Umm, no. CATV stands for Community Antenna TeleVision; it evolved because people in areas without OTA reception (i.e., valleys) put up a shared antenna to receive OTA signals.

The Tylenol killer was caught. I remember hearing about it on the CBS evening news - HE did it in an attempt to get the stock price to fall, in order to make money on his short options.

Really? You think a "new generation" is so simple-minded that they can't use reason to put together a value system that arrives at the same destination as so many others? You think it's a good thing to change out values like ... stealing people's stuff is morally bad? Like, using your l33t haxx0r skills to ruin someone's reputation for the lulz is bad? You're confusing the tools and technologies that a new generation finds at their disposal with being somehow related to the philosophical underpinnings of their value system.

I'm delighted that, despite the fastest growing population in the world appearing to embrace medieval theocratic nonsense as the basis of their value system, that at least a fair portion of the world has gone more down the route of using reason to examine and reinforce their moral code. Yes, a "new generation" may indeed show less of the superstition-based trappings surrounding the fringes of judeo-christian culture, but basic stuff like "don't use your new [whatever technology] to steal people's shit" doesn't mean that a moral code based on that reasonable observation that doing so is objectively bad means that changing [whatever technology] means the moral code is changing. Just, sometimes, the venue in which it's applied.

That's why pretending that it's malware that's the issue, and not abusive thieves and vandals (people), is an act of moral cowardice. Because it's the same old stuff, different playing field. People who focus on the gun, the car, the piece of viral code, whatever - they're too chickenshit to address what's actually at play: other people whose world views are broken enough to make malicious use of the tools. People scared of making value judgments about other people always, always reach for the tool as the villain. That says more about that person than it does about the actual villain.

Hey look! You're doing it right now. That's actually pretty funny.

No. I'm smarter than a lot of people, and many many people are smarter than me.

Oh, I've done MUCH worse than that.

Why are you asking me? Have I condemned anybody? I'm condemning those who try to pretend that nothing bad is ever anybody's fault. That (relative to the article we're talking about, here) fact that focusing on the tools people use (or mis-use) and ignoring the fact that it's people using those tools is intellectual laziness and often cowardice in the face of political correctness.

So you agree - people are different, and not all are equal. But ignoring that, we're talking about when people use tools (like malware) to steal other people's assets and reputations.

Of course there is. I'm describing a pervasive, increasingly toxic type of craziness that impacts nearly every bit of public discourse that pops up when anything bad is being discussed. If such discussions were generally rational, there'd be nothing to have to talk about. But rational discussions involving causality and agency are now considered rude, like gluten.

It's no longer fashionable to associate human character, judgement, and action with unpleasant results. Malice? There is no malice. There is only the problematic tool or technology, against which we should rage. It's not murder, it's a "gun death." It's not a reckless jackass badly flying a GoPro in a crowded place, it's a "drone incident." It's not a bad driver, it's another "SUV death." It's not a criminal trying to steal your savings or reputation, it's "malware."

Talking out loud about how actual humans are responsible for the stupid or evil shit they do is no longer acceptable. That would mean assessing their intelligence, or making a considered moral judgement, based on some sort of, you know, identifiable value system. We can't have that! We'd need to post Trigger Warnings near any discussion that might result in the horrifying prospect of recognizing that not everyone is as smart as everyone else, or calling an evil actor evil, because, you know, judging. Much better to talk only about the scary tools, never about the people. Hey, Russian credit card scammers and bot farmers are really the victims, here - the malware made them use it. Probably of some sort of western patriarchal influence and whatnot.

Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the difference between a workstation and a server.

They shouldn't be just "Republican" cuts - the Democrats should also be enthusiastically behind reforming that transfer tax program. If you think that program is a good thing, you should also be solidly behind changes to it, like raising the age at which money starts flowing from people who are working to those who have retired. If you are reflexively against doing the things necessary to prevent such entitlement programs from completely swamping the federal budget, then you are part of the problem, and part of why it will ultimately implode, leaving nobody with that program's annual transfers.

OK then, let's stick with the language. You're prepared to dispense with all of the founders' other personal-arms-ownership-related writings and commentary at the time because you're can't get your head around their punctuation choice as you seek to conflate and flip upside down the words they've chosen to use. But think about it, and translate some of their other ideas into more typical modern language, noting how it's actually possible to put two clauses into one sentence to improve conveying how important they are, related to one another. Like, the so-obvious-it-goes-without-saying implication baked into the 4th, as they use that amendment to also limit government power as used against the people...

