Nice theory, but a 3rd party candidate cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states. Thus, it's impossible for a 3rd party to win, and I really don't see corporate interests investing in that kind of situation without due diligence.
'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is much cheaper and we have no money.'
Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations...
Some of the other parties are also funded by corporations, for instance Lieberman is probably going to get a lot of money from his masters in the health insurance industry, and I guess he's technically not a democrat? Anyway, just wanted to point out that what's keeping corporate funding for the other parties low isn't a magic number greater than 2 or any ideological differences, it's that they haven't been winning and are therefore poor investments. If that were likely to change, corporate interests would invest in 3rd, 4th, or 9th party candidates faster than flies land on poop.
If I were doing DNA gels at home, I'd be using sybrsafe. As the name implies, it's a lot safer. Also less damaging to the DNA I'd be trying to isolate and can be reused many times. Slightly more expensive than dirt-cheap ethidium bromide though.
While unpolymerized acrylamide is a pretty dangerous neurotoxin, a polymerized polyacrylamide gel should actually be pretty safe. Granted, I wouldn't trust it, but plenty of academic labs do throw their in the garbage.
Biological experiments are different from software development, they need follow up and supervision through the end, which may take 2-4 days.
Some do, yes, but I'd say that doesn't describe most biological experiments. There are times when I need to work for half a day without interruption, but those are rare.
How do you discard biohazardous materials and mutagen/teratogen substances at home?
Depends on the hazardous/mutagenic material. There are quite detailed protocols and guidelines for disposal of almost all waste coming out of labs, with a little thinking you can find facilities to dispose of it, or find a way to neurtralize it yourself. And it's not like all research requires working with plutonium or exotic and dangerous materials. The most common teratogen I'd probably pour down the sink or drink (the most common teratogen being alchohol.)
You're just shooting yourself in the foot otherwise.
No see, there's an app for that, but apple rejected it, so they are in fact not shooting themselves in the foot. They might be shooting their users in the feet, but we convinced ourselves it is the hip thing to do now. The bullets and the bandages are white, so it matches.
they can't be targeted by the autoimmune system because they can't be bonded to; And that is because of the blood-brain barrier
I'd also guess without doing any reading on the subject that being inside the cell further prevents this. If a virus is inside a cell, that will ideally (for the cell) trigger cell suicide. If that doesn't happen or the virus blocks it. Some (most?) cells move bits of protiens out to their surface after they've digested them as part of normal cell function. If a bit of a viral protein does this, immune cells can recognize it and tell the cell to kill itself or can signal other cells to kill the infected cell. Since the prion though is a protein that is normal, the digested bits I would guess don't trigger that response, the immune cell sees the fragment and doesn't think anything is wrong.
Normal prions are folded proteins that self-terminate. That is, they end after a certain number of repeats. But abnormal ones don't ever stop growing -- and they occasionally break apart, but they keep folding forever.
Not sure what is meant by self terminating vs repeats, sounds like you're talking about translation, that prions don't stop synthesizing an amino acid chain. This page suggests that the proteins are made normally, its just that the misfolded proteins bend the normal ones out of shape. These proteins are insoluable, they form clumps (aggregates) inside the cell that are resistant to digestion, so the cell can't get rid of them. It does say though that no one had shown that was the cause rather than just one effect.
Many of these biology experiments require very expensive machines, such as microarray machines, as mentioned by the article. I don't know if purchasing refurbished machines is a wise choice since we don't want data quality to be compromised.
A microarray is pretty expensive yes, but a lot of DIY biology could be done with just a computer and or a secondhand PCR machine. Used PCR machines apperantly can be had for under a grand. Even less if you can service a broken one yourself, which many of these DIYers seem capable of. Probably won't have all the fancy options of a higher priced one either, but our academic lab has an expensive cycler with many options that we never use.
Data quality with many of these things is less tempermental than a microarray too. The secondhand PCR machine in this case might not be good for sequencing, but it would be a great tool if you were, say, making a plasmid to make glowing bacteria, using it to identify species of plants, making in-situ hybridization primers. There are a lot of things you can do with a basic cheap PCR machine.
As far as microarray data goes, an affymetrix premade microarray chip goes for about a thousand dollars. Obviously it's not feasible for most people to do many of these out of their own pocket, but not everyone does. Say you want to find out what genes are expressed more in dog breed A than dog breed B. If you were wanting to publish that data in a peer-reviewed journal, you'd probably need 6 chips, it seems like most people I know who do microarray do triplicates. If you were just wanting to find out for yourself, like to find canidates for which genes produced trait X that was in breed A, you could do just two, one for each, and hope it wasn't wildly innacurate. You could then focus your search based on that, taking it with a grain of salt until you confirmed it through other, less expensive means.
If you were going to be doing many microarrays, this website appears to be a guide for making your own microarrayer. The price tag for building it exactly as that lab says to would be about $24k. Again though, many DIYers are mechanically inclined and could cut corners for their own purposes.
Another issue is gathering the samples. If you're collecting yeast, that would be simple. Arabidopsis, other small plants, mice, or other small animals, you probably need quite some space.
I don't see that. Our lab studies chicken embryos. An egg incubator is pretty small. C elegans can be grown wherever you've got space. Arabidopsis can grow in the yard, you don't need acres. A research-grade mouse colony would be expensive yes (maintaining a genetically pure mouse colony in a sterile environment free of variation is harder just obtaining mice from the street). If you need other model organisms, there are farms. It can be a limiting factor, yes, but when is that not true? You can't exactly use elephants as a model organism in really any lab in the world.
Humans? That won't be simple at all. You have to clear privacy issues, getting the research review board to sign papers, etc.
Which research review board? If I'm comparing gene expression in human blood samples in my garage, without using public grant money, the "review board" is whatever poor saps I sucker into giving me their blood.
You can always resort to publicly available data. But chances are that you won't be able to impress scientists much for going that route. Also, most of the important discoveries are already done on this data.
I reject both of those claims. Real scientists recognize valid results independant of the professional nature of the researcher or his lab. Hell, most of us "p
Probably a bit pedantic, but grey goo means nanobots out of control. You're thinking of biological threats, like artificial superflu or ebola reston mutated to become pathogenic to humans or something similar, which I guess would be green goo?
Grey goo technically wouldn't be a product of DIY biology, that would be DIY nanotech.
Probably a bigger concern is invasive GMO taking over, but this I think is a bigger concern from say Monsanto, which has more money to put into making GMOs and seems a lot less concerned with ethics or long term consequences than individual researchers. If they were to find some genes that allowed plants to outcompete any wild plant, and it got out into the wild, it might be difficult/expensive to contain. Outside of several plant labs you can find Arabidopsis that "got out", some could be harmless GMOs. I could easily see monsanto making a superplant arabidopsis and then being careless with the seeds.
I should state that I'm not a plant biologist, don't work at monsanto, and have no idea what if any legal or technical restrictions are in place to prevent that, they could be good ones. I'm just saying I'm more worried about dangerous biological threats coming out of corporate labs than someones garage.
Also, if you have any kind of music as your ringtone (except for the harp sound on the iPhone) you should be shot. A phone should sound like a phone, not a disco.
Aw, come on, EVERYONE loves Beyonce's "All the single ladies!"
It's not that they're talking on their cellphones that makes us say it's rude IT'S HOW THEY ARE YELLING ON THEIR CELLPHONES SO LOUD THE REST OF US CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER that makes us say it's rude.
Try riding in a bus with college students or younger. The ones on their cell phones often are the ones who are being -quieter- than their peers talking to other people right next to them. I can only assume this is because they've become more adapted to talking on a phone than talking face to face.
From my experience, it's often the older crowd that is actually doing much of the cell phone yelling. Judging from my mother, at least some of them are yelling because they don't know how to turn their volume up all the way and/or don't realize that just because they can't hear the other person doesn't mean they themselves can't be heard by the other person. Which is unpleasant for me and anyone who is actually near her.
Has anyone ever suggested all of these? The government offers a contract and clears the legislative barriers to a company making vigilante robots which would hunt down and kill the families of all spammers while making the spammers watch?
Assuming these robots can fly, have powerful metal claws, and cannot be stopped, I can't see any problems on your checklist.
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses () Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it () Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Nope. None there.
