It's a pretty poor rebellion that is seeking to fight the army of the opposing side.

"Rebellion, uprising or insurrection, is a refusal of obedience or order.[1] It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government or a head of state"

So it's terrorism because it's not QUITE oppressive enough, but there's a certain tipping point where it becomes rebellion? I

But it does absolutely nothing about the issues, both real and perceived, that caused Al Qaeda to exist in the first place. It's attacking the symptoms and ignoring the cause. So how long will it be before there's another group comprised of exactly the same disenfranchised people under the same ideology?

"In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money."

Cause absolutely no one who owns a station STARTED with any money, it was only accrued through them being the most successful station. You're advocating hard for letting those with money do whatever they want to those without.

Have Fark open in the other tab so I'm getting a kick, etc.

Not that I needed much of an excuse to re-watch TNG and DS9, but it's nice to have one.

Yeah, the wording is confusing.

"In her brief, the ex-wife said “the authority, alluded to by oppositor-appellant, the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders DSM-IV-TR,’ was taken from an Internet website commonly known as Wikipedia.”"

It makes it sound as though the DSM only exists in the fairytale land of Wikipedia. Unless he SAID "from this article about the DSM on wikipedia", in which case he's just a dumbass

The implication is that a large part of the deterrent is the belief that the US can determine exactly where the nuke came from, and reply in kind. By announcing that that ability is decaying, that deterrent is completely undermined.

While obviously it's better if we can actually do what we say we can, it's the belief that we can that (theoretically) keeps people in check.

Because Google is putting out an article/official statement regarding vulnerability fix timelines and public disclosure with his name in the byline. The implication is that they fully support his view on the matter, though the timeline that's being touted as acceptable in the article is not one he stuck to. It's a lot of "do as I say, not as I do."

So google is defending the actions of an engineer who posted attack code on a Windows vulnerability 5 days after he reported it to Microsoft by saying that 60 days is more than enough time to fix a critical vulnerability...how exactly does that reasoning work?

This was exactly my thought. The energy being produced is there for a reason, if you're going to begin siphoning it off to power other things your body is going to need to generate more. You're not making it materialize out of nowhere

And then the corresponding suicide rates via firearms rise. See Switzerland

Or maybe you don't understand the concept of accumulated effects

I'm very sorry that a can of Pepsi killed your mother and molested your dog, but don't you think that perhaps this much anger directed toward a company that produces junk food is a little unwarranted?

They provide something that people want, then you rage at THEM for that? If no one was buying their product then they wouldn't be in business, so how about directing a little bit of that ranting in the direction of the general public that supports them, because last time I checked no one is marching into people's homes and forcing cola down people's throats.

Foisting it upon them? Please