Trick question ... before the copyright expires the copyright cartel will have bought another extension.

You are implying that getting an abortion isn't life changing ... and also that it isn't a bad decision.

The total number of abortions (including in the black community) has been dropping every year since 1980. EVERY. SINGLE. YEAR.

https://www.guttmacher.org/med...

We now have more black babies being aborted than being born.

That's dopey. You've got to get information from places other than pro-life websites.

But even if you use the numbers cited by the pro-life websites (and cited NO WHERE ELSE), you'll see that live births outnumber abortions by at least 6-1. If you use census data for births, you'll see that it's more like 10-1. And that's if you accept the total number of black abortions the pro-life websites have pulled right outta their ass.

Well, someone has to be in charge.

The problem is that they forget that desperate people tend to act violent and start killing rich people. You can't have wealth distribution get too out of whack or you end up with the French Revolution.

You can add an observation along these very lines to your Jefferson Quote Collection.

...who also then want to punish the mothers and children in question rather than treating these impoverished people in the manner that Jesus would.

But, honestly, without being familiar with all the details:

UC San Diego hired Aisen in 2007 to administer the program, which coordinates Alzheimer's research throughout the U.S. and Canada. UC San Diego founded the study in 1991 as a kind of joint venture with the National Institute on Aging, with funding provided by federal research grants, the pharmaceutical industry, and private foundations.

Hired to administer an existing program ... that sort of screams you can't suddenly claim ownership of it and bring it with you when you leave.

If this many players have been involved that long, one guy can't suddenly claim it's his and lock everybody else out.

I don't think that it's Yahoo-exclusive by any means; even in online-advertising trade rags you see a lot of complaining about the shadiness of the various marketplaces and middlemen who sell ad placement on web properties too small or numerous to be interacted with personally; and an only modestly smaller volume of complaints about even some of the big, relatively respectable, players.

In fairness to the ad flacks(you won't hear me say that one often); they are facing a task that is about as difficult as some combination of anti-spam and antivirus; but with the added complication that they get paid per 'message' received, so there isn't even a good alignment of incentives, as there is with anti-spam. The malicious ad users will try anything to sneak their ads into the system; and probably to avoid paying for them to be run, if they can help it; the middlemen have an incentive to serve ads to bots and then charge for those 'impressions'; and testing an ad for malice, especially if it employs zero days or cleverly pulls in external payload, is basically the same impossible problem that AV is.

I can't say that I'm too sorry for them; just because I loath the advertising industry so much; but I cannot fairly accuse them of failing at an easy problem(because it isn't an easy problem); merely state that they have failed so profoundly that my concern for my own security now outweighs any 'is it ethical or not' questions so heavily as to make them irrelevant. At least on TV and in print media, ads are safe, if annoying; but on the web they are among the most dangerous vectors anyone who isn't either a porn/warez enthusiast or important enough for targeted attacks is exposed to.

Heck, in my capacity as 'IT' at work, I would turn down a user who wanted to see the ads, simply because the risk is too hgih.

This kind of potentially critical situation (the gov't being able to filter the internet at the behest of corporate interests) shouldn't require us all rising up and complaining. We elect people that should have our fiduciary interests at heart

When you have a past president saying:

"[Citizens United] violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system," Carter said. "Now it's just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members.

"So now we've just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election's over," Carter continued, according to The Intercept. "The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody's who's already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who's just a challenger."

You should know you're fucked.

The only fiduciary interest these guys have is their own, and your politics are irrevocably for sale.

Your interests don't fucking matter, unless you have enough money to make a large campaign donation and pay for lobbyists.

When money == speech, if you don't have money you don't have speech, and your government doesn't give a crap about you.

America has been an oligarchy for a long time, and it's only getting worse. Why do you think they let the MPAA write laws like SOPA in the first place?

Because that's who paid for them.

what ever, this absolutely has nothing to do with life imitating art at all. if no movie, play, story, you name it had ever been made, this still would have happened. it's just people trying to smuggle stuff they shouldn't always find creative ways to do so, always!

And I'm not disagreeing with that, not even a little.

I'm saying it isn't possible to make up something and say "but that could only happen in a movie". Sometimes you see stuff in movies and go "yeah, no way" only to find it has a basis in truth.

I'm not saying the convicts watched a movie and said "hey, let's try that". I'm saying never underestimate the motivation of people who don't want to be there, and have lots of time on their hands.

So when someone says "this isn't Hollywood", I think "nope, we wouldn't believe it if Hollywood did it".

If it's physically possible, it's probably likely been tried, or will be if someone figures out how.

Honestly, I assume for every new thing you put into stop one thing it just creates another class of problem for you.

I also assume there's nothing so far fetched it hasn't been tried.

I hereby invoke the "he needed killkin' " laws Texas is alleged to have, and suggest it is both moral and correct in the defense of our rights to shoot every asshole associated with the copyright cartel.

You're welcome.

Now get on with it.

(No, I'm not actually advocating murder)

Right, and a drone dropping drugs into the prison yard is in no way like something out of a movie.

Honestly, the world is a screwed up place, and this entire incident is meta enough to seem like something out of Hollywood.

Life imitating art and all that.

LOL, I do know that ... but I find it useful to convey the explicit outrage for the slower among us who actually think this is somehow different.

Far too many people act as if it's really OK because we're the good guys, and miss the entire point.