is 'high'.

> It is too slow to load many such large images automatically.

The images don't all load automatically, though; an image only begins to load when you click on it individually, opening it within the viewer, on a Google Images results page.

Here[0] is a screenshot example. Clicking on 'Open image in new tab' (or 'View Image' in Firefox) will open the image[1] directly, and inspecting the page's source will reveal it is simply an <img> element with the URL as the src value. The size ought to make no difference; I tried up to 10 MP.

It may take a second to load, but that's how Google Images works: once an image is open in the viewer, it is quite literally just embedding the unadulterated source image within the page. It has been this way since at least 2010.

(Unless, of course, there is behaviour unique to Safari or OS X: of that I have no idea.)

[0]: https://i.imgur.com/mYAFr0J.jpg

[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Winnersh...

Are you sure you're actually clicking the images first, so they're brought up in the image viewer box with the other options available, and then right-clicking -> View Image/Open Image/whatever?

If you are, then that's very strange, and I have no idea why that's happening for you and not for anybody else. What browser and OS are you using?

All images you click on are fully loaded, images you don't click on are Google-hosted thumbnails. No exceptions.

Do you? I don't. I'm using google.co.uk on PC, with both Chrome and Firefox, and can always freely get the image this way.

You do have to wait for the image to have fully loaded, mind, but otherwise it's quite literally embedding the image anyway - right-click, View Image, and you've got it.

:) The BBC are usually quite good with directly linking their sources, when it's reports or studies (or anything in PDF form). The Guardian are similarly good in that regard, too.

You can still right-click -> View Image/Open image in new tab/etc., of course, but I do agree the Show Image button was handy.

> How nice of the BBC guys to provide not the source.

The article's second sentence is the source - a link to the PDF - and it has been in the article since it was published.

Thanks. My first question was "Government? Which government?"

Yes, scare quotes. That is what scare quotes are.

I think the Dunning–Kruger effect is fairly well established, so I'm not sure why you'd put "researchers" in scare quotes.

> I can't find a way in the new UI to go back more than ~6 months of conversation history.

First, you'll want to make sure Skype is set to keep message history forever: Skype -> Privacy -> Keep history for... -> Forever

Then, you can right-click on a contact -> View Old Messages -> 1 Year, etc.

This is assuming you're using Skype, and not Skype for Business; they are not the same: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype_for_Business

But... Skype does remember conversation history?

Yes, more people than ever.

MoneyGram isn't loss-making, where did you get that idea from?

Interestingly, the map has Brasil, a mythical island off the coast of Ireland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brasil_(mythical_island)

Temporarily, presumably because they now have free access? At least amongst those who simply want access in the short-term, and aren't hardcore campaigners for the cause.

Their proof-of-concept only reads memory from the browser it's running within, right? Violating browser sandboxing, yes, but does that mean it would also (theoretically) be able to access the memory of other programs?

Is it? If it identifies itself as an advertisement, I see no distinction.

Really? I've heard of the FBI becoming involved in the investigation of a crime seemingly due solely to its large monetary impact.

> The amount of negative press this received nearly cancels out all the positive news from Quantum's release barely a month ago.

Which is silly, IMO. What did this addon actually do, besides be installed without user consent? If this article is correct, the addon was installed automatically but was not 'activated'. Seems like a fuss over nothing, to me, but somebody correct me if I have the details wrong.

No, you didn't. You may have learnt about immunological memory, but not the discovery this article is discussing.

Ah, the old "private charity will solve all our problems" meme.

Realistically, they won't be storing any bitcoins, they will immediately convert it to USD.

Their journalism generally is very good, certainly better than the majority of British newspapers and tabloids. Their opinion articles, however, range from decent to atrocious - I tend to ignore the 'Comment is Free' section now, unless I'm familiar with a piece's author.

Same here (Devon, UK) — although I do use the WiFi we have on buses here, and occasionally when in cafés.