If you have term limits, there's another problem: since the candidate is not going to get elected again, then

1) In his last term, he won't care if he's acting against his constituents' wishes, since he'll never get elected again anyway.

2) In his last term, he'll pander to special interests. This is enabled by point 1) but is also a separate problem, since he'll want to put food on the table once he leaves office and doing so will get the special interest to hire him.

Of course, you can fix point 2 by making it illegal for him to be hired by anyone he affected during his term. For any significant position this ensures that only the rich ever take office, which is its own problem.

And if they called it snoozeSSL, the name doesn't matter. A name is a designation that should enable us to distinguish it from something of a similar kind...

The point is, though, that this name means jack

So *you're* the guy who named GIMP..

Names actually do matter. Think of a name as a type of user interface, and a bad name as an ugly user interface.

For that matter, think of a name as a way to deal with people, and a poorly named project as showing geekish lack of social skills. Saying "please" serves no function other than making people feel better. It doesn't mean anything more than the name. But that still means a lot, because we're human beings, and doing things with no technological effect is part of how we deal with other human beings.

Because, of course, it's so easy to get politicians to reduce taxes.

Yeah, the gas tax wouldn't be so bad if we reduced other taxes to make up for it. But it's not going to happen that way.

The malware is named "Googl app stoy".

If you're dumb enough to download something spelled that way, you deserve, well, almost anything.

If the article was about something in New York, would we see a headline describing it as "York"?

That assumes that the information is classified because it's genuinely sensitive rather than classified because classifying it helps cover up wrongdoing.

So obviously I'm getting calories from sources other than my meals.

"I have to eat a ridiculously small amount each day to lose weight" doesn't quite have the same ring as "I have to eat a ridiculously small amount at meals each day, plus a huge number of calories outside meals". Obviously, if you eat 120 calories at meals, and have an unspecified number of calories outside meals, then it's the calories outside the meals that are causing the problem. Cut down on them.

And I drink the occasional beer or two in the evening.

The fact that you had to insert the qualifier "or two" is a sign that you're not cutting down properly.

And while I avoid sugary drinks, my tea does contain both sugar and honey.

In other words, you don't avoid sugary drinks. You can't say that tea doesn't count because you mentally put it in a separate category from Coca-Cola. Tea containing sugar is still a drink containing sugar.

it's that when I need to lose weight, I need to make my meals a *lot* smaller if I want to see some results

No you don't, you need to cut down on the calories outside meals that you just admitted to consuming.

To give you an idea, in order to lose 10kg (22lb) over a period of 3 months, one 125g (4.4oz) bag of rice and one chicken breast would be my total food intake over 4 days, for that entire 3 month period.

Google can quickly and easily show how much calories foods contain. Rice is 216 calories for 1 cup (195g) which comes out to 138 calories for 4.4oz of rice. Figures for chicken breast vary a lot but one figure I got was 342. That means you claim that in order to lose weight you must eat (138 + 342) / 4 = 120 calories per day. A sedentary male adult needs around 2400 calories per day. It varies somewhat based on age and gender, but not by that much.

I don't believe that you must reduce your calorie intake from 2400 to 120 to lose weight (5% of your normal food intake), and I don't think anyone else should believe you either.

What of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when every nut-case seems to have been issued sufficient automatic weaponry to cut all that I love right out of this world?

I'd love to know what he's talking about here, but he's probably just fallen for a lie about "automatic weapons".

Bonus points for referring to the number of murders by guns without asking how many of those were murders by legal guns, and without breaking it out into high-crime inner cities and areas more like the one he probably lives in.

You have to give him credit. He actually provided an answer that answers the original question. (The boundary for "Golden Age" is fuzzy, but EC in the New Trend period is pre-code and fits the original request. The most recent full reprints of EC are the Russ Cochran color "EC Archives" from 2006 to 2008 which are expensive, but at least they are available.) And they are definitely very influential comics in pre-code history.

And before anyone asks, "New Trend" and "New Direction" are not the same thing.

Proving my point about bringing out the stupid. You're either totally clueless, or else you're trying to get pedantic like people on the Internet often do and claim that there's no Marvel because they were named "Timely" at the time. In that case you didn't read well because the way I phrased it, the company that is *publishing* the Masterworks right now is certainly named "Marvel".. Furthermore, even getting pedantic on this point ignores that DC Archives, which I also mentioned, certainly include Golden Age volumes.

No, this is another case of the topic brinring out the stupid in Slashdot. Are you seriously suggesting that Golden Age comics have controversy about them similar to vi versus emacs or Windows versus Linux?

Did everyone take the original post, pick out the word "comics", and ignore the rest of it?

Marvel Comics has a Marvel Masterworks line which includes a lot of Golden Age volumes. They are very expensive, but there are also $20 paperback editions that come out 7-8 years later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

DC Comics has its DC Archives program, but most of those never get reprinted in paperbacks and the program rarely releases much nowadays.

Also, something about this topic seems to bring out the stupid in Slashdot. No, Flaming Carrot is not a Golden Age comic.

It's more influential than you or I, but it's not more influential than Jesus. The problem is that he's more influential in areas specifically related to the Wikipedia format.

If every page about someone born in August contained a link to Augustus Caesar, this would conclude that he's the most influential person in history.

You know nothing about libertarians.

Libertarians believe it should be legal to a lot of things that leftists don't like, including kicking someone out for bad reasons. However, this does not mean that doing so should not be subject to moral condemnation. Unless you have an example of libertarians saying that what the NBA did should be made illegal, you have no valid criticism.

What property did he "forfeit" by the way? He didn't lose anything - he SOLD his property on the market for $2.2 billion.

He lost the difference between what it was worth to him and what he got by selling it. If this was not a loss, then he would have sold it spontaneously, which he obviously didn't.