Can they add a "blatant politically motivated lie" tag while they're at it?
Let me get this straight: "It's just our genetic make-up" - the genetic makeup of normal, healthy human beings - to be "driven to breed well below the age of consent" and to have "natural urges [to] look at a child with feelings of lust".
Furthermore, one of the two types of child molester - specifically, the type that isn't mentally ill - "are just normal, otherwise healthy people who have a natural attraction to pubescent children below the age of consent" - just like everybody else!
But unlike other normal, healthy people, who are somehow able to "restrain themselves", the non mentally ill type of child molester just is not very good at repressing those "natural urges". Sadly, this leads to them being "incorrectly labelled paedophiles".
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you're the other type.
I'd like to agree with you, but half the people I know think the current President, who was elected twice by "we the people", should be prosecuted for treason because basically "I don't like him".
Love it! Understand about the layout, that stuff is hard to get right. It might possibly help to go to a 2-line layout. Maybe upsize the star / flag and use as background. You might consider adding an All-Seeing Eye logo for visual balance and as an attention-getter. Anyway, it's cool that you're taking the time to make these. It may not be an actual campaign, but it's important to get the word out.
Love it! I can just picture 2000 freak-mobiles rolling out of Burning Man with those plastered on the bumper. Do think about doing some Snowden / Binney ones too, though - for the reason you mention.
That would make a *great* bumper sticker.
Sounds interesting. Will be on the lookout for it.
MPW - that brings back some good memories. What a great development environment. Crunchy CLI-based power and scriptability wrapped in chewy GUI editing and ease-of-use. I miss using that every day.
Sounds great - after all, it's to server me better! I'll just go ahead and assume that insurance companies have no interest at all in finding ways to charge me more money while adding to the list of pre-existing conditions they don't have to cover.
I didn't know it was possible to stuff that many conservative hot-button phrases into such a small amount of text. "I don't care if the world's getting hotter, just end the subsidies and get the government out of my way so I can get rich, you damned Oreos, I mean Watermelons." Beautiful. *Slow clap*.
I know how this story turns out...
Thanks for that link. It was quite informative after a little additional Googling.
So, Mozilla's CTO / VP for Mobile says that the reason they're implementing DRM in Firefox is that the W3C has enshrined it in a standard, Google and Microsoft are already shipping it, and "not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM" like Netflix, Amazon Video, and Hulu.
In completely unrelated news, Mozilla's business partner Telefonica (TEF) of Spain, which makes FirefoxOS cell phones and either owns or partners with Brazil's iMusica DRM / content streaming business, requested that Open Mobile Alliance Forward Lock DRM be included in FirefoxOS, because their users can't download OMA DRM Forward Lock-protected ringtones, music, and wallpapers without it. The implementation for this is basically in approvals now.
Some people might find this relevant to the discussion. Now, this is evidently both a different technology (OMA DRM Forward Link vs W3C EME) and a different product (FirefoxOS vs Firefox Web browser). But it's the same company (Mozilla), and a group that has no issues with adding DRM to one product may have fewer issues about adding it to another.
Does anyone else see anything odd about the search results for this story?
I Googled "heartbleed" around 15 minutes ago and looked through 13 pages of results. I was looking for some info a little on the hardcore side, and the Google results were kind of surprising. There were tons of big well-known sites at the very top of the list - Fox, CNN, BBC News, Reuters and Forbes, etc; then a whole lot of mainstream "tech news" sites (PC World, ZDNet and so on) and blogs (HuffPo for example), then finally some more tech oriented or actual tech ones (YCombinator, Netcraft, StackOverflow) with a tiny sprinkling of blogs and relevant support forums (Cisco). US-CERT's listing was down on page 3 or so and honestly there just were not that many "hardcore" sites to be seen.
Running the search again after clearing cookies, the layout has changed a lot. The big news sites hits have slid way down (Fox News is on p. 3 now, for instance) with tech news and blogs moving up. All in all, the harder tech sites are floating upward and the less so are moving down. It's like the lava lamp version of a security scare.
Wondered what other Slashdotters think, it just seems a bit... strange, somehow. Don't these things usually bubble around in the tech community for a bit before surfacing in the mainstream world? It's like every big news site on the planet picked it up simultaneously, followed by the mainstream tech news site, and finally it began to filter down into the tech world. Could just be an artifact of Google's update cycle, but it definitely piqued my curiosity.