Comment Re:Obligatory car analogy (Score 1) 284
Pretty sure this is a reference to the Vagaari in Outbound Flight.
Make it a nonalcoholic virtual beer.
Pretty sure this is a reference to the Vagaari in Outbound Flight.
Make it a nonalcoholic virtual beer.
Better than second-world countries, where they forbid possession of weapons.
Downloading copyrighted material? You mean, like everything? This post is copyrighted under US law! It's actually a matter of licensing.
And this poll right here is another testimony of American society as a whole being utterly mentally ill. (As has been shown by that study that compared worldwide societies, and found that all our social science studies are wrong, because they used Americans, and those are not only the exception, but the extreme exception of the exception.)
And we all know exceptionalism is a form of illness.
By the sounds of things, idea generation.
This was after being a joke, as the OP was claiming BO was using Republican ideas...
In reality, they're there to help the rich get richer. Their appeal to "different cultures" is just a matter of exploiting anyone whose knees they can make jerk, so that they'll vote against their own best interests.
Nonsense. A good many Republican economic policies can also be found in the works of eminent economists like Milton Freedman and von Mises, as being the best choices for helping the lower classes. You may disagree with those economists; there are experts in the field who do. But when a good chunk of the experts in ecominics actually recommend limited regulation and low government intervention as tending more to uplifting the poor, it's a bit malicious to claim advocates of those positions are in it to hurt the poor. Much more likely, they actually believe (some of) classic liberal economics, and are trying to implement its prescriptions.
It's this sort of ridiculous emotional dismissal which makes public discourse on politics so divisive in the US. 90% of Republicans aren't rich and likely will never be. They obviously support the party for some reason. I think the reasons of 90% of the members for the party's existence trump the other 10%!
It's almost universally better to assume your opponent is arguing in good faith. He may be (very) wrong, but just assume he really means what he says. It's both more likely to be true, and permits a more persuasive argument from you. Even if he isn't, your argument will be heard by others who may be persuaded.
Usually, a good college class is significantly more time efficient though. There is a trade-off; I can learn anything on my own, but I don't spurn training.
How very... trollish of you.
By the sounds of things, idea generation. In reality, they're there to be appeal to different cultures. There isn't that large of a policy gap, that's for sure, but the rhetoric is radically different.
And would have completely failed at their intent; a robust 'insurance' policy.
I don't see any real security difference between broadcasting my data where only a few hundred arbitrary people can get it, and publishing it online. If it can be broken, and there's a significant payout in breaking it, it's fairly trivial to intercept all such banking communication through a server. If my bank's security won't protect me against anyone trying to exploit it enmass, I don't care if they publish it or not. If it will protect me from people with a significant profit motive to break it, then I don't care whether they would have to intercept it or not.
At best you have a bit more security by obscurity, which is really poor security in any event, particularly for inherently valuable information.
So far as releasing the key, they were pretty responsible. Not epicly so, but you've got to admit that standard news organizations should have policies in place to deal with encryption, etc.
What the guy at the Guardian did was ridiculous. What wikileaks did was less-than-optimal, but should have been fine if a handful of trusted clients had proved trustworthy.
Whoops. I assumed you were the original poster; I suspect I might have used the wrong person for my pronouns in that reply.
I didn't want you to cite a source for a text-to-speech converter. I want you to cite any decent source which claims "Before the early 20th century, rape was a constant. The majority of women experienced it at least once in their lives, many as adolescents. That is the consequences of a chaste society, a hell hole where people are hurt and no one talks about it."
Those are some pretty outlandish claims. (Most pre-20th century women raped? Eh?) A citation would be in order.
This isn't a troll, it's a joke...
Errr... Perhaps you should clean your glasses. I think the Atlantic has fogged them a bit.
This is controversial. Depends which population you look at, and is confounded with everything under the sun. Not a huge impact either way, at least.
Only provided Indiana is considered South...
And I'm a Hoosier too. We LIKE our Pies with a sliver missing!
"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight
