You know what has a carbon footprint from hell? The whole payments industry, and industry that could go away overnight if retailers, service industry, and wholesalers switched to digital currency.
So you're saying massive widespread adoption of bitcoin would eliminate the need for the gigantic hashing network that bitcoin requires, a network that supposedly dwarfs the computational capacity of all top 500 supercomputers in the world combined? Or are you saying that the payments industry currently requires even more computational capacity than this? Or are you saying you have no idea what you're talking about?
It's Obama's campaign team that was praised as tech-savvy, on account of their successful leverage of social media and other "Web 2.0" shit. Not Obama himself, not his cabinet, not his administration. Of course, as a result of this, many wrongly expected his election to herald some sort of technocracy here. I myself was naive enough to hope for this, but in hindsight, it should have been clear to all of us that a candidate's campaign team doesn't usually end up as head of HHS and that such expectations were unrealistic and not based in reality.
So, I agree that the website deployment was botched, horribly so. The reason why it takes so many millions of lines of code is complex. First, I'd like to point out that everything takes surprisingly many millions of lines of code nowadays. Long gone are the days of straightforward shit that makes sense. Today's "Hello World" involves a VM, five frameworks, and a billion third party libraries/extensions/modules/plugins. But really, healthcare.gov is supposed to interface with 50-something different databases housed at various governmental organizations. Assuming you're a coder, does that sound fun to you? Regarding the "abysmal security" you allege, I have no comment, since I haven't heard of any security issues. I thought it was virtually impossible to even get onto the site, which would suggest that illegitimate logins would be impossible as well.
Regarding my own situation, I can tell you right now that I won't have the same coverage next year, but that has nothing to do with the ACA and everything to do with the fact that my employer was acquired a few weeks ago, and we'll be transitioning to the new parent company's healthcare offerings once our current policy term is up. I fully expect my premiums to go up regardless, but again, that's not because of the ACA but because doctors are [perhaps justifiably] greedy bastards. I don't understand this need to blame price hikes on the ACA. How is that even rational? Where is the "extra money" going? Do you think the ACA was just a way for Obama to personally pocket your healthcare spending dollars? Seriously. Let's say you believe that healthcare costs went up 10% due to the ACA. Instead of spending $1000 on some procedure, now you're spending $1100. Where is that extra because-of-ACA $100 going? To Obama himself? To the DNC? To the five Jewish bankers that run the world economy? If you think the ACA has increased costs, please explain where you think those dollars are going, and why they weren't already going there before the ACA was passed.
The Boston Dynamics rigs are also piloted by a joystick or programmed to follow a beacon at a pre-set distance, as far as I know. Sure, they do lots of balance-related control without operator intervention, but that's simply to mitigate the suboptimal stands-on-legs design. The PackBot doesn't have legs, so it has no need for this additional automated control. It's not as impressive from a control system point of view, but it's more impressive from a simple/robust design point of view.
To me, a Rube Goldberg machine that makes toast is not meaningfully more impressive than an ordinary toaster.
This isn't assured; if you arbitrarily brake hard and somebody is able to testify to that, I wouldn't be confident of the outcome.
Are you suggesting that the police officer Ravaldy quoted as having said "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front" was lying?
But while we're discussing what amounts to insurance fraud, I'd like to point out that my own car insurance company would gladly provide me with a rental car for as long as I need until I get a check from the victim's insurance company. To me, that's not too terrible of an inconvenience. Additionally, regarding the injury angle, it goes both way. It's difficult to prove the presence of soft tissue injuries, but it's similarly difficult to prove their absence. Civil suits have a rather low burden of proof, and false claims of whiplash are a significant proportion of such fraudulent claims.
It's sad that these all these computers are burning electricity for such a useless purpose. If cryptocurrency comes with such onerous computational requirements, is it really an efficient use of our limited resources to promote it? Aren't we squandering an amazing amount of computing power by having these calculations wasted on transaction handling instead of simulated protein folding or some other genuinely productive endeavor? If you think about it, a computational network that exceeds the power of the top 500 super computers combined should not be required to run a distributed version of paypal. In that sense, this really is like tulips. Whether it's wasting prime agricultural land on growing flowers or wasting electricity on computing arbitrary hashes, it just seems that if people stepped back and saw the big picture, they'd see the folly of such activities.
How do you explain the 5.5 millions guns sold annually to citizens in the US?
