385668

Not to be confused with FLCL (Gainax going insane).

Exactly, gen Y isn't choosing not to buy cars primarily out of concern for the environment, it's that cars are expensive to buy, expensive to maintain, and expensive to run.

As a gen Y person myself, I've also noticed that a lot of things I might potentially afford that are marketed toward me aren't worth buying. In my opinion, all three current gen game consoles have great technology and terrible games. Why buy fashionable clothes, the clothing I have works just as well, and doesn't cost hundreds of dollars? A new car? Why take out a loan on a car whose value goes drastically down the moment I sign the paperwork?

In an economy where I'm lucky to have a few hundred dollars after I pay my bills and eat for the month, I save most of that for the next time I get sick without health insurance, the computer breaks down, or my car stops running.

I say this as an admitted partisan, but I see Republicans say and do a lot of pretty awful things. They range from the stupid, which is what this tactic is, to the downright deranged, as when Michelle Bachmann said that should she lose the election, she hadn't ruled out violent overthrow of the US government. Call me blinded by my political beliefs, but I don't remember the last time a Democrat threatened violent revolution.

Similarly, I don't remember Democrats blowing up buildings of people they disagree with or going to Republican funerals to say what horrible people they were.

It is amazing what vision, a few hundred million dollars, and Chinese serf labor can do.

Living in the future is pretty awesome. I can't wait to see what even more future brings us.

And why convenience stores in Japan (and other places, I assume, though I haven't seen them) frequently sell the same kinds of merchandise as gas stations do in the US, but most don't sell gas because the margins are so small, the pedestrian market smaller, and real estate so expensive.

Repeatedly over the years. Media defender advertised DDOSing websites as a service to IP groups.

I can't speak for everyone, but when the US gov or the MPAA DDOS's a website they disagree with, I'm not angry because what they are doing is illegal, I'm angry about the hypocrisy in declaring something to be both legally and morally wrong, except when it serves their purposes.

I've read it several times and gave it a few minutes, and I've got nothing.

I think the most compelling argument made in this article is that a law that by it's nature is only going to do what it's supposed to if applied selectively is a bad law. The manga image posted in the article looks more like art to me, but in the US is probably CP, though it's hard to tell at this point.

The article also touches on a more widely applicable idea that we should all push for more evidence based law making. In this case, continually making harsher punishments for simple possession, disregarding any evidence that those punishments may in fact be detrimental to preventing child molestation. More widely, I think it should also be easily applied to internet piracy law and drug decriminalization to take the low hanging fruit of evidence free lawmaking.

I'd also like to say that I appreciate a politician actively making a choice to talk about an inflammatory topic, taking an unpopular position, and risking his career to stand up for what he believes. Whether you agree with his interpretation or not, that's something I'd like to see more of.

It is a net gain if you count the 800,000 jobs lost during his first month in office.

Hey, I realize this doesn't add much, but I'd like to thank everyone in this thread. I"m new here, but this is why I come to HN, people are disagreeing by citing sources and not yelling or being particularly acrimonious.

Yes, it happens fairly regularly. The concept of 'sexting' nude pictures of each other has become fairly ubiquitous in many places, and it happens semi regularly that a jilted ex will report to police about the existence of such photos, QED. It's happened in my state several times in the last year.

Not really, a plea bargain resulting in any punishment at all counts as a conviction for the prosecutor. A case like CP or cocaine possession which are in most jurisdictions basically straight liability crimes are very nearly guaranteed convictions. Plus, it never looks bad for a prosecutor to have convicted a child pornographer when it comes time to run for re-election. And not prosecuting such a case would lead to ads run against you saying that you're soft on child rapists.

Gotta love the irony in being charged as an adult for making child pornography of yourself.

And I'm a member of the tautology club because I'm a member of the tautology club.

If I find myself in possession of a cocaine brick that I did not ask for, I will indeed worry. The point that the article made (as a tangent, admittedly) in regards to cocaine possession is that, should that situation arise, I can't take my cocaine to the police without risking arrest myself, and that's absurd.

Actually, if he's got three convictions under his belt, that is pretty useful information, but I agree, seems like double jeopardy to me.

True, however, most prosecutors are trying to get high conviction rates, and don't care about the good to society.

Actually, the argument is that prostitution is illegal because it's immoral, and porn though effectively the same thing is also immoral but protected under the first amendment. Hiring a prostitute and recording it is legal so long as you intend to distribute it.

I'd consider paying a few bucks a month for an ad free non data mining facebook, but, that won't happen.

I would say that it shows evidence of the increasingly common trend of police officers frequently greeting citizens going about lawful activities with violence.

That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

I'd be much happier if it only kept records locally, or had the option. As creepy as... every social network has gotten, I want my privacy and anonymity back. As interesting, and potentially useful as this seems, I don't feel comfortable giving every detail of my life to a private third party to store "forever." I don't make committing crimes a habit or anything (copyright infringement not withstanding), but with the US government's position that anything you choose to store with a third party being accessible without a warrant, I'd prefer to store things locally.

And that the penalty for defaulting is even more money owed. Pay the loans, pay interest for most of your life on an education that frequently doesn't pay commensurately to a job in the field, assuming you can get one. Don't pay, eventually owe hundreds of thousands of dollars more than you did originally.

Have a spam filter that directs them to only be able to talk to other threatening/harassing users and let the problem solve itself?

That sounds like a good plan, I'll check back then. I had a facebook back in high school, but got creeped out by some of their privacy issues and deleted it, this sounds like kind of a neat idea, though.

Several friends of mine prefer to pay for their VPNs anonymously, they get two VPNs, pay with bitcoin, don't give their name to the VPNs, and tunnel one into the other for pretty much complete anonymity online, provided they don't do something stupid like log into facebook from the VPN.

I'll agree with you on that, but I think a good point was raised. As an inherently deflationary currency, particularly once the maximum number of bitcoins are created, wouldn't the natural thing for people believe it will eventually be incredibly valuable be to hoard them? I'm not saying that a deflationary currency cannot ever work, but with an inflationary currency, there is greater worth in spending one's money on goods or investments that will accrue worth at a greater rate than the inflation, no?

It's been attempted before, but that kind of thing is really hard to legislate effectively. At what point is something tangentially related? True, gun control and abortion bills should probably be kept separate, but what about closing the gun show loophole and also requiring conceal carry permits to have interviews? They're both about guns, but not the same issue relating to guns. It isn't really feasible, and even if it were, both parties like to pull the amend a bill to hell trick.