How about better sex education programs, and eliminating "abstinence only" programs? People having kids can be directly attributed to two causes, lack of education and religion.
Spoken as someone who probably has never had to use food stamps. Guess what? It's humilating but when I was a kid, with a mom who just had hip surgery, and a father who died while my mother was in the hospital recovering from that surgery, it kept us from going hungry.
No they aren't. People have said that they're powerless to change the government and make it do what they want so long that they've convinced themselves that it's true. I think that's a load of crap. Problem is that people would rather bitch than vote.
Making a DIY Internet isn't going to happen, and nothing that has been said in this thread is likely to convince me otherwise.
You want to defend the current Internet? You only need to do two things.
1. Make sure the government enforces a strict net neutrality law 2. Make sure the government doesn't abuse their enforcement
If either of these sounds unlikely, they're still orders of magnitude easier than trying to convince hundreds of thousands of people to participate in building another 'net.
But are they advertising them as actually being the celeb? Also, isn't the simple fact of it being porn kinda (no pun intended) blowing the "credible impersonation" claim out of the water?
"The Tiger Woods sex scandal tv movie will now be illegal." - hysterical nonsense. No one in a movie about a celeb would be "credibly impersonating" a celebrity.
I'd say that if either you or stonewallred have a point to make that it should be made logically and dispassionately without insults or hyperbole. Somehow I doubt either of you can manage that.
Libertarians who say "no government" actually mean "no government, except for law enforcement, that enforce laws that we speficially agree with, the rest of you don't matter"
Slashdot Mirror
Where *who* said that? The guy I was replying to certainly didn't.
*kids they can't afford* that is.
(Really Slashdot, would it be that hard to let people edit their posts after submission?)
How about better sex education programs, and eliminating "abstinence only" programs? People having kids can be directly attributed to two causes, lack of education and religion.
Spoken as someone who probably has never had to use food stamps. Guess what? It's humilating but when I was a kid, with a mom who just had hip surgery, and a father who died while my mother was in the hospital recovering from that surgery, it kept us from going hungry.
It's a safety net, and it's very much needed.
You've honestly never heard the term "killer app"? It predates the iPhone by years.
Now if Sarah thought she did nothing wrong why would she do that......
If the moose, wolves and bears want to take a crack at Sarah, I'm all for it. Fair is fair.
Got it weeks ago, never used it. It served no useful purpose.
I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. The system works, but no one is putting enough energy in to it to make it work.
No they aren't. People have said that they're powerless to change the government and make it do what they want so long that they've convinced themselves that it's true.
I think that's a load of crap. Problem is that people would rather bitch than vote.
http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/when-comcast-bullies-netflix-the-internet-loses-339
You want to change your story?
Making a DIY Internet isn't going to happen, and nothing that has been said in this thread is likely to convince me otherwise.
You want to defend the current Internet? You only need to do two things.
1. Make sure the government enforces a strict net neutrality law
2. Make sure the government doesn't abuse their enforcement
If either of these sounds unlikely, they're still orders of magnitude easier than trying to convince hundreds of thousands of people to participate in building another 'net.
Gee, and they're saying no relation between the incidents. Hm.
Well then a California law would be kind of irrelevant wouldn't it?
But are they advertising them as actually being the celeb? Also, isn't the simple fact of it being porn kinda (no pun intended) blowing the "credible impersonation" claim out of the water?
and how many people actually thought that was really Palin? I'm guessing somewhere in the neighborhood of zero.
"The Tiger Woods sex scandal tv movie will now be illegal." - hysterical nonsense. No one in a movie about a celeb would be "credibly impersonating" a celebrity.
I'm sorry, where was the insult? Seems to me that I was stating simple fact, and look there, you proved my point.
I'd say that if either you or stonewallred have a point to make that it should be made logically and dispassionately without insults or hyperbole. Somehow I doubt either of you can manage that.
So the simple fact that someone disagrees with your chicken-littleism is grounds for killing them?
Oh yeah, that's going to convince someone of your point of view.
Grow up, junior.
Um, if you mean Charo, she is actually an amazingly talented flamenco guitarist.
Really, so it's a case of "if she didn't have anything to hide"? How hypocritical coming from an Assange cocksucker...er..supporter.
I must have missed something, how is being Prime Minister equivalent to being dictator?
Libertarians who say "no government" actually mean "no government, except for law enforcement, that enforce laws that we speficially agree with, the rest of you don't matter"
FIFY