It isn't like anyone is holding a gun to any of these women to disrobe, or have sex on screen (they have to sign papers about age and all this anyway)...how could it possibly be in any way, an imposition on their civil rights??!!?
Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right? What about that?
The comedian Doug Stanhope I think summed it up best:
"If God had intended women to prostitute themselves, he would have given them free will and a vagina."
I did see your post about her blog after my post...and I do agree, her clarification is a much more reasonable position. I guess I'm not surprised the NYT writer misrepresented her.
However, I'll also note that you just attributed a quote to me that I never made. So it goes, I guess.
I'm surprised that an Avant Cello musician isn't pulling in the coin
I read the article when it first appeared on the NYT site a few days ago, and even though my taste gravitate to things like 'Avant Cello', my reaction was quite similar.
I mean, she got 1.5 million plays in six months. Even if she didn't get a dime from it, at what point in the past could anyone playing Avant Anything get that kind of exposure?
Then I checked out her website, to see that she seems to have pretty full touring schedule, and on her Press page there are at least twoarticles acclaiming her success at leveraging online marketing.
I like your music, lady, but sheesh, cry me a river, will ya?
In general, though, the reason this movement will fail is the same reason why people want it to work. Selfishness. The same person that says "I would like to have wifi without paying for it when I am somewhere not home" has already said "I don't want to pay for my own 3g/data plan so I can have network access when I am not home". That same attitude would result in "why should I pay for network at home if I can get it free from my neighbor".
I can't speak for others, but I'd consider providing free access to my wifi under 3 conditions:
1) There is a brain-dead simple way to ensure that my internal network is secure from anyone using it as an open access point,
2) a similarly brain-dead way to limit how much can be downloaded per open access client, and
3) legal assurance that I was in no way liable for anything downloaded from my open access point.
While the Open Wireless Movement (OWS - is that a conicidence?) could probably easily provide the first two, the third is a matter of legislation and thus is the real sticking point. I imagine there are many others like me that don't recoil at the very idea of someone "freeloading" and would be happy to provide a service to the community, but if I'm going to face any chance of liability for doing so, or if it's just a matter of being a PITA to set up, then it's not happening. If it were easy AND there were no potential legal consequences, I think you'd be surprised how many folks would *not* be that selfish.
Generally speaking, a beef patty that's 100% beef has to be stuck together with fat. In other words it's unhealthy AND pretty tasteless.
Sure, if you use a definition of "beef" that means "purely muscle matter and absolutely no fat". However, I've never heard such a thing before, but I have commonly heard the term "beef fat", so I don't know where you get that "100% beef" would mean fat-free.
Pixel art is art. FM synthesized music is art. The two together form an aesthetic that never existed before the 80s, and didn't make it past the 2000s. Even what we're seeing today is a revival, none of the retro art I've seen could have existed in 1990.
I had a thought very similar to this a few weeks back while driving with a friend (both in our late 40s). A Steve Miller Band song came on the radio (either Fly Like An Eagle or Jet Airliner, can't remember which) with the classic sweeping synthesizer sounds, and it struck me...when exactly did that old synth sound go from being the "sound of the future" to being "retro"? Made me feel very old...
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The interesting thing to note there is if the scientists were more correct than society at large. Do you distrust the scientific consensus that brushing your teeth is good for your dental health? You can level the exact same argument against that consensus as you just did for climate scientist's consensus.
I accept the scientific consensus on the benefits of brushing my teeth because (a) my experience leads me to agree and (b) there is no evidence I know of that it could be harmful, and (c) it is a low cost, low effort intervention, so the stakes in the hypothesis being wrong are low.
