Doesn't the value depend on what we put in the hole? It would be valuable if we could put all the world's corrupt politicians and lawyers in the hole as opposed to say Jennifer Anniston.
Why not Jennifer Anniston? Does being pretty make her oxygen theft any more excusable? And, fair's fair, there are plenty of man-children celebrities who would make acceptable landfill material too.
The rich have pretty close to 100% control over political office and media access. I don't really see the point in differentiating.
The problem with remarks like this is that when you try to nail down who "the rich" are, they inevitably become "people who run everything", so it's effectively a tautology. So there's some vast conspiracy of people "controlling" everything, except you can never find any ultimate point to it. Money? They're already rich and have more money than any of them need. Power? They already have it all, and further, what are they supposedly *doing* with it?
It's a popular notion, but total bullshit.
And you can disprove it, yourself, by simply contacting your representative. They really are very approachable and really do listen to constituents. Find an issue you're concerned about, write a letter to your representative or senator, or get them on the phone. It's that simple. If you're too lazy to do that, fine, but don't cry about how awful your government is.
You fuckers were sweethearts. In my day we'd beat students black and blue if their encoded assignments used the same bits! Made them tough! And stupid! Just the way we liked 'em.
The original author wrote the same utility function twice for two different projects, and this is against the law? How is this even an issue?
I'm befuddled.
Because you signed a contract stating you wouldn't.
And in this case, it looks like Oracle will get a trivial sum because you did, trivially, break the law.
Is it illegal to wander across the street haphazardly? Sure. Is it a terrible offense? No, it's called jaywalking, and you might get a small fine for doing so. And it makes sense to discourage people from wandering into oncoming traffic.
Wise guy, eh? #!/bin/sh # reads post from standard input grep -i "First Post" >/dev/null if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
exit 255 fi
No, no, no, it's just:
#!/bin/sh grep -ivq "First Post"
A shell script will always exit with the last return code, so the exit is redundant... -q is "quiet" meaning grep will stop at the first match and just return error or success. -v will negate.
Incidentally, comparing $? is usually redundant:
if do_stuff then echo it worked else echo FAILURE fi
The [ ] (or the preferred [[ ]] in bash) is just a command like any other. Use if ! command to swap clauses.
It's also worth looking in the man pages at how [[ ]] and (( )) work. In (( )), for instance, (( a = x & y ? 5 + 3 * b : c += 2 )) does what you'd expect.
And many if then clauses can be eliminated with && and ||, which sort of work the way you'd expect. (They have identical precedence, so a && b && c && d || failure works, but it's still weird.)
Then the journalists are fucked. What most of them do is rewriting press releases submitted by companies, copying subscription news stories, and maybe adding a critical sentence or two cribbed from wikipedia.
If by "fucked" you mean, "likely to switch to a job that isn't quite so mind numbingly repetitive and pointless," then, yes, they are fucked. Many people will be fired, yes I've been there, it sucks, but they will all find new jobs, and they will mostly be better off in the long run.
Nice to see that the U.S. isn't the only country with a "conservative" party that's not at all conservative.
Yeah, if you listen to conservative talk radio or read blogs, you certainly won't get any different argument from self identified conservatives, who are convinced the GOP is teeming with moderates.
The reality is that, like liberalism, conservatism is a big tent ideology and the political parties are both even bigger tents. Most conservatives have an "issues"-based understanding of the ideology, that is, they are quite aware of a set of current day issues that they follow in the news, but their grasp of the philosophy and roots of conservatism is pretty thin. And many liberal challenges to conservative philosophy have actually become part of the conventional wisdom, for instance, there never was any notion of "capitalism" until Marx invented it, and now many conservatives proudly call themselves capitalists. You get a tremendous number of people who aren't remotely conservative in their worldview, but because of the flux of politics, they happen to line up with conservatives on a number of issues and thus self-identify as conservative.
The parties themselves really do have very different agendas and those agendas really are based on constant contact with constituents, but they are also have a much longer view of politics than their constituents. Most conservatives are, politically, idiots. (Most liberals are, too, of course.) People really do believe that if they just find a candidate who is The True Conservative, all the liberals and moderates will say, "I was wrong all along, now that conservative principles have been explained to me, I realize that they are the epitome of common sense and I will abandon my former worldview." The first hurdle in understanding politics is grasping that the other guy really does believe what he's saying; it's very hard to fully grok. If you think I'm wrong, keep trying to grok this. But the result is that when politicians don't go after the other guy hammer and tongs, they assume that their guy refuses to lecture liberals on True Conservatism because he's really a moderate.
