Specifically, it requires a deal with the devil. Trade in your soul and common sense for investor cash and lawyers. (It's not like the devil has a shortage of the latter)
If their name is any indication, they'll travel the seas, attacking any and every Bandwidth Ship that journeys by. Their fearless captain at the helm, they'll be like the Robin Hood of the seas and the Internet. For too long have the Bandwidth Barons held the vast majority of the Internets, and preventing the peasants from using theirs as they will. TV episodes and music clips for all who need them!
Because China buying Linux would create a change. Change creates unknown circumstances. People often have an innate fear of the unknown. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the Darkside.
Therefore, Chinese workers using Linux would cause an influx of Sith who would surely wipe us out. Just follow basic logic.
So... you're telling me, there are other countries in the world? And that these other countries have economies? And these economies change, which, in turn, requires a shift in the required natural resources, including the amount of oil they require?
I'm sorry, but I find that a little hard to believe.
Alpha Centauri is NOT "some obscure planet." Honestly, if you Earthlings can't be bothered to take an interest in local politics, I've no sympathy at all.
I'm not sure that's true. We've just grown in population exponentially since then, thus increasing the number of horrific maniacs in the world. (If, for example, you could say 1 out of every 1,000,000 persons will commit a heinous crime) On top of that, is it that we have sunk into new lows as a whole, or are we now merely more open about our more base instincts today? I'm sure plenty of Southerners cheered when they heard news of Lincoln's death. Though their voices were probably not heard. How many of them could read and write? They certainly had no LiveJournal or MySpace to complain on.
Or perhaps even social taboos simply prohibited them from expressing such feelings in ANY form.
People are people, and in base instincts, we often can desire to see great enemies suffer and die. I ask, has this changed?
Not at all. I've been playing for longer than I can remember. Quite literally, one of my very first memories is playing Super Mario Bros. (specifically world... 2-1 I believe) And to this day, I just play what I like. And the plain fact is, Zelda rocks. I like it. A lot. Has it changed that much? No. Do I care? Also no. As long as it's still fun.
Similarly, people have tried to woo me into playing Halo. I've tried it. I've tried multiplayer, and I've tried single. And it just bores me. I see no fun in it. But I had fun playing Goldeneye. Why? I don't know. But I just DO.
To quote Calvin and Hobbes, "I think the surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Seriously, if I were of a peaceful, technologically advanced society, I wouldn't want to communicate with Earth, either. Worst case scenario, the less friendly humans get ahold of alien technology and we start mucking up OTHER species' homes.
I think you point out the rather humorous point of people making assumptions when many meanings are possible. I'm reminded of a scene fro Family Guy at a meeting for the construction of the Constitution.
Jefferson: "So, do you think we should go into more detail about the 2nd ammendment? You know, to clarify it?" Washington: "No, I think it's clear enough the way it is. Everyone has the right to keep bear arms over their door. Simple, isn't it?"
On the other hand, your joke has inspired me to consider the possibility of fingernail pornography. It must be out there somewhere. This is the Internet. Every part of the body has a fetishist. I'm very frightened, but I know it's out there.
And to be more on topic, good for Google. Honestly, it's not like Google ever claims ownership of these images. It just provides an incredibly small preview of an image you can find on another site that it links to. I don't get it. Where can anyone see any harm in that? Did somebody make a patent for the idea of a "preview?"
Really, that's all I have to say to that. And if that isn't enough, okay, he was WILLING to lie to start a war, if he couldn't find justification. Okay? That doesn't really change anything. It still makes him just as wrong. And for the record, WMDs or no WMDs, it was wrong. We know of plenty of other countries with WMDs. We know of plenty of other countries committing massive amounts of genocide. So why Iraq? Why a secular country that was practically benign in comparison to places like Darfur and, heck, pick any country in Africa by this point. Iraq was far from a perfectly safe place to live, but it's certainly a much, much worse place now, has put the world in MORE danger, AND now instead of a secular government of one dictator, they're electing theological extremists to be the new dictators.
And before you call me ignorant and arrogant, take a look in the mirror. You're throwing around ad hominem attacks and automatically grouping me in with a political affiliation of your choosing. Maybe I'm NOT a liberal. Hmmm? I know people who are so-called conservatives who have nothing good to say of Bush. So stop the insults, stop the accusations, and stop giving people false choices (Honestly, the drawbridge thing is as bad as "fight them there or fight them here." It's not like we have only two options.)