Here's my counterexample: circa 40-50 years ago, a scientific consensus about diet and nutrition emerged in medical science that centered around the principles that dietary fat, especially saturated fat, dietary cholesterol and animal foods in general were the cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease, and that the healthy diet should be higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat. Official dietary guidelines based on that consensus were then widely publicized prior to and during a decades-long multi-billion dollar research effort to attempt to confirm that consensus. That research effort was a history of ever more underwhelming results which consistently whittled down the central hypothesis (e.g., from 'watch your total cholesterol', to 'good' and 'bad' cholesterol, to finally it being pretty much settled that dietary cholesterol consumed has little effect on blood serum cholesterol levels). Now there is ever increasing evidence that the dietary advice based on that consensus may have been harmful to a significant fraction of the population that will become obese and/or diabetic on a high carbohydrate diet, and may even contribute rather than protect against atherosclerosis and heart disease in those people. This is still not settled science, in fact it seems less settled than ever. And as someone who did become obese then diabetic despite my best efforts following the scientific consensus, only to find that by restricting carbohydrates my diabetes reverses and my weight slowly but steadily decreases, my experience, coupled with my observation that proof for the consensus view seems to weakening over time, leads me to distrust the scientific consensus in this case. Note I'm not asking you to agree with me on this, only to concede that if my assessment of the facts is correct, the consensus should be challenged.
Like climate science, nutritional science is complex and so much is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and the stakes for implementing far reaching policies based on inaccurate or incomplete science are high and the potential for unintended consequences is great. The difference to explain the reason why I side with the scientific consensus on AGW but against it on nutritional science is my observation on which way the evidence is moving; in the first case it seems to be getting stronger and stronger, where the latter is getting weaker and weaker. And I'm not dismissing the idea of a scientific consensus entirely, but more as an indicator to where the science is leading than a data point in itself. The reason for my original post is that I too often hear and read pro-AGW point about "scientific consensus" as if that ends the argument, and why it is ineffective. If you need a soundbite, I think "the evidence points more strongly towards AGW each day" is much more effective than "there's a scientific consensus".
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The key thing to consider when evaluating an unsettled scientific issue is to note whether the evidence for a particular hypothesis gets stronger or weaker as more and better research is done. By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time, and the evidence presented against it seems increasingly narrow. But even though I agree with the "scientific consensus", I hate hearing and reading it as the cliched soundbite and doubt it's convincing any of that 75% of people who are unsure (however they defined unsure).
Interesting. I just did a bit of Googling and couldn't seem to find whether or not any states forbid combined PTO, though it's clearly outlined in federal labor law.
I agree about use-it-or-lose-it, I think only reason some employers like to do that is that they know some number of employees will feel guilty about taking sick days when they are not sick and thus lose them. I do remember a few jobs where, yeah, you had 6 or 7 sick days, but you'd get the stink-eye if you used them all, particularly if you used them on 'suspect' days (e.g., before or after a long weekend). But I think you're right, it's more honest to let you use all your allotted days as you see fit.
Oh, I understand perfectly why people come to work sick, and if it came off like I was berating people for doing so, that was not my intent. I only meant to point out that a smart employer should *want* sick employees to stay home, and if it's possible that your employees can work from home, it should be a no-brainer to enable that.
However, I'm genuinely interested about your experience of combined PTO. When I lived in the US (NJ), there was legal difference between sick days and vacation days: sick time was use-it-or-lose-it, but vacation days were owed to you; if you didn't take them they either had to roll them over or pay you for them, and likewise would have to pay you for them upon termination for any reason. I never had a job where it was different. May I ask what state(s) you work/worked in?
I live in Canada now, and I'm afraid to tell you what I get in sick time here.
What is the exact reason you think that you need all of your people actually nose to muzzle on a day to day basis?? If its the real time "Face to Face" thing then for all that matters you could have everybody meet on your corporate sim on the SL grid
Short answer is, because despite the antisocial tendencies of the computer community that reads/., human interactions --meaning "real time face to face" interaction, as you put it (what used to be called "talking to people" in the old days)--are valuable, and that doesn't mean text and document exchange, nor even skype. And "corporate sim" is not actually face to face.
As someone who works for a firm where most of our people work remotely, I have to agree. At a certain point it does become an impediment to productivity when people are only communicating over the wire. Some companies will manage this better than others, but I think there's always some level of overhead to working remotely.
But that said, in today's day and age, if your job is done primarily in front of a screen or on the phone, there is really no good reason not to at least have the ability to work from home for times when you are either not all that sick (but potentially contagious), or your kid's sick, or even if you just have to be home for the cable guy. I have one regular work at home day per week, and if for any reason I want or need to work from home any other day, I won't get any grief unless I was blowing off an important meeting or the like. The technology to do so is ubiquitous, and I don't think there's as much of an issue with sometimes working from home than with working 100% remotely.