The other big factor is that people think the parties are perpetually conspiring to elect moderates. In a primary, the parties will do all the polling and research, and they will support candidates who are likely to win. They're wrong, occasionally, but you will get new candidates who come in thinking that the party has anointed a "RINO", whereas they're True Conservatives and are thus guaranteed to win. When, as often happens, they fail miserably and it seems like the party was one step ahead the whole time, they assume that there was a conspiracy, when really the party just knows what the hell they're doing. And, of course, the smaller candidates get a lot of mileage by claiming a conspiracy even if they know it's total bullshit. All through the Republican primary, people were complaining that the "establishment" was "shoving Romney down our throats" (I saw this precise phrase in a mailer) when there hasn't been any kind of establishment in 40 years, and we had 13 debates where all the candidates were carefully considered.
Those are the big reasons why Joe or Jane Conservative will consistently say the Republicans are exactly like the Democrats, even while the two parties are perpetually at loggerheads, and, even when the Tea Party movement has completely changed the direction of the GOP, virtually over night. I suspect a lefty who follows politics would give you pretty much the same story.
That is a lot of bullshit. Animals attempt to initiate sex with humans all the goddamned time.
And if a small child has a sexual problem and tries to have sex with you, as the adult you're responsible. Similarly, if an animal wants to have sex with you, you're the thinking, rational being, and thus the it falls on you not to. Animal urges are not the same thing as human consent.
No, it's well-established medically that you need genetic testing to determine if the offspring of any two people is likely to be born with a genetic defect...
After a few generations of in-breeding, the population of in-breeders will start to get genetic defects. The law is a blunt instrument, but it is perfectly reasonable to ban incest generally to prevent sub-populations from giving their children horrible birth defects.
Is that consent? It was certainly illegal.
As I said, the law isn't perfect, and I'm not trying to nail down the specifics here.
The contract doesn't have to say anything about who's fucking who. It can simply assign property rights.
You get distracted easily. I could sign a contract that divvied up property rights with my brother, and obviously adultery laws wouldn't apply to that. But if you're going to have a contract that specifies monogamy, a marriage, you have to be liable for violating that monogamy to be liable or you didn't have the right to enter into it.
Keep trying!
You really just need to work on your critical thinking and reading comprehension. What I showed was that there is nothing fundamentally wrong, from a natural law basis, with banning all of the above. You ran off on tangents, or couldn't see that laws sometimes govern larger social issues and don't always apply to individual rights. If you try reading things to learn rather than showing how clever you are, you'll find it can be quite rewarding.
It's mostly just the Democratic Party of the United States that is bought and paid for by Hollywood.
The No Electronic Theft Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act were passed under a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate.
Both of which had heavy support from the Democrats as well. The DMCA actually has plenty of provisions that are quite reasonable, like safe harbor. You also didn't mention the V-chip that Bill Clinton advocated, or Tipper Gore's crusades against filthy lyrics.
But I said bought and paid for, and that matters on the controversial issues, not the ones in which Washington conventional wisdom is simply wrong. And the fact is that Hollywood is third after trial lawyers and unions as donors to the Democrats. But you can prove me wrong, just name all those a-list actors, directors, film execs or people in related businesses like music who are big fans and donors to the GOP.
How about allowing pics to be taken when kids are young, but being confidential under penalty of death to the photographer who can publish them only after the subject reaches the age of 18(or 21) and gives consent
Uh, penalty of death? Shouldn't that be reserved for things like first degree murder?
RMS has aspergers, and so, has dificulties on empathy.
He uses the Logic all times, without understanding emotional reactions from people around.
And, unless you are a hipocryte yourself, you must acknowledge that from a pure logic point of view, he's right.
The illegality of bestiality is just as legally sound as any animal cruelty laws, because animals can't consent. Consent requires speech, moral development and sexual maturation.
It's well established medically that incest should be illegal because it leads to horrific birth defects, just as society shouldn't condone polygamy because it leads to a shortage of women and then pedophilia.
