There are usually some unreasonably high fees associated with bank transfers like that. Checks are virtually free. Should it cost $20-$30 to make every transaction in the future when you could have wrote a check for free?
There aren't such high fees in countries where that's the normal way to do business. Heck, you can do it for free in the US between many credit unions, including credit unions on other sides of the country. I've borrowed and repaid money to my family that way.
A check is nothing more than a bank transfer form with your account and other info written down on it. The only reason bank transfers cost money in the US is because they can. (Should you at this point have any surprise left at the fact that 90% of bank fess are set up to screw you instead of cover costs?)
I don't know if this is actually a genuine term, but it is quite old. It is used in the original Godfather. So whether or not it is a real term, it makes sense given that we are talking about a Facebook game that revolves around a glorified fantasy version of the Mafia.
Seems like I've heard the phrase wrong all of my life, and some Googling seems to confirm what you are saying.
Well, Foley and Klaudt had little choice because their actions are criminal, but Craig surely hasn't. Vitter hasn't. Ensign hasn't. Sanford hasn't. Etc., etc.
Well, maybe not as "etc., etc." as I thought. Reading back through a few scandals I remembered to provide support for my statement, I see that a some people HAVE resigned. Mike Duvall, Richard Curtis, etc.
Note that I tend to lean Democratic, and that this is all within the context of my 'impassioned' defense of Larry Craig above (the one where I call him a jerk).
Yeah, I'm not accusing you of being a rabid Craig fan or anything. I'm just saying that it's not unmerited to bring up other examples of something you want to complain about if you see it as a pattern, and you need to establish the argument.
Sure, there is lots to be angry about, but there really isn't any need to bring the other names into it just to make the point about the hypocrisy (Or perhaps better, mentioning their names in the same sentence as this guy doesn't do anything to make the point any stronger).
Sure there is a need if you're talking about a pattern for a political party that portrays itself as a champion of moral values and yet has far more sex scandals than the opposition. Its this pattern that particularly draws my ire. "Moral values issues" are one of the Republican Party's wedge issues that draw moderate voters to them, and the drive to impeach Bill Clinton rested on (seemingly faux) outrage over his sexual infidelities.
If a Democrat steps out of line sexually, it's the end of his career unless he's in a very safe seat. May as well resign ASAP because the hounds will be baying for blood until he does. If a Republican does the same, all it takes is some boo-hooing and promises to seek God's forgiveness, and it's dealt with. Done; nothing left but a little fuming on the other side of the isle. (But forget any Christian forgiveness for a Democrat who asks the same!)
It just galls me. It also kind of horrifies/amuses me how frequently in the wake of child predatory scandals that you'll find out that the politician in question has his arms elbow deep into legislation to toughen laws against sexual predators! It's like they're out to look as tough as possible to deflect suspicion from themselves. In the end, all they do is weave the rope for their own noose.
And it would probably read better as "So I see some value in not lumping mere hypocrites in with rapists just because the rapists happen to be hypocrites too."
Meh. My point from the other post still stands. We're not equating the two. We're just not locked onto rape as the only thing worth being angry about here.
I always thought that the nicotine is completely harmless. You can chew the nicotine gum for every second of your life and you will probably be fine.
There's some controversy over some research that needs to be hashed out over nicotine and FOXM1 expression. Recent research has suggested that if you have a mutation in this gene (which is a precursor to cancer), nicotine may worsen your chances of getting cancer. Nicotine alone won't do it, but if you're already heading down that route...
Some researchers are skeptical over the study because numerous other studies have shown no link between nicotine and cancer, but only time will tell who is right.
This is why car drivers that complain about cigarette smokers annoy me. The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it. Yes, I drive, and no I don't smoke, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and claim that my air pollution is better than their air pollution.
It wouldn't necessarily be hypocrisy to claim that.
1) Cigarette smoke contains 10x more particulate matter than engine exhaust. There's a reason we have catalytic converters. 2) Cars don't typically blow smoke at face level or hang around doors (or indoors in more permissive places).
I find hypocrisy offensive, but I see no reason for it to carry punishment under the law (but I do think it is fine that Congress has ethics that they are supposed follow and such). Rape, on the other hand, deserves punishment.
So I see some value in not lumping hypocrites in with rapists just because the hypocrites happen to be rapists.
