I'm trying to figure out when Fox News became a reliable news source. I was under the impression you only went to Fox News when you wanted to hear/see Right Wingers babbling like idiots, just the same for MSNBC for the Left.

Waist high snow *at least*.

I understand you have your commitments, but if you didn't, would it have been worthwhile given the difference in cost of living?

Or else...?

I'm pretty damn sure there's a fairly wide history of casual conversation not requiring footnotes. You know, among human beings. Also, primary research, opinions and soapbox ranting is perfectly fine in the real world. We're not living la vida Wikipedia and trying to write an encyclopedia here. We're nattering on about interesting, ephemeral topics.

I'll bet you're a blast at parties. "Hey, this is a pretty good beer." "Not NPOV! Citation needed!" Actually, having one guy become apoplectic in that manner at a party would be kind of fun to watch.

You're absolutely correct in the right context: my wife publishing a journal article has to provide citations. But Slashdot is not a academic journal, and is much closer to a bunch of people on a porch with a six pack. Social context: important!

It turned out to be "The Year of the Linux Smartphone", and it happened already. Also DVR and similar devices.

er, that's why they are getting ISPs to block the routes to the sites, rather than taking the sites down.

They already forced ISPs to do it for child porn, then the courts enforced blocks on "pirate" sites because the child porn filters proved that it was technically possible, next step (previously announced, due to come in soon) they are forcing every UK ISP to implement porn (_legal_ porn) filters.

And now it's "block stuff that isn't porn/child-porn/illegal-under-copyright-law, but we don't like it anyway". No surprise.

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid=14107454

And the punchline is we're still surprised every time the ratchet turns tighter. Every. Fucking. Time.

Having not seen it, I can't really be certain, but it would appear from other comments that have not been disputed that part of the movie mocks politicians. That would generally be considered political. It is said to include footage of "Stephen Colbert making fun of the NC legislators", which would seem, as it is a clip from a political comedy show, a fairly clear cut case of it being political.

Just because there are global warming documentaries that are falsely accused of being political does not mean that no movie about the subject can ever be made that is not political.

Of course, not having seen it, it could also be legitimate commentary on the news coverage. Or even a anti-global warming movie mocking Steven Colbert's style as typifying coverage. I have no idea -- and am comfortable saying that I don't know. But it is silly to say that no movie on the subject can be political in nature just because some are falsely accused, and from the clips that have been discussed, it does seem to, at least in part, lean toward that more political side of things.

Citations Please!
But to counter your argument with at least one of my own, Roundup Ready soybeans actually contain bacterial genes inserted via a cauliflower virus. No fish, no insect, or other animals. So while not exactly the same as cross breading, as that would mean there's a type of soybean that already produces the necessary proteins, it still is fairly close & almost as safe. Now the rest of the GMO producers' activities are atrocious, but at least their actual science isn't.
Just FYI, you could have said animals & covered both fish & insects. But I guess you missed that day in elementary science where they covered what's an animal or you are as ignorant of actual science as "creationists" are.

It seems that the filter is less aimed at general filtering of all websites & more towards just those that host the illicit images. The idea I got was that using these terms to search for images would return no results, but a general web search would still have results.
And since this is done by a set of companies, one would hope that politics would not come into play in how the list of terms is managed. But in this day & age, I highly doubt it.

The third annual Kong Off will run this Friday through Monday.

Lots of places to play even if you're not competing.

Denver, CO: The 1-Up (official Kong-off location)
New Hampshire: Funspot
Portland, OR: Ground Kontrol
Vegas: Pinball Hall of Fame (might not have Donkey Kong, but it sure is fun.)
SF Bay Area: Pacific Pinball and High Scores, and many more smaller spots.

Who's missing from this list? Where's your town's reboot of the vintage arcade?

Do you not believe in it, or are you, as you stated, just skeptical? That would make you an agnostic. It's true that agnostics don't have a belief system, as by definition they don't know what to believe. Atheists are another matter.

So completely wrong and people are modding this insightful?!?

A skeptic and an agnostic are not the same thing.
An agnostic is not defined anything like "they don't know what to believe".

An agnostic is one who thinks that it is not possible to know whether or not there is a god.
A gnostic thinks that it is possible to know whether or not there is a god.
Gnosticism speaks to what can be known, it doesn't say anything about belief.

So if you think it's impossible to know whether or not god exists, but choose to believe that he does, then you are an agnostic theist.
If you think that it is possible to know that (whether or not you actually do know) and choose not to believe, then you are a gnostic atheist.

The other two combinations are left as an exercise for the reader which I would suggest you actually do since you are this badly informed on the topic

  "As a defense mechanism, they attempt insults or ridicule, rather than engage in reasonable debate."

That's known as projection on your part.

I remember that. For whatever reason 3d0g would get me out of it. I was just a kid and had no idea what to do with the gibberish that the assembler would spit out at me. I just knew how to get out and back to my prompt.

CALL -151: Think "65536-151" - jump to $FF69, which was the monitor ROM entry point.

3D0G: 0x3D0, "Go": Run the code that DOS put at location $03D0. I believe it was a 4C BF 9D, as in, JMP $9DBF, which was the DOS 3.3 entry point/warm start routine.

Damn, I'm old. After a long and convoluted ride through the IT world, I got to retire early because I spent my early teenage years messing around with that sort of thing. It was pure luck that I got my hands on the right machine at the right time, developed a love of computing at a time when home computers were regarded as nothing more than means to store recipes (mom), do taxes (dad), or play games (kids).

Anyways. Thanks, Apple guyz, for putting a disassembler into ROM. It's only been in the past few years that I realized just how much of an impact that comparatively minor technical decision had on my life.

The latency of network access is higher than disk access; so doing more things at once as systemd permits will make a bigger difference than if you were just using local disks and /etc/passwd

I still think Reagan is worse.

He set us on this path, and a large percentage of the country still doesn't understand what a complete disaster he was. Hell, a lot of Repugs still think he was a great president.

I mean selling crack to American school kids to buy guns for Osama bin laden is only the tip of the iceberg.