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.