Linking to another unsupported statement by yourself, one without any citations to back it up is not going to work in refuting a respectable publication.

In your other comment you ask why hasn't anybody repeated the study. Perhaps because it was thorough and accurate enough that nobody has seen a need to repeat it. Can you come up with a real refutation of that study and not just cite more examples of your opinion?

Even the skinniest ass has more padding than our feet do. Almost as if that part of the body was designed/evolved to be sat on.

That was my thought as well. Don't dump it in a landfill. Feed for animals, fuel for a waste incinerator, compost it. Surely there are dozens of better uses than simply filling up another landfill with this stuff? Uses that don't involve people eating it.

Wrong, those programs are classified for a reason. The country that has no secret will not stand. So many on /. think we have some right to know everything our government does, but no such right or need exists. You have no need or right to know about those programs. They do not encroach on constitutional rights therefore they are entirely legal, and are thus moral. Well as moral as anything in the international espionage game is. Just because you want to know does not mean you need or have any need or right to know. And his publication of those programs put them at risk and damaged our collection efforts, which in turn damages our ability to negotiate effectively for treaties. And in turn damages our freedoms. Because if our government cannot negotiate with the best hand, it hurts our interests, and our economy.

Everybody spies on everybody, the Germans certainly didn't stop their efforts to collect on us just because we were forced to halt a very effective program on our part.

Oh and get your own ID, stop trying to live off the reputation of the real globaljustin.

As opposed to the brilliant entirely fact based reporting found on MSNBC, CNN or the rest of the left leaning ilk.

If you want real news you have to read both sides and try to filter out the blatant bias. But anyone who believes that simply believing "anything" Fox news reports is an idiot is the real idiot. There isn't a media source out there that doesn't fabricate news to fit their world view (bias) and to generate clicks, views, readers and viewers.
Yet any and all of them do stumble onto and report facts quite frequently. And Other that advising people that MSNBC really isn't reliable, and neither are WND nor Infowars. I advise people to read em all with a strong cynicism filter in place, and maybe you'll find some real news hidden under the fluff.

And for the Record I do believe the article I linked is indeed factual. That blonde Bimbo did proudly state that she believes former Porn star Jenny McCarthy is right about the link between vaccinations and Autism. And that he belief shows just how stupid she is and how much damage Ms. McCarthy has done to common sense among parents today. To believe a porn star and a discredited and retracted study over ample science shows what an idiot this new starlet (of whom I really hadn't ever heard of) is.

So yes I believe Fox got it's facts there. That starlet believes. Proving how clueless she is.

No he would not likely be dead by now. Had he stayed here, he would have been prosecuted for the original revelations, claimed and won whistle-blower status and been acquitted or pardoned. And that would have been the end of it. When he made his original revelations of the surveillance program he was a hero. That needed to be revealed, and his choosing to flee to another country to make the revelation is semi-understandable though less than the honorable act of standing by your actions when you reveal government wrong doing.

But!

Because he fled the country, and has to keep his value to his current hosts in order to retain his guest status, he's kept revealing stuff that has gone far beyond whistle-blower status. We the people did need to know that our government was collecting our data, and most likely in violation of the Constitution (gotta leave the final decision to the courts but I think it was illegal). But we did not have any need to know about our collection efforts directed at foreign leaders, even if they are allies. It's the Intelligence game, everybody collects on everybody, allies and enemies both. A political and Military Ally is still an economic competitor, and politically we don't agree on everything so even in that realm is there cause for intelligence collection. Neither did we need any knowledge of the UK surveillance program nor the Aussie program. Nor anything else he's released. And it was all those revelations that pushed him from Hero Whistle-blower to Traitor.

Had he stayed and faced the music he likely would have been acquitted by now as a Whistle-blower. We would still have had the national discussion about the surveillance program and even were he to be convicted he would be considered a Hero for protecting the Constitution. And had he stayed he likely would not have had the opportunity to dip into treason by revealing the stuff that did not concern us as constitutional violations.

We do owe him a debt of gratitude, but he ruined that by revealing classified information that did not concern violations of our constitutional rights and damaged our valid intelligence collection efforts. He has tarnished his Hero status and now stands as a traitor.

