Okay, maybe I use it too much to see it, but what's complicated about Emacs? There are like a half dozen things to learn, then you can navigate through the entire thing and do just about anything.

In comparison, Visual Studio is a never-ending maze of menus, toolbars, and dialog boxes.

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine this happening. First, even the densest idiot realizes multiple people can have the same name. Unless you work for a literal retard, I don't think you'd have a problem.

And besides that, getting a DUI fucks up your life a lot more than getting your name posted to twitter. Little things like having your license revoked, getting thrown in jail, and spending a bunch of time in court. Again, unless you work for a retard, your driving into work should tip them off that it wasn't you.

Worst case scenario is your boss says "I see you got a DUI" (as if he's following that twitter account, lol), then you whip out your license and prove him wrong. Maybe a 30 second inconvenience.

How can people on Slashdot be so fucking dumb? If Comcast wanted to sell your name to the RIAA or MPAA, they already have all the information they need. Hell, they could hand over your credit card number, if they wanted to.

Yeah, Comcast sucks, but use your fucking brains, people.

It's not like they had a revenue stream before. Bandwidth is their only cost, and with a fraction of the traffic, their costs are going to plummet.

Besides, even if they go broke, they'll still be better off than if they had to pay a 5 million euro fine.

On a side note, where are all the "But I only use torrents for legal stuff" people? From the impression people like to give most of the time, only listing legal torrents should be a huge plus. LOL!

Who cares? If he enjoys killing himself with cigarettes, it's his business. He's not hurting anybody but himself.

Why are some people so obsessed with controlling other people's lives?

Won't this just push more people to bit-torrent? I'm not one to promote torrenting movies, but this seems pretty obvious - the only legal copies will be more expensive, and there will be DVD rips on the torrent sites because the movie is out for sale...

No, it's not unfortunate. When I give money to a corporation in exchange for a product, my expectations for the money I end there. I get the item I paid for, and they get the money. If they want to spend the money on hookers and blow, I don't give a shit. There's no expectation that they'll spend the money in any particular way. It's a completely voluntary transaction.

That's not the case with the government. The government isn't selling a product. Taxes aren't voluntary. There's an expectation that tax money will be spent in a way that benefits everybody. That's the only reason we allow the government to take the money from us in the first place.

When a corporation spends money foolishly you can shop somewhere else or quit or whatever. When the government does it you're just screwed.

Stop having so many wars... they're expensive! Iraq and Afghanistan, ~$150 billion a year. How many bullet train systems could you buy?

Not to justify the war in Iraq, but $150 billion a year isn't shit compared to the $2 trillion the government's spent on bailouts in the last year. Even going by the (likely biased) http://costofwar.com/, that's twice the amount spent on the entire Iraq and Afgahnistan wars. And that's just one year.

The point is, you can't just point out one thing and say, "It's because of that." The government's spending crazy amounts of money all over the place, on a TON of shit that it shouldn't be spending money on. I'm kinda surprised we keep voting in these morons. First Bush, now Obama. I'm almost scared to think about who's gonna be next.

Instead of that, how about making sure that smokers don't smoke when there are non-smokers nearby?

WTF do you people do? "Hey, look! A smoker! Let's go stand next to him!" Do you really encounter enough people smoking on a daily basis that you feel it's negatively impacting your health?

The majority of smokers I've known are always careful to ask before they light up. If you haven't found that to be the case, maybe your real problem is hanging around with assholes?

Smokers right to smoke should end where non-smokers lungs begin. Yes, that would mean banning smoking in public places.

Yes, and your right to talk should end where my ears begin. Maybe we can ban cell phones and conversation in public while we're at it.

So, my new neighbours are heavy smokers. The prevailing winds blow their smoke straight into my house. Given your maxim that nobody should be able to tell anyone else how to live their life - so I can't dicate they give up smoking and they can't dictate I install air filters or a giant windbreak or move elsewhere - what solution does the wise prince propose that still lets my family have clean air?

So, you can think of a bunch of solutions, you just don't want to do any of them. And although you should be able to do whatever you want, your neighbor should obey your every command? That's what your saying, right?

Tolerating people who do things you don't like is part of living in society. If that's really so terrible you can always move out to the middle of nowhere where you won't have to deal with it

That's incredibly hard to do, considering the average smoker is either an inconsiderate prick...

Gee, I just don't understand why they would be mean to you. Usually, "Excuse me, you inconsiderate prick,..." is such a good way to start conversations.

The other impact on everyone else is on the medical system - public money is spent to support someone, even if they have smoked - why should my tax dollars be wasted on helping people who are so incredibly stupid?

I agree with you completely. The government shouldn't provide health care. That's especially true for smokers - they know the consequences of the choices they make, and they chose to do it anyway. Fuck 'em.

It's not surprising that someone arguing in favor of smoking is having a hard time understanding that smoking doesn't impact ONLY the smoker. Sure is disappointing, though.

First, I'm not arguing for or against smoking. I'm arguing against you (or anybody else) being able to tell somebody how they live their life. It's none of your business.

Second, the "smoking doesn't impact only the smoker" argument is bullshit. Especially when you're not arguing to outlaw smoking, but only to tax them.

Sure is disappointing you couldn't figure this out: the simplest way to avoid second hand smoke is to not hang around people who are smoking. Problem solved.

If I had my way, they wouldn't. Every cent earned on cigarette taxes would go towards a public anti-smoking campaign. If drugs were legalized and taxed, all the money made from the taxes would also go towards a public anti-drug campaign.

Next up, we legalize gay marriage, tax it, and spend the revenue on a public anti-homosexuality campaign.

Seriously, why can't people just mind their own business?

Actually, a few hundred million is chump change.

Then give back my tax money and pay for it yourself.

Money spent on saving the planet is money well spent.

According to you. There's a long list of things more important to me than giving money to a car company. Again, if you want to pay for it, go ahead, but leave my money alone.

The cost effective thing to do when running Linux is to buy a machine with a 64-bit processor, as much memory as you need and not worry about it.

I've been running 64-bit Debian for years now, using all 8 GB of my ram, and except for the increased speed of running in 64-bit mode, it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between 64-bit and 32-bit Linux installations. Hell, I can even use Wine to run 32-bit Windows apps.

The tards in Windows land are the only people getting all butt-hurt about 64-bit any more. Everybody else seems to have figured it out by now.