At a previous job, not only would people routinely come in sick, it was not uncommon for someone to show up at work with their sick child who can't be in school or day care. Sorry but rarely, if ever, is one single person is so valuable that the need for their presence in the office outweighs the cost of them being a disease vector to everyone else. I don't really understand why more employers don't look *down* on showing up sick.
There's different kinds of sick.
You might just be getting tired very easily (so you really need a bed in reach) but otherwise feel quite ok.
Or as I've said in certain occasions, some days you can work OK, but you don't want to be outside of a 15 foot radius of your own toilet. TMI, perhaps, but it happens to all of us from time to time.
Hatta is right that you have a free speech right to express the knowledge that your neighbor is on vacation.
And the neighbor has the right to say "that is not information I want made public, I did not make it public, and I want it removed from facebook, etc." He should be in control of his information.
He has the right to say that, and depending on the situation, he may even have the right to have such information removed under existing law. That is a far cry from "the right to be forgotten", which asserts that anything you make public can then be re-rendered private by decree. The universe simply doesn't work that way.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain that Facebook is busy scraping their user's data for their own use and then say that someone has no right to control information about themselves? Either you have the right not to have Facebook controlling your data or you don't.
Not at all. I object to Facebook's business model of, as you say, "scraping their user's data for their own use", and therefore I don't use Facebook. But if you're voluntarily signed up for a free service based on such a business model, what right do you have to object to what happens to your data after you've already made it public? None, in my opinion.
If you were paying for Facebook and their business model instead was to give you the assurance that your data was, at least to any extent possible, under your control...then you have a cause for grievance. I likewise object to Gmail scanning emails for content, and therefore don't use Gmail, but again, many others voluntarily choose not to care, and it's impossible to protect people from foolishly making information public after the fact. But if I were to find out my ISP was doing so in violation of my ToS, that's a whole different story.
Funny. Exactly backwards. Truth is not a defense to libel in England. They even make jokes about it on southpark Tom Cruise: 'I'll sue you in England'
I'd like to see how the UK courts (or any court) would rule on this online review.
(Scroll down to comment 38...my friend who was taking Champix to quit smoking found this. I don't know if it's a troll or not, if so, it a brilliant one, if not, it's even more so. It won the Internet for me that day.)
I took Champix for 3 weeks and they turned me Gay. I left my wife and kids for another Man with no reasoning involved. I am an ex army fitensss guru and work on building sites and have slept with many women and no way ever a man before. I stopped taking champix and returned to my wife in disgust at myself. Have you had any other cases like this?
The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep"...
I was a little disturbed that they didn't actually quote what she said, at least from what I saw in TFA. IMHO, there's a big difference if she said "They stole my jewelry!" and "I think they stole my jewelry as items were missing afterwards." The first would clearly be libelous without proof, the latter I'm not so sure.
I do believe that when the sun finally consumes this planet the last HP LaserJet 4 will finally die. Their modern stuff is shit compared to them.
No kidding. My dad still uses a LaserJet 4L that my brother gave him damn near 20 years ago. I think he's replaced the cartridge twice in that time, the print quality still exceeds any InkJet I've seen, as long as you don't need color or hi-res graphics.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't like anyone is holding a gun to any of these women to disrobe, or have sex on screen (they have to sign papers about age and all this anyway)...how could it possibly be in any way, an imposition on their civil rights??!!?
Is freedom of choice what to do with yourself not a civil right? What about that?
The comedian Doug Stanhope I think summed it up best:
"If God had intended women to prostitute themselves, he would have given them free will and a vagina."
I did see your post about her blog after my post...and I do agree, her clarification is a much more reasonable position. I guess I'm not surprised the NYT writer misrepresented her.
However, I'll also note that you just attributed a quote to me that I never made. So it goes, I guess.
I'm surprised that an Avant Cello musician isn't pulling in the coin
I read the article when it first appeared on the NYT site a few days ago, and even though my taste gravitate to things like 'Avant Cello', my reaction was quite similar.
