Only if the regular Barbie actually causes women to become bulimic.
Are female programmers the only women who wear jeans and t-shirts? That is what makes a person a programmer?
First off, we need to realize that not all that many men are into programming. Long hours, so-so pay, especially considering the hours. And zero social prospects. A real niche group.
I can see the stories now.......
Barbie eats cold pizza at 2 in the morning while trying to clean up some code for Friday's big rollout.
Barbie gets told to do duty at the IT help desk because "You know computers and stuff, right?!"
Barbie gets to wear her blue jeans and shirt at work the couple weeks she would have been at the beach because her vacation was cancelled so she can clean up some shitty code that the guy who up and quit left, and they gotta meet Friday's deadline.
This is not a field for many people - male or female.
Finally, are young females so shallow that a little plastic doll's clothing can determine their choice of careers?
If so, that is what needs worked on, not putting a plastic doll in a t-shirt and bluejeans.
Google maps is pretty good, I'll admit. But their driving directions, don't get me started!
Why isn't there an "easy" routing option?
There was at one time. You could enter waypoints, and map it out. Then they changed it in 2015. Somehow taking command of your own trip was a bad thing that had to be eliminated.
Because if he is, he is a massive fuckup. Maps has become steadily less useful over the years, both the Android app and the website. The interfaces are both just pure garbage.
I use maps regularly, but I gave up on using it for navigation/directions beyond point to point and just use my Garmin for multi-stop trips in spite of its crap interface.
I agree. I sort of wonder if they eliminated all but the most obvious route was in response to the dumpkoffs that got lost or killed by trying weird directions and found themselves driving off cliffs when trying to drive their Camry on Jeep roads?
We live in a world where people can sue for stupidity, like not knowing that alligators live in ponds in Florida, so why not?
All joking aside, the newest version of the Google Maps UI is fucking unusable.
Just as another example, once upon a time, I could map out routes in Google Maps the way I wanted to. I might want to make a side trip on the way to another destination, I'd just make waypoints. Now? I get two choices of directions. If neither go through where I'm trying to go, its TTC.
Anyone that doubts it should DDGo "Google maps suck".
Unification is what linux desperately needs in order to make it possible for third party closed source vendors to target the platform. Otherwise they just make ubuntu binaries, and that's it.
One might argue that third party closed source software is bad because its closed, but this is how the world works unfortunately, and linux won't get any hold on the desktop market if you can't even port your closed source application to it because each distro is its own special snowflake.
I'm not concerned about market share, but you are correct just for useability sake. When pressed for time, I often just use Wine and a Windows app rather than walk through the build process of non-repo apps.
One more thing - if you think something is inherently wrong then you are in realm of religion - the world without us does not know good or bad - we have introduced these terms.p>
I believe that killing people because of who they love is wrong and evil.
The specific reference in Leviticus 20:13 to same sex love is: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Put in modern parlance, it says is a man has sexual relations with another man it is an action that requires killing them, and it is their own fault. No wiggle room.
20:14 “And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.”
specific incidence, specific punishment.
Oddly enough, boinking your sister gets mere banishment Leviticus 20:17 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.”
Apparently having sex with a woman on her period is subject to banishment as well.
There might be some wiggle room if a guy sees his aunt, al fresco Leviticus 20:19 “And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.”
And as Leviticus 20: 22 notes, there is no compromise in these matters.“Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.”
I could go on and on, but these are commands that are considered morality based, and commands that in the end, the faithful are reminded that if they do not keep them, they are in trouble.
I consider these commands to be completely bat shit insane immoral, and an expression of evil.
So if I get my morals from religion, why do I consider many of the morals as immoral?
I believe cancer is a result of humans drastically increasing the amount of entropy in our environment and that entropy finding its way into our bodies.
This statement contains the most convoluted misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics that I have ever seen.
I agree mostly, but calling America (the US?) one of the cleanest countries in the world is kinda misleading. It might be correct relatively, but on an absolute scale, we all drown in dirt.
And some of that dirt is probably very important for our immune system. Altogether too many people have become germophobes, and the results are not encouraging. Probably half of my son's hockey team was on inhalers when he was in high school. Weird food allergies have cropped up.
Our pediatrician was big on the idea that the immune system doesn't just happen, but needs to be helped along. When my son was around 4 years old, we started bringing him around our horse. He'd get these red blotches on himself. We took him to the pediatrician and he said let him be around the horse in increasing amounts of time, and not to be concerned unless he had issues breathing. We did just that, and within a week, no more blotches.