What are you babbling about? (1) No one has suggested legal punishment for hypocrisy. (2) No one is equating rape to hypocrisy.
Our point is merely that we are strongly disastified with politicians who pretend to be champions of moral values while hiding huge skeletons in their closet. I'm not saying that the only difference between rape and hypocrisy is matter of degrees. I'm saying that the difference between hypocrisy over homosexuality (a sexual act Americans are split over, with most accepting) and hypocrisy over pedophilia (a sexual act Americans are united against) is one of degrees. Both champion straight, consensual, monogamous, married relationships in accordance with the scripture. Both failed to practice what they preached.
[Three paragraph rant on how this galls me in relation to partisan politics and wedge issues snipped for going too far off-topic.]
So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem... Everyone switch to pot?
I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer. It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.
So, if you're going to switch from tobacco to marijuana, consider going with methods other than smoking. You may not get cancer from smoking, but it's still not good for you, and there are much safer ways to get high. (They are also ways that do not force other people in your presence to participate through second-hand smoke, which will bother others regardless of the long-term health risks or lack thereof.)
So what? That's like excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees. Both are wrong.
Craig and Klaudt were "moral values" Republicans who sponsored numerous bills attempting to outlaw acts or discriminate against people that were guilty of things they themselves did. Both ran on campaigns that portrayed themselves as highly moral people on issues of sexual behavior (which inherently imply or explicitly state themselves to be superior to their opponents on these issues) all while engaging in pure hypocrisy. Klaudt backed numerous tough anti-pedophile laws in South Dakota and fought to keep children from getting contraception at schools in a bid to keep children from having sex. Craig has voted consistently against gay rights over the past decade. Both are utter hypocrites.
Just because people might be more sympathetic to gay sex in a bathroom, compared to child molestation, doesn't mitigate the fact that they themselves harped on the immorality of such actions, that they profited from votes gained from "taking the high road," and that they did so while engaging in the very acts they vilified.
(Side note: Craig was rumored as far back as 1982 as having been involved with male, teenage pages, so he might actually be a predator, but that's irrelevant to my point.)
Just how much could these mattresses cost anyway, and what possible justification is their for buying them at this inflated rate rather than just going with regular consumer-grade mattresses and replacing them more often?
Yeah, great. Thanks for leading off another science article with: - Post #1 - A crass joke. - Post #2 - Trolling creationists.
There goes all hope anything intelligent being discussed like the Messianian salinity crisis that the article refers to. (i.e. Why something as deep as the Mediterranean was dry instead of a lake in the first place.
Oh, enough with the picking at the imperfect analogies. No analogy regarding the law is going to be perfect because no two laws are exactly the same or cover the same situation, or there wouldn't be two different laws -- they'd be covered under different parts of the same law, like various drugs are. My point was the just "growing plants" is disingenuous because marijuana is not the same as corn, tulips, or hemlock. Each plant has a purpose and that purpose is what's being regulated.
Anyway...
The government can, and has, passed laws forbidding depicting the use of drugs on television and radio, or any advocacy for drug use or drug reform.
I'm skeptical that this is true. The FCC is only allowed to regulate the airwaves in a content-neutral manner with (AFAIK) the only exception being obscenity. Furthermore, NORML and other pro-legalization organizations have actually run commercials on TV advocating for their cause.
Got a citation, especially to a court case allowing this?
The government hasn't just made Pot illegal, the government has directed its employees to lie, classing the drug as a narcotic, claiming it is chemically related to the opiates, and falsifying scientific reports on its effects.
I can perhaps understand being a little pedantically upset at calling all illegal drugs "narcotics," like law enforcement typically does. However, THC does meet the common definition of a narcotic, "a drug that produces numbness or stupor; often taken for pleasure or to reduce pain; extensive use can lead to addiction."
Another definition: "any of a class of substances that blunt the senses, as opium, morphine, belladonna, and alcohol, that in large quantities produce euphoria, stupor, or coma, that when used constantly can cause habituation or addiction, and that are used in medicine to relieve pain, cause sedation, and induce sleep. That pretty much sounds like marijuana to me!
As for the "chemically related to opiates bit," you're confusing legal definitions with common definitions. The US government does use "narcotic" in certain legal contexts to refer to opoids, but they don't use the term to refer to marijuana in those contexts.
Lastly, as for falsifying scientific reports, I'm just going to have to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. (And by that, I don't mean something from some pro-legalization, conspiracy theory website. I'm going to want unbiased confirmation.)
