These sorts of meta-communities spring up wherever Christians in large enough numbers congregate because they meet a felt need.

See, on Facebook, I have my friends, my coworkers, my relatives, and a lot of random acquaintances that I happened to hit it off with, but may never see again. I value these relationships, but at the same time, there needs to be significant self-monitoring. Sometimes, I would like to discuss politics or religion with my wider group of friends, but I can't on Facebook, because I have a very diverse audience. Once I disclaimed, "For my Christian friends, what are you views on X?" turned into a flame-fest with a number of my atheist acquaintances dropping by to tell me how illogical my faith was. While I'm not afraid of that conversation, it is a long one, and not the one I was looking for at the time. Ever since then, I have had to self-moderate. No politics, no religion, and god help me if I get drawn into a anti-vaxxer post (it's my kryptonite; I must comment, just like my atheist friends and posts about religion). Pretty much the last month has just been me hiding from Facebook and avoiding my feed like the plague.

Now, if I had a post privacy option on FB that said "Public/Friends Only/Political Affinity/Religious Affinity/Retard Shots Are teh Devil" I could more freely express my feelings and views, that'd be perfect. So this site has an actual legitimate purpose. Sifting through hundreds of your friends religious and political posts are not really helpful to you, right? If everyone availed themselves of such an option, I think everyone's feeds would be clearer and less irritating; after all, FB is a terrible place to proselytize, for anything.

That being said, this site looks terrible and I wouldn't use it. But the concept isn't awful, per se.

I don't know; I just got off the phone with 2015. It wanted me to let 2005 know that Java is still shitty.

Good news, everyone! We have a new code volunteer. Armchair code experts always know best.

C is a powerful language. I shouldn't have to give up that power because some other schmoe doesn't know how to handle it safely. Come the think of it, that applies to a lot of things.

If your Windows is crashing a lot, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have chosen your hardware components and driver vendors poorly.

I was really confused, because of the context my brain immediately went to Team Foundation Server. I was like, "What? The Fucking Summary never mentioned TFS... oooooh, I see...."

You've taken the south's least productive gambit: the mission to Europe, and conspiracy-theorized it. First, you're wrong about the England; they never gave the southern ambassadors a formal reception (the ambassador was quite despondent over this, and several times questioned why he was even there). With the opening of cotton trade in South America, Cotton was no longer King in the south. Simply put, they UK did not need the south, but DID need the bumper crop of wheat and new industrial machinery produced in the north.

France, on the other hand, was quite enamored with the idea of brokering a truce between the north and south; or, short of obtaining that, intervening militarily. John Slidell, the CSA ambassador, was celebrated in Paris social circles and had the favor of Napoleon III himself. But Napoleon refused to act without England, which England would not do.

England had no designs on North America. If the Trent Affair didn't start a war, nothing would.

No, it was all about slavery, and tariffs weren't even on the radar. It is true that only the most extreme Republicans (so called "Black Republicans) supported full federal abolitionism, but even as early as the 1840's they awaited a sea-change of public opinion on the matter. The 1861 election of Abraham Lincoln represented a small step toward that sea-change, and the South seceded to avoid it.

Think of it like this: In 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain disowned gay marriage. But if you were a gay marriage advocate, who are you gonna hitch your horse to? How did that end up playing out? It really was no different in the 1860's: Lincoln may not have been as strident an advocate of abolitionism as the so-called "Jacobins" in the Republican party wanted, but to southern democrats, he might as well be John Brown himself, riding in on the Devil's back.

Well, I could tell you, but I don't think you'll like the answer... *hands over robes, a candle, and a copy of "Jobs"*

Too soon? Am I going to hell for that remark? :(

I didn't say it would be good for Ukraine, did I?

It's called a dictionary. Use it.

Their ships and exocets were effective, deadly, and few.

If the Russians want use the American model, embargo trade with Ukraine and be done with it. The rest of your post is histrionic babble.

See, you know how we can tell you're a Russian hack? A REAL Slashdotter would have said "USian" out of disdain. You Russian astroturfers are pathetic. Get a real job.