And while there is room for reforms (a 17 year old who has sex with a 16 year old is not a pedophile) pedophilia should be illegal because children can't consent. Children lack moral development and sexual maturation; yes, people develop at different rates and the ages we pick are arbitrary. That just means the laws are imperfect, it doesn't mean that the fundamental basis of the laws is unsound.
And just as you have a right to do what you will with your body, you have a right to be sure that your remains won't be defiled, so necrophilia is out. Unless someone _actually_ specified in their will, "if you ever get a hankering, yeah, that kind of hankering, please feel free to bone my corpse." And if any funeral home was willing to accommodate those wishes, you've just made an outstanding case for cremation.
If you have a right to engage in a contract, you implicitly have a right for that contract to be legally binding because otherwise you don't actually have a contract. Ergo, adultery, the violation of a contract, has to be illegal for a person to have a right to actually marry. Sex outside of marriage is not illegal in any Western nation, so it's rather beside the point.
As to sex outside of marriage in other customs... well, say if you're a Muslim, of course, you believe that the angel Gabriel came down to Muhammed and dictated precisely how you were supposed to live your life. So from a purely logical point of view, you're a Muslim and you've accepted that it's the indisputable word of God delivered by a divine being and recorded in a perfect language, ergo, it's true.
Logic really only works if your premises aren't bullshit.
For every one of the "crimes" he sustained should be legal, there was a anciant civilization (or more), that endure more time than our punny one, that allowed it.
No, usually there was an ancient civilization accused of such practices by their neighbors, it's rare to find ancient civilizations that boasted of doing truly perverse things themselves, or the physical evidence of it. It's not like it doesn't still happen. For instance, do you think the Chinese are actually grinding up babies and trying to sell the pills to Koreans, as the South Koreans have recently alleged? Might it be more plausible that South Korean officials are spreading rumors about Chinese corruption?
If the intent is not to deter piracy, what are they educating the public about? How to rip their disks to avoid the warning?
About how much of the worlds governments are bought and paid for by Hollywood. I think even my (proverbial) Mother will understand this one.
It's mostly just the Democratic Party of the United States that is bought and paid for by Hollywood. Obviously, other countries have their own film industries and political parties.
In this information age where data-mining, credit/reputation ratings, etc. are the norm, why do people who are aware of its draconian privacy aspects, potential for misuse and the time sink that it is, continue to use FB? This is a serious 87 billion dollar question.
I've got friends on FB going back years, and there's no way I'm going to convince them to ditch FB. It's as simple as that.
Ms. Bock did more than just puff up a story - there was the fact-checking of school records to see if there was such a student, as well as a search of public records for ANYONE with that name. That's more than what passes for "reporting" on Faux News.
She also put it into the greater context of the on-going school board problems.
Woah, she checked some records and did a search for ANYONE with a particular name? And she tied all this together for a stupid Facebook teen drama?
If it weren't for that _god_ _damned_ Rupert Murdoch and the KKKoch brothers oppressing her, because they hate children, that woman would have her Pulitzer by now!
In stories like this, it's almost never worth reading the article, and the summary is usually wrong anyway. The reporter spent 400 words to expand a 40 word brief, and then another 600 words on a story that is only vaguely related because the principal apparently used the fake profile to spy on kids who supported some guy who was fired.
Having read this article closely, now I feel sorry for Ms. Bock that she's got such a shitty beat...
Do you realize how stupid it makes you look when you try to make a statement by linking to a WIkipedia article?
Exactly what a backhanded compliment is is not contentious as it's pop culture, so a tertiary source is fine.
Would you do something like that face-to-face? Would you get out your smartphone and look up the article really fast and shove it in their face as a rebuttal?
If I said, "Have you ever heard of a backhanded compliment" face to face, a person can answer, "no, as a matter of fact I haven't."
In a forum like/., it makes more sense to account for the fact (which they remind us of at every conceivable opportunity) that some people aren't familiar with American pop culture since you can't respond right away.
Or the GP just did it to be sarcastic, which would fit with the rolling eyes thing.
Isn't that the claim, US and other NATO countries' media makes every time a victim of their invasion tries to place any air defenses in their cities?
