The poor in Egypt were motherfucking skinny. At least they were in 2008. Maybe you were looking at the shopkeepers or taxi-drivers, or tour guides who spoke English.

Same for Peru. Also went through the Caribbeans, but never really saw the poor there.

Costa Rica is doing just fine. That was a pleasant experience. Nice enough I felt fine just driving around by myself. I'd feel fine accepting them in as another state if it weren't for my OCD demanding there be an even number of states.

I was going to give you shit about saying that first world nations experienced famine, but then I looked up the actual definition of first, second, and third-world nations. I thought it just meant established vs poor-as-shits-ville. Rather, it's a hold-over from the cold war. But sure, if you consider Oman first world, then that's totally legit.

Hey there, don't fret too much. I'm sure Oracle will take good care of you.

IMMEDIATE and urgent RED FLAG!
No I don't think that this job is a "career opportunity leading to rapid advancement". I will not work for "exposure".

Fuck you, pay me!

What kind of class-warfare propaganda bullshit is this? Hey, I get the sentiment, having a home/hobby project where you code in your spare time does indeed help turn you into a better programmer. But the way he spins it... dude, what the hell?

Weeeeellllll, you have to remember that he said "democratic framework". I was going to call bullshit on that aspect of his post until I re-read it and realized he didn't actually say that the USA was democratic at the time, just that it had the framework for a democracy. One which we could re-enable with relative ease. "Relative ease" still being decades of unrest.

We're not all that democratic right now, all things considered. The two party system both pay lip-service to the polls and their talking points. When something new comes along like the Snowden's whistle-blowing, they scramble to figure out which side of the fence they belong on and make sure it's balanced so that nothing gets done.

China's communist system, where the party members vote on things and who is in charge, could kinda sorta be construed as something similar to the democratic process. It'll be different, certainly.

Have you ever been to a third-world country?
Have you lived there?
Because I think it's quite apparent that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. But here's a quick'n'easy test: Our poor are fat. Their poor are skinny.

They're going to have growing pains. Developing a middle class and shifting from expendable factory workers to knowledge workers doesn't happen overnight. We had our own struggles during the era of the robber-barons. I hope they have an easier time of it.

What the fuck are you smoking?
"old, narrower meaning"? Son, the enlightenment has a lot to say about censorship and it got codified into some of the laws. Since then, people with power have tried to stuff the term into a narrow little box that only applies to other people. So you can take your "older" meaning and shove it right up your box.

The term "censorship" has an definition. Has had it for a very long time. It has negative connotations because it DAMN WELL SHOULD. If you pay for and run a server which allows users to post comments, you have the right (in the USA, barring contracts and licenses) to delete someone's posts. Exercising that right is most certainly an act of censorship. Straight up. Negative connotations and all.

Some censorship is good. Some censorship is bad. It's one of those things that people should take a critical eye to because of how it can be abused.

You are litterally redefining the word to suit your purpose.

Bias confirmed.

I don't, because I won't, because I don't hold any such sentiments. And I'm fully aware that a lot of people do not hold any sort of lofty ideals when it comes to the freedom of speech. Plebeian shmucks who haven't thought it through, affluent power-mongers who want to control people, self-centered assholes who don't give a fuck about society while leeching off it as much they can. Since you "run several websites" you probably lean towards the power-monger type.

It IS censorship. In very much the same way an editor selects editorials. Don't redefine the word and then bitch about people not using your definition. Learn some history kiddo.

Yeah, man, the LAUNCH of the next version of D&D. These are rule-books, most of the people who play the game already have the pathfinder core rulebooks. That is, sales of core rulebooks represent market share growth. The launch of an edition should be similar to an IPO with everyone scrambling to get it. Conversly, the sales of a 5 year old rule-book should be petering off. I would have imagined that the 5th ed D&D would trounce any other sales at GenCon as all the established gamers who already own both pathfinder and D&D1,2,3,4 rulebooks should be getting the 5th ed books, even if they hate it.

So yeah, hearing that more Pathfinder core rule-books were sold at GenCon than D&D 5th ed core rule-books on it's launch day.... Yeah that's pretty damn shocking. I mean, GenCon was a D&D convention. Gary founded it when D&D was taking off. And maybe he would have smiled at this turn of events. Showing that the soul of D&D is not in the hands of some corporate whore with controlling shares, but rather in the hands of the gamers who liked what they had going on back when Gary was driving the boat.

But maybe it's because the MM isn't out yet, and just the PHB was up for sale. And everyone who really wanted it it had early access of some sort. So it wasn't exactly a "launch date". Dunno.

And anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time.

With or without the OGL.

