Meh, I keep mine on a floppies, and swap between aloud and bloud.

Except people routinely feel like they'd like to lie or sleep around, so why doesn't religious doctrine say, "go right ahead"?

The NRA folks are nuts? It's the gun grabbers who are calling to lock people away in jail for owning a rifle with scary parts, or for owning a sheet metal box with a spring in it.

None of the pro-gun folks want to send *you* to jail for being a douche, after all.

Why do you fear and hate your tax-paying, law-abiding neighbors so much that you want to see them spend hard time in jail for owning a gun?

Talk about projection.

Holy shit /. is fucking paranoid.

Not just convection, but blood flow. The human body is liquid cooled, which is an incredibly efficient way to regulate heat.

How many large content producers are going to restructure periodically to make false DMCA requests? All that paperwork costs money, so you just have to make fraudulent DMCA requests cost more than they're worth.

Many implementations don't give you ready access to the parent and siblings of a post. Also, it is naturally a tree, but often a thread of discussion is mostly a list, and implementations could often flatten those. But, point taken, most of those are not issues that require fundamentally reworking a tree, and they're all far better than the "wall of text" you get with a flat list.

He's got a point that many implementations make it hard to navigate the tree, but it's not like it's that hard to implement what he wants (find my replies, see original) and be able to collapse trees.

It's using the same user-based moderation that has sunk most other discussion forums. Like-minded people will overwhelm the discussion, and moderate up people they agree with. Nothing to see here, move along.

Not even enough power for Mildly Peeved Birds, Canadian edition.

How? It's a field with an overabundance of supply and not that much demand.

Sounds like a job for ... Too Much Coffee Man!

Exactly. If everyone agrees on it, what's the point of bringing it up in a debate?

Back in the day, "fact checking" was something a newspaper or such ran against their own product. Readers' Digest was famous for their fact checkers.

If they want to check a speech in real time, why don't they run it on their own reporting and opinion pages?

Going around piously checking everyone else's facts is more creating news than anything else.