I changed my subscription from 3 dvds + streaming to streaming only. Not to teach Netflix a lesson or because I was angry with them, but because the price increase made me really look at whether I wanted to continue paying that kind of price. If there'd been no price increase I probably wouldn't have given it any real thought and continued at my current subscription level indefinitely. Significant price percentage increases have the negative effect of making people actually stop to think about how much they're paying and for what, and most subscription services will end up the worse for that scrutiny.

Since when does patent infringement result in a ban on import rather than a fine and order to pay royalties for the patented item? Is it because HTC isn't a US company?

It's a pretty poor rebellion that is seeking to fight the army of the opposing side.

"Rebellion, uprising or insurrection, is a refusal of obedience or order.[1] It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government or a head of state"

So it's terrorism because it's not QUITE oppressive enough, but there's a certain tipping point where it becomes rebellion? I

But it does absolutely nothing about the issues, both real and perceived, that caused Al Qaeda to exist in the first place. It's attacking the symptoms and ignoring the cause. So how long will it be before there's another group comprised of exactly the same disenfranchised people under the same ideology?

"In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money."

Cause absolutely no one who owns a station STARTED with any money, it was only accrued through them being the most successful station. You're advocating hard for letting those with money do whatever they want to those without.

Have Fark open in the other tab so I'm getting a kick, etc.

Not that I needed much of an excuse to re-watch TNG and DS9, but it's nice to have one.

Yeah, the wording is confusing.

"In her brief, the ex-wife said “the authority, alluded to by oppositor-appellant, the ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders DSM-IV-TR,’ was taken from an Internet website commonly known as Wikipedia.”"

It makes it sound as though the DSM only exists in the fairytale land of Wikipedia. Unless he SAID "from this article about the DSM on wikipedia", in which case he's just a dumbass

The implication is that a large part of the deterrent is the belief that the US can determine exactly where the nuke came from, and reply in kind. By announcing that that ability is decaying, that deterrent is completely undermined.

While obviously it's better if we can actually do what we say we can, it's the belief that we can that (theoretically) keeps people in check.

Because Google is putting out an article/official statement regarding vulnerability fix timelines and public disclosure with his name in the byline. The implication is that they fully support his view on the matter, though the timeline that's being touted as acceptable in the article is not one he stuck to. It's a lot of "do as I say, not as I do."

So google is defending the actions of an engineer who posted attack code on a Windows vulnerability 5 days after he reported it to Microsoft by saying that 60 days is more than enough time to fix a critical vulnerability...how exactly does that reasoning work?

This was exactly my thought. The energy being produced is there for a reason, if you're going to begin siphoning it off to power other things your body is going to need to generate more. You're not making it materialize out of nowhere

And then the corresponding suicide rates via firearms rise. See Switzerland

Or maybe you don't understand the concept of accumulated effects