Slashdot Mirror

Maybe, but I can see it happening:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielk...

I saw this yesterday: It proves to me that people really are getting stupider at an alarming rate and that the internet as we once knew it is done for. We might as well just pack it all up and go home, boys.

You want proof?

How about we start with this:

Oz many times acknowledged products he told viewers to use are not scientifically supported and don't have the research to be presented as fact.

He has more or less publicly admitted that he hawks stuff which there is insufficient evidence for.

He's a paid shill, with little medical credibility, because he advocates which he is paid to advocate.

Which means he has now stayed into being entertainment, but not fact or medicine. But he sure as hell isn't acting as a credible medical professional.

The single simplest answer I can come up with is "no exceptions". English is dumb like that: "i before e, except after 'c'...or when you run a feisty heist on a weird, caffeinated, foreign, beige, Atheist neighbor". We make a word plural by adding an 's' at the end...except for womans, childs, mans, oxs, mouses, mooses, gooses, and about 1,001 other 'exceptions'. Verb conjugation is a mess, typically using "helping verbs" to establish tense, except when you don't. Then, there are vowels. Spanish has this right "a" (ah), "e" (eh), "i" (ee), "o" (oh), "u" (oo), no exceptions. English has a "short" and "long" sound for each, and then there's the "schwa" sound, because apparently simply using a "short u" when you need one is too complicated for English. And then, there's this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/annane....

Trying to find a common denominator between Mandarin, Hungarian, Creole, and English is highly unlikely to happen. So, from my experience with languages, which is "English, with a high school understanding of Spanish and a handful of core phrases in other European languages (i.e. I can ask for a bathroom throughout Europe), my core answer would be consistency. This letter makes this sound, no exceptions. This word ending means that the word is in this tense, no exceptions.

Finally, minimize the "through context" words-with-multiple-meanings situation; "love" being a great example. If you love your mother, your super-fast computer, bacon, and your spouse the same way, then the language is the least of your problems....

If Uber is so profitable for drivers then why are some Uber drivers striking over wages/working conditions?

The most amazing thing about the current Australian government is the Prime Minister, Toxic Tony and his pals, scammed their own party member representatives with a email bombing campaign to stay in power (the gist of the campaign being the people still wanted Toxic Tony in power). So they were setting up their own party to loose big time in the next election by actively ignoring their own electorate, so that Toxic Tony and Co could cash in on bigger government pensions as long as they hold those offices for three years. You can see now why the current LNP leadership, Toxic Tony and co are desperate to implement across the board censorship. http://www.buzzfeed.com/markdi... Don't think for a second that they were not fully aware of what was going on.

My dear friend, you do not understand how these things work.

You work at NSA, you are always using the latest, newest, biggest, baddest, sweetest technology ever devised by men. You literally have computer companies begging you to buy their stuff. For a lot of these people (heck, that may even include me) that is motivation enough.

AND, if you are discreet about it, you can even be privy to potentially very lucrative a lot of state secrets. Or even personal secrets, who knows?. Obviously, if Snowden gave us something, it is the knowledge that NSA is not very good at information compartmentalization...

But here is the kicker: if you ever decide to leave the NSA, for retirement or otherwise, the private sector (at least the US private sector) will greet you with open arms and pay you a sh*tload of money to work as a consultant or senior manager. And we are talking about a SH*TLOAD of money, conflict of interests be damned. You are now one of the big boys, kid, enjoy your (semi-)retirement.

No need to betray US interests, no need to reveal super secret information: you are NSA. You are above the law. Just leave your morals at the door, please.

As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I—I don’t even want—why would I ever want to do e-mail? .... Can you imagine?

Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/watch-an-old-home-movie-from-2000-where-hillary-clinton-said#.re86K3GRo

When she became Secretary of State, she had to use e-mail. Hence, she got her own private server (at home where it was under protection of the 4th Amendment).