The political ramifications for WotC suing some dinky third-party for releasing a campaign in a similar fashion of the not-so-dinky publishers would be severe enough that WotC wouldn't do such a thing.

Yes that big thug in the room can squish you. No, he probably won't. Yay society.

And you're apparently not one of those people "in the know". The OGL did nothing other than announce that Wizards of the Coast were cool with people making supplements to their games. Legally, it did nothing. Everyone already had all the rights they needed to publish campaigns, rules, worlds, classes, feats, spells, content, that worked with, worked within, altered, expanded, truncated, or fixed the rules published by Wizards of the Coast. Such activities need no special licensing.

But hey, having a lawyer say that something is totally cool, and they promise not to sue really DOES have an effect. It's psychological rather than legal. It might have been all smoke and mirrors, but it encouraged gamers to create content. So in short, it worked.

Honk?

It's equivalent to screaming. Probably not going to fix anything, could even make things worse by panicking the passengers, but it has a chance of alerting the passengers that they should do something.

But most regular drivers would have a similar narrow set of options available: 1: Pray, 2: Scream, 3: Get fucked .

What would YOU do in this contrived scenario? And yes, it is contrived. If there's so much traffic that the interstate is at a stand-still, the sleeping trucker will hit someone slowing down WAY before he hits any stopped cars.

Do you ram the car in front of you trying to push your way into the ditch? That is trucker's only alternative path if he wants to try and swerve away. Not that that's a good option either. But now you've blocked his only escape route and lined yourself up for a T-boning.

Do you get out of the car and run? Oh that's great, now you're out of your armor and extra-squishy.

So what EXACTLY would you want the AI to do in this scenario?

One of google's cars has ALREADY been rear-ended at a stoplight. Human error. Holy shit dude, did you think driving was safe? Those other fuckers on the road are gonna kill you.

It would slam on the breaks trying to stop as quickly as possible and minimize the damage to everyone involved.

JesusfuckingCHRIST people keep on bringing this up like it's some sort of mystical mind-blowing new problem. When shit hits the fan, the DEFAULT and MOST PROBABLE CORRECT action will be employed AS PER POLICY. Just like you're supposed to drive when you're behind the wheel.

Truck, passenger, and school children be damned. When the self-driving car thinks a crash is imminent, it tries to stop. Period. End of philosophical rant about Asimov's laws, morality, and manufacturer's liability.

Ugh.

Right.

Did I somehow imply otherwise?

A website that does not allow you to post x is not infringing your freedom of speech in the context of the first amendment because that only stops the government from censoring you, and doesn't stop individuals from censoring others nor does it force individuals to perpetuate others speech (as in host it).

But it is most certainly censoring you on their website. That is almost exactly the definition of censorship. It would be exactly the definition of censorship if you posted X, and then they removed said post. If they have a blanket ban on X prior to any such post, that can still be considered censorship. And hey man, some censorship is good:

-Self-censorship is best. I'm not going to wave my dick about on a playground. That'd be pretty fucked up. And illegal. And rightfully so.

-Outlawing any discussion of global warming, anywhere, online or off, would be a crazy-stupid level of censorship. And illegal.

-StackOverflow censors any open-ended discussions, because it's a Q&A site striving for quality posts rather than bickering about which language to use. And I'm down with that.

But news aggregators like Fark and Slashdot where the "value added content" is the community and commentary, I prefer the censors to have a light touch. If someone is being a real douche, sure, ban'em. But I'd be worried about mods becoming tyrants. And from the sounds of it, I'm glad I'm not a regular on Fark anymore.

Correct. Just like I said in my post. It's great we agree. But that sure as shit doesn't mean that Fark's new policy isn't censorship.
(Also, and I'm just being pedantic here, you DO have the right to say it, but they also have the right to ban you/kick you out of their store/house/server. Effectively, no you don't have the right to say it everywhere)

Remember, what rights you have is a legal quandary. The act of censorship, which is the anti-thesis of freedom of speech, is not tied to legal matters. If you want to sue/arrest someone, consult the law books. If you want to uphold the ideals of freedom of speech, you need not consult the law.

No, that's just plain wrong.
The first amendment only applies the US government.
Freedom of speech is a universal ideal.
The right to freedom of speech is a legal quandary.
Censorship is an action that anyone can do, rightly or wrongly, legally or illegally, in a multitude ways with a broad spectrum of severity.
If you think that it is only limited to a niche type of occurrence and doesn't apply to you then you're pretty damn closed-minded.

It's worthy of protection against censorship the same way that anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion sentiments are worthy of protection, despite how offensive they are to you and me.

"I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it."

But yeah, Drew can do whatever he want with his site. I stopped going there years ago so it's really no skin off my teeth.