By cities you mean in schools, mosques and hospitals, of course, and by "victim of their invasion" I assume you mean whatever gang of thugs tortured and murdered their rivals, and tortured and murdered anyone who is remotely moderate or peaceful and is holding their population hostage through periodic acts of terror. Ever wondered why there are no peaceful Palestinians? It's because Nobel Peace Prize Winner Yassar Arafat tortured and murdered them, and when he died, Hamas murdered any left over.
At any rate, last I checked, the UK and other NATO countries have well defined military facilities that someone could attack.
Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.
Um, how? Is there anything that could possibly be easier to trace than human organs? I mean, they're already stamped, in every single cell, with DNA. How in God's name could you fence stolen organs?
And if there are doctors willing to do it without running the checks, what's stopping them from doing it now?
Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world.
The realities of power are that really rich people, right now, can fly to countries to get organs from desperate people. So all we're really doing is exporting the problem.
The reality of medicine is that being put on a donor waiting list is a death sentence for the "99%".
And the reality of organ transplants is that most people suffer organ failure due to poor health, poor diet and smoking / drug abuse. You probably see more poor and middling people, per capita, needing organ transplants because wealthy people take better care of their bodies.
Only desperate people would sell their organs for money.
So it's better that they simply remain desperate? They don't seem to think so. Do they get a say in the matter? Freedom of choice? My body, not the government's? Does that only apply to abortion?
Allowing people to sell organs would give very rich people with organ failure an incentive to make the life of potential donors hell.
Sure, that would make perfect sense if rich people were all part of some vast conspiracy. In reality, any sane person, rich or poor, has every incentive to avoid hugely invasive surgery, and as much as people don't want to be donors, they want to be recipients even less.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't the value depend on what we put in the hole? It would be valuable if we could put all the world's corrupt politicians and lawyers in the hole as opposed to say Jennifer Anniston.
Why not Jennifer Anniston? Does being pretty make her oxygen theft any more excusable? And, fair's fair, there are plenty of man-children celebrities who would make acceptable landfill material too.
The rich have pretty close to 100% control over political office and media access. I don't really see the point in differentiating.
The problem with remarks like this is that when you try to nail down who "the rich" are, they inevitably become "people who run everything", so it's effectively a tautology. So there's some vast conspiracy of people "controlling" everything, except you can never find any ultimate point to it. Money? They're already rich and have more money than any of them need. Power? They already have it all, and further, what are they supposedly *doing* with it?
It's a popular notion, but total bullshit.
And you can disprove it, yourself, by simply contacting your representative. They really are very approachable and really do listen to constituents. Find an issue you're concerned about, write a letter to your representative or senator, or get them on the phone. It's that simple. If you're too lazy to do that, fine, but don't cry about how awful your government is.
You fuckers were sweethearts. In my day we'd beat students black and blue if their encoded assignments used the same bits! Made them tough! And stupid! Just the way we liked 'em.
WHAT THE WHAT?!
The original author wrote the same utility function twice for two different projects, and this is against the law? How is this even an issue?
I'm befuddled.
Because you signed a contract stating you wouldn't.
And in this case, it looks like Oracle will get a trivial sum because you did, trivially, break the law.
Is it illegal to wander across the street haphazardly? Sure. Is it a terrible offense? No, it's called jaywalking, and you might get a small fine for doing so. And it makes sense to discourage people from wandering into oncoming traffic.
Wise guy, eh?
/dev/null
#!/bin/sh
# reads post from standard input
grep -i "First Post" >
if [ $? -eq 0 ]; then
exit 255
fi
No, no, no, it's just:
#!/bin/sh
grep -ivq "First Post"
A shell script will always exit with the last return code, so the exit is redundant... -q is "quiet" meaning grep will stop at the first match and just return error or success. -v will negate.
Incidentally, comparing $? is usually redundant:
if do_stuff
then echo it worked
else echo FAILURE
fi
The [ ] (or the preferred [[ ]] in bash) is just a command like any other. Use if ! command to swap clauses.
It's also worth looking in the man pages at how [[ ]] and (( )) work. In (( )), for instance, (( a = x & y ? 5 + 3 * b : c += 2 )) does what you'd expect.
And many if then clauses can be eliminated with && and ||, which sort of work the way you'd expect. (They have identical precedence, so a && b && c && d || failure works, but it's still weird.)
>Editors like the kind on Slashdot are hard to automate.
you're joking, right?