The crack laws are essentially "Possession of Cocaine while Black" charges.
Terribly true, and ironic. After all, the earliest laws to raise the penalties for crack were pushed by black politicians who were worried about how drugs affected their own communities. I don't think they realized how "tough love" was going to affect their communities so badly and fail to provide effective deterrence. There's a lot of fundamental injustice in how drug laws are prosecuted along racial lines, and crack is one of the "shining" examples of how terrible it can get.
Actually, suicide is illegal in some jurisdictions, though people are only prosecuted for attempt. Smoking marijuana is not a crime that only affects you, though I'd argue that eating it or otherwise consuming it probably is as close as you can get. A better analogy would be helmet laws which are partially about protecting you from your own stupidity and partially about making sure society doesn't have bear the costs of whatever you do "to yourself."
Either way, this is really irrelevant to the points I raised: 1) It isn't your right to do anything not mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise Congress wouldn't have the power to pass any laws. 2) Painting drug use and possession as mere agriculture is deceptive spin. 3) The term "political prisoner" means something more than "I just don't like the law some people are locked up for breaking." Otherwise we'd be "wrong" for going after Warren Jeffs for child molestation and incest just because he and his followers are convinced that it's okay.
Will the case be closed or left open, and if he loses in court, will he take it all the way to the Circuit court. Will either he or the police be charged with battery? Will this spark a new generation to revolt against police power if they are discharged and be a transformative event, or will people be more grounded in their response to current affairs?
it is incidents like these that make me less likely to believe the law enforcement officer's side of the story.
Gosh, I guess those two incidents which were well-publicized indicate that the true nature of most police-suspect interactions are ones where the police are in the wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I don't 100% trust the cops at all, and I tend to be wary around them in person because of those rare incidents, but I'd say that 99% of incidents involving the police involve some level of idiocy/malice on the suspect's part -- including the guy being hit into the glass.
(Now that shooting... yeesh. That was a messed up situation. What was with the crowd beforehand, and what was with the police? I don't think I ever want to use that city's public transit wherever it was.)
Like all successful police states these people aren't busted for expressing anti-Government views. Instead laws are passed taking away fundamental rights (remember your bill of rights is not an exhaustive list and IIRC amendment #9 basically states this) then the undesirables are targeted. The favourite rights to be removed are things like the right to grow plants and have the products in your possession.
Okaaay. I so I guess you're pretty militantly pro-legalization on marijuana, but aren't you spinning things a little bit too much by calling drug possession your "right to grow plants and have the products in your possession?"
I mean, context matters. You might as well describe speeding laws as interfering with your "right to drive," noise ordinances as abridging the "right to enjoy music," and laws against shooting people as abridging your "right to play catch."
Plus, if you want to characterize prisoners in jail for drug violations as "political prisoners," then you're going to have to call anyone who is in prison for a crime they don't believe is wrong a "political prisoner." That just renders the term meaningless.
The UI would be fine if a) it worked correctly cross-browser, or at least among standards-compliant browsers and b) the javascript that powers most of it wasn't some of the slowest ever written.
I liked the site better when it didn't rely on Javascript at all: back when all the comment boxes worked without a hitch, and there weren't so many clever little popups that don't work half the time. Plus, I used to be able to see icons for friend/foe markers. Even with everything turned on in NoScript (save DoubleClick), the site doesn't completely work, and it's maddening.
I haven't seen ANY value added by ANY of the UI changes to Slashdot in the past couple of years. All they've done is make the site harder to use and less attractive. I always get the feeling no matter what browser I use that the site was coded for some other browser. And that's just terrible.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't spelt 'checks' it's 'cheques' in the UK - for fucks sake get it right.
I didn't know Slashdot comments came in wheat gluten-free versions now!
There are usually some unreasonably high fees associated with bank transfers like that. Checks are virtually free. Should it cost $20-$30 to make every transaction in the future when you could have wrote a check for free?
There aren't such high fees in countries where that's the normal way to do business. Heck, you can do it for free in the US between many credit unions, including credit unions on other sides of the country. I've borrowed and repaid money to my family that way.
A check is nothing more than a bank transfer form with your account and other info written down on it. The only reason bank transfers cost money in the US is because they can. (Should you at this point have any surprise left at the fact that 90% of bank fess are set up to screw you instead of cover costs?)