Easy. They're sold to people that don't live in Massachusetts. What do I win?
A number of years ago, I was moving from Maine back to New Jersey. I [legally] own firearms. I added two hours to my trip to entirely avoid Massachusetts, since it really is virtually illegal to have guns there.
CGA was introduced in 1981.
EGA was introduced in 1984.
VGA was introduced in 1987.
Mechwarrior and Test Drive 2 were both released in 1989.
VESA defined modes for SVGA were introduced in 1989.
v.32bis (the ITU recommendation that defined standard 14.4kbps modem communication) was published in February of 1991.
You're talking about 1991 at the earliest when you mention 14.4 modems. Realistically, more like 1992 or 1993. By then, VGA was at least 4 years old, if not 6. Even SVGA was 2-4 years old. Games with awesome graphics like Star Control 2, Wolfenstein 3D, Dune 2, and Ultima VII were being released in 1992. Kings Quest V was released in 1990; this was the final game in the Kings Quest series to offer an EGA release (alongside the VGA release). By 1991, EGA was virtually abandoned, only seen in very old games or shareware/freeware titles. Notably, Commander Keen was EGA and released in 1990.
You're saying that while your friends were playing Doom, you were downloading EGA games?... Me too!:)
that same organization can't get a website running properly, particularly one that people don't get to use but have to use
Nobody has to use healthcare.gov. Nobody.
The majority of the population had insurance prior to the passage of the ACA, and they continue to have insurance. For example, I had insurance provided by my employer, and I still do, and I expect to next year as well. I haven't used the healthcare.gov website (not even just to check it out), and I don't plan to either. A majority of the population is in a similar situation and will not have to use this website.
The people who were previously uninsured can visit the website if they want to. They could use a telephone instead, if they prefer. Or they could choose to continue living without health insurance, instead paying the "no insurance" fine. This would be no different than their previous approach to the health insurance issue, with the notable exception that they'd be at least somewhat contributing to the cost of their own medical services (via the fine) instead of ripping off the rest of society.
So it resists a yank by immediately giving out? That's like a water resistant watch that simply allows water to flow directly through it. Or a fire resistant blanket that instantly turns to ash. Or a superconducting resistor.
Make no mistake, I think the MagSafe connector is fucking awesome, and I can't wait until the patent expires so that I and the rest of the impoverished masses can benefit from such a convenient feature. I'm just nitpicking the language used. A tamper resistant lock doesn't just pop open when you touch it.
I live in NJ, right in the middle between Philadelphia and New York City. My town has about 100,000 residents, and ranks as the fifth most populous municipality in New Jersey. We've been seeing advertising for FIOS for close to a decade now. It's still not available.
Meanwhile you're sitting on a farm in a small, rural community, with your god damn fiber to the premises. Fuck my life.
Anachronistic comment. VGA, SVGA, and other nice VESA modes were commonplace by the time I got me a Zoltrix 14.4 voice/fax modem. While I remember games with EGA graphics (mechwars, test drive 2?), they predate my involvement with modems. I'd imagine they coincide with the 300-1200 baud era.
With latency comes jitter (the first derivative of latency with respect to time). Jitter most definitely does matter, especially with streaming.
See, if you had a nice steady 30 seconds (RTT) of latency, that would be fine. Your content starts streaming 30 seconds after you click play, no big deal, as long as there is no jitter. Now, what happens if latency suddenly drops to 20 seconds? Well, you just got yourself 10 seconds of streaming video in an instant. That needs to be buffered. Nobody expects jitter on the order of 10 seconds if latency itself is in the millisecond range. Buffers are allocated based on jitter, which itself is at least loosely correlated with latency.
Source: I've stared at way, way too much GSM/RTP/UDP/IP traffic in Wireshark in the course of evaluating tactical radio systems.
The other driver argued with the cop about how it was my fault and the cop told him the following: "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front". Case closed!
I have yet to see any convincing evidence that a highly-paid CEO is more willing or able to make these "billion dollar decisions" than a poorly-paid assembly line worker. I'm pretty sure if you took a random guy off the line, marched him to his new corner office, sat him down in his new plush leather chair, and told him over his rich mahogany desk that he'd be making all the big decisions from now on, that he wouldn't also demand a thousandfold increase in salary. I think he'd be content making those "billion dollar decisions" instead of assembling widgets, even for the same pay. So please, don't make it seem like a supply/demand issue. You wouldn't have any issues hiring CEOs even at a fraction of a percent of their current levels of pay.
