"However, I submit that it's not false witness if the editing was not manipulative or intended to be misleading,"

But it was. So you're a liar, a fraud, and if you're a "christian", we can just admit all christians are liars and worthless frauds.

Well, your ku-klux brethren commenting anonymously all around here have pretty much shown us that you have no moral basis to stand on and your "christian 10 commandments" banning you from lying aren't something you follow.

So excuse me if I don't take your falsehoods here any more seriously than I do theirs. "Christians", feh.... liars, scammers, and delusional frauds.

Shouldn't the study explain to /. readers what sex is rather than confusing them?

This is how Crony Capitalism works. As long as you pay either to candidate campaigns or in fines, there are favors to be had at the Washington D.C. Bazaar. Government only goes after the little people and companies because they don't pay up.

Nicely done on multiple counts. Welcome to /., home of the anecdote extrapolated globally.

Would the savings you anticipate by remaining paper based remain when: 1. The document has to be retrieved from the "warehouse" and a file cataloging system must be maintained to ensure its whereabouts remain known? 2. What are compliance costs/fines or other undesirable consequences if the document can't be retrieved? 3. The "warehouse" is destroyed by fire and the sole original goes up in smoke? 4. You have to maintain duplicates of paper originals in digital or analog form in geographically disparate locations to avoid scenarios 2 & 3? 5. What happens to the paper documents when their business usefulness or legal retention requirements are met? Are there costs for destruction/removal?

When do you plan to stop beating your wife/significant other/anime collection?

Heh, nice on topic nick. So you were the idiot weaving on the highway last night? Reductio ad absurdum

I didn't propose your straw man, you did.

Shooting police is a bad career move if you reside in a nation of laws. No doubt they'd stick to easier prey and send the crime rates back up to the days when the criminal justice system didn't understand recidivism and that career criminals commit most crime. In Mexico, they send the Army to quell violence.

I concur that having that rate of incarceration is not optimal. Any sane person desires less criminal activity. What's your suggestion for lowering it without having them commit new crimes?

No doubt Mexico achieves this admirable statistic by ensuring they house their criminals *outside* of prisons. These upstanding citizens use the freedom you've described to shoot police execution style, sometimes going north of the border for variety. What a country!

Indeed. Why can't we be more like Mexico in every way?

Wow.

This is the first time I've seen an honest and thought-provoking post get a nasty downmod stream like that.

I wonder how many gay activists got mod points and went "OMG SOMEONE TOLD THE TRUTH STOP THEM" tonight?

Actually, the problem is that "being gay" is really a choice, but only a few ultra-honest gays will actually admit that.

Whether that choice is something that society wants to promote and give benefits to (e.g. preferential treatment, tax benefits, etc) is a matter of serious debate in the US and in Europe, not so much in other countries around the world (for instance, go to a Muslim country and you're likely to be thrown in jail just for discussing it in public).

Pro-homosexuality advocates want to claim it's not a choice. They want to claim it's "inherent" because if it is, then they can claim to be a "protected class." If it's a choice, then they don't get to be a protected class any more than someone who makes bad lifestyle choices and becomes obese.

Since it is a choice, there are a large number of parents that don't want their kids recruited to. They don't want their kids told at school "this is an acceptable choice" any more than they'd be okay with their kids being told that being a drug user is an acceptable choice, or being a homeless drunk bum is an "acceptable lifestyle choice", or any other of a thousand things that are "lifestyle choices" that are not very good and not something the majority of society wants to see promoted. And these people have as much right as any other Amazon user to complain when they see what they view as inappropriate material being promoted.

Do I think Amazon was responding to genuine complaints about these books coming up in unrelated searches? Definitely. Do I then think that the usual pro-homosexuality groups pitched a fit and tried to raise a stink? Absolutely. Do I think Amazon was caught in the middle of a crappy culture-war style situation? That's an easy bet to take.

Ask yourself a simple question: if homosexuality were not a choice, why are the two most common insults directed at anyone who is against public promotion of homosexuality "well you must be in the closet" and "you must be afraid you'll try it and like it"? The mask slips just a tad too often, showing that the "it's not a choice" propaganda is pure lies.

No shit.

If you've ever listened to NPR, they're further left than the rabid frothing Keith Olbermann.

That's what you get for your tax dollars, folks - something that's not even CLOSE to honest or middle of the road.

I'd trust this story a whole lot more if Slashdot had quoted the actual newspaper article rather than the frothing partisan political hackblogger's "report."