How long were we supposed to stay? We had already been there for 10 years. Do we stay and send our soldiers to die from IEDs for ... 20 years? 25? 30? What is the cut-off?

When will we admit that maybe the Middle East has to solve their own problems, and that peace can't be militarily imposed upon them?

The problem seems to be with Greek society, specifically the corruption that has become a matter of course there. I was a bit sad that "austerity" did nothing to address one of the bigger issues: tax evasion.

I... what?

Are you confusing Iran with Iraq or something? The current leadership in Iran has been in place since 1979.

You guys are funny.

Someone, spare some +1 Funny mods for this shit!

Fortunately we live in real life, not the world of The Ring.

It's not an order, it's a treaty, or at least an agreement there. You need to two to tango there, and Iraq's leadership insisted on one of two outcomes: total withdrawal by the previously agreed-upon date, or subjecting American troops to foreign laws and trials.

Our partner in the government from 2006 to 2014, al-Maliki, is maybe the only Iraqi leader I can think of who was worse for his country than Saddam Hussein. Saddam's hideous policies were certainly barbaric against his own people, but at least he was a strong enough leader that he could suppress rebellion without them coalescing into groups like ISIS. Maliki was a Shia who saw no problem with brutalizing the Sunni majority, because apparently fucking Shia and Sunni can never get along, and he's one of the few in power who was happy to really twist the screws. However, he was no where near the sort of strongman dictator that you would need to be to maintain power, so his policies directly fed into the creation of ISIS. Fuck that guy.

The President signs in or refuses to sign in laws. He owns it as much as any legislator.

If Obamacare had never passed, would you be paying considerably MORE for your health insurance now than you did in years past? Yes, yes you would, because they insurers raise rates sky-high because they can. The law gives them a great deflection tool, though, a way for the insurers to try to claim that they wouldn't have raised rates if that law hadn't forced them to. What a joke.

Depending on the state, some gay people can marry. I certainly did. But you're right, Obama deserves credit merely for going with the flow. Once numerous states allowed gay marriage, he simply said the feds would recognize it if the states allowed it. But that's probably the way it should be, with individual states deciding it's time, and the feds taking their direction from then. That sort of thing usually works better than a top-down imposition of doctrine, federal-to-state.

"Activist judges" is usually code for "they issued a decision based on law rather than my personal moral/religious beliefs, so I don't like that." In most cases, anti-gay-marriage laws ran afoul of the states' own constitutions.

They're identical.... in different ways. Yes, those sound like weasel words, but it means that both parties will have a "my way or the highway" attitude, coming up with their own vision and agenda of The Way Things Ought to Be, with that being strictly imposed. But the differences in those agendas... man, the differences mean the world to many.

If only it was actually a new party..

I want my phone to download MY purchases automatically. What this stunt did is it reduced the value of that option. What should have been put in place was a free voucher for U2 on iTunes. But then, the album wouldn't have found its way onto everyone's phone, reducing its value as an advertisement. That's what spam marketers found out long ago -- it's fine to push their spam to 95% percent of the people who didn't want it as long as they can get a payoff from that 5%. The 5% may like the product being sold, the annoyance from the others is worth it to the person trying to push his product. Not so much for the other 95% though.

And you prove my point above. Yes, the incredible generosity Apple showed using my phone as an advertising platform. Boy, I should just be so thankful that they're pushing that to my phone.

I don't give a shit. That's not even the point.

I really enjoyed Firefly. Sad it got cancelled. Have mixed feelings about how the film wrapped things up. However, I don't think airing it out of order killed it. I think fans like to tell themselves that so they could blame "dumb executives" rather than the series itself, which was expensive, quirky, and just not mainstream enough to get the sort of audience for it to pay for itself.

Good heavens, I knew that Keanu was sad, but I didn't realize that the sandwich incident was a suicide attempt.

The -entire- point of a patent is to stop (or otherwise receive compensation for) "legitimate competition." A patent means "I invented this, only I can use it or lease/sell it."

The patent system is the cold war. Most of the time, large companies have a patent war chest potent enough to discourage patent lawsuits. No one wants mutually-assured destruction. The ones who get screwed are the smaller companies (Latin America/Eastern Europe) who don't have a war chest they can use to fend off the bigger companies. So they get pushed around a lot. The exception would be the patent trolls. Like a terrorist cell that just got their hands on a nuke, the patent troll doesn't have anything other than the patent, so they don't particularly care about retaliation.

This is not a Slashdot-friendly sentiment, and I'm feeling dirty for just suggesting it, but why isn't a patent troll entitled to patent enforcement? The original patent filer sold it. They got compensated. Why is it better if the original patent holder sues another company rather than they sell it to someone else, and that person/company does the suing? The original filer sold the patent and received the value of it, including the value of settlements if another company infringed.

It's unfair that this was nominated down. I love insults that are totally nonsensical, yet brilliant.