That explains democracy a bit too well.

It's already hard enough to live on this planet without being irritated by terrestrial life. What makes you think we'll find intellient life on other planets, if we can't even find it on our own?

Just remember the most irritating person you've ever come across? What if we come in contact with aliens, only to find out they're even worse? Maybe they don't have decent indoor plumbing on their planet, and put the used toilet paper in the trash cans instead of inside the toilet?

I'm thinking that we should stay hidden.

"Studies Reveal Why People Get Prison Raped
The factors involve a persons inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from rapists."

Whaddya mean, grab onto the pocket?

It wasn't that that caused the other kids to leave you alone in fear. It was the Manowar t-shirt you wore that instilled fear in their tiny, palpitating hearts.

I wish I had mod points right now.

Climate change was included in the list. Do giant squids need to be added on now, too?

Or do giant squids make the clock go back?

Because it is run by a bunch of pretentious people who think they're more important than they really are.

Might want to get out of the basement once in a while, bub.

This student may be a serial killer, despite overwhelming odds on the contrary, and thus it is important to ensure the safety of all students by having her name, face, and location plastered all over the media where potential employers might find in the future, even if the comments were, in all likelihood, 99.999999% in frustration and not in seriousness.. That'll make sure she won't become the next Carl Panzram, at any rate

That's probably because those without access to medical care live in countries with poor hygiene and nutritional standards, and such, something as complicated as pregnancy ends up resulting in more miscarriages, stillborns, deformed (mentally and/or physically), and lowered immune response in the newly born child.

His wife was probably fairly healthy and fit, and thus a generalized birth was much more possible with basic internet research. A doctor or an actual midwife would be much more useful if there were more complications.

Then again, I didn't read the article, but I'm fairly certain I'm right, anyways, because most things are less complicated than they seem at first glance other than the minute troubles that can happen that nobody expects, except those with experience.

The science articles are usually safe on wikipedia, because it is hard to politicize the properties and observations of, say, uh, VY Canis Majoris. People on wikipedia are usually very good about these sorts of articles.

Cultural or political articles are the worst, however: everyone with their "unique" point of view comes on wikipedia to pound their drum. A person of A ideology makes X citation here, while a person of B ideology makes Y citation here arguing against X but never decisively, and it simply becomes a clusterfuck of whiny voices trying to outdo everyone else. Not balanced perspectives.

Don't believe me? Try being a wikipedia editor sometime: it becomes a game of reverting opposing edits and navigating the role-playing bureaucracy of the site. And while it is theoretically a good thing that can happen, some idiot will come around eventually and do the same to you, and eventually you will get into some utterly moronic "arbitration" game that requires no social life or hobbies whatsoever.

And then there is the scandal of essjay, one of the most abusive admins of wikipedia history, only to end up to be revealed as a fraud who used fake credentials under anonymity to abuse other users into accepting his dogma.

Then there are more contentious points that could never get resolved because of the "mainstream" versus "esoteric" knowledge(s) on various subjects. Take Metallica, for instance: they're listed as a highly influential metal band, though it is debatable of how unique their contributions actually are/were. Perhaps they popularized certain stylistic characteristics, but were they really the ones influencing others if they were primarily influenced by others, for the most part? Sorry if that is vague, I can't think of a better example that is more obvious. But the problem is that wikipedia will never actually accept what *actually* is, but on what is group consensus, because no original research is allowed; thus, what most people believe is true is true in wikipedia's eyes.

It is fine if you disagree with my example, but the concept of what I'm saying is still valid.

And to end on a positive note: "deletionists" are some of the most worthless people that one can find on the internet. They get their jollies off of deleting as much as they can, despite the site being more useful if it contains as much truthful information as possible.

Time to stock up on molotovs and pills for my safe room.

The world is devoid of common sense -- people are clueless and and these worthless, scum-sucking paper pushers probably get an emotional high from "properly" following "procedure" despite all evidence pointing to "procedure" being idiotic and too encompassing to actually catch real predators but hapless peer-to-peer downloaders accidentally downloading the wrong file. The same mentality occurs in management where your supervisor flips out because you harmlessly put something in the wrong place even though nobody with a clue cares, for example. I'm sure people here know what I'm trying to say.

I'm going to assume the FBI was sharing CP files and collected the IPs of everyone who downloaded from them. It makes you wonder just how many of the files they are sharing have misleading file names. They know downloading "grannie_goes_wild.avi" would get someone convicted even if it was bona-fide child pornography. They don't care, it was illegal, so in their eyes, they have to go and unleash the mangy, distempered legal dogs.

Even if this particular instance the victim of the law was actually guilty, you can bet something like this has happened before, elsewhere. So it is best just to assume he is innocent, anyways, because somewhere down the line somebody has gotten screwed off this.

I laughed at this: "'The FBI could not comment on this specific case, but said if child pornography is ever downloaded accidentally, the user needs to call authorities immediately. They may confiscate your computer, but it's better than the alternative."

Okay, I didn't laugh, more like made a depressed sigh, because the only reason the FBI would confiscate a computer would be to ACTIVELY TRY TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST YOU. What is the alternative they are talking about? Thats egregious double-speak. They're not going to confiscate your computer to show your neighbors that you're a good, law-abiding citizen.

Because at least Apple fans are no strangers to love. Microsoft just knows the game and they're gonna play it.