Artificial stupidity simply hasn't progressed to that point yet. Don't worry, though, the worst minds are working on it!
Then the journalists are fucked. What most of them do is rewriting press releases submitted by companies, copying subscription news stories, and maybe adding a critical sentence or two cribbed from wikipedia.
If by "fucked" you mean, "likely to switch to a job that isn't quite so mind numbingly repetitive and pointless," then, yes, they are fucked. Many people will be fired, yes I've been there, it sucks, but they will all find new jobs, and they will mostly be better off in the long run.
Nice to see that the U.S. isn't the only country with a "conservative" party that's not at all conservative.
Yeah, if you listen to conservative talk radio or read blogs, you certainly won't get any different argument from self identified conservatives, who are convinced the GOP is teeming with moderates.
The reality is that, like liberalism, conservatism is a big tent ideology and the political parties are both even bigger tents. Most conservatives have an "issues"-based understanding of the ideology, that is, they are quite aware of a set of current day issues that they follow in the news, but their grasp of the philosophy and roots of conservatism is pretty thin. And many liberal challenges to conservative philosophy have actually become part of the conventional wisdom, for instance, there never was any notion of "capitalism" until Marx invented it, and now many conservatives proudly call themselves capitalists. You get a tremendous number of people who aren't remotely conservative in their worldview, but because of the flux of politics, they happen to line up with conservatives on a number of issues and thus self-identify as conservative.
The parties themselves really do have very different agendas and those agendas really are based on constant contact with constituents, but they are also have a much longer view of politics than their constituents. Most conservatives are, politically, idiots. (Most liberals are, too, of course.) People really do believe that if they just find a candidate who is The True Conservative, all the liberals and moderates will say, "I was wrong all along, now that conservative principles have been explained to me, I realize that they are the epitome of common sense and I will abandon my former worldview." The first hurdle in understanding politics is grasping that the other guy really does believe what he's saying; it's very hard to fully grok. If you think I'm wrong, keep trying to grok this. But the result is that when politicians don't go after the other guy hammer and tongs, they assume that their guy refuses to lecture liberals on True Conservatism because he's really a moderate.
The other big factor is that people think the parties are perpetually conspiring to elect moderates. In a primary, the parties will do all the polling and research, and they will support candidates who are likely to win. They're wrong, occasionally, but you will get new candidates who come in thinking that the party has anointed a "RINO", whereas they're True Conservatives and are thus guaranteed to win. When, as often happens, they fail miserably and it seems like the party was one step ahead the whole time, they assume that there was a conspiracy, when really the party just knows what the hell they're doing. And, of course, the smaller candidates get a lot of mileage by claiming a conspiracy even if they know it's total bullshit. All through the Republican primary, people were complaining that the "establishment" was "shoving Romney down our throats" (I saw this precise phrase in a mailer) when there hasn't been any kind of establishment in 40 years, and we had 13 debates where all the candidates were carefully considered.
Those are the big reasons why Joe or Jane Conservative will consistently say the Republicans are exactly like the Democrats, even while the two parties are perpetually at loggerheads, and, even when the Tea Party movement has completely changed the direction of the GOP, virtually over night. I suspect a lefty who follows politics would give you pretty much the same story.
That is a lot of bullshit. Animals attempt to initiate sex with humans all the goddamned time.
And if a small child has a sexual problem and tries to have sex with you, as the adult you're responsible. Similarly, if an animal wants to have sex with you, you're the thinking, rational being, and thus the it falls on you not to. Animal urges are not the same thing as human consent.
No, it's well-established medically that you need genetic testing to determine if the offspring of any two people is likely to be born with a genetic defect...
After a few generations of in-breeding, the population of in-breeders will start to get genetic defects. The law is a blunt instrument, but it is perfectly reasonable to ban incest generally to prevent sub-populations from giving their children horrible birth defects.
Is that consent? It was certainly illegal.
As I said, the law isn't perfect, and I'm not trying to nail down the specifics here.
The contract doesn't have to say anything about who's fucking who. It can simply assign property rights.
You get distracted easily. I could sign a contract that divvied up property rights with my brother, and obviously adultery laws wouldn't apply to that. But if you're going to have a contract that specifies monogamy, a marriage, you have to be liable for violating that monogamy to be liable or you didn't have the right to enter into it.
Keep trying!
