I can see it now:

"Slashdot: Bad Hair for Billionaires; Stuff that still does not matter."

and in most of the US, its borderline illegal to even MENTION JN in court. judges will kick you out, lock you up, threaten you, try to scare you. voire dire does all it can to try to reject jurors that even KNOW what JN is. and if you tell them during VD that you don't know what JN is and then later, they find out you do, you are in contempt.

its all neatly stacked up so that your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are not vocalized or listed or communicated to you.

"nice liberty you got there; would be a shame if something were to happen to it"

is it, at least, good old amercian 60hz hum or that evil commie 50hz variety?

Pathogens don't "learn". They evolve, ok. They adapt, ok. But they aren't sentient. They are not thinking. And especially they aren't thinking "hey, if they vaccinate, they won't die anyway, at least not as fast, so let's get more deadly!" This isn't the fucking Pandemic flash game for crying out loud!

There is no interest of killing a host for a parasite. It's an side effect. Unintended, and actually harmful for the parasite in the long run. Just like poisoning the seas is harmful for us. We ain't some comic book villain who does it for ... well, for being evil. We do it 'cause it cuts costs. The oil spill is only the side effect, not the reason we do it.

So yes, they COULD get more deadly because we don't die as fast and a more deadly mutated strain would kill itself off with the host if there was no vaccination. But that is hardly an argument against vaccination. It only means that at worst we're with vaccination where we are now without. AT WORST. If, and only if, the pathogens mutate in such a way that they get more deadly. Which is neither in their interest nor anything they would (evolutionary) strive for.

What's the benefit for a pathogen to be more deadly? Killing the host is actually bad for it, since that ends spreading (with this host at least).

I can dissolve that conspiracy theory: They are more afraid of someone finding a way to bypass their input sanitizers than losing money from hacks. So no characters are allowed that could possibly, remotely, be considered "active" or "command" characters in any language they could probably think of.

Also, most, if not all, of the hacks happen due to people getting their passwords stolen by trojans and the like rather than someone actually guessing the passwords.

Provided that we now know how your passwords are created, finding your password is essentially not harder or easier than before. From a technical point of view of course. Actually, it probably is much easier now considering that, since you probably rely on your creation algorithm to introduce enough entropy, you probably choose simpler passwords.

Given that most of these webpages are also the ones where you have to answer some "secret" question to recover your password, it's kinda moot to select a secure password.

What is it you say? "Instead of giving a real answer to the "secret" question, simply use another randomly generated string?"

That's a good idea. Until the admin of the page locks your account because "you obviously are a robot, because humans don't do this".

The problem runs far, far deeper, people...

It would be interesting what kind of money such a fundraiser can collect. Somehow I can see this getting a LOT of money.

I do have a lot of respect for the women (and men, let's not forget them) who provide a valuable service by selling professional aid in the area of satisfying one of the most powerful human urges.

But these people I'd certainly call prostitutes. Or maybe, if I have to skirt the issue, a "working girl/guy".

I would never dream of calling someone who actually has a decent job and provides a valuable service a hoe or a whore!

"I have here your son. He can be alive tomorrow provided you..."

That kind?

Wasn't Win10 the system where you can't turn off updates? Now, how does that work out for you?

Yes, but we ain't living in a perfect world and politicians as well as officials who should work for taxes deliberately choose to be whores and sell themselves to the highest bidder. So ok, I can't change the game so I want in. How much? How much is the whore? How much for a law? How much to actually get it executed? How much to get a law bent and turned inside out to use it against its intent?

Apparently these hoes are for sale, so what's left to be determined is the price.

"Every Child Achieves" is an even WORSE name for an education bill than "no child left behind". Please tell me it's just a name. Please tell me it's not some sort of "everyone's a winner" bullshit that undermines education even more than it already is.

Just want to know. Maybe if we chip in, we could get one that works for us for a change.

It takes a good actor to deliver it convincingly. Not the joke. It being funny.

I'd rather have this piece of dung being forgotten than copyrighted. But yes, of course jokes are creative work and can be copyrighted. Even though in this time and age, and this copyright, I'd rather not. It's one thing if the latest and greatest crap some whining buoy howled cannot be distributed (and it would actually do the world a great favor if it wasn't), but laughter and humor should not be reigned in.