I have two new stories nearly finished, but I've decided to see if I can sell first publication rights to a magazine. If everyone rejects them, I'll post them then. If one is accepted, it will likely be quite a while before I can post.
Keep em coming... Whatever they are my friend.
We'll not see their like again...
My kids even know Rick-Roll and Lime Cat. Hell, I saw Lime Cat in the 90's.
I thought cosmic rays trigger lightning.
Nope, cosmic rays created The Fantastic Four and many more: http://marvel.wikia.com/Catego...
Also a toon named Cosmic Ray: http://www.comicvine.com/cosmi...
Didn't seem to find any DC toons who's superpowers came from cosmic rays. I didn't look very hard though.
I'm not disappointed at all. Drones are so much better than actually invading Pakistan, and reduces the number of kids that get killed in war.
I never got the hate for drones in the first place. Why would you want to launch a ground invasion instead, which means MORE kids getting killed?
Sure, if you want to kill someone, you're right. I think the argument against drones is that if you push a button and someone dies on the other side of the Earth and you didn't have to go to war to do that
And since Pakistan refuses to own their Al Queda problem, we have to take care of it for them.
No, no we don't. You might say "Al Queda hit us now we must hunt them to the ends of the Earth" but it doesn't mean that diplomacy and sovereignty just get flushed down the toilet. Those country borders will still persist despite all your shiny new self-appointed world police officer badges. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If David Koresh had set off bombs in a Beijing subway and then drones lit up Waco like the fourth of July and most of the deaths were Branch Davidians, how would you personally feel about that? Likewise, if Al Queda is our problem and we do that, we start to get more problems. Now, that said, it's completely true that Pakistan's leadership has privately condoned these strikes while publicly lambasting the US but that's a whole different problem.
Also, we must always assume that war = killing kids. The fact that people think kids shouldn't be killed in war basically gives people more of an incentive to go to war in the first place. When Bush invaded Iraq, the public should have asked "OK, how many kids are we expected to kill?" Because all war means killing kids. There has never been a war without killing kids.
The worst people are the ones that romanticize war, by saying war is clean and happy and everyone shakes hands at the end. War is the worst, most horrible thing, and we need to make sure people understand that, or they'll continue to promote war.
Yep, think of the children -- that's why we should use drone strikes, right? Look, war means death. Death doesn't discriminate and neither does war. If you're hung up on it being okay to take a life the second that male turns 18, you're pretty much morally helpless anyway. War is bad. Drone strikes are bad. There's enough bad in there for them both to be bad. This isn't some false dichotomy where it's one or the other. It's only one or the other if you're hellbent on killing people.
News flash: you can argue against drone strikes and also be opposed to war at the same time. It does not logically follow that since you're against drone strikes, you're pro war and pro killing children. That's the most unsound and absurd flow of logic I've seen in quite some time.
I've only just turned 35 so am on the border of being a "millennial", but I thought that phrase referred to people around the 15-25 range who were teenagers around the 2000-2009 time frame. 34 seems a bit old... More like gen X or gen Y.
Generation X. The generation born by babyboomers, usually from 1970 to early 1980s. Teenagers in the late 80s and early 90s.
I think that what was shortly referred to as Gen Y are now millenials (Gen Y were those born too late to be Gen X).
True story, my babyboomer parents had me in the late 60's. So you can call me Generation X, but I'm more Billy Idol...
Wait. A person who made dubious claims that had no scientific backing to them was actually lying? What next? Water is wet?!!
I think pretty much everyone but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science knew all along that this woman was lying.
So you're saying everyone knew she was lying about her charity donations as well? Or was it only the charities that knew that? From the article:
The 26-year-old's popular recipe app, which costs $3.79, has been downloaded 300,000 times and is being developed as one of the first apps for the soon-to-be-released Apple Watch. Her debut cook book The Whole Pantry, published by Penguin in Australia last year, will soon hit shelves in the United States and Britain.
So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer? And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device? And that the people at Penguin did all their fact checking on any additional information this cookbook might contain about Belle Gibson's alleged cancer survival? And that everybody involved in these events know society's been parading around a fucking liar and rewarding her with cash money while she basically capitalizes on a horrendous disease that afflicts millions of people worldwide
No, this is not the same as "water is wet" and it needs to be shown that holistic medicine is temporarily propped up on a bed of anecdotal lies
I have one of those free Obama phones. It's a dumb phone, yes, and I get free minutes every month. Currently because of the plan I choose, I have over 5000 mins stacked up.
I'm guessing the google plan isn't for me, since I need a Nexus 6 and I have a crappy dumb fucking phone that sounds like shit.
I need a better phone.
Anyways, I like what google is doing here. If I didn't have a free phone and had a Nexus 6, I'd love to get on it. But alas, I don't.
It's called click bait. It keeps people like you coming to Slashdot and keep the site interesting (yes, this is a compliment).
Wow, someone has been drinking the New Slashdot Koolaid.
At this point, what difference does it make? If the Secretary of State can run her own email server at home, what does it matter how much money is spent on "cybersecurity"?
Wow, is this going to be what everyone brings up with Hillary? Sort of like everyone brings up Bill Clintons sex shit. You have nothing else, so you beat this horse to death?
If Hilliary is so bad, you do have other things to bring up other then someone running there own email server when the NSA is all up in everyones shit? Seems to me Hilliary was smart there, not dumb, not criminal.
Actually I've had Seagate, WD (I wrote an article about a WD drive about ten years ago, it will be in Random Scribblings), Maxtor, and others, and I haven't been disappointed with any of them.
Time to pass a bill state by state. I'm the sure the invisible hand of the free market will line all the right politicians' pockets to rush those through. Hopefully someday we won't be able to own our cars and we can go back to the Ma Bell days when every phone was rented.