This is an attempt to reduce fear, but it seems like a pretty sophomore effort.

They have enough money for really good PR, so I have to imagine there are... personalities interfering. Or maybe just one.

Going to be fun watching the hustling as they try to IPO with a CFO who says it won't work.

But if the whole concept of a confrontational negotiation over pay makes you feel queasy, you can do what I have done in the past.

Hand them your current pay-stub. Do NOT let them keep it, or copy it - I hope that goes without saying.

Then just say "Here's what I make now. Make me want to come here."

Worked pretty well.

That's an extremely short-term analysis.

Your red-pilled lawyer will soon have a reputation. They'll find their client pool shrinking, judges not giving them the benefit of the doubt, and other lawyers not referring work to them.

They'd better do a lot of slop cases quickly and hope the money lasts, because that strategy is going to tank their practice faster than they graduated law school.

"Incognito" has been redefined to mean "we'll pretend we don't know who you are."

More generally, if you're talking to a robot that runs on someone else's machine, you should not be surprised if the machine owner spies on you. Maybe it shouldn't work this way - I'd say it definitely shouldn't, and the big outfits acknowledge this by pretending it doesn't - but that's the world we live in.

The assumption should always be that these robots are front ends to Zuckerberg's & Google's user profiling systems. Your robot talk therapist or cofounder is trying to help Nestle and Ford manipulate you. And let's not forget LEOs and intelligence - we haven't heard much about how they're targeting this stuff yet. But they would be incompetent if they aren't.

The release date really isn't the right question to ask. The right question is - when was the last time someone bought a copy of this game expecting to be able to play it? Not every user bought theirs 10 years ago. If I bought mine last month I'd be pretty incensed.

If the company stopped selling it and removed all copies from stores 5 years ago, expecting to end of life it this year, that's one thing. If they have been continually offering it for sale and pull the plug on everyone arbitrarily, that's quite another.

If the latter is the case (NPI), then I think having a court decide is appropriate.

I'm an old man. I yell at systemd.

Agreed - especially in the area of autos. My wife's car is about where I think the sweet spot is. It has lane assist, with auto steering to stay in lane, and keeps a selectable min distance from the car in front. That's it. I only use it on the highway. And I think that is a great compromise - you have to keep your hands on the wheel, you don't have to really do much - you are just kind of going along with the car. But you are still there to take over if needed. And I disengage ["manual override engaged!"] if traffic gets really heavy, I enter a work zone, etc. Makes long trips a lot less tiring.

Seems about right to me.

I feel like we're stuck in a time loop with a a really screwed up read head.

I so, so very look forward to pissing on several graves. I'll happily be arrested in Arlington Cemetery, so long as they let me shake first.

The founding fathers knew English pretty well. If that had been their intent, the Second would have read:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [members of said Militia] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Since it does NOT say that, and says that Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, that is what they meant.

To address some of the other ideas you included - several countries require their armed forces, and equivalent to National Guard, to indeed keep their weapons at their homes.

And at the time the Amendment was written, private citizens owned cannons, and even entire small warships. There was no talk of limiting it to small arms (muskets) - because the idea of that seemed ludicrous at the time.

Please do some research - I am disappointed at the lack of perspective of someone with such a low UID. Sad!

No, it actually is illegal. Congressional approval is given through legislation. Legislation == written laws. No approval == no law allowing it == illegal.

"It enforces zero policy," Poettering said. "It leaves that up for other parts of the system."

"Calm down, stop being so jumpy. The explosives around your neck will not detonate. Unless I push this button."

LNG is not just used directly for energy.

It is an input to urea production. As in fertilizer. As in a major farming input.

So you can thank Mr. Peace President for you impending food bill, too.

Yes, the same dipshit that calls himself the peace president and minces around talking about redoing the drapes like a pantomime suburban housewife.

(Can you imagine what fun the press would have had with a President Hillary going on about the drapes?)

And then goes on to be a trashy asshole to the Japanese PM. Although that could "just" be dementia-driven disinhibition instead of intentional. And when he's gone, remember that this is what Republicans value - this incompetent, boorish, demented piece of trash. And why? Because he is hurting people they resent slightly more than he is hurting them, and they're willing to burn the constitution to do it.

Oh, that's not what they meant?

Nevermind, not interested.

Absolutely agree.

And you can rest easy knowing the US is currently crippling and isolating itself, so it will likely back off some of its nastier behavior over the long term. (Although the short term is turning out to be... interesting.)

But to be realistic you need to note US is not uniquely bad here. Nations have interests, not morals. If one ends up substantially more powerful than peers, it will throw its weight around. And the US, for all its faults and evils, has mostly promoted human rights and an expansion of political freedom. Its failures and hypocrisies there are many and awful, but I assure you a resurgent Russia or unfettered China would not be a better actor.