No, insubstantial difference. That is, if the "bloodline" is a shorthand for real physical things, cloning does not break it. If it's some sort of nonphysical woo, sure, cloning could break it, but nonphysical woo isn't real.

If they want to make arbitrary rules for their horse-breeding game, I'm fine with that. But I'm not going to pretend they're anything but arbitrary rules.

However, it has nothing to do with purity. English is famously a language which mugs other languages for their vocabulary. But just because it is impure and inconsistent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I saw that article, but while it claims the numbers are from the DoJ, there's no cite and the link is dead. I'm fairly sure it's referring to the same study and the interpretation of the number has been perverted.

Appears to be false; the statistic of 40% relates to the percentage of American men who have been arrested by age 23, not the percentage of working-age Americans with a criminal record. It includes juvenile arrests for status offenses (e.g. truancy, underaged drinking) and also arrests for which there was no conviction.

I've been arrested (twice, even), and I do not have a "criminal record". First arrest all charges were dropped and the arrest record expunged, second arrest was for a matter not rising to the level of a criminal offense (NYC ordinance "violation"); I took adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (does not require an admission of guilt).

Also, to all the people harping on the blood comment: You know what they mean. You also know they do not mean it the way you are trying to portray it. AQHA breeders know far more equine biology than you so quit trying to show your superiority through snark and lack of reading comprehension.

I know what they mean, but I also know it is meaningless. There is no real "bloodline" which is broken by cloning; the foal of a clone has the same grandsire and granddam as the original.

The only real term in a "social contract" is "Society (i.e. the government) may change the terms of this contract in any way, at any time, prospectively or retrospectively, and the individuals all remain bound by it."

In other words, it's bunk.

Ergo, it'll never make it through New Jersey unless it's on manual 90+% of the time.

Only problem with your link is meta-analyses are shit.

push_back is the old way. It's now emplace_back, to construct the value directly in the vector rather than constructing it and then copying it.

The point of a Rolex is to advertise to the world that you are made of money. Personally I wouldn't want anything on my wrist that is worth more than my hand

I don't know about you, but if I had to pay $10,000 to save my hand, I would. Or $40,000 for that matter.

and I say this as a professional C++ programmer. Nothing is straightforward. There are many ways to do anything, and every one of them has edge cases which don't do what you expect. It's got classes, templates, and functional stuff, all of which has bad syntax and works poorly together. It's got two things going for it, inertia from existing codebases and lack of any better on-the-metal language (unless you're willing to restrict yourself to C, which seems like a good idea much of the time).

Ask a C++ compiler implementor about it sometime.

The question of US jurisdiction over Sklyarov's actions was never litigated, because a deal was arranged wherein the charges against Sklyarov would be dropped in exchange for his testimony against Elcomsoft, his employer. Elcomsoft was then acquitted at trial.

The guys who were just messing around with stuff like "Can't wait to date her!" he responded in kind, and the people who were total shits he took the gloves off with.

Snowden is guilty of turning over a detailed review of our internal security apparatus to our national enemies

I'm not a great fan of the Guardian either, but "national enemies" is going too far.

Denial of certiorari sets no precedent. They could have rejected this case for any number of reasons, from a full calendar to the suit involving side issues which would make any ruling muddy to not liking the name of the defendant. They denied without comment.