We never did get to see any photographs of her jail cell. I wanted to see how fabulously it was decorated using only prison supplies.

I think she's got an old shiv she can sharpen up for the fight.

I doubt this is the case here, he undoubtedly knew what he was doing and had complete control over it.

However hypothetically if someone has no knowledge of what they did we already have precedent for that case: confine to a mental health institute. The idea here is that the mental health institute is not a punishment but serves a dual purpose of attempting to treat the problem while keeping someone who is a danger to the public away from the public.

Why should he be treated differently than someone without autism? Assuming he's not just making up that to try and get a lenient sentence. Do you also worry about other criminals who lose chances of geting legal employment in the future? If you want him to get treatment, what do you mean by that? Anti-extortion pills, anti-sexual-predator pills, or do you think that treatment for autism would cure him of criminal tendencies and absolve him of his past crimes?

Autism has nothing to do with this crime, it is not an excuse for it. Now maybe he's also got a psychopathic tendency or lack of empathy or something like that, but none of that is an excuse either.

Remember a few years back before ACA when everyone was bitching about rising costs of medical and were accusing the health insurers of making excess profits? Now we have a law trying to rein them in and eventually lower costs, with provisions to stop the worst practices, and now people actually are defending the health insurers!

(sorry, I think the current politically correct terms for health insurers are "job creators" and "private enterprise")

Nonsense. Reagan is a liberal commie compared to these new congresscritters endorsed by the tea partiers.

I don't think they necessarily feel the fear of being unable to repeal it in the future. I think they're only using it as the current scare tactic to get votes. If it gets entrenched then they'll get another topic to get the fan base worked up over.

Two hours for an X-Ray sounds short for the US. Note that all those people who can't afford health care wait until they're really sick and then the clog up the emergency rooms. Which means that if you have a broken bone you sit and wait while the person next to you is coughing from the flu.

Also you'll be able to get care for that back in the future. In the US this won't happen if you can't afford insurance, you'll get emergency care only followed by a string of bill collectors calling to threaten you. The US system only works so far as you've got stable employment at a medium sized company or larger. If you're a food services worker then forget it, you will probalby never be offered health insurance or be able to afford it and just have to hope that your spouse gets insurance on the job.

Only if you can afford the FREEDOMS.

If only you guys didn't have snow and your surfing was better, I'd move up there.

Which would be fine, if only the sold the games for less than the amount of a comparable game that used physical media. Instead the brand new Steam games are every much as expensive as the competition.

It would also be nice of the Steam DRM was an option. Ie, use Steam when you download the game digitally, but don't use Steam if you purchased a game disk instead or want an alternative copy protection scheme.

I spend all day using a keyboard and mouse. Thus those are the controls I am most familiar with and work best with even in a game. Even this new controller I think won't get rid of the feeling that you're on a specialized and unfamiliar system meant for someone with different types of hands.

Strongly agree here. No one had formally licensed software as sharable code before this that I can think of. There were certainly some informal license wordings of course.

RMS started his free software stance because of the harm he saw that occured with Emacs and he wanted to prevent similar future harm. He didn't just come up with this out of the blue or for no reason.

The existing Unix port of Emacs from James Gosling has been shared, and Stallman and others had been modifying that to improve it to become the first GNU Emacs (such as adding a real Lisp instead of MockLisp as well as making it behave more like older Emacs). Then Gosling put a copyright on his Emacs and sold it to Unipress. Unipress then told Stallman to stop distributing his own Emacs because it now contained copyrighted code. So a marathon hacking session was done to rip out all the older code to sanitize it. And that was the impetus for the GPL.

Ie, older code for a product that had been customarily shared (no one person "invented" emacs, it was a highly collaborative and incremental product). Then one port of it was sold to a company and all the shared code that existed prior to that sale was now tainted and could not be distributed. This directly led to the core principle of the GPL that existing free code could not be made un-free. Also a very big reason why most people do not want people to release any source code that comes without a license included.

I'm not even a big fan of the GPL myself but I respect it. Maybe Stallman seems too idealistic or too paranoid to some people but the reasons for his stance are clear and reasonable.

The first public release of GNU Emacs was March 20, 1985, with the first widely distributed version available later that year (15.34).