I never said the politicians were the sole blame for ruining public education. There's far too many to choose from (Creationists trying to turn science class into a Bible fight, teacher's unions, "Zero Tolerance" policies that punish the bullied, etc.) But politicians sure don't alleviate the problem at all. I guess this is part of the problem.
Now, for an ironic twist, an analogy of how society is NOT a car! Our modern society is NOT like a car. When a car breaks down, you can check to make sure each part is doing its... well, part. In the end, many parts may need replacing, but even if the whole engine breaks, the frame and the wheels are still usable. But in society, when problems arise, fixing and replacing parts is not viable, because no piece is broken, but rather a series of parts creates the problem. One can't find the source of the problem, and that makes it all that much more difficult to fix.
It's enough to drive you mad. I know it's working on me. I'm only 20 and I'm already planning for my first nervous breakdown.
And part of my point is I don't think these "safe" decisions are "safe" in the long term. The "safe" decision to buy food from Pepsi prevents a lawsuit tomorrow, but it ruins the digestive tracts of kids over time, or, at least, can interfere with the abilities of children to function in classrooms (high sugar and carbs and low vitamins can make for some irritable kids. Think about how irritable some people get with excess caffeine.).
But of course, that's not the only source of the problem. Weight problems in America are also caused by many, many sources (including, of course, parents. But good luck improving our current batch.).
Basically, there IS no "safe" decision. The doctor today who pays outrageous fees for malpractice insurance is saved from a lawsuit next month, but a raise in prices causes more outrage, and makes more people likely to sue next year when their expensive surgery isn't perfect.
Hmmm... but I have noticed in every example I've given so far, a lot of the blame DOES go towards "fear of being sued." Maybe if we could do something about people suing over every little problem in life... hold on a sec... Uhhh... I just got a phone call. I'm being sued by the Bar Association for endangering their jobs. Damn.
It's hard to say who deserves who. Bad politicians make the people worse (destroy public education, for example), and bad people create bad politicians (by voting them in). It's a chicken and egg kind of thing, except the chicken ends up friend and the egg becomes an omelet.
Hopefully, by which I mean "Never gonna happen, but," a good politician could do those things a better way. For example, one of the biggest problems with taxation is the sheer amount of money wasted on... collecting taxes. The way money is given to areas based on size and not need... if these issues could be addressed, millions upon millions upon millions could be saved and turned into revenue without raising taxes a dime....Buuuut, where's the profit to be found in that? Profit for the politician, I mean. Better solutions to problems are sometimes obvious, and even cheaper to the public, but again, no money to be made there. (For example, as the movie Super Size Me pointed out in one scene, school lunches are often sponsored by corporations like Hershey's, and Pepsi. The food these companies give leaves very little in the way of actual nutrition. But other programs that involve freshly prepared, locally grown foods cost the same and take the same time to prepare. Except... you guessed it. The people in charge of these programs aren't getting anything for the effort.)
Simple. Run in to the nearest crowded theater (I recommend an afternoon showing of Spiderman 3. Shpuld still be packed) and scream "FIRE!"
The incoming stampede of lawyers ready to persecute/defend you and bloggers ready to turn your case into an international incident will most likely trample said terrorists (as well as anyone else in the area, including the President). A win/win situation....Well, okay, maybe just a win for you... except for the lawsuits...
So, okay, the lawyers win. But that's nothing new.
You're assuming liberals (true liberals, anyway) think democrats are liberal. Not even close. Is there even a single liberal who's been elected in the last 30 years? Heck, has there been a true CONSERVATIVE either?
In my humble opinion, no. We've only had Opportunists. Both parties favor large cash donations from large groups.
Doing the right thing, at this point, will require saying unpopular things, making unpopular decisions, acting out of principle, and self-sacrifice. Honestly, I don't expect that from anyone in Washington.
And on one other note, some people may bash Bush not because he's a Republican, but because he's a HORRIBLE president. Not to mention the only one. Being in the spotlight tends to draw attention from all sides.
(And yes, his being a "horrible" president is an opinion, but I base that opinion based on the facts that he started an unnecessary war, LIED intentionally to start that war, gave people awards for messing up that war, has refered to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper," demonstrated ineptitude to lead under emergencies [See: Initial reaction to 9/11, Katrina], unwillingness to try new methods, or even just give up old ones when they don't work, or even ADMIT that his methods don't work [HOW many times have we heard "we're making progress" in Iraq?], and, intentional or not, the utter genocide of innocent English words. And yes, in nearly every instance listed, he is not FULLY to blame, but he certainly shares credit.)
Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Care Bears are not an inherently nerdy subject matter. At least when viewed from the admittedly somewhat biased/. perspective of equating nerd to "Someone in the IT field or similar," or at the very least, intellectualism in general. In the case of this article, it's a take on a case involving the RIAA, a company whose practices, regardless of your views on them, are most definitely affecting "our rights online."
Thus, if only by two degrees of separation, the RIAA is directly connected to "Your Rights Online," and news on the RIAA can thus be associated with "nerd news." The Care Bears have no inherit relevancy to any pre-ordained subject field that we have on/.
Of course, it IS very subjective, and what one considers "news for nerds" others may just call "news" and others still may just call "schlock on a slow news day." It all depends on your definition of the word "nerd," as well as how much relevancy one expects in an article's applicability to said definition, and then more subjective viewing in determining the "nerd value" of any given article.
Short Version: Nothing is inherently nerdy, nerdiness is a subjective value, but some topics arguably have a larger inherent relevance.
Though there is also this "related stories" bar under said article, which leads one to other stories, with previous data, allowing one to get the whole story which is, in fact, related to "your rights online."
Many, many news events can't be summarized in one news article. A little background reading is not asking all that much, IMHO.
In addition to what the poster above me says about the atmosphere and spectrum of light, I'd like to point out...
$5 Billion dollars DOES seem like a lot. But look at the U.S. Budget in the last decade. Look at the money we've essentially THROWN AWAY. By comparison, $5 billion for an advancement of science seems rather reasonable, or at the very least, reasonable by comparison.
Well, I'd be lying to deny any sort of attraction, but attraction is not a simple thing. It comes in many shapes and sizes.
However, while I agree with the vast majority of your points, I feel the need to point out that there is a VERY large difference between attraction to "not-quite-18/barely 18" and pedophilia. Biologically speaking, as soon as someone enters puberty, attraction starts. Society teaches us that we are not to start having sex at this point due to biological/sociological complications, but it is still going against our nature. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent, which is not in our nature, at least in a sexual sense. (Please note, when I say "not natural," I mean it's not built into humanity as a whole, or on a large scale." Fetishes are in an individual's nature, but not programmed into any one group)
I think the key here is to know, for yourself, where the line is drawn.
As an anime fan, especially one who visits 4chan, I've seen a lot of artwork that is clearly of someone who'd be considered under the legal age of consent (well, at least in the USA. AoC laws may vary. Ask your doctor what porn is right for you, etc.). And... I don't like it. On the other hand, it's just a drawing. No children were harmed. No children were even involved. And odds are, the desires these people have would be still exist.
It's my belief that people are born with innate attractions. Often considered "fetishes." Sometimes, sadly, these attractions are a little south of ethical. So I think, at the very least, fantasizing to fictional works is better than just suppressing it until you snap and do something awful. By all means, lock up people who molest children. But there is a fine, fine line between having the desire to do something and actually doing it. (Who HASN'T thought about robbing a bank when waiting in line? Of course it's a stupid and immoral idea, and we realize that, but who hasn't THOUGHT of it?)
So, even if I don't LIKE it, I tolerate such material. I don't have to support it, share it, or look at it, but I'll let people have their fun. (And funnily enough, I've seen image macros of things like "Pedophiles for victim-free porn!" Obviously joking, but still...)
Well, my biological brother is a redneck who loves to drink, smoke, and is about everything I am not. (I'm in college, he got a GED. I hate manual labor, and he wants to do it for a living... or for fun.)
So, if I were your long lost twin brother, it'd certainly explain a lot. Though if I were your twin sister, that'd just be even more confusing.
Fortunately, I'm also a cheapskate, and booze costs money.:)
But don't worry. I've always varied in how I refer to asperger's. But I don't look at it as being a victim. It just means I'm more of a loner type, and I'm fine with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, it takes a lot more than that to be a CEO.
Specifically, it requires a deal with the devil. Trade in your soul and common sense for investor cash and lawyers. (It's not like the devil has a shortage of the latter)
If their name is any indication, they'll travel the seas, attacking any and every Bandwidth Ship that journeys by. Their fearless captain at the helm, they'll be like the Robin Hood of the seas and the Internet. For too long have the Bandwidth Barons held the vast majority of the Internets, and preventing the peasants from using theirs as they will. TV episodes and music clips for all who need them!