Not unlike noticing that peanut allergies hardly exist in the middle east, where peanuts and milk are often children's first solid food. As opposed to here where we were trying to eliminate peanuts from the earth. http://komonews.com/archive/st....
People die of cancers far more often these days because we already eliminated all the other ways to die. Now, we live longer and don't die at 45 from cholera, so we have to die SOMEhow.
Repeat ten times and rinse! While I would add dementia, and probably some diseases we haven't found out about yet to the increasingly short list, the claim holds basically true. As we have largely eliminated other causes of death, something has to kill us.
I enjoy confusing people when I explain how decreasing the odds of dying from one disease, merely increases the odds of dying from most everything else.
Cancer creeps up on us where we do the most damage. Smoke a cigarette? Damage to lungs, make cells immortal. Irradiate the skin in tanning beds? Damage to skin cells, make skin immortal. Eat terrible diet? Stomach or colon cancer, make cells immortal.
Maybe our bodies just havnt figured out how to make the immortal cells function.
While your hypothesis serves the "all of your illness are belong to you" outlook, where people have been convinced that skipping sunscreen and getting 1 sunburn will kill them, way too much cancer is genetically driven.
As well, there is a big gaping hole in the scientists hypothesis. Most cancer occurs well beyond the childbearing and child raising years. So if it is an "autocorrect "function that improves the genetic stock of a species, it is a really crappy one.
You want addicts running the engines of the economy? If you ask me, a bunch of addicted job creators are much more of a threat to the country than some welfare queen or Walmart worker addicted to vicodin.
If you can be a productive member of society and do drugs then you are not my concern. If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare.
You know, you make the assumption that the reason the person on welfare is on welfare is because of their drug addiction. By the way, wealthy people also burn out while using drugs, its just that it is easier to hide.
And some of the financial decisions leading up to the 2007 financial collapse don't seem as strange when examined in the light of coke fueled mentality.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I never said I did. I never even hinted that I did. Why did you put those words in my mouth with no reason? That demonstrates to me you cannot make a point without distorting the words of others, which tell me something about you but nothing about the point at hand.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I never said I did. I never even hinted that I did. Why did you put those words in my mouth with no reason?
I had a very good reason. You posted a non equator, and an incorrect one at that, because people who are filing for tax avoidance are often responsible for getting federal subsidies at a rate far surpassing those takers, so if it applies to the poor, it should appliy to wealthy who are also sucking on the federal tit to a much higher dollar figure. You figure a farmer paid to not grow crops is getting manna from heaven, not ever having been obtained through tax dollars? Or a surbaban housewife who makes up a business so her Escalade can be a tax write-off is not getting tax dollars? You figure that a rancher who grazes cattle for free on federal land should not pay the value of their largesse? If I get a meal while on company time, I have to declare it at tax time. It is considered a value that I have received.
the answer to your question is that I baited you. If you want to post bullshit, I can do it just as well as you.
That demonstrates to me you cannot make a point without distorting the words of others, which tell me something about you but nothing about the point at hand.
I gave you the point, that you are spouting Reaganesque welfare queen rhetoric, and are completeley wrong about the concept that the poor use monies taken in by taxes are somehow separate than subsidies.
Because they are not. Your move, tell me why corporate welfare is different than welfare for individuals.If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs, you gotta test them all.
"As we've been told for years, the wealthy are the job creators, and the shakers and movers. They are the engines of commerce, and giving them the well deserved tax breaks is all part of that system, so they can create more jobs and lead the USA to greater things."
Quote>Someone is doing the drugs and we've been testing the poor people and found far less than the national average. It must be the wealthy doing the drugs. Since they are such magical engines of commerce and all that we should obviously seek to be like them and do drugs as well. I've heard cocaine can give you quite an energy boost.
Pretty well played, and interesting. You don't do bad at sarcrony yourself!
Anyhow, the pittance that the poor on assistance get simply isn't enough to support a serious drug habit. I know some people on SS disability, and they get maybe a thousand a month. A drug habit would burn through that in a couple days.
Unless you are selling, or doing a good job hooking, or already wealthy - oh wait - that last one. Yup, exactly.
> Because at base, it is a non-sequitar, one of those war on drugs nothing is too extreme for our holy cause actions.