For all his talk of doing what's right instead of what's convenient, the actual right way to bring his concerns about the government and the military to the public's eye would have been to find like-minded people, form a group, start some grassroots activism and some protests to get exposure, and work towards getting his issues on a ballot. But, no, that would be too slow and inconvienient, so he decided to go the easy route of instant gratification by smashing some satellites.

That is awfully naive. A presidential election costs each candidate $1 billion, and they raise the money mostly from billionaire contributors and corporate interests. Politicians don't listen to grassroots activists, they listen to $100,000 contributors.

A lot of people did just what you described to try to stop the Iraq war. It didn't work. So we killed 650,000 innocent people and handed over Iraq to ISIS. Good work, Bushie! (BTW, there were no WMDs.)

A lot of people did just what you described, after Obama was elected, to push for a single payer health care system, and when that didn't work, for a public option, but they couldn't match the big lobbying groups, like the drug industry, the hospitals, and the insurance companies. So now you have to pay $8,500 a year for health care.

Even Martin Luther King couldn't get anywhere without some pretty powerful supporters who could raise a lot of money and pull some political strings. (And the FBI was tapping his phones.) I'm not sure MLK could have done it today. He might have wound up with a 20-year sentence for terrorism.

The U.S. is getting economically more unequal, the plutocrats are running the country, the Republicans have figured out a way to fool most of the people most of the time (TV), and I don't see a way out. If some radical wants to take direct action, doing something crazy that seems pointless to me, I can't tell him that I have a better way. If we're going to talk about futile destruction, destroying a $50 million satellite makes a lot more sense than signing up to fight in Iraq.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kateno...
Bernie’s Reasons Why Not
The progressive champion weighs running for president. “The situation is fairly dismal.”
Kate Nocera and Ben Smith
BuzzFeed
March 4, 2015
(Bernie Sanders may not run against Hillary Clinton for 2 reasons: (1) It has to be done well, or people will say that the ideas themselves don't have support. (2) It may be impossible to raise enough money to compete with Hillary Clinton, whose network plans to raise $500 million.)
“The depressing part about that is that even if you did something phenomenally well — say you have 3 million people giving a $100 contribution each, which would be an enormous achievement — you’d be raising one-third of what the Koch brothers say they are spending.”
“The question then occurs whether or not at this point in history you can beat the money folks,” he muses. “It may be that they have too much power and too much money and a real progressive may not be able to take them on.”

In the US, broadcast radio stations pay no performance royalties at all. That's right, zero. They do pay songwriter royalties. They are also likely to receive promotional funds from record companies that at least offset any royalties they pay.

Spotify is an interesting case because it has both free and premium tiers, and the rate of pay for the two sets of listeners is very different. A listen by a premium listener is currently worth about 10 times as much as a free listener. Basically, the way it works is that 70% of their subscription revenue gets divided among all the listens by premium members, and 70% of their advertising revenue gets divided among all the free plays. (I suspect there are a few additional complications but that's close enough for our discussion.) The gap between the two rates may narrow in the future if the company sells more ads and/or manages to charge more for them.

Some people think that both of Spotify's payment rates are too low. Some others think the rate for free plays is too low and wanted to restrict their content to premium members, but Spotify won't let them do that; it's all or nothing. The all or nothing approach may be better in the long term, because it will increase the value of the free tier and make it more attractive to advertisers. Spotify also believes that it is good for business, because it's easier to get people into the fold first and then upsell them on getting rid of ads than it is to make them pay from the start. (Reference: http://www.buzzfeed.com/reggie... )

There is also the question of how the expected upcoming product from Apple will affect the on-demand streaming market. Apple already owns Beats Music but hasn't promoted it heavily since the acquisition, probably because they plan to replace it with a new Apple-branded service. Most analysts believe that Apple won't offer a free tier; Beats does not though they do offer a free trial. If significant amounts of music goes bypasses Spotify because artists don't like the low payment rate for free Spotify plays (this has already happened with a few like Taylor Swift), Spotify may have to change its position and allow premium-only content.

