So get the ad companies to serve the ads over HTTPS... I don't see the big deal.
The summary is talking about survey results, and uses both "male" and "female" equally, which are common language in surveys.
Please women -- we'd love to have more of you in our industry, but claiming gender insensitivity where there is none truly just makes men afraid to even interact with you, lest they be labelled misogynist and slammed all over social media.
Of course, we have miles to go when it comes to better respecting women in technology; but the article summary isn't one of them.
Please do -- Anaerin's mockup is SOOO much closer to what a Slashdot redesign should look like:
* 100% width
* Familiar green headings on comment's, which give Slashdot its distinctive "Slashdot" feel
* Possible to read nested comments
Although it still misses comment filtering, and the comments don't start until half-way down the page, it's a lot more promising than the current unusable-comment-section beta!
Define "right" and "left".
Just because Europe has fallen to the leftists doesn't mean that both of our parties are far right. From my perspective, both parties are identically far left!
I've had great speed on http://www.hotdrupal.com/ (no affiliation, just a satisfied customer). I use them for all my freelance clients. But I'm too cheap to use them for my own small sites.
Anybody want to chip in on some, and store on the cloud someplace?
My back-of-the-napkin calculations show that Google Cloud storage to be around $100k for the first year at 2.5Mbps * 30 channels * 365 days. I suppose if the tuner costs $225k, that's umm.. reasonable?
Too bad I can't mod you up past 5.
"as we know it" is an important caveat, since nuclear war, even if we blew every weapon up, wouldn't destroy human civilization. We could decimate a few major cities, but there'd be plenty of people and technology left.
We exploded over 500 devices in the atmosphere in the 50s and 60s, some of them far more powerful than those currently in the stockpile (which are typically 100-300kt these days). Nuclear winter was a hoax perpetuated by Sagan, a man I respect, but a man who seemed to have an irrational fear of nuclear things, which corrupted his integrity on those matters.
I don't think the TSA turned the trend around, it was the actions of the 9/11 hijackers themselves, who turned the standard advice of "comply with hijackers and wait it out" into "fuck that, swarm the fuckers and stand on their throat until they die".
None of them were actual grenades. The blog post says some were smoke grenades or flash bangs, which don't even look at all like the explody kind. Still wouldn't be fun to have a smoke grenade go off on a plane, but it's not a very credible hijacking threat.
And besides, I doubt even the threat of a grenade would get a hijacker far these days. 9/11 made planes pretty difficult to hijack on a mere threat.
I don't believe that's the case, at least not at many airports. I've read an article that says that air taxi service is getting popular because it does avoid TSA.
Branzburg v. Hayes which lead to one of the big supreme court rulings on this matter (striking down protections for press) was under Burger's court and was hardly a conservative bunch (the same court that gave us Roe v Wade).
The world isn't black and white, and those who would oppress you aren't limited to one side of the aisle.
One big point you miss is that to do otherwise basically assumes that silence=guilt. If you refuse to talk to the police, right now that's a protected right. If people didn't have 5th amendment protections, it would be a crime to refuse to be interviewed by the police about some crime you were suspected in, guilty or not. In the real world, people incriminate themselves all the time. It's the police's job to try to trick them into doing so. Confessions are the goal of police interviews with suspects. Giving police the power to threaten jail for merely not talking would pretty much allow them to jail anyone they wanted.
Historically, the 5th amendment is about something much larger and more sinister, the practice of using torture to extract forced confessions. This isn't necessarily some outlandish thing, it happens in more subtle ways every day. When the cops keep a junkie too stupid to lawyer up in an interview room for 12 hours, eventually they will say anything to get out of there, once the withdrawal really hits.
Regarding your other scenario, extending 5th amendment protections to third parties, there have been some limited cases of that, married couples for example. The idea behind there being a different standard for third parties is that a third party testimony is a lot more suspect than a confession from the suspect. The motivation to torture a confession out of a third party about some crime they weren't involved in is pretty low.