I think you are a little bit confused about this. If a person committed a crime he is not innocent no matter if this was proven or not. Just because his innocence or non-innocence is not known, he doesn't become magically innocent. The same way a criminal does not magically change his state from innocent to non-innocent just because a judge read his verdict. This is why people are presumed innocent - to avoid hardship for the suspect who are indeed innocent. However, since fumbling in their mouth with a cotton swap can hardly account of "hardship" taking their DNA is a reasonable measure, in particular since it helps fighting crimes.

So you say. But I found that a sledgehammer works for cracking any system.

I can control my Apple computer by talking to it, so where is the innovation ?

You can indeed take the literal meaning as a fundamentalist. The gates of Jerusalem (don't know if other cities, too...) were closed during nighttime for obvious reasons. If a traveller wanted to enter the city, he had to pass trough a small door in the gate called "eye of the needle". You could get a camel through this door by making it kneel down and somehow crawl through this gate. I'm not sure how this worked exactly, as I'm no camel expert. But the key point is: the literal meaning of the statements says the ricks suckers can get into heaven, but it's fucking hard. Fundamentalists can and will agree to this.

And even he doesn't cover all the problems; for example, as everyone with the slightest clue about spam has known for years, responding to the spammer in any way is absolutely idiotic.

Really, mr. expert?

I guess when I caused an SMS spammer to stop by spamming their phone back from ICQ accounts, I just dreamed it up, then.

"Slightest clue", "has known for years"... bleh. You go get a clue.

You really have no idea what a symbiotic relationship is. "Helpless without a specific entity" is quite different from "needing assistance." The point is that a fetus is NOT its own entity until it can survive outside of its mother. After that, it's no longer symbiotic. Though babies are certainly quite helpless, the care need not come from a specific person.

Furthermore, where the fuck do you derive "crippled persons should be sacrificed" from "fetuses are not their own entity?" These are two completely different and unrelated statements. You're right that the first one makes no sense. You're wrong that this has anything to do with the abortion debate.

Incidentally, if a crippled person WANTED to be "sacrificed," I believe he should be given the same options -- and counseling -- as a potential mother seeking abortion. I think it's fucking COLD that we force the crippled to burden their families and insurers if they don't want to be. It's why I have a "living will" saying KILL my ass.

Though, with all the snow we've been having lately, she should have started shoveling half an hour earlier than she did, which would have given her plenty of time to warm up the car.

Also, I find I can save a lot of money if I have the wife bring drinks and snacks into the theater under her skirt or dress.

You certainly would have been within your rights to ask the ushers to eject the rude patron with the cell phone, as well as the baby daddy and mommy.

Yet another article for the buzzword-speakin' casemod-worshippin' neon light kit-purchasin' software-stealin' non-computer scientists.