Uber has already won

I love the smell of smoldering luddites in the dawn of a new age.

I wonder if the whole Secret Wars move is really Marvel playing hardball with fox and sony. "Start playing nice with the licenses you extracted when we were hard up for money, or we just end the entire universe and make said licenses worthless by default." Battleworld just sounds so contrived that it's difficult to believe that it's not part of some strategic move, rather than any reasonable plot creativity.

Or was Ethan Czahor too busy redacting his Twitter feed?

Uh, no. The "certification industry" as you call it is based on a history much older than industry and it isn't about "maintaining scarcity" or "wages and tuition artificially high." Accreditation is about standards for an institution of higher learning. You can look at the scandals around for-profit organizations like Corinthian College, Inc. as a perfect example of why it's important to protect and foster higher education standards. Yes, "communication, coaching and mentoring" are important skills in a good teacher, but great teachers understand critical thinking and have the ability to repackage complex ideas in multiple ways to be accessible to a variety of learning styles and people. Disclaimer: I'm married to one of America's recognized experts in rhetoric, critical thinking, communication and teaching with technology.

Uber and Lyft is NOT Rideshare!

Rideshare is transportation by carpool, vanpool, and, in many implementations, bus, train, bike, and walking. The term "Rideshare" has been in use for DECADES to describe the use of low-emissions/fuel consumption transportation! (http://goo.gl/DXTYul)

Uber and Lyft are taxi companies who try to use the term rideshare to get around taxi regulations and to convey a veneer of sustainability. Even the Associated Press has edited their Stylebook so as to instruct media agencies to cease calling them rideshare and start calling them "ride-hailing" services.

http://greatergreaterwashingto...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/charli...

It's about as good as all the articles that proclaim all the crappy toys from your childhood are now worth thousands. And by "worth" mean that is what someone very unrealistically put the starting or buy it now price on ebay before it never sold.

Not sure where you live, but where I live, taxi's have to pay taxes. They have to pay social security. They have to pay for meters. They have to pay for insurance with passengers. Also for extra technical testing of the cars. And also for the taxi stands.

If you cut all that out, it is obvious that itwill be cheaper. Illegal, but cheaper. Just as if I would run a sweatshop. Illegal, but cheaper.

I'm willing to accept that the cars might be nicer (though not inspected regularly for passenger service purposes), response time might be better. The issue that bothers me is insurance. , and what happens when an Uber driver is in an injury accedent, and where the liabilities land:

The insurance secret that Uber doesnâ(TM)t want you to know
Leaked transcript shows Geicoâ(TM)s stance against Uber, Lyft
Uber Advises Drivers To Buy Insurance That Leaves Them Uncovered

People think that taxi licencing is all about monopolies and cartels, but there are many other valid issues that regulation addresses.

If you look at one of those Internet compilations of Photos you really need to look at to understand, it is very impressive just how confused you can be by chance juxtapositions of visual elements.

#18 is particularly interesting. It's not a precise juxtaposition. The shadow looks like the shadow of a flag; it's not shaped like the rug. You can understand intellectually what's happening in about five seconds. And yet it takes a real effort of will to perceive the rug is lying on the sand. Relax for an instant and it once again looks as if it is levitating.

Right. If there's anything that's clear in the months after all this #GamerGate bullshit reached its apparent peak, it's that sexism and the bullying/harrassment of women is a fiction whipped up by angry feminists with a persecution complex.

I can't possibly imagine what would ever give anyone cause to think that...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha...

That Sony Picture Entertainment — like most of Hollywood — are Illiberal-dominated is well-known.

That their systems were so easily and so thoroughly penetrated hints, that the company is mismanaged.

