In Japan it is.

If you go to Japan and notice a bunch of old ladies reading comics, chances are you seeing the Yaoi section. (I went holy shit and started l started laughing when I realized it was true what they said when I walked through a store in Akihabara once)

Truth be told, not all Yaoi is pornographic. I'd wager the majority of it isn't in Japan. They have a weird sense of things. Like maid cafes and host clubs, they get off on subtle things like "dead Japanese parent syndrome" (where the plot of the story is the kids parents have died releasing them from their obligations... strange how so many Anime and Manga's have that plot line)

Anyways, my point is, that the stuff English speakers google is probably pornographic because that is what they expect from Japan while in reality Japan isn't all about sex.

PRO:TIP

Poor credit ratings can hurt a person far worse than a IRS audit can these days. Why?

Because employers, apartments, housing, cars, and to some regard school is now determined by your credit.

(not that its harder to hire people with good credit these days, but its still considered a black mark)

And credit is purely a three corporation deal not handled by the government.

So if they wanted to for some unknown reason, they could blackball you from ever getting a good job again unless you play by their rules.

So yes, they seem to have reserved a special right in that regard when it comes to your well being.

Also health insurance... Companies have been leveraging the threat of going without health insurance for some time. Its one of the reasons many people put up with employee abuse when it comes to forcing them to do things beyond the scope of the original agreement.

Its not said, but it weighs on everyone's mind when they think about saying "no" to unreasonable demands of an employer or when thinking about taking a new job from a non-corporate who doesn't give benefits.

If there was universal healthcare in the states like France or Canada, then employers would have a harder time forcing employees into doing things they'd unethical things or simply the fear of not being able to pay medical bills.

Simply keeping everything in house at one location does not protect from acts of god or bad luck.

Fires, floods, and theft happen.

A really good backup system includes off site backup somewhere in the loop.

This doesn't mean you have to use the cloud to do it.

You could have a simple system with someone taking backup tapes to a different office or something, or even taking encrypted hard drives to a safety deposit box.

Pointless. A simple 40mm bofors (cheap as hell) or a properly set up AA Gatling will do the job far, FAR better against boat swarms. At the same time they are far cheaper, integrate into system with self-auto corrective targeting based on radar signature of gun's own shells, do not require a heavy supply of energy and have significantly fewer points of failure.

Technically, using wooden hull ships with broadsides iron cast muzzle loaded cannons are cheaper even still, but you don't see modern navies using them.

The key threat the US navy is thinking about is either:

A. Missiles
B. Suicide boats

AND

All while in "friendly" harbors.

Using a Gatling gun in such an environment would cause problems so to say if someone fired a missile and they had to shoot it down over civilians because not all the bullets hit the target.

A laser would be far much more accurate without worrying about hitting anything else that happens to be nearby.

The Chinese don't think so.

Well.... They shot him rather than hanged, but I suppose its close enough.

One of the funny stories in Egypt was the ones where a can of spray paint could defeat a multi-million dollar tank.

Actually it was a WW2 tactic where you would just throw smoke bombs at a tank and force them to unbutton, but the tactic remains the same. If a tank can't out their optic ports, they are basically blind and the only way to see where they are going is to open a hatch.

Thats when you get them.

What?! What?! What?!

Are you saying all those right winged religious persons saying its women to blame for rape don't exist? (Islam and Christian)

(Google "women to blame for rape" for your sources)

*whoosh*

Laws of intent seem rather dubious to me simply because one can craft any intention out of anything innocent.

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -Cardinal Richelieu (disputed tho)

The point of this quote is that authoritarian figures can simply take anything you do or say and make a crime out of it with intent:

You bought a gun. Well, maybe you are planning to kill a politician with it?

You have a chemistry set in your house. Well, maybe you were planning to make drugs with it?

You have encryption on your computer. Well, maybe you were planning on hiding illegal activity?

See where I'm going with this. It is simply your word against theirs. No one can read your mind to see if you are telling the truth, so they are simply accusing you of something that you haven't done but could possibly do. How can you defend against that?

Crimes should be things that actually happened after the fact or in progress. Yes the cops should stop a person who is trying to commit a crime and yes they should prosecute them for the action itself, but if you can convict a person on the intent to commit a crime are basically condemning the good majority of citizens who would never in their life commit such a crime.

I wouldn't but, if you think about it, even local civil courts are an extension of the federal government (indirectly) and one could construe that when a court finds someone guilty of libel, they are in fact restricting someone freedom of speech (even if it is lies).

I mean take this phrase for example:

"The president is an idiot!"

Which you and I know is covered under the first amendment even though its not really quantifiable true (I think he's quit a smart man actually but anways...)

Whats the difference between that and:

"My neighbor is an idiot"

Why would that be wrong to publish in a newspaper and not the president one? This is more of an ethics debate I guess, but you can call someone a pedophile and believe it to be true even though there is no empirical truth to the matter. I mean people said, Micheal Jackson was a pedo, and it actually seemed socially acceptable to say this in public even though there was no truth to the mater.

Where do you draw the line? And do you want government involved especially when there is groups out there that would love to sue the pants off anyone who dare criticize them? (say Scientology libel and slander cases)

No. Which is why rich persons or corporations have been known to force people to settle out of court because they know they couldn't afford a protracted legal battle even if they won the case.

FFS! People need to stop treating Anon as some organized group.

If a flash mob helped a lady across the street in LA and another lynched a man in New York, would you consider them the same group of people?

Serioiusly, its just like old time lynchings they used to have in the old days when a bunch of people got together and doled out random justice... Often picking the wrong person to extract it on (like the time a bunch of laid of car workers in Detroit killed a Korean man because they were pissed off at Japanese carmakers in the 1980's).

I couldn't help but reword this in my head as:

"Sudetanland-Germany deal accidentally protects Poland?"

That didn't really work out that well for Poland...

BTW the UK referendum to do away with the US style of voting is happening in May.

Time for a history lesson...

In a first past the post two parties will always dominate. Doesn't matter what names or their policies are, but a 3rd party always has math against it.

Oddly enough the two oldest democracies that are still around today went with FFP because voting had never really been tried before (UK and the USA) while the more newer ones have gone with other forms such as proportional representation (like Germany and Israel). This was that as new countries were being formed or overthrowing their old monarchies, they realized that the FFP was flawed in someways as they could see how it was in the countries that had it (usually looking at the UK) and being more modern times (1890 through 1950s) they went with PR, IRV or STV (single transferable vote) in which 3rd parties get a greater voice in government and the change of a 3rd party actually becoming a 1st or 2nd party is greater (like the German Greens or the Israeli lukid).

So if you want change... Real change with 3rd parties, you need to change the constitution. Of course the vested parties won't really be too keen on that but from my understanding a few states passed STV last year in some local elections so you'll start seeing 3rd parties on grassroots levels in some places.

For more info: http://www.fairvote.org/