Look Cletus, we get it. Your sister is hot. You want to take her pants off and do the hanky-panky. We understand ya. We totally do. That's part of the reason why I married yer ma. Best part was, we didn't have to go to the DMV to change her last name after the weddin'.

But the fact is, you and Brandine are as dumb as mules and thrice as ugly. If you two are gunn' have kids, they can't be any dumber or uglier than the two of ya are already. You be needing some of that generic adversity that the therapist mentioned back in those sessions. And besides, we can't afford a wedding without some other family chipping in. Go out there and find a nice purty, rich girl out there and make poppa proud instead, hmmkay?

Analogy fail. You should have used the pirate bay for a better example.

Try making some bomb threats or death threats, or perhaps make some offers to buy or sell drugs using one of those service providers and see how well that turns out for you. Silk Road was designed specifically for black market / illegal transactions. Ulbricht even called himself "Dread Pirate Roberts". If you can't tell the difference between eBay and Silk Road - well then I suppose these words are lost on you.

Yeah, what's wrong with transactions among consenting adults!?!

- I mean, if some corrupt African dictator wants to buy some weapons to wipe out the rioters, that's not my fault - all I did was facilitate the chemical weapons transaction.
- If someone wanted to buy some slaves, and all I did was facilitate the transaction; not my fault.
- CP getting bought and sold on my trading network? Whoa, not my fault, all i did was provide a medium for two consenting adults to make a transaction (involving non-consenting children).
- Someone hired a hitman to kill a journalist that exposed your corruption using my transaction network? Look pal, it's not like I pulled the trigger. All I did was provide a medium/platform that made it much easier for you to complete your transaction. I'm sure that even without my transaction network around, the hitman would have been hired in the black market yellow pages.

Ah, the old 'turn a blind eye' argument. Libertarianism at it's finest. Now it might be nice to be able to buy some drugs that the government says I shouldn't have. But I'd also like to not get murdered by posting dissenting opinions or becoming a whistleblower. And since you can't really have one without the other (don't get to choose what goes on your black market if you turn a blind eye), then I think I'll stick with not having this transaction platform exist at all for the betterment of humanity.

Of course that tells us something. GP posted that the normal lifespan of a bee colony is measured in decades or in rare cases even centuries. That's a vague timespan of course, but that's maybe roughly on par with a human lifespan (30 to >100). Even if we assume the low end of that is 30 years, if 40% of them died within a 12 month period that's a massive indicator of some of sort of problem. A 30 year lifespan (again, LOW end guesstimate based on GP comments) means that on average, 3% of colonies should die off each year (12 month span). A 40% mortality rate would only be normal if colonies lived an average of 2.5 years.

Cmon man, at least try and math a little before posting a response

I would generally disagree with that sentiment as well (from GP), though generally agreeing with the rest of the comments. If your religion will reward you for killing infidels and grant you passage to eternal paradise for doing so (Islam), then their followers are more likely to be murderers than if they weren't religious. If your religion is all forgiving (Christianity), well you can do just about whatever you want during your time on earth (rape, kill, steal) but you've got your get-into-heaven free card! In general, people tend to do whatever benefits them and pick and select whatever lines of text from their holy books that suit their agenda (i.e. gay bashing) and ignore the rest.

I think the concept of an invisible santa claus watching out on you might apply for some select religions and their beliefs (i.e. Karma), but I think the sheer number of people in the Abrahamic religious outweighs those that aren't in there.

Assuming that segregation actually works out to favor an overall academic improvement for the students, isn't this creating an even bigger problem by removing social interaction between kids of the opposite gender? School isn't just purely for academic purposes, kids actually learn other life skills there like how to make friends, or how to interact with people of the opposite sex. Maybe there's a perceived benefit that teen pregnancy goes down (or some other nonsense), but now we've got a bunch of kids more likely to be misandrists or misogynists, because they're only used to interacting with their own gender.

Perhaps we can have some insight from a gender-segregated boarding school or something, and how that's affected your life (or how some of your classmates behave now when compared to others in society)

Why is that considered a sexist statement? "Men negotiate harder than women do". Men are generally more aggressive and take greater risks than women do in everything, including salary negotiation. That's a basic biological difference; most males in any species have to take a much greater risk than the females if they want to pass on their genes. If men truly do negotiate harder than women do, how is stating that fact a sexist statement? Seem no more sexist than stating that men are physically larger than women, or they drink more beer, or they play more video games.

Now, if Ellen instead made a point that women are socially punished for being more aggressive during salary negotiation (or in general in the office), that may have garnered more sympathy. It's the suggestion to remove salary negotiation completely that's the problem here; this would be like removing physical tests for firefighters or police officers because women aren't physically built like men are. But we know this is probably a combination of a) bitter retaliation for losing the gender discrimination lawsuit and b) an excuse to try and pay less overall.