I mean, she got 1.5 million plays in six months. Even if she didn't get a dime from it, at what point in the past could anyone playing Avant Anything get that kind of exposure?
Then I checked out her website, to see that she seems to have pretty full touring schedule, and on her Press page there are at least two articles acclaiming her success at leveraging online marketing.
I like your music, lady, but sheesh, cry me a river, will ya?
This sounds a lot like US laws.
“The United States is a nation of laws, badly written and randomly enforced.”
- Frank Zappa
Duh...sorry, it was late in the day.
In general, though, the reason this movement will fail is the same reason why people want it to work. Selfishness. The same person that says "I would like to have wifi without paying for it when I am somewhere not home" has already said "I don't want to pay for my own 3g/data plan so I can have network access when I am not home". That same attitude would result in "why should I pay for network at home if I can get it free from my neighbor".
I can't speak for others, but I'd consider providing free access to my wifi under 3 conditions:
1) There is a brain-dead simple way to ensure that my internal network is secure from anyone using it as an open access point,
2) a similarly brain-dead way to limit how much can be downloaded per open access client, and
3) legal assurance that I was in no way liable for anything downloaded from my open access point.
While the Open Wireless Movement (OWS - is that a conicidence?) could probably easily provide the first two, the third is a matter of legislation and thus is the real sticking point. I imagine there are many others like me that don't recoil at the very idea of someone "freeloading" and would be happy to provide a service to the community, but if I'm going to face any chance of liability for doing so, or if it's just a matter of being a PITA to set up, then it's not happening. If it were easy AND there were no potential legal consequences, I think you'd be surprised how many folks would *not* be that selfish.
Generally speaking, a beef patty that's 100% beef has to be stuck together with fat. In other words it's unhealthy AND pretty tasteless.
Sure, if you use a definition of "beef" that means "purely muscle matter and absolutely no fat". However, I've never heard such a thing before, but I have commonly heard the term "beef fat", so I don't know where you get that "100% beef" would mean fat-free.
My bank gets its web services from Intuit. Probably Intuit gets their services from Bangalore. They're ignorant of internet standards, in either case.
Maybe they're just not that Intuit.
Pixel art is art. FM synthesized music is art. The two together form an aesthetic that never existed before the 80s, and didn't make it past the 2000s. Even what we're seeing today is a revival, none of the retro art I've seen could have existed in 1990.
I had a thought very similar to this a few weeks back while driving with a friend (both in our late 40s). A Steve Miller Band song came on the radio (either Fly Like An Eagle or Jet Airliner, can't remember which) with the classic sweeping synthesizer sounds, and it struck me...when exactly did that old synth sound go from being the "sound of the future" to being "retro"? Made me feel very old...
Yeah, I would try to clear me name by claiming ultruistism too.
Do you mean "altruism"?
Speaking of the "lost web", we no longer see as many offbeat websites like this one ... HO-HO-HO! ;-)
My eyes...ze goggles, zey do nothing!!!!
How about: pinch to Bang...Zoom! To the moon, Alice!!
You deserve mod points for this. Excellent analysis.
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The interesting thing to note there is if the scientists were more correct than society at large. Do you distrust the scientific consensus that brushing your teeth is good for your dental health? You can level the exact same argument against that consensus as you just did for climate scientist's consensus.
I accept the scientific consensus on the benefits of brushing my teeth because (a) my experience leads me to agree and (b) there is no evidence I know of that it could be harmful, and (c) it is a low cost, low effort intervention, so the stakes in the hypothesis being wrong are low.