Because China buying Linux would create a change.
Change creates unknown circumstances.
People often have an innate fear of the unknown.
Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to the Darkside.
Therefore, Chinese workers using Linux would cause an influx of Sith who would surely wipe us out. Just follow basic logic.
Wait, wait, wait...
So... you're telling me, there are other countries in the world? And that these other countries have economies? And these economies change, which, in turn, requires a shift in the required natural resources, including the amount of oil they require?
I'm sorry, but I find that a little hard to believe.
Argh, the term ye be lookin' fer is "pre-emptive nautical salvage experts" or simply "pastafarians."
Too late. I've stumbled across Resident Evil porn. So you know it must be out there.
Rule 34 of the Internet: There is porn of it. No exceptions.
Alpha Centauri is NOT "some obscure planet." Honestly, if you Earthlings can't be bothered to take an interest in local politics, I've no sympathy at all.
I'm not sure that's true. We've just grown in population exponentially since then, thus increasing the number of horrific maniacs in the world. (If, for example, you could say 1 out of every 1,000,000 persons will commit a heinous crime) On top of that, is it that we have sunk into new lows as a whole, or are we now merely more open about our more base instincts today? I'm sure plenty of Southerners cheered when they heard news of Lincoln's death. Though their voices were probably not heard. How many of them could read and write? They certainly had no LiveJournal or MySpace to complain on.
Or perhaps even social taboos simply prohibited them from expressing such feelings in ANY form.
People are people, and in base instincts, we often can desire to see great enemies suffer and die. I ask, has this changed?
Not at all. I've been playing for longer than I can remember. Quite literally, one of my very first memories is playing Super Mario Bros. (specifically world... 2-1 I believe) And to this day, I just play what I like. And the plain fact is, Zelda rocks. I like it. A lot. Has it changed that much? No. Do I care? Also no. As long as it's still fun.
Similarly, people have tried to woo me into playing Halo. I've tried it. I've tried multiplayer, and I've tried single. And it just bores me. I see no fun in it. But I had fun playing Goldeneye. Why? I don't know. But I just DO.
To quote Calvin and Hobbes, "I think the surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Seriously, if I were of a peaceful, technologically advanced society, I wouldn't want to communicate with Earth, either. Worst case scenario, the less friendly humans get ahold of alien technology and we start mucking up OTHER species' homes.
I think you point out the rather humorous point of people making assumptions when many meanings are possible. I'm reminded of a scene fro Family Guy at a meeting for the construction of the Constitution.
Jefferson: "So, do you think we should go into more detail about the 2nd ammendment? You know, to clarify it?"
Washington: "No, I think it's clear enough the way it is. Everyone has the right to keep bear arms over their door. Simple, isn't it?"
On the other hand, your joke has inspired me to consider the possibility of fingernail pornography. It must be out there somewhere. This is the Internet. Every part of the body has a fetishist. I'm very frightened, but I know it's out there.
And to be more on topic, good for Google. Honestly, it's not like Google ever claims ownership of these images. It just provides an incredibly small preview of an image you can find on another site that it links to. I don't get it. Where can anyone see any harm in that? Did somebody make a patent for the idea of a "preview?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo
Really, that's all I have to say to that. And if that isn't enough, okay, he was WILLING to lie to start a war, if he couldn't find justification. Okay? That doesn't really change anything. It still makes him just as wrong. And for the record, WMDs or no WMDs, it was wrong. We know of plenty of other countries with WMDs. We know of plenty of other countries committing massive amounts of genocide. So why Iraq? Why a secular country that was practically benign in comparison to places like Darfur and, heck, pick any country in Africa by this point. Iraq was far from a perfectly safe place to live, but it's certainly a much, much worse place now, has put the world in MORE danger, AND now instead of a secular government of one dictator, they're electing theological extremists to be the new dictators.
And before you call me ignorant and arrogant, take a look in the mirror. You're throwing around ad hominem attacks and automatically grouping me in with a political affiliation of your choosing. Maybe I'm NOT a liberal. Hmmm? I know people who are so-called conservatives who have nothing good to say of Bush. So stop the insults, stop the accusations, and stop giving people false choices (Honestly, the drawbridge thing is as bad as "fight them there or fight them here." It's not like we have only two options.)