If you're not sure what's ethically wrong with a law that can explicitly protect malicious actors, I'm not sure what else to say.
No law is perfect, and I don't think I could craft a better one (regarding liability in rear-end collisions). However, to appeal to the current law as some sort of ideal that we should all be glad to abide by, well, it's ridiculous. There's plenty of shortcomings in this law, like the one that is evident in the situation I previously set forth. To boast "case closed" suggests that the issue of liability is adequately, if not perfectly, solved by this law. The fact that the law can benefit a malicious actor suggests that no, we have not solved the issue of liability, merely mitigated it with suboptimal legislation.
What I'm saying is that ethics ought to inform legislation. What Ravaldy seems to be suggesting is that legislation is what determines ethics. These are two very different viewpoints to espouse, and only one of them has any meaningful support among philosophers.
I'm currently looking to sell my Honda Accord, which has decent brakes, fresh tires, and ABS. It would be considerably easier and more lucrative for me to unexpectedly stomp on the brakes on my drive home today, causing someone to rear-end me, than it would be for me to seek out a willing buyer. It would, legally speaking, be the fault of whoever it is that rear-ended me, and I'd be getting a nice payout for my totaled Accord. What should be apparent to any ethical person is that such a plot would be unethical. It would jeopardize the safety of the unwitting accomplices that hit me. It would additionally burden them financially, between the damage to their own vehicle and the additional insurance premiums they'd have to suffer as a result of the insurance payout for my Accord. Also, making things even worse, is that the only blame they could legitimately carry would be for "following too close". However, if they're in a minivan with older tires and worn brakes, their stopping distance is likely considerably longer than mine. Add in the delay from human reaction time and it's not much of a stretch to say that the only stopping distance that is guaranteed to be sufficient would leave their car safely tucked away in a parking lot.
Ravaldy would have me believe that this is a good thing. That the law says that this is how it should be, so this is how it should be. I, personally, believe that innocent drivers should not be held liable for the actions of malicious actors. I'm not complaining that my brakes are too effective. I'm not complaining that if I stop short to save some kid's life, the law will not hold me liable in the event someone resultingly rear-ends me. I'm merely stating that the law has shortcomings. Significant shortcomings. Consequently, it is not suitable for an appeal to authority, which is what Ravaldy was doing.
That is the law, indeed. I can slam the brakes in a Subaru Impreza WRX and virtually assure that whoever I'm brake checking hits me, on account of the 125' stopping distance. Of course, legally speaking, it's their fault. Great way of making money with whiplash payouts. The law is the law, and the law is always right. Case closed, ethics be damned!
Sure, yes, I live in the homogeneous caucasian state of New Jersey where I only interact with 10th generations Americans from the Mayflower. I'm the only immigrant in the entire state. Maybe one day I can move to your amazingly diverse Canadian wonderland, the world's "melting pot".
Since you've moved away from attacking my argument, instead focusing on my person, I think this is a good time for me to declare victory and move on to more constructive threads. Thank you for sharing your point of view, and hopefully next time you'll be in a better position to actually back it up with objective evidence.
Also, thank you for at least acknowledging that I don't rely on slanted information. I try hard to remain objective, and I appreciate the recognition.
Meanwhile I'm a relative newcomer and I'm 1/1 with my COIN "slashvertisement" submission. After I submitted, I noticed a nearly-identical submission preceding mine in the firehose. Amusingly, it's mine that made it to the front page.
When I emailed the COIN folks to let them know they made it to slashdot's front page, I didn't even get so much as a "Cool, thanks!". Now I wish I had started spamming my referral URL in the comments:P
Slashdot Mirror
You know what has a carbon footprint from hell? The whole payments industry, and industry that could go away overnight if retailers, service industry, and wholesalers switched to digital currency.
So you're saying massive widespread adoption of bitcoin would eliminate the need for the gigantic hashing network that bitcoin requires, a network that supposedly dwarfs the computational capacity of all top 500 supercomputers in the world combined? Or are you saying that the payments industry currently requires even more computational capacity than this? Or are you saying you have no idea what you're talking about?