"Because it's sometimes going to be necessary for the government to search someone's house, papers, and personal effects in the course of a criminal investigation, the government shall not infringe on the privacy of one's personal home, affairs and property without showing probable cause and specific objectives." See how that flows? Breaking that up into two sentences would make it less clear the point of the amendment is to preserve individual liberty despite the need for state or federal power that might - uncontrolled by the constitution - encroach too readily on personal freedom.

As for some of your other points:

If this was about local militias being a counter-balance for a standing FEDERAL army, they would have said as much, if not in the amendment itself, but in the large body of other surrounding writings and debate. But almost all of the founders' writings at the time, and their commentary specifically surrounding that topic explains their urge, having raised and used such an army to settle things with the British, to not have such a thing on a permanent basis. Most figured that the best bet was to let locals (at the state level) maintain militias as they saw fit ... but anticipating exactly the sort of clamp-down on personal liberty they experienced with the Crown, they made it part of the charter of the country to point out that at no level of government could the obvious need for military units be considered grounds to prevent "the people" from keeping and bearing arms.

And before you try to explain that "the people" doesn't refer to individuals, ask yourself why they chose exactly that same phrase ("the people") when describing who should be personally free from government over-reach when they wrote the 4th Amendment and referred to personal home, papers, etc. Read it, and the use of that phrase, in the same context.

Are you that unable to make the connection? Nobody is entitled to someone else's work on terms not offered by the person who creates the work. The bogus, straw-man question of why someone would thing that "poor" people aren't entitled to art and entertainment is pure BS. There is an abundance of both, offered by artists and channeled through all sorts of outlets at no cost to people who want to consume it. If they want extra choices and convenience in order to get work that the people who create it would like to charge for, then not having that cash handy doesn't suddenly entitle them to that work.

I can't afford an original Picasso print. So, I should be entitled to it because I'm too poor to pay for it?

And ... what does this have to do with things being worth what people are willing to pay for them?

Regardless: yes, being successful has a lot to do with culture. As in, it's a damn shame when people who aren't equipped (or dedicated to) raising successful kids go ahead and have kids anyway. Look at Baltimore. Kids going to school and learning how to be humans and winding up as fairly comfortable middle class people, just miles from kids who get exactly as much (and often more) spent on them at school, who have subsidies available for college and countless other programs, but whose neighborhoods tend to be full of poverty and squalor.

For you, it's all about race. Because you're lazy, and/or you don't want to stick your neck out and talk honestly about family and neighborhood culture. Culture is not race.

And while you're deliberately mis-reporting and muddling things: Costco's basic membership is only $55. And there is no credit check necessary - feel free to pay cash. And an entire family, and every friend or neighbor they want to bring with them, can walk in and load up on things at sensible prices and check out on one person's card. Your fake barriers to spending less on things like commodity food are BS, and you know it.

Sure would be convenient if there was a Costco in easy walk-up range in those rough neighborhoods in West Baltimore, right? Ask the liberal democrats who've been running that city for decades why that specific area is so hostile to investment, why the people who live there are scared to carry bags of groceries down the sidewalk, and why it's so hard to find people willing and able to work in stores.

Really? Shall we start comparing the life prospects of poor white kids in Appalchia to the kids born to dual income white collar households places mostly black areas like PG County, outside of DC? Yeah, don't trouble yourself. BSing about it won't change it, as much as you'd strangely LIKE the narrative you're going on about to be true. Why, I don't know.

It works perfectly fine for everything except DirectX gaming. I don't think you need to worry about Call of Duty in your office environment. There's a difference between a VM and emulation, just so you know.

Or George Soros. Of course, he has thousands of mindless activist 'bots doing his bidding, so at least he's contributing to the botpocalypse in his own way.

The lion's share of MDs could be replaced by machines. We tend to worship the ground they walk on in the United States but at the end of the day medicine is just a trade, no different than plumbers or electricians, and nurses do the bulk of the work in your typical medical practice. The percentage of truly innovative Doctors is no different than the percentage of truly innovative coders, for most it's just rote memorization and long established best practices.

There are countries that recognize this fact, where MDs are paid less than teachers and society doesn't treat them as Gods walking amongst men. Of course, in fairness to American MDs, Doctors in those nations don't have to deal with crushing malpractice premiums and student loan debt.......

Better question: Why is it still an A/B choice in the day and age of virtual computing? It's not like you even have to deal with the hassle of dual booting anymore. I run Slackware as my native OS, use it for >50% of my daily tasks, and still have the option of firing up Windows in a VM when the need arises.