I never said the politicians were the sole blame for ruining public education. There's far too many to choose from (Creationists trying to turn science class into a Bible fight, teacher's unions, "Zero Tolerance" policies that punish the bullied, etc.) But politicians sure don't alleviate the problem at all. I guess this is part of the problem.
Now, for an ironic twist, an analogy of how society is NOT a car! Our modern society is NOT like a car. When a car breaks down, you can check to make sure each part is doing its... well, part. In the end, many parts may need replacing, but even if the whole engine breaks, the frame and the wheels are still usable. But in society, when problems arise, fixing and replacing parts is not viable, because no piece is broken, but rather a series of parts creates the problem. One can't find the source of the problem, and that makes it all that much more difficult to fix.
It's enough to drive you mad. I know it's working on me. I'm only 20 and I'm already planning for my first nervous breakdown.
And part of my point is I don't think these "safe" decisions are "safe" in the long term.
The "safe" decision to buy food from Pepsi prevents a lawsuit tomorrow, but it ruins the digestive tracts of kids over time, or, at least, can interfere with the abilities of children to function in classrooms (high sugar and carbs and low vitamins can make for some irritable kids. Think about how irritable some people get with excess caffeine.).
But of course, that's not the only source of the problem. Weight problems in America are also caused by many, many sources (including, of course, parents. But good luck improving our current batch.).
Basically, there IS no "safe" decision. The doctor today who pays outrageous fees for malpractice insurance is saved from a lawsuit next month, but a raise in prices causes more outrage, and makes more people likely to sue next year when their expensive surgery isn't perfect.
Hmmm... but I have noticed in every example I've given so far, a lot of the blame DOES go towards "fear of being sued." Maybe if we could do something about people suing over every little problem in life... hold on a sec... Uhhh... I just got a phone call. I'm being sued by the Bar Association for endangering their jobs. Damn.
It's hard to say who deserves who. Bad politicians make the people worse (destroy public education, for example), and bad people create bad politicians (by voting them in). It's a chicken and egg kind of thing, except the chicken ends up friend and the egg becomes an omelet.
...Buuuut, where's the profit to be found in that? Profit for the politician, I mean. Better solutions to problems are sometimes obvious, and even cheaper to the public, but again, no money to be made there. (For example, as the movie Super Size Me pointed out in one scene, school lunches are often sponsored by corporations like Hershey's, and Pepsi. The food these companies give leaves very little in the way of actual nutrition. But other programs that involve freshly prepared, locally grown foods cost the same and take the same time to prepare. Except... you guessed it. The people in charge of these programs aren't getting anything for the effort.)
Hopefully, by which I mean "Never gonna happen, but," a good politician could do those things a better way. For example, one of the biggest problems with taxation is the sheer amount of money wasted on... collecting taxes. The way money is given to areas based on size and not need... if these issues could be addressed, millions upon millions upon millions could be saved and turned into revenue without raising taxes a dime.
It's a poor example, but I think my point stands.
Simple. Run in to the nearest crowded theater (I recommend an afternoon showing of Spiderman 3. Shpuld still be packed) and scream "FIRE!"
...Well, okay, maybe just a win for you... except for the lawsuits...
The incoming stampede of lawyers ready to persecute/defend you and bloggers ready to turn your case into an international incident will most likely trample said terrorists (as well as anyone else in the area, including the President). A win/win situation.
So, okay, the lawyers win. But that's nothing new.
You're assuming liberals (true liberals, anyway) think democrats are liberal. Not even close. Is there even a single liberal who's been elected in the last 30 years? Heck, has there been a true CONSERVATIVE either?
In my humble opinion, no. We've only had Opportunists. Both parties favor large cash donations from large groups.
Doing the right thing, at this point, will require saying unpopular things, making unpopular decisions, acting out of principle, and self-sacrifice. Honestly, I don't expect that from anyone in Washington.
And on one other note, some people may bash Bush not because he's a Republican, but because he's a HORRIBLE president. Not to mention the only one. Being in the spotlight tends to draw attention from all sides.