Its not non-sequitor when the person you are arguing against couldn't pass a drug test himself.
In a remarkable derpish moment, I didn't unquote the person I was responding to, and made my self look like I was saying the opposite of what I think. I'm ver much on your side in this argument, and sorry for the confusion. I'm everything form the "non seuitar" part on.
You re exactly correct in that a lot of wealthy are drug addicts. There is no way that a single vicodin pill on the black market could cost a hundred dollars or more, when you consider that those who abuse them take several every day. Thes politicians think that people who re getting maybe a thousand every month are going to afford that? That's maybe 2 days worth.
A lot of wealthy high income people would never pass a drug test and they know it.
In a way, I kind of like it. That should be the threat. Maybe they will finally defang the drug war if it starts being used against them. I bet you dollars to donuts if you started threatening to drug test enough congressmen and business owners, the controlled substances act will be repealed within a few weeks.
I have ever since high school days, learned about the remarkable accuracy of what projection is and does. My queer baiting friends ended up gay, as do family values preachers, and people who shoot up gay nightclubs. I'm pretty certain that the most vociferous supporters of the war on drugs are a good place to look at for addiction, and the people they might be protecting.
Whether you agree with drug testing for welfare or not, there is a bid difference between testing for handouts, and testing for tax penalty avoidance. A complete lack of comprehension of said difference is the most disappointing thing about such a proposal.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I suspect in large part, this might be a point the congresscritter is trying to make.
And in the end, as we've been told for years, the wealthy are the job creators, and the shakers and movers. They are the engines of commerce, and giving them the well deserved tax breaks is all part of that system, so they can create more jobs and lead the USA to greater things.
You want addicts running the engines of the economy? If you ask me, a bunch of addicted job creators are much more of a threat to the country than some welfare queen or Walmart worker addicted to vicodin.
You're applying to use other people's money. One of the conditions is you're not going to use that money for drugs or illegal activities. Or do you prefer to have your money wasted in such a manner?
Because at base, it is a non-sequitar, one of those war on drugs nothing is too extreme for our holy cause actions. I'm not certain that this congress critter is being facetious or not, but your logic implies universal drug testing. Why should anyone ever have money paid to them that they use for an illegal purpose?
Now your logic implies committees determining if even those under a doctor's prescription for say - vicodin, are justifiable use of drugs or not. If not, well,;let the war on drugs decide what to do with the person. Right?
the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"
Nothing new. Its a time honored American practice of using the legal system to destroy your opponents when you have the piasters and they don't. It is the inverse of the sue the person with the deepest pockets concept.
You are going to die anyway. Wouldn't it be nice to be remembered in a few hundred years instead of fading away into nothingness? Some people think so, and they are more than willing to die trying to get to mars.
Safety culture has us firmly in it's grip, and the concept of doing anything risky - aside from hurtling at each others in cars - is just not comprehensible to 99 percent of humanity. In at least America, there are many people who live in walled and gated communities, have to drive past a guard to get to their ADT security equipped house, and have a safe room in it to boot.
And they still do not feel safe. Trying to explain a sense of adventure to such people is simply not possible.
Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less, I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate. It is suicide to go there... plain and simple.
Which is exactly the same fatality rate of those living on earth.
Right there - you just said it. "Inherently wrong". Inherent morality cannot exist in mankind unless we were created with it. By a creator. If you want to talk about your own atheistic morality, fine, but that's something you came up with, or was perhaps taught to you. It is not inherent.
You realize that you just said what I said about the morals only thru gawd crowd,
By the way muchacho - exactly which gawd created humans with morality? and if she did, she failed miserably. Natural means of morality can explain outliers. A perfect gawd who creates outliers is a failure, a creater of many failed beings with no morals.
Slashdot Mirror
Are female programmers the only women who wear jeans and t-shirts? That is what makes a person a programmer?
First off, we need to realize that not all that many men are into programming. Long hours, so-so pay, especially considering the hours. And zero social prospects. A real niche group.
I can see the stories now.......
Barbie eats cold pizza at 2 in the morning while trying to clean up some code for Friday's big rollout.
Barbie gets told to do duty at the IT help desk because "You know computers and stuff, right?!"
Barbie gets to wear her blue jeans and shirt at work the couple weeks she would have been at the beach because her vacation was cancelled so she can clean up some shitty code that the guy who up and quit left, and they gotta meet Friday's deadline.
