So the author submits a book which he doesn't believe is legally required to be submitted. Then when changes are suggested he cries "censorship" and ignores the changes, with apparently no legal ramifications whatsoever. That doesn't sound much like censorship to me. The case involving the Progressive was indeed censorship (and prior restraint at that), but this seems more like an attempt to garner some publicity and "authenticity" for the book. But then again maybe I'm too old and cynical about these things.

Oops -- "its" not "it's."

That was generally considered to be the Soviet plan as well. Probably the Chinese, too. Deterrence still worked. I would prefer no Iranian bomb, but it's most likely use isn't a strike on the continental United States or even Israel, but rather use on Iranian territory if invaded.

US doctrine has never been "no first use," unlike that of some other countries (USSR during the Cold War, China). Heck, we haven't even promised not to use them against nonnuclear states, attempting to retain their use as an option in the event of CBW attacks.

Oh, just tell them to stop and that will solve the problem. How little some people know of human nature.

Part of David Gerrold's War Against the Chtorr series portrays pedophilia as something understandable given the context -- from the perspective of our protagonist. He changes his mind, but molests his boys and others along the way. (Can't remember which book does this -- it's been more than 20 years since I last read the series).

Yes both "PC loser" and "SJW" are ad hominem but they're insults not arguments. An ad hominem attack is a response to a person based on them rather than the content of their argument. This was not a response to his argument, please note he's the one that started throwing insults around.

Your claim of "Tu Quoque" is also wrong, I objected to him telling everybody who disagreed with him not not say anything "ever", but never suggested in my response that he should remain silent.

On a personal note: the "no you are!" defence? Really? I haven't seen heard that since I was six. What a pitiful attempt at rational argument.

Typical SJW if you disagree with him you're a fathead who doesn't know anything about the subject and should just STFU. The only thing that surprises me about this PC loser is he didn't say "check your privilege". Come on AC, report me for "abusive" posting - trying to silence any dissenting opinion is the modern feminists movements stock in trade.

Yes, yes, yes, shift those goalposts! We all know we were talking about a modern western society not the "dozens of countries" you bring up. And as for CEOs - ever think that maybe that's because of the choices women make, maybe they choose not to have that sort of career. You're not against women having choices are you . . . sexist pig.

No, with most bosses it's what the words sound like.

It's not even good animatronics.

Because if they don't want the recording being seen they can claim it was "off" or "broken" at the critical moment. So it only really records footage that's in their favour.

That's the card I used to use for business expenses. Claim it back from the company and pocket the 1.5%. I've changed jobs and no longer use expenses much so I cut the card up.

Just as an aside - it's also worth joining hotel "clubs" and picking up free weekends away which are untaxable too.

A big part of the problem is that any change to the UI inevitably causes a lot of complaining - often times not really justified because it's simply a matter of people getting used to the new.

Unfortunately these "hipsters" (as you call them) extrapolate this to the assumption that *all* complaints about a new UI are unjustified and would go away if users would just take the time to become accustomed to it.

This and (as others have pointed out) the inexplicable compulsion they feel to "tabletize" every UI.

And even if they could lose their job wouldn't that be preferable to a few years in prison for beating someone to death. Body cams seem a good idea but they'll be "malfunctioning" at the moment when the police were accused of misbehaviour. Darren Wilson's squad car had a sound recording system so when he shot Michael Brown . . . "malfunctioning".