Depends on how many short clips of objectionable material he has to watch. He still gets plenty of disturbing images planted in his mind, even if he shuts each one off just as soon as he figures out that the person's guts are being spattered or the child is getting raped. He still has to watch long enough to tell what's going on.

It's Google's business because the law (at least in the US) says it is. In TFA, the author mentions that by law, child porn in particular has to be taken down within 24 hours (I'm not sure what laws apply to other types of offensive material). To do that, someone needs to review it to determine what it is and whether it runs afoul of the law.

It's not Google's job (or intent, as far as I can tell) to determine what we can and can't see. But they do have to follow the law or face whatever consequences the government chooses to impose for failing to do so.

True, but women who are not in a consensual sexual relationship and don't anticipate getting into one soon are less likely to be taking the pill. There are medical reasons for taking the pill that have nothing to do with contraception, but if a woman doesn't have a condition that calls for it, she's not likely to be taking the pill "just in case" she might get laid some time down the road. There are risks from side effects, and if there's not a particular reason for a woman to be taking the pill, she's better off not taking it until and unless she gets into a relationship she thinks might lead to sex. Some women are very sexually active and might take the pill by default, but many are not and may not expect to engage in sex until her perception of a relationship reaches a certain stage.

Why would there be an "evolutionary arms race"? Unless offspring resulting from rape are somehow less viable than offspring resulting from consensual sex, and rapists pass on their proclivity to commit rape to their offspring, there's no evolutionary pressure one way or the other. Evolution operates because of natural selection; if an inherited trait is survival-neutral, there's no selection for or against that trait.

Oh, okay, fine, less than that. That's what I get for trying to be funny before reading on.

Yeah. You'd probably barf first, though.

Bear in mind that I was merely posting a link to the article that the GP didn't bother to link to; I wasn't endorsing it. I was a lot better off in 2005, before my tech career imploded and I had to take a security guard job at less than a third of what I was making at HP in order to survive. So no, I'm not planning to regress any further and apply for a job at Mickey D's so I can have "more disposable income". :)

Thanks, I found the article (since the GP didn't bother to provide a link to where it could be found), but didn't have time to dig deeper into it yesterday. My gut feeling was that the author keeps using the words "disposable income", but I don't think they mean what he thinks they mean. A lot of the benefits he cited are not direct cash subsidies, and shouldn't really be counted as "income" (disposable or otherwise).

Never mind; it wasn't on the Current, it was at examiner.com

Easy on the eyes... really hard on the ears!

I can't find the article; searching the site for "disposable income" turns up 0 results. Can you provide a direct link, please?

Problem is, many (if not most) "internet haterz" are just trolling, acting out, and generally trying to be disruptive. They're not being honest, just spiteful.

I'd have liked to have been dressed like the shooter, actually. I doubt being armed and dressed in normal civilian clothes would have saved me from harm, and I probably would have drawn his attention by shooting at him and having my bullets bounce off his body armor.

He probably thought he killed a lot more, because many of the people dropped either voluntarily or when they were wounded by the gunfire.

And the hero shooting in the dark and smoke (from the gas canisters the shooter set off) would have found a clear target for a clean kill past the body armor and helmet the shooter was wearing.... how?