This is not a field for many people - male or female. Finally, are young females so shallow that a little plastic doll's clothing can determine their choice of careers?
If so, that is what needs worked on, not putting a plastic doll in a t-shirt and bluejeans.
Google maps is pretty good, I'll admit. But their driving directions, don't get me started!
Why isn't there an "easy" routing option?
There was at one time. You could enter waypoints, and map it out. Then they changed it in 2015. Somehow taking command of your own trip was a bad thing that had to be eliminated.
Because if he is, he is a massive fuckup. Maps has become steadily less useful over the years, both the Android app and the website. The interfaces are both just pure garbage.
I use maps regularly, but I gave up on using it for navigation/directions beyond point to point and just use my Garmin for multi-stop trips in spite of its crap interface.
I agree. I sort of wonder if they eliminated all but the most obvious route was in response to the dumpkoffs that got lost or killed by trying weird directions and found themselves driving off cliffs when trying to drive their Camry on Jeep roads?
We live in a world where people can sue for stupidity, like not knowing that alligators live in ponds in Florida, so why not?
All joking aside, the newest version of the Google Maps UI is fucking unusable.
Just as another example, once upon a time, I could map out routes in Google Maps the way I wanted to. I might want to make a side trip on the way to another destination, I'd just make waypoints. Now? I get two choices of directions. If neither go through where I'm trying to go, its TTC.
Anyone that doubts it should DDGo "Google maps suck".
You should be modded up to +5, AC.
Unification is what linux desperately needs in order to make it possible for third party closed source vendors to target the platform. Otherwise they just make ubuntu binaries, and that's it.
One might argue that third party closed source software is bad because its closed, but this is how the world works unfortunately, and linux won't get any hold on the desktop market if you can't even port your closed source application to it because each distro is its own special snowflake.
I'm not concerned about market share, but you are correct just for useability sake. When pressed for time, I often just use Wine and a Windows app rather than walk through the build process of non-repo apps.
One more thing - if you think something is inherently wrong then you are in realm of religion - the world without us does not know good or bad - we have introduced these terms.p>
I believe that killing people because of who they love is wrong and evil.
The specific reference in Leviticus 20:13 to same sex love is: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Put in modern parlance, it says is a man has sexual relations with another man it is an action that requires killing them, and it is their own fault. No wiggle room.
20:14 “And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.” specific incidence, specific punishment.
Oddly enough, boinking your sister gets mere banishment Leviticus 20:17 “And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.”
Apparently having sex with a woman on her period is subject to banishment as well.
There might be some wiggle room if a guy sees his aunt, al fresco Leviticus 20:19 “And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.”
And as Leviticus 20: 22 notes, there is no compromise in these matters.“Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.”
I could go on and on, but these are commands that are considered morality based, and commands that in the end, the faithful are reminded that if they do not keep them, they are in trouble.
I consider these commands to be completely bat shit insane immoral, and an expression of evil.
So if I get my morals from religion, why do I consider many of the morals as immoral?
I believe cancer is a result of humans drastically increasing the amount of entropy in our environment and that entropy finding its way into our bodies.
This statement contains the most convoluted misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics that I have ever seen.
Even Homer Simpson knows that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I agree mostly, but calling America (the US?) one of the cleanest countries in the world is kinda misleading. It might be correct relatively, but on an absolute scale, we all drown in dirt.
And some of that dirt is probably very important for our immune system. Altogether too many people have become germophobes, and the results are not encouraging. Probably half of my son's hockey team was on inhalers when he was in high school. Weird food allergies have cropped up.
Our pediatrician was big on the idea that the immune system doesn't just happen, but needs to be helped along. When my son was around 4 years old, we started bringing him around our horse. He'd get these red blotches on himself. We took him to the pediatrician and he said let him be around the horse in increasing amounts of time, and not to be concerned unless he had issues breathing. We did just that, and within a week, no more blotches.
Not unlike noticing that peanut allergies hardly exist in the middle east, where peanuts and milk are often children's first solid food. As opposed to here where we were trying to eliminate peanuts from the earth. http://komonews.com/archive/st... .
Which doesn't work.
People die of cancers far more often these days because we already eliminated all the other ways to die. Now, we live longer and don't die at 45 from cholera, so we have to die SOMEhow.