The revealed conversations confirm it. The particular item — which dwells on NYT's Maureen Down (herself an Illiberal icon) as willing to abolish fundamental journalist principles "for the Greater Good" — cites the following conversation-snippet:

• Pascal emailed Dowd, saying “I THOUGHT THE STORY WAS GREAT I HOPE YOUR HAPPY"
• Dowd responded: “I hope you’re happy! Thanks for helping. Let’s do another.”
• Pascal replied, “Your my favorite person so yes”
• Dowd finished the conversation with “you’re mine! you’re amazing”

After Obama was elected, when dissent stopped being patriotic, and the only possible reason underlying any sort of disapproval of government was racism, the "haters" were often accused of "hating on Obama". That use of "on" was hardly proper English, and I for one was wondering, if Illiberals are genuinely Illiterate, or are deliberately ruining their speech — perhaps, to better commiserate with the downtrodden. Fortunately, the "on" slowly disappeared and my question went away...

Ms. Pascal's repeated use of "your" instead of "you're" — even after being gently corrected by her wordsmith correspondent — makes me wonder again. Her use of ALL CAPS identifies her as a moron rather firmly in my book — any sort of stupid Sony does, while she remains at the helm, will not surprise me one bit.

The flower children of 1960-70-ies have all grown and are running the country. A feminist NY Times reporter agreed to show the Sony exec an article about her prior to publishing it — which is strictly against journalistic ethics. The article, of course, is quite adoring — the firm is praised for its "pro-women" movies (like "Frozen"). Journalistic integrity is secondary to the agenda — the Greater Good of promoting women justifies the means. Nobody will know, right?

Sony executive — Ms. Pascal — is quoted in the exchange as unable to properly spell "you are". Despite her correspondent — NYT's Dowd — gently correcting her several times, she kept writing "YOUR" (yes, in ALL CAPS) instead of "you're". How could such a moron become a major executive? Because it is good for a company's image to have a woman at the top, that's how... And, it being Hollywood, she had to be an Illiberal, of course.

And that's part of the bigger picture — our very President is who he is not (only) because of personal merits, but because of his race. Some mythical "haters" may have voted against him because of it, but he got more votes thanks to it, than he lost due to it.

Not only did it help him in 2008, it helped him all along before that. We don't know, how well he did in college, for example, but we know, he was elected President of Harvard Law Review — a feat, for which he thanked Black professors...

Among the first things he did in White House, was to appoint a fellow affirmative action "wise Latina" to Supreme Court. Again, not because she is the best qualified legal expert, but because she is a Latino.

No one with the functional organ will agree to a brain surgery done by a doctor, who got to do it because of his skin color or sex. Why, then, do we tolerate the governance of public and private institutions alike run by people, whose gender and race were taken into account, when they got the job?

"In the letter, Sony [...] called on the government to help make the internet safer." http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomgar...

How does the government doing anything to "the internet" help secure private data on a private corporate network?

"In the letter, Sony defended its decision to wait five days to admit its security had been compromised and called on the government to help make the internet safer."

They asked for outside help (expected the government to stop it) and apparently took security a bit lax in one area.
"In the letter, Sony defended its decision to wait five days to admit its security had been compromised and called on the government to help make the internet safer." http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomgar...

I did get two free simple games over that one, I expect money this time they need to take their security a bit more serious. I mean even shutting down the gym (who knows why, terminals?

Once burnt twice shy, not something Sony is familiar with.

Some quotes.

In the absence of Galactic operations, the only passengers who have lifted off from Spaceport America are the cremated remains of people whose families have paid UP Aerospace to launch their dead loved ones on a final joyride.

Speaking about Richard Branson:

“What you have is one of the poorest states in the country and the taxpayers in this state subsidizing the business of a billionaire for the benefit of multimillionaires,” says Gessing.

The actual hub of commercial US space launch development is the Mohave Air and Space Port.

That facility recently released a promotional video calling itself “The Modern-Day Kitty Hawk,” and it may very well be right. Including Virgin Galactic, there are 17 commercial space companies using 19 rocket launch sites at Mojave. “It is the center of aerospace entrepreneurial development,” says Galactic CEO George Whitesides.