Here's my counterexample: circa 40-50 years ago, a scientific consensus about diet and nutrition emerged in medical science that centered around the principles that dietary fat, especially saturated fat, dietary cholesterol and animal foods in general were the cause of atherosclerosis and heart disease, and that the healthy diet should be higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat. Official dietary guidelines based on that consensus were then widely publicized prior to and during a decades-long multi-billion dollar research effort to attempt to confirm that consensus. That research effort was a history of ever more underwhelming results which consistently whittled down the central hypothesis (e.g., from 'watch your total cholesterol', to 'good' and 'bad' cholesterol, to finally it being pretty much settled that dietary cholesterol consumed has little effect on blood serum cholesterol levels). Now there is ever increasing evidence that the dietary advice based on that consensus may have been harmful to a significant fraction of the population that will become obese and/or diabetic on a high carbohydrate diet, and may even contribute rather than protect against atherosclerosis and heart disease in those people. This is still not settled science, in fact it seems less settled than ever. And as someone who did become obese then diabetic despite my best efforts following the scientific consensus, only to find that by restricting carbohydrates my diabetes reverses and my weight slowly but steadily decreases, my experience, coupled with my observation that proof for the consensus view seems to weakening over time, leads me to distrust the scientific consensus in this case. Note I'm not asking you to agree with me on this, only to concede that if my assessment of the facts is correct, the consensus should be challenged.
Like climate science, nutritional science is complex and so much is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and the stakes for implementing far reaching policies based on inaccurate or incomplete science are high and the potential for unintended consequences is great. The difference to explain the reason why I side with the scientific consensus on AGW but against it on nutritional science is my observation on which way the evidence is moving; in the first case it seems to be getting stronger and stronger, where the latter is getting weaker and weaker. And I'm not dismissing the idea of a scientific consensus entirely, but more as an indicator to where the science is leading than a data point in itself. The reason for my original post is that I too often hear and read pro-AGW point about "scientific consensus" as if that ends the argument, and why it is ineffective. If you need a soundbite, I think "the evidence points more strongly towards AGW each day" is much more effective than "there's a scientific consensus".
He doesn't have to, because of the magical use of the meaningless term "Scientific consensus" by virtually all of the scientists and journalists writing about the field. What we're told, over and over, is that virtually all credible scientists are speaking with one voice.
The idea that science is somehow subject to a vote is even scarier than the idea that it should be subservient to religion.
As someone who thinks the "scientific consensus" on AGW is much more likely correct than not, I have to say I agree with this. History is littered with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven wrong, and indeed that is the very definition of scientific progress.
The key thing to consider when evaluating an unsettled scientific issue is to note whether the evidence for a particular hypothesis gets stronger or weaker as more and better research is done. By my admittedly layman's interpretation of what read, the evidence for AGW has only been getting stronger over time, and the evidence presented against it seems increasingly narrow. But even though I agree with the "scientific consensus", I hate hearing and reading it as the cliched soundbite and doubt it's convincing any of that 75% of people who are unsure (however they defined unsure).
Interesting. I just did a bit of Googling and couldn't seem to find whether or not any states forbid combined PTO, though it's clearly outlined in federal labor law.
I agree about use-it-or-lose-it, I think only reason some employers like to do that is that they know some number of employees will feel guilty about taking sick days when they are not sick and thus lose them. I do remember a few jobs where, yeah, you had 6 or 7 sick days, but you'd get the stink-eye if you used them all, particularly if you used them on 'suspect' days (e.g., before or after a long weekend). But I think you're right, it's more honest to let you use all your allotted days as you see fit.
Oh, I understand perfectly why people come to work sick, and if it came off like I was berating people for doing so, that was not my intent. I only meant to point out that a smart employer should *want* sick employees to stay home, and if it's possible that your employees can work from home, it should be a no-brainer to enable that.
However, I'm genuinely interested about your experience of combined PTO. When I lived in the US (NJ), there was legal difference between sick days and vacation days: sick time was use-it-or-lose-it, but vacation days were owed to you; if you didn't take them they either had to roll them over or pay you for them, and likewise would have to pay you for them upon termination for any reason. I never had a job where it was different. May I ask what state(s) you work/worked in?
I live in Canada now, and I'm afraid to tell you what I get in sick time here.
What is the exact reason you think that you need all of your people actually nose to muzzle on a day to day basis?? If its the real time "Face to Face" thing then for all that matters you could have everybody meet on your corporate sim on the SL grid
Short answer is, because despite the antisocial tendencies of the computer community that reads /., human interactions --meaning "real time face to face" interaction, as you put it (what used to be called "talking to people" in the old days)--are valuable, and that doesn't mean text and document exchange, nor even skype. And "corporate sim" is not actually face to face.