Repeat ten times and rinse! While I would add dementia, and probably some diseases we haven't found out about yet to the increasingly short list, the claim holds basically true. As we have largely eliminated other causes of death, something has to kill us.
I enjoy confusing people when I explain how decreasing the odds of dying from one disease, merely increases the odds of dying from most everything else.
Cancer creeps up on us where we do the most damage. Smoke a cigarette? Damage to lungs, make cells immortal. Irradiate the skin in tanning beds? Damage to skin cells, make skin immortal. Eat terrible diet? Stomach or colon cancer, make cells immortal. Maybe our bodies just havnt figured out how to make the immortal cells function.
While your hypothesis serves the "all of your illness are belong to you" outlook, where people have been convinced that skipping sunscreen and getting 1 sunburn will kill them, way too much cancer is genetically driven.
As well, there is a big gaping hole in the scientists hypothesis. Most cancer occurs well beyond the childbearing and child raising years. So if it is an "autocorrect "function that improves the genetic stock of a species, it is a really crappy one.
You want addicts running the engines of the economy? If you ask me, a bunch of addicted job creators are much more of a threat to the country than some welfare queen or Walmart worker addicted to vicodin.
If you can be a productive member of society and do drugs then you are not my concern. If however you can not be productive due to your drug addiction and must use welfare because you can't keep a job you don't deserve welfare.
You know, you make the assumption that the reason the person on welfare is on welfare is because of their drug addiction. By the way, wealthy people also burn out while using drugs, its just that it is easier to hide.
And some of the financial decisions leading up to the 2007 financial collapse don't seem as strange when examined in the light of coke fueled mentality.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I never said I did. I never even hinted that I did. Why did you put those words in my mouth with no reason? That demonstrates to me you cannot make a point without distorting the words of others, which tell me something about you but nothing about the point at hand.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I never said I did. I never even hinted that I did. Why did you put those words in my mouth with no reason?
I had a very good reason. You posted a non equator, and an incorrect one at that, because people who are filing for tax avoidance are often responsible for getting federal subsidies at a rate far surpassing those takers, so if it applies to the poor, it should appliy to wealthy who are also sucking on the federal tit to a much higher dollar figure. You figure a farmer paid to not grow crops is getting manna from heaven, not ever having been obtained through tax dollars? Or a surbaban housewife who makes up a business so her Escalade can be a tax write-off is not getting tax dollars? You figure that a rancher who grazes cattle for free on federal land should not pay the value of their largesse? If I get a meal while on company time, I have to declare it at tax time. It is considered a value that I have received.
the answer to your question is that I baited you. If you want to post bullshit, I can do it just as well as you.
That demonstrates to me you cannot make a point without distorting the words of others, which tell me something about you but nothing about the point at hand.
I gave you the point, that you are spouting Reaganesque welfare queen rhetoric, and are completeley wrong about the concept that the poor use monies taken in by taxes are somehow separate than subsidies.
Because they are not. Your move, tell me why corporate welfare is different than welfare for individuals.If you want to test welfare recipients for drugs, you gotta test them all.
"As we've been told for years, the wealthy are the job creators, and the shakers and movers. They are the engines of commerce, and giving them the well deserved tax breaks is all part of that system, so they can create more jobs and lead the USA to greater things."
Quote>Someone is doing the drugs and we've been testing the poor people and found far less than the national average. It must be the wealthy doing the drugs. Since they are such magical engines of commerce and all that we should obviously seek to be like them and do drugs as well. I've heard cocaine can give you quite an energy boost.
Pretty well played, and interesting. You don't do bad at sarcrony yourself!
Anyhow, the pittance that the poor on assistance get simply isn't enough to support a serious drug habit. I know some people on SS disability, and they get maybe a thousand a month. A drug habit would burn through that in a couple days.
Unless you are selling, or doing a good job hooking, or already wealthy - oh wait - that last one. Yup, exactly.
> Because at base, it is a non-sequitar, one of those war on drugs nothing is too extreme for our holy cause actions.
Its not non-sequitor when the person you are arguing against couldn't pass a drug test himself.
In a remarkable derpish moment, I didn't unquote the person I was responding to, and made my self look like I was saying the opposite of what I think. I'm ver much on your side in this argument, and sorry for the confusion. I'm everything form the "non seuitar" part on.