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
There are currently laws expressly forbidding the construction and operation of mass murder machines, but that's why I suggested we get rid of those laws.
( ) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
I do realize some wouldn't trust the company controlling the deathbots, which is why -I- would be the governing authority once they were operational. You can trust me because I promise to only kill you if you're related to a spammer.
If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.
If it is a question of faith, then they never really were with either side anyway.
In addition to the convinience issue others brought up, probably because they thought they had cleared up whatever problem there was the first time and because they were taking the extra step of directing it to Wau Holland Stiftung.
Did you read Stevens' dissent? Y'know, the thing that would have resulted as precedent had Kennedy voted with Stevens. No? Cause if you had you would have noticed it treated speech strictly as audible noise.
Okay, so that would have been ridiculous and would take away some of our rights. That doesn't make the alternative less ridiculous or bad for us. Corporations aren't people, and giving them the same rights was a bad move, they're going to buy and sell elections. I think that's going to end up worse for every citizen who is not a corporation than if we decided speech was noise, those problems you bring up seem pretty trivial in comparison.
flag burnings could be banned by any locale that chose to do so because symbolic speech was no longer protected
And many places that would bother already do basically, whether they officially do or whether you'll just be arrested for any other charge they feel like.
Anyway, I would have gone with a better example, such as "Blashphemy and swearing could be banned in any locale..." since "OMG! I won't be able to burn my flags anymore" doesn't exactly resonate with many people.
and any corporation could be forced to give up the names of it's members. Like sayyy, the NAACP.
Or plenty of other organizations like the KKK.
The only difference between now and Wednesday is that the money will no longer need to be funneled through 527s. Which means we'll get who's actually funding various campaign ads.
I don't see that. If big oil can now give money directly to canidates instead of making ads for that canidate, the canidate is making the ads and just has to say "I approve this message," right?
It may be a trivial point in practice, but I think that one canidate with 100 million corporate dollars in his warchest is better off than a canidate with 10 million in his warchest and 90 million being spent by corporations on ads for him, which he doesn't actually control. The canidate who picks his own ads knows exactly what his strategy is and can coordinate ads to match it better than a semi-independant entity.
Step 1: Be upfront and straightforward. Don't promise what you can't deliver. Step 2: Dont' work more than 40 hours. Just leave after that. Step 3: ????? Step 4: Profit!!!!
Yes, seeing as how the government and unions here rape things until they die bleeding from the ass.
Yeah! If we let programmers unionize, they'll rape the video game industry over until it's no longer profitable in the US and another country will take over, just like actor and writer unions have done to hollywood!
They're so overworked THEY DON'T HAVE TIME!!! Most are working on their letters of resignation, but they only have enough break period type one letter, and most weeks that's taken up by going to the bathroom or eating.
Plus, if America's number one cable news source is any indication, neither journalists nor the viewers are's really concerned with external "sources" or "facts."
Saddam was the brains behind 9/11, he had loads of weapons of mass destruction in 2003 that we recovered, and everyone in the world besides Saddam was cheering us on as we invaded Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain biased.
No, the people who designed the tokyo metro layout on the other hand, were most definitely high on something.
"Let's design an extremely interconnected subway system, except that in order to get across downtown you need to change lines 3 times including once to a completely different rail system. Some areas of downtown will have a train station every half block, wheras others will be mostly empty. To balance out that inconvinience, lets make all the trains run on time down to about 3 seconds, have all the stops in at least two languages, and keep the stations cleaner than most resturaunts."
Slashdot Mirror
Nice theory, but a 3rd party candidate cannot get on the ballot in all 50 states. Thus, it's impossible for a 3rd party to win, and I really don't see corporate interests investing in that kind of situation without due diligence.
How is that different from what I said?
'not to go to the moon in this decade and not do the other things, not because they are hard, but because not doing so is much cheaper and we have no money.'
Fixed that for you.
Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations...
Some of the other parties are also funded by corporations, for instance Lieberman is probably going to get a lot of money from his masters in the health insurance industry, and I guess he's technically not a democrat? Anyway, just wanted to point out that what's keeping corporate funding for the other parties low isn't a magic number greater than 2 or any ideological differences, it's that they haven't been winning and are therefore poor investments. If that were likely to change, corporate interests would invest in 3rd, 4th, or 9th party candidates faster than flies land on poop.
