Brrrrzzzt wrong. The N64 brought analog control and independent camera movement to the console race. Those are two critical ingredients for the '3D era'. If you'd like to point to the PC, however, you may be able to regain footing with the point you're trying to make.

SoCal was very active with earthquakes until about the turn of the century. It went pretty quiet for over ten years. This year it started being active again. In fact a quake near downtown LA triggered aftershocks that lasted for two weeks. It proved that an early-detection system can be built and they're in the process of getting that properly proposed now.

If it'll make you happy, call it a trend. Whatever.

Um.. yeah, did your mom set your brain to boolean when you were born or something?

I'm curious: Could you list off a few discussion sites you pay a subscription fee to? I'd just like to know where I should go after you get your way.

Meanwhile, plenty of cities survive 8+ earthquakes with minimal loss of life while others hit by the same magnitude have death tolls measured in the tens of thousands. Real sound logic there, buddy.

I'm guessing because California has been in the news a lot lately for serious financial issues. The knee-jerk reaction is criticize LA for even more wasteful spending, and why not.. it's fun. La la land is silly, right? Normally yes, but the problem is that they're unaware that this was motivated by *two* significant earthquakes this year, signaling the end of a decade-long low cycle. They're actually doing a good thing, here.

Especially since, how would you discriminate between discrimination and outright greed?

That's exactly the problem. Doubt. A team like that needs good morale. Doubt your boss, drop the ball. Err pardon the expression.

I don't think our opinions are that far apart. I don't think we should ever have heard that conversation. The problem was that was a circumstance that couldn't have been unheard.

Anyway, I think we're starting to go in circles here. But I did want to say thanks for the discussion and that I hope you have a good weekend coming up.

I'd find it troubling if my boss hated me for reasons he should not be and may be under-paying me and a select group of my coworkers as a result of it.

Every year that goes by this just gets fuzzier and fuzzier. Soon your private chat is going to be picked up by somebody at the next table wearing Google Glass. Then the line will shift. And so on.

"what is your position on the forced sale of the clippers?"

Recording and leaking that audio was wrong. Since it was made public, through no fault of the NBA, it had to be dealt with. It wasn't a "what the US believes" sort of thing, it was an "oop, this got complicated fast, and our players may quit" sort of thing.

I do not believe the forced sale of the clippers is correct. I believe transmission of these photos is fine. this is what they deserve for their blind faith.

These two statements contradict each other. Sterling knows phone conversations can be recorded. He also knew he had an agreement with the NBA to behave. His blind faith lost him the Clippers. Now if you disagree with that statement we're actually a little closer to seeing eye to eye. We probably have differing ideas about where the line of liability should be drawn. Perhaps "phone chats are private but data on the cloud isn't", or something like that. The problem I have with that line of thought is the line between 'phone chat' and 'on the internet' is getting blurrier every year. Worse, we are not all masters of every domain we cross. You may know how to be safe on the internet, that doesn't mean you're super smart and are also super safe at getting your car repaired or at knowing when to use interest-free credit cards.

In either case you've got somebody who did something wrong. It sounds like tough-love right up until you're bitten by it.

I'm not talking about the bank with the bad security, I'm talking about the people actively sharing my love letters they know they don't have permission to send and how that weakens their position on certain topics.

"You're advocating privacy through self-control."

No, I'm not, I'm suggesting that the behaviour in question is damaging the value of privacy. By behaving as though celebrities have no expectation of privacy one thing you're not doing is strengthening the privacy of everybody else.

One of the reasons privacy is important is that you don't want somebody, be it the government or some random stranger, having something they can use against you. I don't have any problem with conceding that the NSA's behaviour is a much bigger deal, but when you break things down to their basic components the philosophy is still very much the same whether it's about extorting money or punishment for having that political bumper sticker on your car.

It's also possible to advocate something like privacy and immediately start fapping over unethically acquired photos because a lot of blood has left your brain. Take a guess which category this particular behaviour falls into,

It would be a better idea to just not download them. Oh, who am I kidding, nobody cares about privacy while they're holding their dick in their hand.

You get a shot at seeing boobies and all the sudden all those complaints you have about the NSA peeking at your files goes flying out the window. When that's brought up all the sudden we've got something worthwhile to spend our mod-points on. Cute.

Let me make this simple in case there's a post-fap-clearer-head lurking around this area of the thread: No, you do not have a good reason to acquire those photos. Yes, you are a bad person for grabbing them and sharing them. No, modding my posts down does not make me wrong about it. You lot, and you know who you are, are despicable.