You re exactly correct in that a lot of wealthy are drug addicts. There is no way that a single vicodin pill on the black market could cost a hundred dollars or more, when you consider that those who abuse them take several every day. Thes politicians think that people who re getting maybe a thousand every month are going to afford that? That's maybe 2 days worth.
A lot of wealthy high income people would never pass a drug test and they know it.
In a way, I kind of like it. That should be the threat. Maybe they will finally defang the drug war if it starts being used against them. I bet you dollars to donuts if you started threatening to drug test enough congressmen and business owners, the controlled substances act will be repealed within a few weeks.
I have ever since high school days, learned about the remarkable accuracy of what projection is and does. My queer baiting friends ended up gay, as do family values preachers, and people who shoot up gay nightclubs. I'm pretty certain that the most vociferous supporters of the war on drugs are a good place to look at for addiction, and the people they might be protecting.
Whether you agree with drug testing for welfare or not, there is a bid difference between testing for handouts, and testing for tax penalty avoidance. A complete lack of comprehension of said difference is the most disappointing thing about such a proposal.
While it is a completely different thing, why do you support wealthy people's having addictions?
I suspect in large part, this might be a point the congresscritter is trying to make.
And in the end, as we've been told for years, the wealthy are the job creators, and the shakers and movers. They are the engines of commerce, and giving them the well deserved tax breaks is all part of that system, so they can create more jobs and lead the USA to greater things.
You want addicts running the engines of the economy? If you ask me, a bunch of addicted job creators are much more of a threat to the country than some welfare queen or Walmart worker addicted to vicodin.
I can't think of anything more invasive.
You're applying to use other people's money. One of the conditions is you're not going to use that money for drugs or illegal activities. Or do you prefer to have your money wasted in such a manner?
Because at base, it is a non-sequitar, one of those war on drugs nothing is too extreme for our holy cause actions. I'm not certain that this congress critter is being facetious or not, but your logic implies universal drug testing. Why should anyone ever have money paid to them that they use for an illegal purpose?
Now your logic implies committees determining if even those under a doctor's prescription for say - vicodin, are justifiable use of drugs or not. If not, well, ;let the war on drugs decide what to do with the person. Right?
"Yes, there are bands, but their name is registered IP so we are not at liberty to name them."
What is their latest album?"
Also trade marked, and we cannnot tell you unless you pay to hear their name.
Do you have any samples of their music?
Sorry sir, you will have to buy their album in order to hear their music"
"But I might not like it!"
" So what?"
"Never mind"
"Fucking pirates are destroying the music industry!"
He didn't, fuckwit. They crushed themselves. Kill yourself.
Lookie who escaped from tumblr!
No, you're thinking 4chan, a tumblr-kin would have invoked feminism.
TRIGGERD!!!!!
He didn't, fuckwit. They crushed themselves. Kill yourself.
Lookie who escaped from tumblr!
the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"
Nothing new. Its a time honored American practice of using the legal system to destroy your opponents when you have the piasters and they don't. It is the inverse of the sue the person with the deepest pockets concept.
This matters? WTH?
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
We. Are. Doomed.
We are also doomed because it appears in 21st century 'Murrica, Donald Trump's hair source is considered Top Secret.
You are going to die anyway. Wouldn't it be nice to be remembered in a few hundred years instead of fading away into nothingness? Some people think so, and they are more than willing to die trying to get to mars.
Safety culture has us firmly in it's grip, and the concept of doing anything risky - aside from hurtling at each others in cars - is just not comprehensible to 99 percent of humanity. In at least America, there are many people who live in walled and gated communities, have to drive past a guard to get to their ADT security equipped house, and have a safe room in it to boot.
And they still do not feel safe. Trying to explain a sense of adventure to such people is simply not possible.
Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less, I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate. It is suicide to go there... plain and simple.
Which is exactly the same fatality rate of those living on earth.
nubile "space slaves"
And thousands of slashdotters are thinking of venturing from their mother's basements.
Right there - you just said it. "Inherently wrong". Inherent morality cannot exist in mankind unless we were created with it. By a creator. If you want to talk about your own atheistic morality, fine, but that's something you came up with, or was perhaps taught to you. It is not inherent.
You realize that you just said what I said about the morals only thru gawd crowd,
By the way muchacho - exactly which gawd created humans with morality? and if she did, she failed miserably. Natural means of morality can explain outliers. A perfect gawd who creates outliers is a failure, a creater of many failed beings with no morals.