(And yes, his being a "horrible" president is an opinion, but I base that opinion based on the facts that he started an unnecessary war, LIED intentionally to start that war, gave people awards for messing up that war, has refered to the Constitution as "just a piece of paper," demonstrated ineptitude to lead under emergencies [See: Initial reaction to 9/11, Katrina], unwillingness to try new methods, or even just give up old ones when they don't work, or even ADMIT that his methods don't work [HOW many times have we heard "we're making progress" in Iraq?], and, intentional or not, the utter genocide of innocent English words. And yes, in nearly every instance listed, he is not FULLY to blame, but he certainly shares credit.)
Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Care Bears are not an inherently nerdy subject matter. At least when viewed from the admittedly somewhat biased /. perspective of equating nerd to "Someone in the IT field or similar," or at the very least, intellectualism in general. In the case of this article, it's a take on a case involving the RIAA, a company whose practices, regardless of your views on them, are most definitely affecting "our rights online."
/.
Thus, if only by two degrees of separation, the RIAA is directly connected to "Your Rights Online," and news on the RIAA can thus be associated with "nerd news." The Care Bears have no inherit relevancy to any pre-ordained subject field that we have on
Of course, it IS very subjective, and what one considers "news for nerds" others may just call "news" and others still may just call "schlock on a slow news day." It all depends on your definition of the word "nerd," as well as how much relevancy one expects in an article's applicability to said definition, and then more subjective viewing in determining the "nerd value" of any given article.
Short Version: Nothing is inherently nerdy, nerdiness is a subjective value, but some topics arguably have a larger inherent relevance.
Though there is also this "related stories" bar under said article, which leads one to other stories, with previous data, allowing one to get the whole story which is, in fact, related to "your rights online."
Many, many news events can't be summarized in one news article. A little background reading is not asking all that much, IMHO.
In addition to what the poster above me says about the atmosphere and spectrum of light, I'd like to point out...
$5 Billion dollars DOES seem like a lot. But look at the U.S. Budget in the last decade. Look at the money we've essentially THROWN AWAY. By comparison, $5 billion for an advancement of science seems rather reasonable, or at the very least, reasonable by comparison.
Well, I'd be lying to deny any sort of attraction, but attraction is not a simple thing. It comes in many shapes and sizes.
However, while I agree with the vast majority of your points, I feel the need to point out that there is a VERY large difference between attraction to "not-quite-18/barely 18" and pedophilia. Biologically speaking, as soon as someone enters puberty, attraction starts. Society teaches us that we are not to start having sex at this point due to biological/sociological complications, but it is still going against our nature. Pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent, which is not in our nature, at least in a sexual sense. (Please note, when I say "not natural," I mean it's not built into humanity as a whole, or on a large scale." Fetishes are in an individual's nature, but not programmed into any one group)
I think the key here is to know, for yourself, where the line is drawn.
As an anime fan, especially one who visits 4chan, I've seen a lot of artwork that is clearly of someone who'd be considered under the legal age of consent (well, at least in the USA. AoC laws may vary. Ask your doctor what porn is right for you, etc.). And... I don't like it. On the other hand, it's just a drawing. No children were harmed. No children were even involved. And odds are, the desires these people have would be still exist.
It's my belief that people are born with innate attractions. Often considered "fetishes." Sometimes, sadly, these attractions are a little south of ethical. So I think, at the very least, fantasizing to fictional works is better than just suppressing it until you snap and do something awful. By all means, lock up people who molest children. But there is a fine, fine line between having the desire to do something and actually doing it. (Who HASN'T thought about robbing a bank when waiting in line? Of course it's a stupid and immoral idea, and we realize that, but who hasn't THOUGHT of it?)
So, even if I don't LIKE it, I tolerate such material. I don't have to support it, share it, or look at it, but I'll let people have their fun. (And funnily enough, I've seen image macros of things like "Pedophiles for victim-free porn!" Obviously joking, but still...)
Allow me to summarize your idea with my own:
Do the patriotic thing: Write to your congressman. And when he's distracted by it, shoot him.
Don't worry. To make up for the computers, I vow to forget even more. Starting with that vow. ...Wait, what were we talking about?
Well, my biological brother is a redneck who loves to drink, smoke, and is about everything I am not. (I'm in college, he got a GED. I hate manual labor, and he wants to do it for a living... or for fun.)
So, if I were your long lost twin brother, it'd certainly explain a lot. Though if I were your twin sister, that'd just be even more confusing.
Fortunately, I'm also a cheapskate, and booze costs money. :)
But don't worry. I've always varied in how I refer to asperger's. But I don't look at it as being a victim. It just means I'm more of a loner type, and I'm fine with that.