thwest

Another reason to license software not sell it.

Then realize you shouldn't define your life based on some digital records.

Someone capable of enthusiastic consent doesn't have their responsibility invalidated. Where did anyone say that? The important cases are where the consent is marginal -- either temporally separated from the act or given from a person who is borderline comatose. Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem.

Do you acknowledge that there is a level of drunk where you can still sort of walk and talk but all that is really happening is you on autopilot trying to find your bed or just anywhere to sleep? Imagine being in this state among many acquaintances both new and old (which are the typical assailants). Imagine trying to find the safety of a bed and upon half-hearing a friend's offer in a loud place, saying "yes I want to go to bed", and that being misinterpreted? Compare this to being drunk, and seeking out the danger of driving home.

(I deliberately chose The Cure because I only know men who listen to them. Yes, society's norms frame women as passive, but it also makes them actual victims of sexual assault at alarming rates.)

Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road.

The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).

The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example:

Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?" Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes" Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"

IBM has one for this: http://www.google.com/patents/US7630915

You generally can't boycott a particular producer of a commodity like oil.

Chevron doesn't have council in house?

What is "actual value" and how does it relate to subjective use-value? If people value the placebo effect, why is that bad? And if they value the effect, what is wrong with valuing the source of it? (The distinction between placebo and placebo effect stinks of Cartesian duality). Do you see meditation or talk therapy as placebos? Are we obligated to deny people self improvement that isn't a result of ingesting a chemical?

Alcoholics Anonymous has the same effectiveness as cold turkey and a few other sobriety methods (about 10% success). Are you suggesting that alcoholics should never attempt the AA program? Some solutions work for individual cases and are worth being explored on a personal basis.

This complaint is borderline non-sensical to me. Maybe Haskell is magic?

If ZeroMQ transported anything besides binary blobs, it would be marshaling objects or enforcing some kind of encoding to your data, which would dictate much more about your program. Are you upset that you had to use some Haskell.Vector to void* to Haskell.Vector code?

Are threads in Haskell not asynchronous by nature? Do you get synchronization for free somehow?

The dragnet interpretation really seems to be your own. The headline simply says "Americans'". There are no superfluous adjectives such as "massive" or "unprecedented scale" which could be intentionally vague.

Deliberately is a strong claim. Do you have some internal Mother Jones memo? Since you love to give the status quo the benefit of textual evidence, perhaps you could do the same for this article, and reiterate what you consider to be factually incorrect?

You also dismissed this article because document discovery is a normal procedure. The article discusses how the discovery burden is different for citizens and non-citizens, and how the wrong burden was applied as relates to the first amendment. Do you think it is not important for courts to correctly protect your rights as a citizen through the discovery process? Why would you so pithly dismiss the article otherwise?

Because I, as a voting US Citizen, believe we should extend a great deal of rights to non-citizens. Fourth amendment and due process in particular.

Are you referring to the need to use a timeout? http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2012/6/26/disconnects-are-good-for-y...

Different implementations of the same API yes. They are more or less tied to the compiler you use.

No technical reason, but all of the praise and success of Apple's lack of options certainly makes the case for business reasons.

Out of sight out of mind I guess. It doesn't really bother me that I fall out of daily touch with friends far away. A couple times a year I'll sit down and write them a letter (..email).

You've learned anything about the history of race relations and think "race" is a better word to describe that phenomenon than "lactose intolerant"? I'll be right back, going to inform my friends that because they aren't Chinese we can go get ice cream.

The distribution of genetic variants within and among human populations are impossible to describe succinctly because of the difficulty of defining a "population," the clinal nature of variation, and heterogeneity across the genome (Long and Kittles 2003). In general, however, an average of 85% of genetic variation exists within local populations, ~7% is between local populations within the same continent, and ~8% of variation occurs between large groups living on different continents,. (Lewontin 1972; Jorde et al. 2000a; Hinds et al. 2005) (Editied my previous post to reflect a single order of magnitude between 8% and 85%).

Thanks Wikipedia. Regarding being labelled racist, fine, everything gets labelled that. Even this post. I took your statement for something bit more meaningful than the cynic's "woe is the opinion of The Populous".

That's an incredibly cheap dismissal that's simply not true. There are plenty of books that look at those issues from a humanist perspective.

The Bell Curve is labeled racist because it is myopic about the existence and importance of race. Race is not a valid scientific categorization: it is not based on statistical grouping of DNA, or anything concrete other than "people used to be assholes to foreigners." There is an order of magnitude more genetic + cultural diversity among each race than there are between the races.

League has a lower skill cap, generally lower in complexity and mechanics.

>>> I turned off voice chat a while ago though,

Please please please please don't be That Guy. I encourage muting individuals who are annoying. But I use mic exclusively and how are we supposed to cooperate?

These players tend to stay in the low levels of matchmaking. In high and very high matchmaking, people are a lot more cooperative or criticize constructively. However, without playing ~500 games (~500 hours), you probably won't graduate from the low skill bracket.

Knowing that those people are out there, what you can do is be the moral leader. When the game starts, give the all-chat "good luck have fun" greeting, start discussing lane strategy, team strategy (push/turtlefarm/gank), etc. If you make a mistake, live up to it. The only time the trolls really ruin games is if everyone else is silent and lets the person continue ranting.

Learning to float above the trolls' guilt trips while still being able to admit your mistakes is an interesting emotional exercise.

Owning a firearm is an individual privilege. A well armed militia is a community right.

I completely appreciate that and am not automobile free myself! I just want 4 wheel solo travel to be the exception, and treated with constant caution.

Well, I'm curious what the numbers actually are. Either way about it, I agree we should fight for addicts. I've lost two dear people to alcohol, and I'm fighting for a third right now.

However, other than increased mental health care funding I struggle to imagine what governmental policy would have helped those I've lost. A sin tax would have done nothing for these people (hell, prohibition wouldn't have worked either).

Legislating 1 meter barriers between auto and bicycle traffic is incredibly simple compared to attempting to legislate the psycho-social forces of addiction. We don't have to limit our social change to legislation but that's the mindset from first reply was made in.

Drinking is a significant cause of death among non-addicts. Addicts are a small portion of consumers. Addicts are the exceptional case here.

Personal consumption is a completely different realm than dangerous systemic infrastructure decisions. I'll give someone the right to die fat and drunk on their own, but I absolutely abhor how our roads make murderers out of us.

No, this is not a joke. Having heavy motorized vehicles zooming around our urban landscape is incredibly dangerous and violent. Worse, the pilots are inattentive and feel entitled to the asphalt in front of them. Automobile worship has completely dominated city infrastructure, demanding that cyclists and pedestrians simply learn how to use a road designed for automobiles. Automobile worship has also reshaped how we've done city development, making it more difficult to do anything but drive.

They could always enter facts into the congressional records with impunity a la Ellsburg and Kucinich

Anonymous data is not.