Even for Virgin Galactic, Mojave is where the jobs are.

Galactic job offerings announced via Twitter in the final months of 2013 were for nearly 50 positions to be based in Mojave, ranging from jobs like systems engineering lead to hydraulics systems engineer to propulsion test manager. In that same period only nine jobs to be based at Spaceport America were advertised, and those jobs were not lucrative engineering gigs but decidedly more menial positions like warehouse manager and diesel technician and manager of maintenance. ... But for every one job based at the New Mexico spaceport, there are still another five announced for Mojave.

The whole mess sounds a lot like the scam pulled by major league sports franchises: they get cities to build billion dollar stadiums, tax breaks that make it unlikely that the cities will ever directly make money from the team, and then hire a bunch of part time workers to run concessions. Not exactly high paying jobs that will fuel economic growth in the region.

It's another case of the ultra wealthy getting corporate welfare at the expense of people who really can't afford it. It doesn't much look like capitalism, it looks a lot more like a feudal lord starving the peasants to keep the castle in business.

which was mega-awesome:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/... [wow look at that spelling]

On the subject of Uber, anybody else look at Uber's new privacy policy, and think it's a bit skanky?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johana...

--What a carefully crafted weasel-worded policy. It says that Uber retains the right to violate your privacy for "legitimate business purposes"-- but doesn't define any limits on what they're going to call "legitimate." They list some "examples", which sounds soothing-- but these are just SOME of the reasons they might violate your privacy-- not ALL the reasons. Frankly, this policy states that they can violate your privacy any time they want, just as long as they say there is a business purpose to doing so.

Oh, and they don't have to tell you, either.

I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.

Where did anyone say any of that? The original claim was that Uber was partnering with an escort service. That fact is not in dispute, and was in fact advertised by Uber as you can see right there in the fine article. The opinion I'm referring to here is the claim that that behavior is sexist, one which I've said before I do not 100% agree with, but its certainly not exactly a "public accusation" that anyone should have to "back up" in order to be considered legitimate.

I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."

Here's a quote from the Buzzfeed article on the current controversy:

Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.

Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.

this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.

The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.

I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.

Where did anyone say any of that? The original claim was that Uber was partnering with an escort service. That fact is not in dispute, and was in fact advertised by Uber as you can see right there in the fine article. The opinion I'm referring to here is the claim that that behavior is sexist, one which I've said before I do not 100% agree with, but its certainly not exactly a "public accusation" that anyone should have to "back up" in order to be considered legitimate.

I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."

Here's a quote from the Buzzfeed article on the current controversy:

Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.

Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.

this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.

The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.

At the dinner, Michael expressed outrage at Lacy’s column and said that women are far more likely to get assaulted by taxi drivers than Uber drivers. He said that he thought Lacy should be held "personally responsible" for any woman who followed her lead in deleting Uber and was then sexually assaulted.

Then he returned to the opposition research plan. Uber’s dirt-diggers, Michael said, could expose Lacy. They could, in particular, prove a particular and very specific claim about her personal life.

Of course, once the turd hit the fan, the guy fesses up - "sort of"

According to Buzzfeed, Michael said Uber should spend “a million dollars” on a smear campaign that would hire opposition researchers and journalists to dig up dirt on journalists, researchers who would look into the personal lives of those critical to the company. In particular, Michael wished to target Pando founder Sarah Lacy after her publication’s repeated attacks against Uber.

On Monday Michael’s tone changed. He was apparently just really frustrated and all that stuff he said about digging up personal details about those in the media didn’t actually reflect his views on the matter. In response to the Buzzfeed piece, Michael issued the following statement:

"The remarks attributed to me at a private dinner – borne out of frustration during an informal debate over what I feel is sensationalistic media coverage of the company I am proud to work for – do not reflect my actual views and have no relation to the company’s views or approach. They were wrong no matter the circumstance and I regret them."