But she's never retracted her position, even though the Dr has been stripped of his license, the study has been retracted and she still continues to preach her message and to gain new followers. For example from Fox News today http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/03/14/kristin-cavallari-defends-decision-not-to-vaccinate-her-son/?intcmp=features

Do we blame her by being misled by the study? No. But once the study was refuted and the findings retracted she refused to change her tune. And so we blame her for using her celebrity status to push a dangerously misguided position that is leading to increased deaths and illnesses that would never have happened had she not pushed her cause and refused to change her position when the study was proven false.

From the context he said still around. Verbiage is verbiage. But even if he did mean making personal computers, HP is still around.

He didn't say still making computers he said still around and from your list at the end you left off TI who is also still around, and their high end calculators are arguably personal computers.

Exactly, he said computers. And as I recall Texas Instruments was making computers before the Mac As far as I can find Apple started the Macintosh program in 1979, TI released the TI99/4 in late 1979 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI99/4A meaning they started the development some time before. They are no longer in the end user computer market, but they too are still around.

Why should we have to pay for them to live out the rest of their life in relative comfort, while their victims were denied that opportunity.

Our cash hasn't been monochromatic for a few years now. It may not look like Monopoly money like much of the world likes but every denomination has a specific color tint.

Coins for small denominations are annoying as hell. I'd rather replace the larger bills that we carry less commonly with coins than the $1 bill. You have $30 in coins in your pocket? I have $85 in cash in my pocket and it weighs far less than your $30, It won't scratch the screen on my smart phone should I absentmindedly shove a few dollars into the pocket I carry it in.

No arguments on the penny. It's time is done and it needs to be retired. We have and have had $1 coins for decades. We simply don't like them. The first ones were way to big, then they made them too similar in size to the quarter, now they're still about the size of a quarter but plated in gold colored metal (that contains no actual gold.) More likely is that we are simply going to retain the money that we have, and just gradually diminish the use of any form of cash. Going to using cards or e-wallets. Many vending machines have had credit card and isis/gwallet NFC readers added to them, eliminating even that need for cash or coins.

In fact the article simply jumps from 1980 to mention OS/2 in 1995 and then again to 1999 with no explanation, skipping generations of computers in the movies.

But what makes me a "safer driver" I've been in two accidents in my 26 years of driving. Rear ended once at a traffic light, and the other one the guy spun out across four lanes of traffic to slam into my truck, after I'd had time to come to a complete stop. And I haven't had a speeding ticket in over a decade. But I still have a lead foot, and tend to drive above the speed limit. Would I qualify as a "Safe Driver"? I have a car chip and monitor my vehicle for performance and maintenance issues, it lets me see the kind of data they would collect: average speed, highest speeds, acceleration profiles (rabbit starts, something I try to resist for fuel efficiency reasons but often realize I've done after the fact) hard breaking events etc. . .

Okay maybe for an 18 year old male to maybe get a lower rate. But otherwise, hell no.

My safe driving status should be based on what really makes for safe driving, and they haven't yet made the ODBII compliant device that monitors how alert and aware I am of the traffic around me. Of how often I check my mirrors and blind spots, of how I look ahead to anticipate problematic intersections or road conditions. Until they can monitor those, they can't really monitor safety. Speed is not a safety factor. Hard breaking may be, but it's still missing a ton of variables that explain the cause. Any insurance co that asks for this is losing a customer. I have a monitor on my vehicle already, but for my personal use and only my use.

But a taking a picture is rather obvious act, holding the camera device (phone or camera above the card long enough for the lens to focus and the ccd to record it. Whereas setting a slip of receipt paper on top of a cc lying on a desk or a serving tray or a payment folder (whatever they call those folders they bring your bill in) and rubbing a pencil over it a couple times can be done very discretely and very quickly especially in a crowded restaurant surrounded by other wait staff who might notice what you are doing and turn you in. It's actually been a very popular method of stealing cards as it gets the name, number and the exp date very quickly, leaving only the security code on the back which as a simple three digit number can be grabbed with a quick glance and jotted on the slip of paper next to the pencil rubbing.

It's not dumb, it's been going on for years and is why all new cards no longer have the info embossed as raised text. Yes a camera is still a viable option, but making this change did eliminate one very popular and discrete option for cc number theft.