It's Obama's campaign team that was praised as tech-savvy, on account of their successful leverage of social media and other "Web 2.0" shit. Not Obama himself, not his cabinet, not his administration. Of course, as a result of this, many wrongly expected his election to herald some sort of technocracy here. I myself was naive enough to hope for this, but in hindsight, it should have been clear to all of us that a candidate's campaign team doesn't usually end up as head of HHS and that such expectations were unrealistic and not based in reality.
So, I agree that the website deployment was botched, horribly so. The reason why it takes so many millions of lines of code is complex. First, I'd like to point out that everything takes surprisingly many millions of lines of code nowadays. Long gone are the days of straightforward shit that makes sense. Today's "Hello World" involves a VM, five frameworks, and a billion third party libraries/extensions/modules/plugins. But really, healthcare.gov is supposed to interface with 50-something different databases housed at various governmental organizations. Assuming you're a coder, does that sound fun to you? Regarding the "abysmal security" you allege, I have no comment, since I haven't heard of any security issues. I thought it was virtually impossible to even get onto the site, which would suggest that illegitimate logins would be impossible as well.
Regarding my own situation, I can tell you right now that I won't have the same coverage next year, but that has nothing to do with the ACA and everything to do with the fact that my employer was acquired a few weeks ago, and we'll be transitioning to the new parent company's healthcare offerings once our current policy term is up. I fully expect my premiums to go up regardless, but again, that's not because of the ACA but because doctors are [perhaps justifiably] greedy bastards. I don't understand this need to blame price hikes on the ACA. How is that even rational? Where is the "extra money" going? Do you think the ACA was just a way for Obama to personally pocket your healthcare spending dollars? Seriously. Let's say you believe that healthcare costs went up 10% due to the ACA. Instead of spending $1000 on some procedure, now you're spending $1100. Where is that extra because-of-ACA $100 going? To Obama himself? To the DNC? To the five Jewish bankers that run the world economy? If you think the ACA has increased costs, please explain where you think those dollars are going, and why they weren't already going there before the ACA was passed.
The Boston Dynamics rigs are also piloted by a joystick or programmed to follow a beacon at a pre-set distance, as far as I know. Sure, they do lots of balance-related control without operator intervention, but that's simply to mitigate the suboptimal stands-on-legs design. The PackBot doesn't have legs, so it has no need for this additional automated control. It's not as impressive from a control system point of view, but it's more impressive from a simple/robust design point of view.
To me, a Rube Goldberg machine that makes toast is not meaningfully more impressive than an ordinary toaster.
This isn't assured; if you arbitrarily brake hard and somebody is able to testify to that, I wouldn't be confident of the outcome.
Are you suggesting that the police officer Ravaldy quoted as having said "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front" was lying?
But while we're discussing what amounts to insurance fraud, I'd like to point out that my own car insurance company would gladly provide me with a rental car for as long as I need until I get a check from the victim's insurance company. To me, that's not too terrible of an inconvenience. Additionally, regarding the injury angle, it goes both way. It's difficult to prove the presence of soft tissue injuries, but it's similarly difficult to prove their absence. Civil suits have a rather low burden of proof, and false claims of whiplash are a significant proportion of such fraudulent claims.
It's sad that these all these computers are burning electricity for such a useless purpose. If cryptocurrency comes with such onerous computational requirements, is it really an efficient use of our limited resources to promote it? Aren't we squandering an amazing amount of computing power by having these calculations wasted on transaction handling instead of simulated protein folding or some other genuinely productive endeavor? If you think about it, a computational network that exceeds the power of the top 500 super computers combined should not be required to run a distributed version of paypal. In that sense, this really is like tulips. Whether it's wasting prime agricultural land on growing flowers or wasting electricity on computing arbitrary hashes, it just seems that if people stepped back and saw the big picture, they'd see the folly of such activities.
How do you explain the 5.5 millions guns sold annually to citizens in the US?
Easy. They're sold to people that don't live in Massachusetts. What do I win?
A number of years ago, I was moving from Maine back to New Jersey. I [legally] own firearms. I added two hours to my trip to entirely avoid Massachusetts, since it really is virtually illegal to have guns there.
CGA was introduced in 1981.
... Me too! :)
EGA was introduced in 1984.
VGA was introduced in 1987.
Mechwarrior and Test Drive 2 were both released in 1989.