I don't know if this is actually a genuine term, but it is quite old. It is used in the original Godfather. So whether or not it is a real term, it makes sense given that we are talking about a Facebook game that revolves around a glorified fantasy version of the Mafia.
Seems like I've heard the phrase wrong all of my life, and some Googling seems to confirm what you are saying.
I bow to your superior knowledge.
It's "going to the mat." As in the wrestling mat.
Not "going to the mattress" which is something I generally associate with getting screwed.
Well, Foley and Klaudt had little choice because their actions are criminal, but Craig surely hasn't. Vitter hasn't. Ensign hasn't. Sanford hasn't. Etc., etc.
Well, maybe not as "etc., etc." as I thought. Reading back through a few scandals I remembered to provide support for my statement, I see that a some people HAVE resigned. Mike Duvall, Richard Curtis, etc.
Note that I tend to lean Democratic, and that this is all within the context of my 'impassioned' defense of Larry Craig above (the one where I call him a jerk).
Yeah, I'm not accusing you of being a rabid Craig fan or anything. I'm just saying that it's not unmerited to bring up other examples of something you want to complain about if you see it as a pattern, and you need to establish the argument.
Sure, there is lots to be angry about, but there really isn't any need to bring the other names into it just to make the point about the hypocrisy (Or perhaps better, mentioning their names in the same sentence as this guy doesn't do anything to make the point any stronger).
Sure there is a need if you're talking about a pattern for a political party that portrays itself as a champion of moral values and yet has far more sex scandals than the opposition. Its this pattern that particularly draws my ire. "Moral values issues" are one of the Republican Party's wedge issues that draw moderate voters to them, and the drive to impeach Bill Clinton rested on (seemingly faux) outrage over his sexual infidelities.
If a Democrat steps out of line sexually, it's the end of his career unless he's in a very safe seat. May as well resign ASAP because the hounds will be baying for blood until he does. If a Republican does the same, all it takes is some boo-hooing and promises to seek God's forgiveness, and it's dealt with. Done; nothing left but a little fuming on the other side of the isle. (But forget any Christian forgiveness for a Democrat who asks the same!)
It just galls me. It also kind of horrifies/amuses me how frequently in the wake of child predatory scandals that you'll find out that the politician in question has his arms elbow deep into legislation to toughen laws against sexual predators! It's like they're out to look as tough as possible to deflect suspicion from themselves. In the end, all they do is weave the rope for their own noose.
And it would probably read better as "So I see some value in not lumping mere hypocrites in with rapists just because the rapists happen to be hypocrites too."
Meh. My point from the other post still stands. We're not equating the two. We're just not locked onto rape as the only thing worth being angry about here.
I always thought that the nicotine is completely harmless. You can chew the nicotine gum for every second of your life and you will probably be fine.
There's some controversy over some research that needs to be hashed out over nicotine and FOXM1 expression. Recent research has suggested that if you have a mutation in this gene (which is a precursor to cancer), nicotine may worsen your chances of getting cancer. Nicotine alone won't do it, but if you're already heading down that route...
Some researchers are skeptical over the study because numerous other studies have shown no link between nicotine and cancer, but only time will tell who is right.
This is why car drivers that complain about cigarette smokers annoy me. The will spew all sorts of particulate matter and chemicals into the air and then whine when a cigarette smokers do it. Yes, I drive, and no I don't smoke, but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and claim that my air pollution is better than their air pollution.
It wouldn't necessarily be hypocrisy to claim that.
1) Cigarette smoke contains 10x more particulate matter than engine exhaust. There's a reason we have catalytic converters.
2) Cars don't typically blow smoke at face level or hang around doors (or indoors in more permissive places).
I find hypocrisy offensive, but I see no reason for it to carry punishment under the law (but I do think it is fine that Congress has ethics that they are supposed follow and such). Rape, on the other hand, deserves punishment.
So I see some value in not lumping hypocrites in with rapists just because the hypocrites happen to be rapists.
What are you babbling about?
(1) No one has suggested legal punishment for hypocrisy.
(2) No one is equating rape to hypocrisy.
