The personality traits that make someone enter a personality contest to be one of less than 600 people who can determine the direction of the mist powerful empire coincide with those which underpin amoral choices.

I started typing because I really didn't care, but now I realize these are the least desirable candidates.

Once in office, however, personal choices validate their election, at least according to the current electoral system.
They immediately lose credence as a candidate, but gain as a duly elected leader. It remains irrelevant.

The levels of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in conservatives who fell from grace cannot be healthy. Especially when their career and marriage ends publicly. Does that not qualify as pathological?

Win-p-u starts ultra edit.
Win-d starts my custom app
Win+d- I enter starts Ida pro

I have plenty of programs that start with 3 keys or less, and I like it that way. Fast access goes in start menu, infrequent usage that needs to be findable goes on desktop.

I am not typing an application name and getting 15 documents and emails in the list, because that is not helpful

  I am a keyboard jockey, I can get things done quickly. And I do not need a touch interface between me and my goals.

The entire metro UI is merging Xbox and mobile onto the desktop. For most users, once you get past the learning curve It's fine. But the people who do serious work need a place to get that work done.

Firefox is ported, therefore you don't need source for it, either. And ie runs on wine, so mission accomplished?

The only person who has real standing is dead, so it doesn't have to hold up.

And if you enter a contract that terminates when you do, suicide is probably not the best follow-up act. Lesson learned, check the small print.

With that logic, they would be hosting child rape fantasies, calls for assassination on named targets, and all manner of things that, while speech, violate the TOS. And more importantly put them in legal crosshairs.

And I don't think it has been tested, but killing yourself may take you out of having rights to vote, from searches since officials have to verify cause of death, and probably speech.

And his license said anyone could do anything with it. Yahoo did exactly that.

While generally true, how is that observation relevant here?

Google does not need to pay people 1/5 of their salaries to hack on random projects whetheir offerings are mature, and between android and chromebook they have plenty of actual development on real products.

They are unlikely to die from this, and if they need to it is easily reinstated.

Knee jerk much?

with the exception of some of the Alzheimer stuff he mentioned every thing he described is treatable

That makes me feel bad for the dude. You mean he didn't actually have any reason to off himself? You could have told him that, I'm sure he would have listened to reason in his highly emotional state of mind.

Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo?

Because it's not censorship.

And the idea that a corporation with shareholders should in some way show compassion, you're cute.

Yahoo should have considered the negative publicity, proving that pre-paid means nothing after death. More likely they have legal advice that keeping a site which will be cited as a suicide advocate is more expensive in the long term than lost revenue.

It doesn't matter that the site is a personal opinion and as neutral as it can be while still explaining. If a ridiculous court case popped up, Yahoo would have to defend itself with no way to either pass the blame onto the guy, or at least have him explain that it was not an advocacy position. Because he's dead.

And that is the important bit. If Yahoo had found out about this while he was alive, he would have been able to switch providers, and probably ask for a refund. But it was not an actual suicide note until he did it, so it could have qualified as fantasy or even therapy.

When the dude bit it, it became reality, and business hates ties to reality when it could point to legal issues later. Kind of a catch-22 where it doesn't bother Yahoo until it's too late to talk to the dude about it.

But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.

Better quality of life is the whole point of treating aging. Longevity will probably be a nice benefit.

If we keep bodies healthy until they expire, they can enjoy old age without the health issues.

And no one will be forced treatment, so you can still suffer frailty and restriction if you want.

The whole point is you are an outlier. Politics is all about mobilizing an uninformed yet passionate base. The more ignorant and irrational the better.

And nowhere near enough reasonable people to make a dent.

The two party system is the ultimate stasis point. There is always someone to demonize, and always someone on your side. You can hate a person and live their party due to normal turnover. The ultimate straw man to draw attacks without real harm.

And the few reasonable and intelligent people are irrelevant.

For a first time office, that is impossible. The president has different responsibilities from a legislator. That makes their responses different. New information, New advisors, and the candidate ceases to exist.

So it really only works for reelection, and then the evil you know may be better than the one you don't.

There is an entire field called Risk Communication to find ways of explaining this to people. RC consultants are needed again and again to explain, in all facets of life, how to determine risk without using fear and bad data.

Logic does not help. Data does not help. You need to get an entire country to a risk seminar and understand what their brain is doing to them first. While factual, this is actually the worst way to convert people's beliefs.

Don't be surprised when you, and everyone else preaching the same message, fail to make progress.

I leave plastic out, it becomes brittle and breaks. Are you suggesting it is more durable than it is when exposed to ultraviolet?

Or did you focus is a single word and use it to post a knee jerk response that, while it may be true, is unrelated?

And, outside of laws, some companies do sell a green message, and provide products intended to degrade more quickly. Are those not within the scope of discussions?

The sort of encryption needed was illegal to export from the USA during most of that time. And USA was driving or pushing adoption of the internet, the web, the browser, email, AOL keywords...

Business made a concerted effort to make putting credit card info into a website look secure. But no one ever questioned if putting their mails to friends and relatives required the same protection.

No demand meant early providers of paid services and clients did not put effort into encryption. Then people grew up in that world, and it seems normal.

Now, encrypted mail is reported with news of terrosts and pedo rings and drug cartels, so it is not just "not normal" - it is "abnormal" to encrypt.

Assuming your question wasn't rhetoric, I hope that helps.