Discarding ethidium-bromide and acrylamide gels?
If I were doing DNA gels at home, I'd be using sybrsafe. As the name implies, it's a lot safer. Also less damaging to the DNA I'd be trying to isolate and can be reused many times. Slightly more expensive than dirt-cheap ethidium bromide though.
While unpolymerized acrylamide is a pretty dangerous neurotoxin, a polymerized polyacrylamide gel should actually be pretty safe. Granted, I wouldn't trust it, but plenty of academic labs do throw their in the garbage.
Biological experiments are different from software development, they need follow up and supervision through the end, which may take 2-4 days.
Some do, yes, but I'd say that doesn't describe most biological experiments. There are times when I need to work for half a day without interruption, but those are rare.
How do you discard biohazardous materials and mutagen/teratogen substances at home?
Depends on the hazardous/mutagenic material. There are quite detailed protocols and guidelines for disposal of almost all waste coming out of labs, with a little thinking you can find facilities to dispose of it, or find a way to neurtralize it yourself. And it's not like all research requires working with plutonium or exotic and dangerous materials. The most common teratogen I'd probably pour down the sink or drink (the most common teratogen being alchohol.)
You're just shooting yourself in the foot otherwise.
No see, there's an app for that, but apple rejected it, so they are in fact not shooting themselves in the foot. They might be shooting their users in the feet, but we convinced ourselves it is the hip thing to do now. The bullets and the bandages are white, so it matches.
they can't be targeted by the autoimmune system because they can't be bonded to; And that is because of the blood-brain barrier
I'd also guess without doing any reading on the subject that being inside the cell further prevents this. If a virus is inside a cell, that will ideally (for the cell) trigger cell suicide. If that doesn't happen or the virus blocks it. Some (most?) cells move bits of protiens out to their surface after they've digested them as part of normal cell function. If a bit of a viral protein does this, immune cells can recognize it and tell the cell to kill itself or can signal other cells to kill the infected cell. Since the prion though is a protein that is normal, the digested bits I would guess don't trigger that response, the immune cell sees the fragment and doesn't think anything is wrong.
Normal prions are folded proteins that self-terminate. That is, they end after a certain number of repeats. But abnormal ones don't ever stop growing -- and they occasionally break apart, but they keep folding forever.
Not sure what is meant by self terminating vs repeats, sounds like you're talking about translation, that prions don't stop synthesizing an amino acid chain. This page suggests that the proteins are made normally, its just that the misfolded proteins bend the normal ones out of shape. These proteins are insoluable, they form clumps (aggregates) inside the cell that are resistant to digestion, so the cell can't get rid of them. It does say though that no one had shown that was the cause rather than just one effect.
And thats why I'm posting; I'd like to share my idiocy with you.
I had that problem before I went to prison. Figured out it had something to do with my elin.
It was probably my puns that sent me to prison in the first place.
Many of these biology experiments require very expensive machines, such as microarray machines, as mentioned by the article. I don't know if purchasing refurbished machines is a wise choice since we don't want data quality to be compromised.
A microarray is pretty expensive yes, but a lot of DIY biology could be done with just a computer and or a secondhand PCR machine. Used PCR machines apperantly can be had for under a grand. Even less if you can service a broken one yourself, which many of these DIYers seem capable of. Probably won't have all the fancy options of a higher priced one either, but our academic lab has an expensive cycler with many options that we never use.
Data quality with many of these things is less tempermental than a microarray too. The secondhand PCR machine in this case might not be good for sequencing, but it would be a great tool if you were, say, making a plasmid to make glowing bacteria, using it to identify species of plants, making in-situ hybridization primers. There are a lot of things you can do with a basic cheap PCR machine.
As far as microarray data goes, an affymetrix premade microarray chip goes for about a thousand dollars. Obviously it's not feasible for most people to do many of these out of their own pocket, but not everyone does. Say you want to find out what genes are expressed more in dog breed A than dog breed B. If you were wanting to publish that data in a peer-reviewed journal, you'd probably need 6 chips, it seems like most people I know who do microarray do triplicates. If you were just wanting to find out for yourself, like to find canidates for which genes produced trait X that was in breed A, you could do just two, one for each, and hope it wasn't wildly innacurate. You could then focus your search based on that, taking it with a grain of salt until you confirmed it through other, less expensive means.