Our point is merely that we are strongly disastified with politicians who pretend to be champions of moral values while hiding huge skeletons in their closet. I'm not saying that the only difference between rape and hypocrisy is matter of degrees. I'm saying that the difference between hypocrisy over homosexuality (a sexual act Americans are split over, with most accepting) and hypocrisy over pedophilia (a sexual act Americans are united against) is one of degrees. Both champion straight, consensual, monogamous, married relationships in accordance with the scripture. Both failed to practice what they preached.
[Three paragraph rant on how this galls me in relation to partisan politics and wedge issues snipped for going too far off-topic.]
So, since it's cigarette smoke that's the problem... Everyone switch to pot?
I know you're joking, but there's no conclusive evidence that nicotine itself causes cancer. It's particulate matter and other smoke residues that seem to drive lung cancer, and we know that there are just as many carcinogens in pot smoke as tobacco smoke.
Weirdly, however, large studies seem to indicate that there isn't an increased cancer risk from heavy pot smoking. Other research suggests that THC reduced lung cancer growth. However, pot smokers are at elevated risk for other lung diseases that come purely from breathing hot smoke all the time.
So, if you're going to switch from tobacco to marijuana, consider going with methods other than smoking. You may not get cancer from smoking, but it's still not good for you, and there are much safer ways to get high. (They are also ways that do not force other people in your presence to participate through second-hand smoke, which will bother others regardless of the long-term health risks or lack thereof.)
Larry Craig is a jerk, not a predator.
So what? That's like excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees. Both are wrong.
Craig and Klaudt were "moral values" Republicans who sponsored numerous bills attempting to outlaw acts or discriminate against people that were guilty of things they themselves did. Both ran on campaigns that portrayed themselves as highly moral people on issues of sexual behavior (which inherently imply or explicitly state themselves to be superior to their opponents on these issues) all while engaging in pure hypocrisy. Klaudt backed numerous tough anti-pedophile laws in South Dakota and fought to keep children from getting contraception at schools in a bid to keep children from having sex. Craig has voted consistently against gay rights over the past decade. Both are utter hypocrites.
Just because people might be more sympathetic to gay sex in a bathroom, compared to child molestation, doesn't mitigate the fact that they themselves harped on the immorality of such actions, that they profited from votes gained from "taking the high road," and that they did so while engaging in the very acts they vilified.
(Side note: Craig was rumored as far back as 1982 as having been involved with male, teenage pages, so he might actually be a predator, but that's irrelevant to my point.)
Just how much could these mattresses cost anyway, and what possible justification is their for buying them at this inflated rate rather than just going with regular consumer-grade mattresses and replacing them more often?
Yeah, great. Thanks for leading off another science article with:
- Post #1 - A crass joke.
- Post #2 - Trolling creationists.
There goes all hope anything intelligent being discussed like the Messianian salinity crisis that the article refers to. (i.e. Why something as deep as the Mediterranean was dry instead of a lake in the first place.
Oh, enough with the picking at the imperfect analogies. No analogy regarding the law is going to be perfect because no two laws are exactly the same or cover the same situation, or there wouldn't be two different laws -- they'd be covered under different parts of the same law, like various drugs are. My point was the just "growing plants" is disingenuous because marijuana is not the same as corn, tulips, or hemlock. Each plant has a purpose and that purpose is what's being regulated.
Anyway...
The government can, and has, passed laws forbidding depicting the use of drugs on television and radio, or any advocacy for drug use or drug reform.
I'm skeptical that this is true. The FCC is only allowed to regulate the airwaves in a content-neutral manner with (AFAIK) the only exception being obscenity. Furthermore, NORML and other pro-legalization organizations have actually run commercials on TV advocating for their cause.
Got a citation, especially to a court case allowing this?
Man, you couldn't blown that more than if you'd put the spoiler in the title of the book.
The government hasn't just made Pot illegal, the government has directed its employees to lie, classing the drug as a narcotic, claiming it is chemically related to the opiates, and falsifying scientific reports on its effects.
I can perhaps understand being a little pedantically upset at calling all illegal drugs "narcotics," like law enforcement typically does. However, THC does meet the common definition of a narcotic, "a drug that produces numbness or stupor; often taken for pleasure or to reduce pain; extensive use can lead to addiction."
Another definition: "any of a class of substances that blunt the senses, as opium, morphine, belladonna, and alcohol, that in large quantities produce euphoria, stupor, or coma, that when used constantly can cause habituation or addiction, and that are used in medicine to relieve pain, cause sedation, and induce sleep. That pretty much sounds like marijuana to me!