You really just need to work on your critical thinking and reading comprehension. What I showed was that there is nothing fundamentally wrong, from a natural law basis, with banning all of the above. You ran off on tangents, or couldn't see that laws sometimes govern larger social issues and don't always apply to individual rights. If you try reading things to learn rather than showing how clever you are, you'll find it can be quite rewarding.
It's mostly just the Democratic Party of the United States that is bought and paid for by Hollywood.
The No Electronic Theft Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act were passed under a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate.
Both of which had heavy support from the Democrats as well. The DMCA actually has plenty of provisions that are quite reasonable, like safe harbor. You also didn't mention the V-chip that Bill Clinton advocated, or Tipper Gore's crusades against filthy lyrics.
But I said bought and paid for, and that matters on the controversial issues, not the ones in which Washington conventional wisdom is simply wrong. And the fact is that Hollywood is third after trial lawyers and unions as donors to the Democrats. But you can prove me wrong, just name all those a-list actors, directors, film execs or people in related businesses like music who are big fans and donors to the GOP.
How about allowing pics to be taken when kids are young, but being confidential under penalty of death to the photographer who can publish them only after the subject reaches the age of 18(or 21) and gives consent
Uh, penalty of death? Shouldn't that be reserved for things like first degree murder?
RMS has aspergers, and so, has dificulties on empathy.
He uses the Logic all times, without understanding emotional reactions from people around.
And, unless you are a hipocryte yourself, you must acknowledge that from a pure logic point of view, he's right.
The illegality of bestiality is just as legally sound as any animal cruelty laws, because animals can't consent. Consent requires speech, moral development and sexual maturation.
It's well established medically that incest should be illegal because it leads to horrific birth defects, just as society shouldn't condone polygamy because it leads to a shortage of women and then pedophilia.
And while there is room for reforms (a 17 year old who has sex with a 16 year old is not a pedophile) pedophilia should be illegal because children can't consent. Children lack moral development and sexual maturation; yes, people develop at different rates and the ages we pick are arbitrary. That just means the laws are imperfect, it doesn't mean that the fundamental basis of the laws is unsound.
And just as you have a right to do what you will with your body, you have a right to be sure that your remains won't be defiled, so necrophilia is out. Unless someone _actually_ specified in their will, "if you ever get a hankering, yeah, that kind of hankering, please feel free to bone my corpse." And if any funeral home was willing to accommodate those wishes, you've just made an outstanding case for cremation.
If you have a right to engage in a contract, you implicitly have a right for that contract to be legally binding because otherwise you don't actually have a contract. Ergo, adultery, the violation of a contract, has to be illegal for a person to have a right to actually marry. Sex outside of marriage is not illegal in any Western nation, so it's rather beside the point.
As to sex outside of marriage in other customs... well, say if you're a Muslim, of course, you believe that the angel Gabriel came down to Muhammed and dictated precisely how you were supposed to live your life. So from a purely logical point of view, you're a Muslim and you've accepted that it's the indisputable word of God delivered by a divine being and recorded in a perfect language, ergo, it's true.
Logic really only works if your premises aren't bullshit.
For every one of the "crimes" he sustained should be legal, there was a anciant civilization (or more), that endure more time than our punny one, that allowed it.
No, usually there was an ancient civilization accused of such practices by their neighbors, it's rare to find ancient civilizations that boasted of doing truly perverse things themselves, or the physical evidence of it. It's not like it doesn't still happen. For instance, do you think the Chinese are actually grinding up babies and trying to sell the pills to Koreans, as the South Koreans have recently alleged? Might it be more plausible that South Korean officials are spreading rumors about Chinese corruption?
Leave it to the government to advertise piracy. This is a lot like putting up a sign "Wet Paint -- Don't Touch" and we all know what people will do.
I would have thought you had an unassailable argument, but then you picked the one example of a sign that actually works.
If the intent is not to deter piracy, what are they educating the public about? How to rip their disks to avoid the warning?
About how much of the worlds governments are bought and paid for by Hollywood. I think even my (proverbial) Mother will understand this one.
It's mostly just the Democratic Party of the United States that is bought and paid for by Hollywood. Obviously, other countries have their own film industries and political parties.
I think of this: Video Pirates
Same here. It's also very instructional in proper naval tactics: do not try to catch a falling mast.
