I'm not sure what the problem is, there?

What is better, to settle and be potentially unhappy for years or not to settle and be alone, but without the garbage attached to being with someone who doesn't do much for you? I mean, just because you're poor or you're fat or you're driving a crappy car doesn't mean your taste changes. Unfortunately, this *is* what leads to so many unhappy relationships in the world and so much endless drama. People are so desperate to not be "alone" that they will eventually grasp at anything and anyone.

Also, if you're a five, shoot for a ten. You'd be amazed that the fives that land tens, either because the other supposed tens that ten spends their time with are actually awful people or because the five that landed them has other valuable compensations that appeal to someone.

Seriously, though, don't settle. Be alone rather than settle. All the miserable people I've known in my life are those who were so terrified of being by themselves that they settled.

No, you're thinking of Hannibal, in which there is a horrifying scene involving an alive and aware Ray Liotta watching a piece of his brain being cooked. A dozen years later and I still can't get that scene out of my head.

Finally. All those years of shoe-mirrors has paid off!

When you can make me a glass of chianti and a side of fava beans with it, I'll be impressed.

So if you're one of those creepy up-skirts dudes, it's all okay until you actually take the film out of your camera and look at it?

I also like how, apparently, we're calling it "mass collection of information", instead of "spying", now.

Oh, IAC!... Who I've never heard of.

For Ask.com, About, Vimeo, OKCupid, and match.com?! . . . which nobody gives as hit about.

She might as well be a janitor at Engadget for all the fucks anyone gives.

I have to assume her comment was made sarcastically. It seems clearly meant to be absurd to convey the opposite reality.

But even if it was a dumb ass saying awful shit online, I don't see why this is a story.

She isn't notable. Her employer, as far as I know, is not notable. She is not a politician. She is not a government employee. She is not even a celebrity of any status.

So who gives as hit what she sent as a twitter message or anything after the fact? If saying horrible shit is the noteworthy part of her existence and coverage, then journalists should start jumping on the Disqus-powered threads at the bottom of all the CBS articles linked to by DrudgeReport, because there are some pretty fucking horrendous things there from plenty of people. Or any article on the planet that has a Facebook comment system attached to it where people say the most vile shit under their full real name.

You mean, like if a politician twitter messaged a picture of their dick and then claimed their account had been "hacked"?

Obama won for the same reason Bush won again. Because the population is fucking stupid. Stupidity knows no color or ethnicity.

When I read her comment, I didn't see what the big deal was. It clearly seemed intentionally sarcastic. Making a quip about how something won't impact you, because you're white to contrast with the reality of a thing not being constrained by race. In fact, I don't see how a single person on the planet would ever have any context in which to make the statement she did without doing so sarcastically.

More importantly, who gives a fucking shit about this People Magazine quality bullshit?

Meanwhile, President Obama commuted the sentences of eight people this week. All of them convicted of offenses regarding cocaine. Not because they weren't guilty of the crimes they committed at the time they were crimes and sentenced under the law of those times, but because the penalties for those crimes changed since their conviction. So . . . it would seem that you *could* reasonably roll back convictions.

Excuse me?!

Who the hell are *you* to say that Alan Turing deserves a knighthood more than David Beckham? David Beckham kicked a fucking round ball around for a living. How many goaldowns did Alan Turing ever make?!

Commuting a sentence is reducing the penalty for a crime. A pardon is claiming that "this person should not have been convicted of a crime, to begin with".

Anyway, I guess this is supposed to be a feel-good story, but what's to feel good about someone finally getting justice sixty fucking years after they're dead?!

Are there really people denying "climate change"? It's a pretty accepted thing. Maybe not that it is due to man, but that there is change, sure. Of course, we also can't decide if the change is global *warming* or global *cooling*. It was only a couple decades or so ago that we were told pollution was sending us over the edge of unavoidable ice-ages.

I suppose you can sort of understand their skepticism. If I was born in 1990 and all I had ever heard was "global warming global warming AND IT IS ALL OUR FAULT!", I'd be terrified, too. If I was born in 1970 and had lived through "global cooling global cooling AND ITS ALL OUR FAULT!", I would probably be extremely skeptical of the claims, since I'd have been alive long enough to remember it the first time around.