Yes, and that is the problem. It is a religious rule. Religious rules becoming law is unconstitutional.

The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam. Whether the followers have a belief or not is not something we can or should question, but we can certainly question the CoS.

Anyhow, I am all for all religious organizations losing their tax free status. It's built on a religious statement from the bible, that one should give god what belongs to god and the emperor what belongs to the emperor. Being that the law is religious based, it breaches the separation of state and church, and should be found unconstitutional.

Godwin in the first post. I'm proud, /.

That does not correlate with my observations.
I would say that most authors get better for a few years, and then they decline. Much like musicians and other creative people.

Hopefully not using nginx.

Call me a cynic, but I would think this is less of reaching out a hand than trying to find ways to offset the costs.

Yes, and the rate at which other things occur, like cops being good, or flowers sprouting roadside is irrelevant.
All that is relevant is how often cops go bad. Not how often cops do good things or eat donuts or change underwear.

Darwin and Wallace called this artificial selection. They might not have had any idea how prevalent artificial selection would become in a mere century. Today, it likely is the primary evolutionary process for almost all higher order species.

Natural selection is still valid - how could it be otherwise? It now selects for those who benefit from artificial selection.

No, it isn't relevant. That's like countering a claim that poison ivy is systemic and widespread with "But look at all the pretty flowers! There must be hundreds of pretty flowers for each poison ivy plant!"
Whether true or not, it is completely irrelevant.

Never attribute to heroism that which can adequately be described by stupidity.

I think he was just too dumbfounded by what he saw to consider running (or, smarter, sneaking away, giving that running from this cop might not lead to a good outcome).
Check his background exclamations, for example. And how he repeatedly obstructs the camera, or tilts it - it seems clear that heroic filming wasn't at the top of his mind, being struck dumb by what he saw.

But that's okay - we don't want heroes. We want the average Tom, Dick and Harriet to be themselves, and be able to be themselves.
It's the police that are supposed to be the heroes, laying down their lives for the innocent. And they not only aren't - they're at the opposite end of the scale.

Allegedly he feared having to go to jail because of outstanding alimony, and that's why he ran.
That should not warrant being shot in the back.

No matter what good things cops do, it can never justify police brutality and murder - at any ratio. The two are separate things and do not stand in perspective to each other.

500:1? If it were 5000:1 or even 50000:1 ratio of showing cops doing good deeds vs police butchers, it would still be irrelevant. It's not about perspective, it's about catching the criminal police and letting the man know that we find this unacceptable. No more.

I'm a bit worried, though. What's the safeguard against a software engineer introducing defects, getting someone else to report it, and splitting the bounty?

Or, even for old code, it may tempt someone to share proprietary code with someone outside the company, in order to find bugs and share the bounty.

So was Harrison Ford.
And the statement I replied to was that Harrison Ford was in a league above everyone else - not everyone else except those who were hot shit.

I think you underestimate Sir Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing and James Earl Jones. They were certainly top league.