As for the "chemically related to opiates bit," you're confusing legal definitions with common definitions. The US government does use "narcotic" in certain legal contexts to refer to opoids, but they don't use the term to refer to marijuana in those contexts.
Lastly, as for falsifying scientific reports, I'm just going to have to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. (And by that, I don't mean something from some pro-legalization, conspiracy theory website. I'm going to want unbiased confirmation.)
The crack laws are essentially "Possession of Cocaine while Black" charges.
Terribly true, and ironic. After all, the earliest laws to raise the penalties for crack were pushed by black politicians who were worried about how drugs affected their own communities. I don't think they realized how "tough love" was going to affect their communities so badly and fail to provide effective deterrence. There's a lot of fundamental injustice in how drug laws are prosecuted along racial lines, and crack is one of the "shining" examples of how terrible it can get.
Actually, suicide is illegal in some jurisdictions, though people are only prosecuted for attempt. Smoking marijuana is not a crime that only affects you, though I'd argue that eating it or otherwise consuming it probably is as close as you can get. A better analogy would be helmet laws which are partially about protecting you from your own stupidity and partially about making sure society doesn't have bear the costs of whatever you do "to yourself."
Either way, this is really irrelevant to the points I raised:
1) It isn't your right to do anything not mentioned in the Constitution. Otherwise Congress wouldn't have the power to pass any laws.
2) Painting drug use and possession as mere agriculture is deceptive spin.
3) The term "political prisoner" means something more than "I just don't like the law some people are locked up for breaking." Otherwise we'd be "wrong" for going after Warren Jeffs for child molestation and incest just because he and his followers are convinced that it's okay.
Will the case be closed or left open, and if he loses in court, will he take it all the way to the Circuit court. Will either he or the police be charged with battery? Will this spark a new generation to revolt against police power if they are discharged and be a transformative event, or will people be more grounded in their response to current affairs?
I'm pretty sure battery was already what followed.
it is incidents like these that make me less likely to believe the law enforcement officer's side of the story.
Gosh, I guess those two incidents which were well-publicized indicate that the true nature of most police-suspect interactions are ones where the police are in the wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I don't 100% trust the cops at all, and I tend to be wary around them in person because of those rare incidents, but I'd say that 99% of incidents involving the police involve some level of idiocy/malice on the suspect's part -- including the guy being hit into the glass.
(Now that shooting... yeesh. That was a messed up situation. What was with the crowd beforehand, and what was with the police? I don't think I ever want to use that city's public transit wherever it was.)
Like all successful police states these people aren't busted for expressing anti-Government views. Instead laws are passed taking away fundamental rights (remember your bill of rights is not an exhaustive list and IIRC amendment #9 basically states this) then the undesirables are targeted.
The favourite rights to be removed are things like the right to grow plants and have the products in your possession.
Okaaay. I so I guess you're pretty militantly pro-legalization on marijuana, but aren't you spinning things a little bit too much by calling drug possession your "right to grow plants and have the products in your possession?"
I mean, context matters. You might as well describe speeding laws as interfering with your "right to drive," noise ordinances as abridging the "right to enjoy music," and laws against shooting people as abridging your "right to play catch."
Plus, if you want to characterize prisoners in jail for drug violations as "political prisoners," then you're going to have to call anyone who is in prison for a crime they don't believe is wrong a "political prisoner." That just renders the term meaningless.
Thanks, guys. I've spent the past 10 years constantly criticizing you, but there must be something about the place if I keep coming back...Well done.
Same here. We complain because we care, and you wouldn't see us griping if we really didn't like the place at heart.
What, were you waiting for the statute of limitations to run out before confessing or something?
The UI would be fine if a) it worked correctly cross-browser, or at least among standards-compliant browsers and b) the javascript that powers most of it wasn't some of the slowest ever written.
I liked the site better when it didn't rely on Javascript at all: back when all the comment boxes worked without a hitch, and there weren't so many clever little popups that don't work half the time. Plus, I used to be able to see icons for friend/foe markers. Even with everything turned on in NoScript (save DoubleClick), the site doesn't completely work, and it's maddening.
I haven't seen ANY value added by ANY of the UI changes to Slashdot in the past couple of years. All they've done is make the site harder to use and less attractive. I always get the feeling no matter what browser I use that the site was coded for some other browser. And that's just terrible.