VESA defined modes for SVGA were introduced in 1989.
v.32bis (the ITU recommendation that defined standard 14.4kbps modem communication) was published in February of 1991.
You're talking about 1991 at the earliest when you mention 14.4 modems. Realistically, more like 1992 or 1993. By then, VGA was at least 4 years old, if not 6. Even SVGA was 2-4 years old. Games with awesome graphics like Star Control 2, Wolfenstein 3D, Dune 2, and Ultima VII were being released in 1992. Kings Quest V was released in 1990; this was the final game in the Kings Quest series to offer an EGA release (alongside the VGA release). By 1991, EGA was virtually abandoned, only seen in very old games or shareware/freeware titles. Notably, Commander Keen was EGA and released in 1990.
You're saying that while your friends were playing Doom, you were downloading EGA games?
that same organization can't get a website running properly, particularly one that people don't get to use but have to use
Nobody has to use healthcare.gov. Nobody.
The majority of the population had insurance prior to the passage of the ACA, and they continue to have insurance. For example, I had insurance provided by my employer, and I still do, and I expect to next year as well. I haven't used the healthcare.gov website (not even just to check it out), and I don't plan to either. A majority of the population is in a similar situation and will not have to use this website.
The people who were previously uninsured can visit the website if they want to. They could use a telephone instead, if they prefer. Or they could choose to continue living without health insurance, instead paying the "no insurance" fine. This would be no different than their previous approach to the health insurance issue, with the notable exception that they'd be at least somewhat contributing to the cost of their own medical services (via the fine) instead of ripping off the rest of society.
"one of those people"? Those people?!
... whoosh...
Racist!
My job is not in danger
Then you must be one of those people who don't expect compensation. That's the only way to compete with workers that don't have labor costs.
That or you're under the illusion that technological progress has stopped, and no further advances will be made in automation technology.
The packbot. I guess treads aren't as sexy as legs?
So it resists a yank by immediately giving out? That's like a water resistant watch that simply allows water to flow directly through it. Or a fire resistant blanket that instantly turns to ash. Or a superconducting resistor.
Make no mistake, I think the MagSafe connector is fucking awesome, and I can't wait until the patent expires so that I and the rest of the impoverished masses can benefit from such a convenient feature. I'm just nitpicking the language used. A tamper resistant lock doesn't just pop open when you touch it.
Honestly, I'm shocked to hear that Benin even has any Internet connectivity. If you don't mind me asking, what were you doing out there?
Posts like this make me want to stab someone.
I live in NJ, right in the middle between Philadelphia and New York City. My town has about 100,000 residents, and ranks as the fifth most populous municipality in New Jersey. We've been seeing advertising for FIOS for close to a decade now. It's still not available.
Meanwhile you're sitting on a farm in a small, rural community, with your god damn fiber to the premises. Fuck my life.
Anachronistic comment. VGA, SVGA, and other nice VESA modes were commonplace by the time I got me a Zoltrix 14.4 voice/fax modem. While I remember games with EGA graphics (mechwars, test drive 2?), they predate my involvement with modems. I'd imagine they coincide with the 300-1200 baud era.
With latency comes jitter (the first derivative of latency with respect to time). Jitter most definitely does matter, especially with streaming.
See, if you had a nice steady 30 seconds (RTT) of latency, that would be fine. Your content starts streaming 30 seconds after you click play, no big deal, as long as there is no jitter. Now, what happens if latency suddenly drops to 20 seconds? Well, you just got yourself 10 seconds of streaming video in an instant. That needs to be buffered. Nobody expects jitter on the order of 10 seconds if latency itself is in the millisecond range. Buffers are allocated based on jitter, which itself is at least loosely correlated with latency.
Source: I've stared at way, way too much GSM/RTP/UDP/IP traffic in Wireshark in the course of evaluating tactical radio systems.
The other driver argued with the cop about how it was my fault and the cop told him the following: "No matter how hard or what reason the person in front of you stops, it is your responsibility to keep a safe braking distance between you and the car in front". Case closed!
You heard the man, case closed!
I have yet to see any convincing evidence that a highly-paid CEO is more willing or able to make these "billion dollar decisions" than a poorly-paid assembly line worker. I'm pretty sure if you took a random guy off the line, marched him to his new corner office, sat him down in his new plush leather chair, and told him over his rich mahogany desk that he'd be making all the big decisions from now on, that he wouldn't also demand a thousandfold increase in salary. I think he'd be content making those "billion dollar decisions" instead of assembling widgets, even for the same pay. So please, don't make it seem like a supply/demand issue. You wouldn't have any issues hiring CEOs even at a fraction of a percent of their current levels of pay.