In this information age where data-mining, credit/reputation ratings, etc. are the norm, why do people who are aware of its draconian privacy aspects, potential for misuse and the time sink that it is, continue to use FB? This is a serious 87 billion dollar question.
I've got friends on FB going back years, and there's no way I'm going to convince them to ditch FB. It's as simple as that.
Ms. Bock did more than just puff up a story - there was the fact-checking of school records to see if there was such a student, as well as a search of public records for ANYONE with that name. That's more than what passes for "reporting" on Faux News.
She also put it into the greater context of the on-going school board problems.
Woah, she checked some records and did a search for ANYONE with a particular name? And she tied all this together for a stupid Facebook teen drama?
If it weren't for that _god_ _damned_ Rupert Murdoch and the KKKoch brothers oppressing her, because they hate children, that woman would have her Pulitzer by now!
In stories like this, it's almost never worth reading the article, and the summary is usually wrong anyway. The reporter spent 400 words to expand a 40 word brief, and then another 600 words on a story that is only vaguely related because the principal apparently used the fake profile to spy on kids who supported some guy who was fired.
Having read this article closely, now I feel sorry for Ms. Bock that she's got such a shitty beat...
It obviously refers to things in the distance past, say, more than 2 months ago.
As a Last Thursdayist, I object to your insensitive notion that anything existed more than 2 months ago.
But he's just asking questions!
Do you realize how stupid it makes you look when you try to make a statement by linking to a WIkipedia article?
Exactly what a backhanded compliment is is not contentious as it's pop culture, so a tertiary source is fine.
Would you do something like that face-to-face? Would you get out your smartphone and look up the article really fast and shove it in their face as a rebuttal?
If I said, "Have you ever heard of a backhanded compliment" face to face, a person can answer, "no, as a matter of fact I haven't."
In a forum like /., it makes more sense to account for the fact (which they remind us of at every conceivable opportunity) that some people aren't familiar with American pop culture since you can't respond right away.
Or the GP just did it to be sarcastic, which would fit with the rolling eyes thing.
Isn't that the claim, US and other NATO countries' media makes every time a victim of their invasion tries to place any air defenses in their cities?
By cities you mean in schools, mosques and hospitals, of course, and by "victim of their invasion" I assume you mean whatever gang of thugs tortured and murdered their rivals, and tortured and murdered anyone who is remotely moderate or peaceful and is holding their population hostage through periodic acts of terror. Ever wondered why there are no peaceful Palestinians? It's because Nobel Peace Prize Winner Yassar Arafat tortured and murdered them, and when he died, Hamas murdered any left over.
At any rate, last I checked, the UK and other NATO countries have well defined military facilities that someone could attack.
Can we have a -1 basic grammar option for moderators?
We'd need a metric fuck load more mod points, and a special mod just for "loose" and "lose".
It would never happen, though, because once readers started to clean up their grammar, it would just make the editors look even worse.
Selling/buying them is illegal so there are very few buyers. Make it legal, and the demand and number of places you could offload goes through the roof.
Um, how? Is there anything that could possibly be easier to trace than human organs? I mean, they're already stamped, in every single cell, with DNA. How in God's name could you fence stolen organs?
And if there are doctors willing to do it without running the checks, what's stopping them from doing it now?
Because that libertarian attitude every one should be able to enter any contract he wishes without restriction doesn't account for the realities of power play in this world.
The realities of power are that really rich people, right now, can fly to countries to get organs from desperate people. So all we're really doing is exporting the problem.
The reality of medicine is that being put on a donor waiting list is a death sentence for the "99%".
And the reality of organ transplants is that most people suffer organ failure due to poor health, poor diet and smoking / drug abuse. You probably see more poor and middling people, per capita, needing organ transplants because wealthy people take better care of their bodies.
Only desperate people would sell their organs for money.
So it's better that they simply remain desperate? They don't seem to think so. Do they get a say in the matter? Freedom of choice? My body, not the government's? Does that only apply to abortion?
Allowing people to sell organs would give very rich people with organ failure an incentive to make the life of potential donors hell.
Sure, that would make perfect sense if rich people were all part of some vast conspiracy. In reality, any sane person, rich or poor, has every incentive to avoid hugely invasive surgery, and as much as people don't want to be donors, they want to be recipients even less.