i was told by a guy who votes republican that he wants to eat a baby. your move, anecdote-guy!

Timothy McVeigh took out 168 people with a fertilizer bomb, in the largest act of terrorism in the U.S. prior to 9/11. The largest school massacre in the U.S. was the Bath school disaster of 1927, another bombing. So the largest school massacre and the two largest acts of terrorism in the U.S. were all committed without a single gun death. The last seven incidents of crazed people killing school children in China have all involved knives, cleavers, hammers. Humans are violent, fucked up animals and we absolutely do not need guns to kill other humans.

why? so we can take away his steak knives and gasoline too? or do the mentally disturbed only use guns to carry out their violent fantasies?

mayor quimby got springfield nuked by those dirty french...

just use a picture of your balls; in theory it should be easier to keep would-be hackers from getting a picture of your balls, and it's only slightly awkward to shove your hand down the front of your pants every time you'd like to use your phone.

yeah, i can see that. i originally read it more as a response to the "real slashdot is dead" line (which kinda makes sense...a user who has been here longer probably has a better grasp on the "real" site). re-reading it i can see it being taken as a bit of a dickish comment, but given the content and tone of the post he was replying to i can see why he might have felt the need to go that route with the reply.

i just don't grasp the people who post comments like that in the first place. reading over Internal Modem's comment history, he doesn't seem like a common troll and in fact comes up with some insightful comments. but there is absolutely nothing constructive about his post here; if you have legitimate criticisms to offer, go for it - a well written critique on the original article submission could have been informative for many readers, whereas telling someone they did a shitty job and the whole website is fail projects the image that you are a petulant child with nothing real to add to the conversation other than your desire to be heard.

no, but he's correct in asserting that his many article submissions have likely contributed positively to the site. he's also correct in pointing out that merely telling someone they suck is not a critique.

so to Internal Modem, i would ask why you would waste your time to bitch about a topic you're not interested in on a dead website. there are, in fact, many stories posted to /. where the summary isn't as clear as it could be; this is supposed to be why there are editors, but the summary contains links to all of the relevant info on the story and then some so if you really wanted to learn more, try clicking and reading - it's pretty much what the internet does.

and to eldavojohn, reading over your summary again i'd have to say maybe you could have been more concise. sorry, i'm not much of a writer and i was already fairly familiar with this case, but skimming over that summary left me with lots of tidbits of info but lacking a broader overview of the story to this point. but you did provide lots of clickables for anyone who wants more history. and while i'm not familiar with you personally, or what it is you "do", i do recognize your name from many /. submissions and comments, and i have to appreciate anyone who contributes to a user-driven site such as this one that i can enjoy for free, so thanks!

tl;dr - "you suck" is not a criticism and it's not constructive. try some positivity in your life!

thank you. you can't just go around trying to impose your own morals on every nation. at least with syria, the people of that country made the decision to oust their dictator. they were ready. it was the popular decision. when you try to force democracy on a nation, you risk the population not being ready to accept it. and without the support of the population, you end up in a protracted war with "insurgents". i'm pretty sure if someone decided canada was oppressing me and started dropping bombs to make my life better i'd probably try to kill the bastards too. is it better to let a dictator kill 1,000 of his own subjects a year or to start a war that kills 10,000 of those people a year? sounds like a tough decision; one that needs to be made by those people.

cool story, bro. doesn't change that the article from the dailymail (which i read for free on their website, by the by) merely gives a nice little summary of how this all came about, whereas the article linked in the /. submission is nothing but an incoherent rant that starts from the premise that taxidermy should contain "a certain modicum of respect" and manages to somehow find, in the catcopter, a narrative on military UAV drones. then again, i probably only visit slashdot for the inflammatory summaries and their effect on the comments, so it's not like i actually expected any better. i'm also starting to think that i shouldn't bother replying to anons.

it was the artist's own pet, and it died after getting hit by a car. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154283/Cats-away-Artist-turns-dead-pet-flying-helicopter-killed-car.html . why are you so mad? outside of the artistic value (which is subjective, so i'll leave that up to you to discover on your own) have you never seen someone have a beloved pet stuffed and posed before? maybe it makes him happy to still have his friend around. personally, i think it's tasteless to dig a ditch to dispose of a corpse like so many people do these days, and i'd much rather be turned into beautiful art a la the 'bodies' exhibit (again, subjectively speaking, i'd say it's far more artistic than educational). but hey, to each his own i guess.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154283/Cats-away-Artist-turns-dead-pet-flying-helicopter-killed-car.html?ITO=1490

this isn't some mad scientist-type murdering strays to build controversial art. this is an artist who taxidermied his pet after it was hit and killed by a car. the cat was already named 'orville' and the artist thought it befitting to send his pet to play with the birds it so loved in life. the article posted with the /. story tells none of the real info and offers only inflammatory and barely-relevant commentary.

i like tv as an analogy here. even though most (all) modern televisions/cable boxes/game consoles come with "parental controls" type settings, these are not turned on by default. the reason is that these devices generally are built for adults, not children. the people who want to let their children use them need to take a look at the manual and change a few settings. those who can't be bothered really ought not complain that the device manufacturers should be held responsible - if you want child-safe devices there are many to be had, but don't except your fancy cellphone to be one of them.

mommy or daddy set this device up with a credit card and allowed their child to access it. commercials for cereal and toys that run during cartoons "induce" children to enter into financial transactions as well. apple merely provided the television set, it was still on the parents not to set their kid loose in the mall with the check book.

without any sort of research what-so-ever, i will *guarantee* you that 22% of gross is better than any deal paramount or it's ilk would be willing to offer a creator/performer. good on LCK for capitalizing on this and earning all that goodwill and net-cred along the way. that five dollars bought me more entertainment than a fifteen dollar ticket to see hollywood's latest in a theatre, and it was enjoyed multiple times by myself and my friends. thank you LCK, and fuck you paramount.

but the next step, to be so arrogant as to believe that you can see through the creator's deceptions...that's the one that gets me. i'm pretty sure that if "god" were real and genuinely wanted to trick you, you'd be well and thoroughly tricked.