If you were going to be doing many microarrays, this website appears to be a guide for making your own microarrayer. The price tag for building it exactly as that lab says to would be about $24k. Again though, many DIYers are mechanically inclined and could cut corners for their own purposes.
Another issue is gathering the samples. If you're collecting yeast, that would be simple. Arabidopsis, other small plants, mice, or other small animals, you probably need quite some space.
I don't see that. Our lab studies chicken embryos. An egg incubator is pretty small. C elegans can be grown wherever you've got space. Arabidopsis can grow in the yard, you don't need acres. A research-grade mouse colony would be expensive yes (maintaining a genetically pure mouse colony in a sterile environment free of variation is harder just obtaining mice from the street). If you need other model organisms, there are farms. It can be a limiting factor, yes, but when is that not true? You can't exactly use elephants as a model organism in really any lab in the world.
Humans? That won't be simple at all. You have to clear privacy issues, getting the research review board to sign papers, etc.
Which research review board? If I'm comparing gene expression in human blood samples in my garage, without using public grant money, the "review board" is whatever poor saps I sucker into giving me their blood.
You can always resort to publicly available data. But chances are that you won't be able to impress scientists much for going that route. Also, most of the important discoveries are already done on this data.
I reject both of those claims. Real scientists recognize valid results independant of the professional nature of the researcher or his lab. Hell, most of us "p
Probably a bit pedantic, but grey goo means nanobots out of control. You're thinking of biological threats, like artificial superflu or ebola reston mutated to become pathogenic to humans or something similar, which I guess would be green goo?
Grey goo technically wouldn't be a product of DIY biology, that would be DIY nanotech.
Probably a bigger concern is invasive GMO taking over, but this I think is a bigger concern from say Monsanto, which has more money to put into making GMOs and seems a lot less concerned with ethics or long term consequences than individual researchers. If they were to find some genes that allowed plants to outcompete any wild plant, and it got out into the wild, it might be difficult/expensive to contain. Outside of several plant labs you can find Arabidopsis that "got out", some could be harmless GMOs. I could easily see monsanto making a superplant arabidopsis and then being careless with the seeds.
I should state that I'm not a plant biologist, don't work at monsanto, and have no idea what if any legal or technical restrictions are in place to prevent that, they could be good ones. I'm just saying I'm more worried about dangerous biological threats coming out of corporate labs than someones garage.
Japan seems to have this issue solved.
Yes, they do have manners in Japan, that's true. That's not a solution we could use though, we lack the sense of respect and shame that they do.
Also, if you have any kind of music as your ringtone (except for the harp sound on the iPhone) you should be shot. A phone should sound like a phone, not a disco.
Aw, come on, EVERYONE loves Beyonce's "All the single ladies!"
One of the best videos of all time!
It's not that they're talking on their cellphones that makes us say it's rude IT'S HOW THEY ARE YELLING ON THEIR CELLPHONES SO LOUD THE REST OF US CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER that makes us say it's rude.
Try riding in a bus with college students or younger. The ones on their cell phones often are the ones who are being -quieter- than their peers talking to other people right next to them. I can only assume this is because they've become more adapted to talking on a phone than talking face to face.
From my experience, it's often the older crowd that is actually doing much of the cell phone yelling. Judging from my mother, at least some of them are yelling because they don't know how to turn their volume up all the way and/or don't realize that just because they can't hear the other person doesn't mean they themselves can't be heard by the other person. Which is unpleasant for me and anyone who is actually near her.
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
Has anyone ever suggested all of these? The government offers a contract and clears the legislative barriers to a company making vigilante robots which would hunt down and kill the families of all spammers while making the spammers watch?
Assuming these robots can fly, have powerful metal claws, and cannot be stopped, I can't see any problems on your checklist.
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
() Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
() Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Nope. None there.
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
There are currently laws expressly forbidding the construction and operation of mass murder machines, but that's why I suggested we get rid of those laws.
( ) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
I do realize some wouldn't trust the company controlling the deathbots, which is why -I- would be the governing authority once they were operational. You can trust me because I promise to only kill you if you're related to a spammer.
my business' positive reputation by suing dancing toddlers
You obviously didn't see the video. That kid ain't got no moves. Universal was trying to do us all a favor.
If you think that's bad, for each of these errors that gets publicized, vast swaths of the population lose faith in the mountain of scientific evidence for anything whatsoever, including support for man-made global warming.
If it is a question of faith, then they never really were with either side anyway.
why the fuck would you STILL be using Paypal?
In addition to the convinience issue others brought up, probably because they thought they had cleared up whatever problem there was the first time and because they were taking the extra step of directing it to Wau Holland Stiftung.
Did you read Stevens' dissent? Y'know, the thing that would have resulted as precedent had Kennedy voted with Stevens. No? Cause if you had you would have noticed it treated speech strictly as audible noise.
Okay, so that would have been ridiculous and would take away some of our rights. That doesn't make the alternative less ridiculous or bad for us. Corporations aren't people, and giving them the same rights was a bad move, they're going to buy and sell elections. I think that's going to end up worse for every citizen who is not a corporation than if we decided speech was noise, those problems you bring up seem pretty trivial in comparison.
flag burnings could be banned by any locale that chose to do so because symbolic speech was no longer protected
And many places that would bother already do basically, whether they officially do or whether you'll just be arrested for any other charge they feel like.
Anyway, I would have gone with a better example, such as "Blashphemy and swearing could be banned in any locale..." since "OMG! I won't be able to burn my flags anymore" doesn't exactly resonate with many people.
and any corporation could be forced to give up the names of it's members. Like sayyy, the NAACP.
Or plenty of other organizations like the KKK.
The only difference between now and Wednesday is that the money will no longer need to be funneled through 527s. Which means we'll get who's actually funding various campaign ads.
I don't see that. If big oil can now give money directly to canidates instead of making ads for that canidate, the canidate is making the ads and just has to say "I approve this message," right?
It may be a trivial point in practice, but I think that one canidate with 100 million corporate dollars in his warchest is better off than a canidate with 10 million in his warchest and 90 million being spent by corporations on ads for him, which he doesn't actually control. The canidate who picks his own ads knows exactly what his strategy is and can coordinate ads to match it better than a semi-independant entity.
Step 1: Be upfront and straightforward. Don't promise what you can't deliver.
Step 2: Dont' work more than 40 hours. Just leave after that.
Step 3: ?????
Step 4: Profit!!!!
T,FTFY
Yes, seeing as how the government and unions here rape things until they die bleeding from the ass.
Yeah! If we let programmers unionize, they'll rape the video game industry over until it's no longer profitable in the US and another country will take over, just like actor and writer unions have done to hollywood!
Advocating unions or government regulation makes you sounds like a socialist.
Is there a problem with that?
Yes! Regan, Rocky, and the Wolverines didn't team up to defeat soviet russia so we could become communists!
Why don't these programmers just QUIT?
They're so overworked THEY DON'T HAVE TIME!!! Most are working on their letters of resignation, but they only have enough break period type one letter, and most weeks that's taken up by going to the bathroom or eating.
Oops, forgot the citation for that. 80% of fox news viewers in 2003 thought one or more of those 3 lies were true, and 45% believed all three.
Plus, if America's number one cable news source is any indication, neither journalists nor the viewers are's really concerned with external "sources" or "facts."
Saddam was the brains behind 9/11, he had loads of weapons of mass destruction in 2003 that we recovered, and everyone in the world besides Saddam was cheering us on as we invaded Iraq. Anyone who says otherwise is just plain biased.
No, the people who designed the tokyo metro layout on the other hand, were most definitely high on something.
"Let's design an extremely interconnected subway system, except that in order to get across downtown you need to change lines 3 times including once to a completely different rail system. Some areas of downtown will have a train station every half block, wheras others will be mostly empty. To balance out that inconvinience, lets make all the trains run on time down to about 3 seconds, have all the stops in at least two languages, and keep the stations cleaner than most resturaunts."
This is torrible news! The torror...