"With concerns being raised about the deal's impacts on everything from intellectual property rights to government sovereignty, it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents."

Why is it surprising? Gives them less work to do! They're all pro-business, which is the reason they're in office. Whether or not they agree with tighter gun laws, or minimum wage, or black/gay rights, or abortion, or equality of any sort etc...those aren't interesting to people in power other than as something they can use to sway voting voters on any given election. These people don't give a fuck about you in any other way, and in any case, stuff like copyright etc is just not of interest to most people; there's simply no votes in it.

If they want to make a profit they need to roll their sleeves up and get to work. How do other people make money from my site after my death? I'll give 'em my credentials and they can do what I've been doing. Next.

How is this any different to a newspaper reporting on, say, increased drug dealing in a named part of london? "But people are going to go there and buy drugs now they've read about it in the paper". Yes, but they were already doing that.

I wonder how a law which tried to prevent such reporting - assuming said interference of the state was legal and desirable - would look, and how it would differ from censorship performed in more embarrassingly run countries.

No, if you're obese you risk a lot more than "a few" (what is that? 2? 3? 5?) years. It puts extra stress on just about every part of your body especially, crucially, your heart. 1 in 5 americans die from obesity related illnesses. People eating obviously unhealthy foods watching the news and worrying about Al Queda when there's a 9/11-sized death toll every day from what they're eating.

The comments are definitely c++.

Somewhere there's a terrorist reading your post and saying "that's what I'm talking about!".

> But no , the "Not Invented Here" meme popped up its ugly head again and some know it alls
> decided they could reinvent the wheel better. Well so far the jury is still out on that.

You say that, but why have nearly all distros moved to systemd? You're saying there's not a sound technical reason for it? NIH makes sense as a criticism in a few areas, but linux distros, largely run for free by hobbiests? They're imposing it on themselves for no good reason? Really?

Agree but i've had problems with Mint for a while, and the official forums for it are dead; you're much more likely to get help on AskUbuntu or UbuntuForums, so I've gone back to Ubuntu then upgraded the ui to xfce. Problem solved! (I tried briefly but unity is still a mixture of awful and buggy).

You're stating it wrong. When someone is dead you can say what you want about them.

But people want browsers to run applications. It would probably be better if chrome ran android apps, or languages other than javascript (java, perhaps), so that it wasn't a hack to do anything other than say "here's your webpage".

OEM, sure. But it's not my understanding that if you buy a PC and buy the full, expensive version of windows and the PC dies and you buy a new pc then you need to buy another copy of windows. Otherwise....why would anyone pay for the full version; you'd get the oem, right?

We're not talking about rumours here, though.

You know nothing about computers. Why are you even on this site?

Microsoft's javascript support is just like the other's; slower before but not so much now.

Self fulfilling prophecies? Well, maybe, or maybe it's just an obvious requirement for modern sites. Your list of uses is hardly exhaustive; stack exchange sites use it to great effect; you can't be serious when you prefer hitting f5 to provoke an update rather than...doing nothing and having the site update by itself? Look at google maps today (on the desktop). The limits to the practicality of javascript is...well, there are no limits. It's a programming language; you can do whatever you want with it. Emulate operating systems, games....

http://js1k.com/

There's nothing sloppy about the use of javascript. I think you're a bit of an edge case; perhaps you're better off not using the internet; it really is as fundamental as that.

The problem was never javascript. Sure, IE was the posterboy in slow, buggy javascript. But it's hard to imagine anything other that static pages (and there's nothing wrong with that) being handled with anything better than javascript. Perhaps you're not very technical, but forget ads and gifs for a moment and explain how you'd provide the same functionality javascript (and ajax and all that goes along with it) would be handled without javascript? Uploading files to a site with a progress bar? Dragging and dropping files onto the browser. Sensible, rich clientside validation of user input (in addition to the back end validation, obviously)? The only alternative I can imagine you giving is some other client side language. The only reason you're not blocking those too is because they're not as popular as javascript; they can certainly produce and handle popups.