Can you also relate in parts to the feminists?

I'm having trouble thinking of any occasion where such a decision backfired on a company. It's hard to use as a rallying cry, "they don't advertise on websites I like! They try to avoid controversy!" Only the most hardcore believers get upset about that.

If you can think of a case where a company pulling their advertising from a website (or tv show, or whatever) created a boycott, I would be really interested in hearing it.

Really?

Take the top 20 games from any app store out there and show me where the hidden agenda is behind that pointless drivel that turns the average smartphone user into a walking Candy Crush junkie.

I guess I'm struggling to see the pro-communist message in Flappy Bird. Or the feminist movement buried in that 3rd shuffle of Solitaire. If anything, we have MORE entertainment out there that is rather mindless and without a hidden agenda, not less.

Nudity isn't pornography so I wouldn't sweat it. It's pretty absurd though that the article talks about teenage girls being charged with a felony for taking pictures of themselves. What a world we live in.

And if it demonstrated good ROI

Except that people at the bottom of the economic ladder, which are disproportionately minorities, are much less likely to have a valid ID. They are also much more likely to vote Democratic rather than Republican. Politicians are well aware of this, so voter ID laws are passed with Republican votes, and volunteer ballot monitors checking for compliance are nearly 100% Republican. In a theoretical perfect world, voter ID laws would not be racist. In reality they are.

Me neither. A google search brought this up as a top link.

Lol, same here. The only thing of value on my file server is the stuff I'm sharing publically anyways. When I look through my logs at all the fancy attack vectors I think to myself they'd be better off pointing a web browser at index.html, it would sure save them a lot of trouble.

Really, this starts to be more and more like the yellow press.

The only answer is to vote 3rd party, otherwise you're just part of the problem by voting for a bad president. It doesn't matter if the 3rd-party candidate is destined to lose; it's that mentality that keeps the 3rd parties out of power, plus you can be held blameless for anything the president does if you didn't vote for him. If you vote for him and he's horrible, well you're to blame, and it's rather hypocritical to complain about him after-the-fact when you knew in the voting booth that he'd suck.

I didn't call you a liberal. My post was directed at all the Obama fans, not to you. Since you were bashing Obama, you obviously weren't much of an Obama fan or a tow-the-party-line liberal.

As for 2012, the answer is yes. Vote 3rd party. It's the only thing that makes sense, even if it's destined for failure. If you vote for a bad president, then you're partly responsible for all his actions. If you vote for someone else, you're not. Out of all these people complaining about Obama, if they actually voted for him, they're hypocrites, because they enabled him by voting for him. I voted for Johnson, so you can't blame me for any of Obama's messes. If more people had voted like me, we wouldn't be having so many problems.

So what should a user of Outlook (formerly Hotmail), Yahoo Mail, ISP-provided mail, or employer-provided mail use?

Indeed. Furthermore, there are usually ways to defend yourself against attacks that don't involve patching. You might set up a firewall, or (in this case) switch to mod_perl instead of mod_cgi.....

lol but which one do you think is reality? That Bush did 9/11?

The question is, how much extra heat stays on earth? Enough to worry about, or not enough to make any real difference?

(Among scientists) the dispute is this: CO2 alone won't warm the earth enough to cause much problem, but are there any feedbacks that will increase the temperature to a dangerous level?