Well, I do believe that Emacs has C-x M-c M-fixcat, but if you're looking for veterinary software specifically, instead of a PUSS (Primordial Universal Sapience Simulator), VIA appears to come highly recommended--at least by their marketing materials.

On the other hand, you might want to drop the SOAP.

It's late. I should probably sleep.

Hats off to you! Holy shit, you managed to do the impossible. Folks, get out your checkbooks! I won't get into the middle of the AGW debate itself, but rather your huge gaping logical error:

First, you state that the effects are "almost surely completely unpredictable". Then you make a prediction, drawing the conclusion that the effects are "quite likely insignificant". For fucks sake, if you don't have a model with good predictive power, you certainly can't draw any "quite likely" conclusions. Your proper response should have been that "the effects are unknown" if no model exists with good predictive power.

All of these words need entries:

You're not under arrest. You're being detained. Russia or the US?

Target. (You're not being targeted, you're just being incidentally collected.)

War. (When did Congress declare the last one?)

I managed to miss that in the news, but it's absolutely a load of bullshit and it needs to go. Just in case anyone else missed it like I did:

From NDR:

From NDR:

Oh, and a sample of the rules. Do you read Linux Journal?

// START_DEFINITION /*
These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by
extremists on extremist forums.
*/

$TAILS_terms=word('tails' or 'Amnesiac Incognito Live System') and word('linux'
or ' USB ' or ' CD ' or 'secure desktop' or ' IRC ' or 'truecrypt' or ' tor ');
$TAILS_websites=('tails.boum.org/') or ('linuxjournal.com/content/linux*'); // END_DEFINITION // START_DEFINITION /*
This fingerprint identifies users searching for the TAILs (The Amnesic
Incognito Live System) software program, viewing documents relating to TAILs,
or viewing websites that detail TAILs.
*/
fingerprint('ct_mo/TAILS')=
fingerprint('documents/comsec/tails_doc') or web_search($TAILS_terms) or
url($TAILS_websites) or html_title($TAILS_websites); // END_DEFINITION

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting about the Post, Bezos, the CIA, and the NSA ("CARRIER LOST..." Now that that's out of our system, let's continue.) in relation to each other and over what turf, but they're saying "not nice" things about the NSA in 24kt gold words.

With their track record? Care? Scrupulous care? Insert incredulity here.

For bonus points, try searching that page for the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful'. You will not find it. Words containing 'legal' appear only twice. The use of 'lawful' occurs once, in 'lawfully', where they claim:

So, they don't lawfully qualify as being targeted. So it's not actually targeting is what they're arguing. (Also, a load of BS.)

Your assignment is a load of BS. A PR spin piece can say lots of things, but the headline and the top of the fold is where most readers stop. Anything more than a quick skim is unlikely--and you are prime evidence of that. You didn't even get TFH. Even worse, you didn't read the first sentence.

Now, that word... explicit. I don't think it means what you think it means. Did you mean IMPLICIT?

It says that ordinary internet users (Americans and others) outnumber legally targeted foreigners. At no point does that sentence explicitly state that Americans were targeted illegally. It merely says that ordinary users outnumber "legally targeted foreigners". It DOES NOT state that collection was considered to be illegal for Americans. You can infer that all target collection on foreigners that was not legal was illegal, but it doesn't state whether or not Americans having their data collected was illegal.

What you're doing is making an inference from something implied by that statement.

Now shut the fuck up and go away already until you learn to read. FFS...

You mean to say you didn't read the headline--which was the first reference of only two. That's some real close reading there.

You're agreeing with me. Note how I put "untargeted" in quotes...

We have two? I only see one from here...

The amount of spin applied to the article is incredible. It reads like a propaganda piece designed to have snippets quoted out of context. Good soundbites.

Which appears to imply that we only target foreigners... Since Americans are "untargeted" they don't deserve a mention.

And then they never balance out that "At one level" until three paragraphs later.

Then, they spend most of the article on a fucking fluff piece about the content of some romantic messages. What the fuck is this shit?

PR spin piece, through and through. They managed to ruin an actual news story.

I've used my tools to open my own vehicle and had the police stop to check it out. A quick explanation, hand over my ID, and they go on their way. Not a hassle at all. Same thing for friends. If they lock their keys in the vehicle, I can open it, with them present, and prepared to give the ID to the cops to prove ownership.

The reality is that around here, you're not getting charged with possession of burglarious instruments unless you're misusing them. Being able to quickly open your own vehicle or that of a friend, instead of waiting for AAA, is really useful. You should also check out locksport--TOOOL is active in Mass. and there are other smaller locksport meetups.

Bullshit. Locksmithing tools are state by state. In MA, I can, and do, freely carry lockpicks, no license required. Now fuck off and die, you idiot. Or at least, don't spread false BS.

I wish I had mod points for this one. +1 Interesting/Insightful.