If you're not sure what's ethically wrong with a law that can explicitly protect malicious actors, I'm not sure what else to say.
No law is perfect, and I don't think I could craft a better one (regarding liability in rear-end collisions). However, to appeal to the current law as some sort of ideal that we should all be glad to abide by, well, it's ridiculous. There's plenty of shortcomings in this law, like the one that is evident in the situation I previously set forth. To boast "case closed" suggests that the issue of liability is adequately, if not perfectly, solved by this law. The fact that the law can benefit a malicious actor suggests that no, we have not solved the issue of liability, merely mitigated it with suboptimal legislation.
What I'm saying is that ethics ought to inform legislation. What Ravaldy seems to be suggesting is that legislation is what determines ethics. These are two very different viewpoints to espouse, and only one of them has any meaningful support among philosophers.
I'm currently looking to sell my Honda Accord, which has decent brakes, fresh tires, and ABS. It would be considerably easier and more lucrative for me to unexpectedly stomp on the brakes on my drive home today, causing someone to rear-end me, than it would be for me to seek out a willing buyer. It would, legally speaking, be the fault of whoever it is that rear-ended me, and I'd be getting a nice payout for my totaled Accord. What should be apparent to any ethical person is that such a plot would be unethical. It would jeopardize the safety of the unwitting accomplices that hit me. It would additionally burden them financially, between the damage to their own vehicle and the additional insurance premiums they'd have to suffer as a result of the insurance payout for my Accord. Also, making things even worse, is that the only blame they could legitimately carry would be for "following too close". However, if they're in a minivan with older tires and worn brakes, their stopping distance is likely considerably longer than mine. Add in the delay from human reaction time and it's not much of a stretch to say that the only stopping distance that is guaranteed to be sufficient would leave their car safely tucked away in a parking lot.
Ravaldy would have me believe that this is a good thing. That the law says that this is how it should be, so this is how it should be. I, personally, believe that innocent drivers should not be held liable for the actions of malicious actors. I'm not complaining that my brakes are too effective. I'm not complaining that if I stop short to save some kid's life, the law will not hold me liable in the event someone resultingly rear-ends me. I'm merely stating that the law has shortcomings. Significant shortcomings. Consequently, it is not suitable for an appeal to authority, which is what Ravaldy was doing.
That is the law, indeed. I can slam the brakes in a Subaru Impreza WRX and virtually assure that whoever I'm brake checking hits me, on account of the 125' stopping distance. Of course, legally speaking, it's their fault. Great way of making money with whiplash payouts. The law is the law, and the law is always right. Case closed, ethics be damned!
Sure, yes, I live in the homogeneous caucasian state of New Jersey where I only interact with 10th generations Americans from the Mayflower. I'm the only immigrant in the entire state. Maybe one day I can move to your amazingly diverse Canadian wonderland, the world's "melting pot".
Since you've moved away from attacking my argument, instead focusing on my person, I think this is a good time for me to declare victory and move on to more constructive threads. Thank you for sharing your point of view, and hopefully next time you'll be in a better position to actually back it up with objective evidence.
Also, thank you for at least acknowledging that I don't rely on slanted information. I try hard to remain objective, and I appreciate the recognition.
Apple's MagSafe connector is the opposite of yank-resistant. It can be yanked out more easily than any other connector I've ever seen.
Meanwhile I'm a relative newcomer and I'm 1/1 with my COIN "slashvertisement" submission. After I submitted, I noticed a nearly-identical submission preceding mine in the firehose. Amusingly, it's mine that made it to the front page.
:P
When I emailed the COIN folks to let them know they made it to slashdot's front page, I didn't even get so much as a "Cool, thanks!". Now I wish I had started spamming my referral URL in the comments
One common example is that Freedom of Religion does not permit you to engage in ritual human sacrifice.
Indeed, even Rastafarians are not permitted to smoke pot. Freedom of Religion my ass.
Jill Stein is fucking awesome. She got my vote too. And the votes of many of my friends.
Another opportunity to remind people to stop throwing away their votes. Stop supporting the establishment, vote third party.