I find it a little funny that he thinks H-1B workers lead to less diversity. Wouldn't bringing in foreign workers bring in more diversity? Isn't that the definition, when your company has a wider variety of employees from across the globe? Maybe he's referring to the old wooden ship used in the civil war era.

Yes Yes, I know they're taking our jerbs so companies can save a few bucks and that's bad. But "diversity"?

My question then to you would be, why shouldn't the equal protections act apply to gay people as well then, if it applies to race, color, religion or national origin? If any of those don't belong there it's religion (as it's the only choice), and being gay wasn't a choice the last I checked. That's the whole unfair part of this whole debacle.

Sure, it's fair enough that restaurants or grocers can refuse service for any reason (you're not wearing a shirt, for example). But your statement earlier up says Yet, the intention here is that the business not have the same rights-- to refuse service because of their customer's beliefs . It's the word "beliefs" that doesn't belong there, you're implying that being gay is a choice. If I'm a baker and I can't refuse to make a wedding cake for a black or Jewish couple - then why should I be legally able to refuse service to a gay couple? That's the real issue here; that homosexuals aren't covered under the equal protections acts.

And in the event I'm wrong and they are a protected class, and I'm still legally allowed to refuse service as a business to gay couple because of my religious beliefs, then what's stopping businesses from claiming their "religious beliefs" don't allow them to serve black people?

Not really relevant to this particular topic, but thanks for stopping the auto-play of video in the comments section, Slashdot.

Everyone else will be in the same boat as you, because you'll get to see their previous breakups as well. Perhaps we'll all be better off when there's more transparency in the world, and others can see what you've done with your life, and you can see what they've done with theirs. As recording technology and data capturing improves, we're going to see an increase of information available on everyone - whether they want it or not. This is a really difficult concept to swallow because we value privacy so much, even though most of the things we want to keep private are shared by most of the population. You probably wouldn't want people to know about a dramatic high school breakup, or that you wet the bed as a kid, or what kind of porn you watch - because you'd feel embarrassed about that. But eventually, no one will care because everyone had a stupid high school relationship, or half the population wet the bed when they were younger, and everyone watches porn.

What about the other side of the coin? If your potential partner has herpes, or that they were horribly abusive in their relationship, or they have a costly medical condition, or if they gambled away their trust fund - would you want to know that information? Would you be willing to give up your history to learn the history for other people? Maybe deeds shouldn't ever be forgotten, and the world will be a better place when there's no "right to be forgotten" and no one will care about the things you'd want to keep private now because they're only embarrassing because you don't realize how many other people have that (or don't have access to that information). And on the other hand, if you've done some truly appalling things in your lifetime, why should you able to keep that hidden from everyone?

Are we sure this was anonymous? Maybe this was a message from the Legion guy from the Geth. Clearly, he's leveled up recently in his AI hacking skills.

Let's see, shooting a shotgun (or any gun for that matter) at objects located in the air above your house..what could go wrong? Why doesn't it surprise me that this NRA-like solution seems like a good idea to those that would actually follow through with it?

So I click on the comments. Initially there's some worry when I see the space for the video. "Uh oh, is that gonna autoplay?" I think. But the worry goes away and it's peace and tranquility when I see the acute triangle embedded within the image. "Ah, it's not going to autoplay. It's waiting for my prompt to start the video". But after about a second, the not-so-cute triangle goes away, and the video starts autoplaying! ARRGHHH! But wait, there's more! If you're fortunate enough to see the ad before the video, then you won't even get an option to pause that ad OR disable the audio! You'll pretty much have to kill your tab or browser to kill the sound. Fantastic for those of you at work that have your audio turned up that thought slashdot was safe to browse without bringing attention to your cubicle-mates

As a software tester of sorts, I'd like to believe that the delay between the page load and video autoplay is just some poor programming or latency issue or something technical in nature. But I'm almost positive that some spawn of Satan was on the design team here and thought "Hey, I got a great idea! Instead of just starting the video right away like other click bait sites or waiting for the user to manually start the video (crazy! right?), we'll put a still image in there for a second and a play button. Then right about the time the user scrolls down to the comments past the video, we'll autoplay the video without giving them any option to pause or mute the ad that comes up!"

Now excuse me while I email youtube to tell them about how great their embedded ads are in their videos

I know it might suck that drugs can't be easily bought online now, but you can't take the good (recreational drugs) without the bad (CP, hiring a hitman, illegal weapons, slavery). You don't get to have a version of silk road on a darknet where you pick and choose the services; it's all or nothing. In my opinion, the world is much better off without an outlet for illegal transactions; because most of the transactions contribute to a massive net loss for humanity.