If no-one could see it because it was too dim to see everywhere on earth, then we probably should describe the source object as "luminous" rather than "bright".

In particular with regards to gender roles.

So, time was women were for making babies and raising said babies. Men were for protecting and providing for the women. That was the roles society prescribed and there wasn't a lot of deviation from it. You did see outliers that didn't conform, but by and large that's how things were basically due to necessity. You notice many animals follow a similar structure. It is what is needed for the survival of the species.

Well that all changed, of course. We now have the problem of too many humans, not too few. Also many of the household tasks that used to take a ton of time are now automated (try washing clothes by hand, it is a full time job almost). So society changed. Women didn't need to place their worth in their offspring anymore. They could choose to be what the wanted, do what they wanted, and still be valuable. It wasn't about popping out babies.

Well, this is the other side of that: Men's value now no longer needs to be in providing for a family. They can have a family, or not, they work, they can stay at home, etc, etc. For some men, that means staying single.

However, some people, like this dude, have a problem with that. They think that men should be required to be providers to be considered "real men", should be required to fill a particular role in society.

Mike Rowe has given some good talks about the shortage of skilled labour in the US and what a problem it is. This kind of thing can't be outsourced since, well, the labour is needed in the US. I suppose it could be replaced with H1Bs but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Most of it is stuff like plumbing that isn't glamorous, and even can be dirty, but it is necessary and will continue to be necessary. Eventually robotics may advance to the point of replacing it, but not in the foreseeable future.

Here manslaughter is a Class 2 Felony. That means 4 years minimum sentence (or 3 years minimum if there are mitigating circumstances), 10 year maximum (12.5 if there are aggravating circumstances). This is presuming first time offence, and only one count. A repeat offence can bring it up to as much as 35 years.

So no, doesn't look higher to me. Remember there's a difference between maximum and minimum. When a sentence is "up to" that means "the absolute maximum a court may sentence for a given offence." Usually, there's a fair bit of range in a sentence since the idea is a judge will consider the factors of the individual case.

I mean when someone breaks in to your house, you should go to jail right? After all, your home security sucks. I don't care if you think it is good, it sucks. Virtually nobody bothers with good home security.

So you should go to jail if someone breaks in... ...or maybe you should reexamine this "blame the victim" attitude so many geeks have with regards to hacking.

This was a transformer that failed. ALL power plants that make AC power use those. Nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, doesn't matter, they all use transformers. So even if nuclear went away, transformers would be all over the place. They are how we change AC voltages from one to another.

I actually waste less coffee, coffee filters, etc.. now that I own a keurig and I like that I can make a single cup of coffee in the morning without any waste.

I had the same feeling when I switched to single cup pour-over, without the blasted machine or the blasted machine politics.

Somehow, I always manage to find three minutes of work to be done in the kitchen while I pace three or four slugs of hot water. Must be some weird corollary to Murphy's law. Or maybe my cookware is telepathic.

Serious question here. I mean if things are truly as bad as you claim they are, where police just arrest and beat people regularly for no reason, then why don't you move somewhere that is not the norm? I mean I can understand staying if you wish to work to make things better, but you imply in your post that you do not, that you wish to not fight back. Fair enough. However the fact that you can freely and without worry post this on a public forum means you live in a place free enough not to restrict you from leaving. So why stay?

Were I in such a situation where I feared the police to that point, and believed I could not affect change (or didn't wish to try), I'd get out ASAP. I'd work on getting a job and moving as soon as circumstances allowed.

So why do you choose to stay, if it is that bad?

When you are polite and friendly this not only makes things smoother with people who are nice, but it really annoys the jerks who are looking for an excuse to cause you trouble because they don't have one.

A minor story about that: I was coming back from Canada from visiting my parents. I made the mistake of declaring on the customs form that I had meat, which I did, a pack of beef jerky fully sealed, manufactured in the US. So instead of going right through the automated line, I had to go see an agent. This dude had a huge chip on his shoulder. It was pretty clear to me he'd like nothing better than for someone to get annoyed and belligerent with him so he could make their life suck. No such luck here, I smiled, was polite answered the questions and after a bit, was on my way to the next segment.

He'd marked to have my bags searched (at airports in general, and the border especially they can search your bags for any or no reason). So I had to head to the search area. Well I was nice and polite to the agent there who clearly thought this was moronic and gave my bag the most half-assed quick search ever before saying "Thanks you are good to go."

I got to go through with a minimal inconvenience (10 minutes max) and got the satisfaction of him getting to be frustrated with being able to do nothing. I'm not saying it always work, of course, but it works more often than not. Makes your life easier and you get the added satisfaction of making jerks sad.

One is you might notice said officer has been fired and arrested however the second is you might notice the parent never said it never happens, just that it doesn't often happen. When someone says something is rare, and you find one counter example, you haven't done anything to disprove their assertion.

Think about this for a second. Why is this surprising?

I don't know about other people here, but I don't even check my voicemail anymore. Google handles that, and has for years. The voicemail transcription I get through Google Voice is almost always good enough that I can determine who called, what they want, and where to call them back to talk further.

Keep in mind, this is a 'free' service to me, I don't pay anything. Due to the volume of people they do it for, I'm certain they they're trying to meet economies of scale and reducing the overhead. Who do you think funds the storage, equipment, etc. for all of this? Adsense?

And it's no secret that the NSA had early involvement with Google.

You really can't see any difference? Then you are just being obtuse. Yes if you tried to trespass in a religious building and be offensive, there'd be a response. In particular, they'd tell you to leave and call the police. However this was not in a Mosque, no Muslims were forced to attend. This was something people were doing on their own. However the crazies felt the need to respond.

I've heard about precisely zero cases of Jews going after pig BBQs in the US. Seems they are not very concerned about what you are doing on your own. If you don't respect their religion, oh well, so it goes.

Stephen Fry put it very well:

"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

You might recall that during the whole "draw Mohammad" controversy South Park took it on. While the were not allowed to show Mohammad at all, they did show people literally shitting on Jesus, the American flag, and so on. They received zero threats in relation to that, there was no action taken against them.

It's not like Christians didn't know either, it is a major syndicated TV show that is produced in the US.

I won't be getting this Tesla battery, for a number of reasons, but I'd like a home battery system. I live in a condo and I haven't have a backup generator. Nowhere I'd be allowed to put it. A battery system though, that I could have.

If I had my choice, I'd get a Generac whole house system but there are tradeoffs that you have to make when you want to live certain places.

So, there was no billing error here. The guy actually had his modem making long-distance calls for inordinate amounts of time. Doesn't seem like an AT&T error. Though it definitely sucks for the old man/woman!

No billing error? The entire billing system sucks balls at the largest possible frame.

There should be a legislative directive that all such usage-based billing plans provide an option for the end user to set hard spending caps, which are automatically enforced by the service provider.

Show me a corporation that doesn't—at least attempt—to enact hard spending caps enforced by automatic systems wherever and whenever possible. Heads roll in the gutters when a corporation loses $100 million because some trading desk manages to go rogue with respect to set trading limits. (By the Finnish system of traffic fines, a $100 million loss for AT&T is about on par with some old geezer tabbed for $25,000.)

End users are, of course, purposefully disadvantaged to have to police their own usage by manual vigilance, because everyone knows this is a lucrative fail mode for AT&T's revenue piracy service.

That this whole thing sucks balls right down to the bag root is the least possible diagnosis.