As someone who works for a firm where most of our people work remotely, I have to agree. At a certain point it does become an impediment to productivity when people are only communicating over the wire. Some companies will manage this better than others, but I think there's always some level of overhead to working remotely.
But that said, in today's day and age, if your job is done primarily in front of a screen or on the phone, there is really no good reason not to at least have the ability to work from home for times when you are either not all that sick (but potentially contagious), or your kid's sick, or even if you just have to be home for the cable guy. I have one regular work at home day per week, and if for any reason I want or need to work from home any other day, I won't get any grief unless I was blowing off an important meeting or the like. The technology to do so is ubiquitous, and I don't think there's as much of an issue with sometimes working from home than with working 100% remotely.
At a previous job, not only would people routinely come in sick, it was not uncommon for someone to show up at work with their sick child who can't be in school or day care. Sorry but rarely, if ever, is one single person is so valuable that the need for their presence in the office outweighs the cost of them being a disease vector to everyone else. I don't really understand why more employers don't look *down* on showing up sick.
There's different kinds of sick. You might just be getting tired very easily (so you really need a bed in reach) but otherwise feel quite ok.
Or as I've said in certain occasions, some days you can work OK, but you don't want to be outside of a 15 foot radius of your own toilet. TMI, perhaps, but it happens to all of us from time to time.
Hatta is right that you have a free speech right to express the knowledge that your neighbor is on vacation.
And the neighbor has the right to say "that is not information I want made public, I did not make it public, and I want it removed from facebook, etc." He should be in control of his information.
He has the right to say that, and depending on the situation, he may even have the right to have such information removed under existing law. That is a far cry from "the right to be forgotten", which asserts that anything you make public can then be re-rendered private by decree. The universe simply doesn't work that way.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain that Facebook is busy scraping their user's data for their own use and then say that someone has no right to control information about themselves? Either you have the right not to have Facebook controlling your data or you don't.
Not at all. I object to Facebook's business model of, as you say, "scraping their user's data for their own use", and therefore I don't use Facebook. But if you're voluntarily signed up for a free service based on such a business model, what right do you have to object to what happens to your data after you've already made it public? None, in my opinion.
If you were paying for Facebook and their business model instead was to give you the assurance that your data was, at least to any extent possible, under your control...then you have a cause for grievance. I likewise object to Gmail scanning emails for content, and therefore don't use Gmail, but again, many others voluntarily choose not to care, and it's impossible to protect people from foolishly making information public after the fact. But if I were to find out my ISP was doing so in violation of my ToS, that's a whole different story.
Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!
Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)
Both gay.
Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!
Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)
Both gay.
With each other, no less.
Funny. Exactly backwards. Truth is not a defense to libel in England. They even make jokes about it on southpark Tom Cruise: 'I'll sue you in England'
I'd like to see how the UK courts (or any court) would rule on this online review. (Scroll down to comment 38...my friend who was taking Champix to quit smoking found this. I don't know if it's a troll or not, if so, it a brilliant one, if not, it's even more so. It won the Internet for me that day.)
I took Champix for 3 weeks and they turned me Gay. I left my wife and kids for another Man with no reasoning involved. I am an ex army fitensss guru and work on building sites and have slept with many women and no way ever a man before. I stopped taking champix and returned to my wife in disgust at myself. Have you had any other cases like this?
Unless it's true!
The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep" ...
I was a little disturbed that they didn't actually quote what she said, at least from what I saw in TFA. IMHO, there's a big difference if she said "They stole my jewelry!" and "I think they stole my jewelry as items were missing afterwards." The first would clearly be libelous without proof, the latter I'm not so sure.
Hitler - so-so painter.
...and vegetarian.
I do believe that when the sun finally consumes this planet the last HP LaserJet 4 will finally die. Their modern stuff is shit compared to them.
No kidding. My dad still uses a LaserJet 4L that my brother gave him damn near 20 years ago. I think he's replaced the cartridge twice in that time, the print quality still exceeds any InkJet I've seen, as long as you don't need color or hi-res graphics.