Come on Emil Michael, tel us how you REALLY feel. Oh, you already did. Oops.

cf http://www.buzzfeed.com/davidm...

So this article is just some magical conspiracy, where in order to make gamergate look like misogynists, someone made their reddit for them, found people who were misogynists elsewhere, and somehow made them the moderators?

Remember that Simpson's opening, where they mentioned that Fox news was "not racist, just #1 with racists"?

The notion that these women are sending themselves or making these threats up seems a bit far-fetched to me.

See AC's post above. There's too many threats coming from anonymous jackasses who I'd like to see prosecuted, but these activists are stirring the pot as well.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha...

You missed the dig.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/leonor...

Item #3.

Hey, it could be worse right? It's not like they'll forcibly rape you in the ass without evidence.

Oh, wait.

Thinking of cops as anything but thugs that view everyone else as the enemy, who they can lie to, kidnap, steal from, and beat/tase/mace with total impunity, is naivete now reserved only for the people who have not yet been unfortunate enough to catch a cops eye (which doesn't require doing anything illegal). These people think that not all cops are bad simply because they see them not abusing someone, and the fact that many targets of the police are criminals who need to be removed from society. That doesn't excuse the fact that any cop who doesn't, at least sometimes, violate peoples rights (the friendly cop who helped you out probably also civilly forfeited his department a new margarita machine/zamboni/trip to disney-all real, btw), is at a minimum covering for his buddies that do. The entire system is rotten to the core: there are no good cops, only cops that are less pure evil and closer to how cops should act (that is, they occasionally arrest someone who deserves it without violating their rights).

Please don't link to RT.com as a source. They are nothing but a Russian propaganda machine. If there are other sources to cite, please use those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosieg...

You're thinking of music as something that mostly young people spend money on. That's not so true any more. Old folks have a lot more disposable income and are willing to spend money on the physical formats they're most familiar with. The largest group of CD purchasers are the 50+ crowd, and while they lag in digital downloads, even there, they're beating out the previously dominant 13-17 demographic.

See this article. Yeah, Buzzfeed, I know.

RTFA from Buzzfeed linked in the deadspin link: "The Main Suspect Blamed For The Jennifer Lawrence Nude Leak Says He Is Innocent".

There's a lot more incriminating evidence in the updates to the Buzzfeed article.

Oh hey, you mean like these twenty t-shirts to your one that I found in two seconds of googling? http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad...

No, it"s not just about Valenti. And no, lots of women, prominent and otherwise, are finding that when they post anything mildly controversial, they get rape threats.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess they're mostly feminists, right? Believe it or not almost nobody wants to rape anyone else, men don't go around raping at random, and rape culture is the most stone cold idiotic attempt to induce a moral panic I've ever heard of. That's not to say some social maladjusts don't send rape threats of course, but the internet is littered with all sorts of mental wreckage without indicating widespread mis-whatevery.

Finally, even if your attempt to misrepresent one columnist using a zero-context photo had legitimacy and didn't misrepresent her, it wouldn't support rape threats against her.

There really isn't anything to misrepresent. She put it up on her twitter feed as a holiday snap. She's a well known feminist figure and like most feminists, she's widely despised. That photo illustrates why. Why is it okay one way but not the other when male suicides are 4 or 5 times female suicides? Not very funny now is it? Or envision if you will the response if a man were photographed wearing a t-shirt that says "I bathe in female tears", the social justice brigade would have a seizure.

Valenti's made a career out of demonising half the population, so she's not representative of "most women" and their experiences. That you made a mental leap from there to insinuating that she deserved however it says a lot more about you than me.

Michele Malkin regularly gets rape threats against her.

You've access to her personal email accounts and so on, I suppose? I checked it out though, and I can only find one publicised instance of her receiving rape threats - when she criticised a particularly thin skinned rapper. Again this isn't representative of the experiences of most women, for reasons which should be obvious.

And nobody's committed suicide, NOBODY, because they felt they were unable to issue a rape threat against an uppity woman who they disagreed with, so why bring it up?

I'm not sure how convoluted deflections can actually get, but this is probaby in the top tenth percentile if anyone's keeping track.

Netflix raised prices back in May; existing customers are grandfathered in for a while (when prices went up in Ireland, customers were grandfathered for two years). More at http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthe...

Given that this was done in Q2, and the earnings call was about Q2, I believe Reed was talking about that particular raise (which, again, happened two months ago), not a new raise. There's no new raise.

(I work at Netflix, but I just play with computers).

How come Slashdot doesn't put that on the front page? It's more newsworthy than this pitiful puff-piece.

The Archivist of the United States testified yesterday that the IRS did not follow the law as it relates to the Federal Records Act.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/us-archivist-tells-oversight-committee-the-irs-did-not-follo

Is not following the law the same as breaking it?

Everyone else appears ready to accept that those emails were official records requiring preservation.

A cease and desist letter does not have to be threatening at all. For example take this C&D letter from Jack Daniel's to an author that used an JD inspired book cover: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bfeld/...

Just because you have a certain legal requirement to do something, does not mean you need to be a total prick about it.

You can, nobody is stopping you. But if he charges you for it he will be encroaching on the taxi drivers' turf and cutting the city out of its share of the loot and for that he will be fined and/or imprisoned.

Occupational licencing in almost every case is nothing but a racket to artificially limit the number of practitioners and keep the prices high and to collect a tax by a different name. At least you can make a bogus safety argument when it comes to driving, but what about hairdressers, photographers, interior designers etc etc all of whom require a licence in many jurisdictions and who have to pay the city or the state an annual hefty fee in addition to taking useless courses and passing tests (more fees) in order to be able to work, despite the fact that many other jurisdictions don't have those requirements with provably zero ill effects. 1 in 3 Americans today are not allowed to work in their profession without a government license.

But just wait 'til someone comes and wants to marry his horse, his bed or his imaginary friend. That's when we should start pondering whether we might really want to draw the line somewhere. At the very least, everyone involved should be a person.

Link for those still comparing a man marrying another man to a man marrying a dog, or in your case, a horse.

To be fair, they were 'compulsory legal process', and almost certainly were accompanied by gag orders that have not been rescinded.

There are many kinds of domestic spying, referred to by their section of law. You've got 501, 1806, 1825, and 1845. All four can be used with gag orders. The ISP is basically forced to install hardware. They can chose to let the government do everything (and get paid for resources used), or install a tap themselves so the government can use it (and charge for resources used), or fight it (the tap still gets installed, but they don't get paid for resources used.)

Most of these come with gag orders: If you say anything, even hint that you might have known was was going on, and you risk violating the gag order.

There are very few business owners who have said anything about the process. Everyone should read Pete Ashdown's account. (He founded a major ISP in 1993, has run for senate, etc.) He describes receiving a FISA order, not being allowed to take notes or other details. Unlike most companies, he decided to isolate the customer's virtual machine to a single dedicated box, and then put the court-ordered recording box on that one specific box.

In the article he spends three paragraphs describing what the did, ending with "I can’t tell you all the details about it. I would love to tell you all the details, but I did get the gag order. I have probably told people too much. That was two years ago. If they want to come back and haunt me, fine.

When these executives are getting potentially a few dozen to a few hundred of these requests that include a gag order. None have revealed as much as Ashdown did in those few paragraphs, other than to say in corporate reports that they have received 0-999 such orders.

First hit on google... http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha... I literally see them daily on my FaceBook. But a person who stops a crime with a gun, but where no one is actually shot, does not make for clickbait news...

First hit on google... http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanha...

Interactive HTML5 Coverage Maps:
Comcast Coverage Map
Time Warner Cable Coverage Map
Buzzfeed has further analysis of the above maps

They've been talking about wanting permission to kill him instead of capture him. So they don't want to bring Snowden in alive, they want to bring him in dead.

Link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyj...