pigDisgusting

I'm on the fence about those semantics. I think we're splitting hairs here.

Is there honestly a profound difference between the two? If prostitution were legal, yet regulated, failure to adhere to the proper regulations could still result in the same consequences for the cases that criminal policing targets anyway. Does legalization mean permissible with documentation?

What are the specific results of "decriminalization"? Does it simply mean that it's classified as a lesser misdemeanor, punishable by fines and community service, rather than felonies plea bargained to trespassing, that result in years in county lockup after repeat offenses? Or does it mean ordinance violations for things like disordely conduct, that do not accumulate as serious offenses on an individual's arrest record?

Does decriminalization mean that certain parts of town don't get policed as much on the weekends, and cops look the other way, when it comes to certain hotels and drinking establishments?

Does regulated legalization mean solicitation goes unreproached even in broad daylight on a sunday morning on main street, so long as you carry your laminated photo ID card on your person, while you loiter near the gas station?

Does legalization mean that johns experience zero repercussions for patronizing regulated whores, while decriminalization leaves johns open to petty offenses where they still cannot patronize under any circumstances, but if caught no jail time will result?

Because cell phones are discrete fashionable accessories that serve as status symbols displaying varying wealth and disposable income, while Google Glass is a lopsided glowing deformity on the side of your head.

Equally obnoxious and unnerving.

...or perhaps it's an astro-turfed propaganda campaign inspired by "scared straight" programs.</tinfoil-hat> But still, don't take everything posted on the internet at face value.

Well, the non-cutesy response is to cull local IMEI's (with false base station attacks) and spoof random IMEI's that spam local base stations with control channel traffic, and swamp normal signal data with noise. (not quite "jamming", per se, but maybe something close to it)

Someone could likely accomplish this, and enable others to participate in the protest of security theater, by developing and distributing an open-source application that interfaces with a number of readily available software defined radio antennas (preferably those costing less than one hundred dollars).

Although, to do so might be terr'ism.

Except last time I checked, possession of a mobile device is not required by law? So, what the fuck.

  Not to mention: [
       
      "the battery's dead and the proprietary charger
      is stuck in checked baggage", "whoops i lost the 
      battery", "whoops i dropped the phone and now it 
      is broken", "whoops cannot power on without 
      password for encryption", "aw shucks my phone is 
      keister stashed so come get it big boy", "hello 
      look at this childrens toy which very closely 
      resembles a cellular phone ha ha", "gee why does 
      this powered on mobile device emit far more radio 
      spectrum energy than expected even though i am 
      usually a law abiding citizen?"
      
  ]

This kind of idea is something that can only be pulled off after gaining a threshold level of fame and media attention.

It's not like this would work for anyone other than Wu-Tang.

Critics and Journalists are desperate to proclaim that this is the birth of a new business model for music, but it doesn't take a lot of intuition to understand that things work differently for a popular, talented group that already has millions of fans, as opposed to some random nobody in search of a music career. There's an obvious aspect of demand that plays against the supply startegy here.

Not to mention that the second, third and fourth people who attempt similar stunts will simply be accused of biting Wu's ideas, or perhaps they'll just be met by plain disinterest. Imagine Fred Durst conceives of a solo album with guest artists Korn and Linkin Park playing on select tracks, and then says:

  "Hey guys, this amazing work of art will never 
   see the light of day, unless one hundred billion 
   dollars." 

Okay, Fred Durst, that's great, please promise to never show anyone anything you do ever again, and take Korn and Linkin Park with you. We'll all be eternally grateful. Thanks.

Dependency Hell.

And oh yeah, Make. I fucking hate Make. Not as much as I hate pay-to-play ecosystems like Microsoft Visual Studio, but yeah, fuck Make.

Ha ha ha! I did know all of the male words, thanks to AD&D and the History channel. Meanwhile, on the feminine side I was shocked to be confronted by 7 out of 12 words, that I would be hard-pressed to use correctly in a sentence.

But seriously, are "flouncy" and "flouncing" substantialy distinct enough to be counted twice? I'm ashamed to ask, but I have to, since I really can't come up with a serious definition for either.

The minute I've heard Trillian all I can think of was Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy novels.

Actually, to be more accurate, it's a victory for due process and Great Justice.

Sir, your response is well-reasoned and satisfactory.

  "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll 
   defend to the death your right to say it." 

  - Voltaire

First Question:

Does an endorsement also provide one karma point in favor of the user that posted the comment?

If yes, why not just bind endorsements to the upvote link? So that it becomes a natural behavior, in keeping with existing norms on this site. (perhaps emphasize the upvote button with color-coding, to indicate that the upvote also endorses the comment)

If not, why not? Why shouldn't an endorsement count as an upvote that provides karma?

Second Question:

Do pending comments also apply to users with endorsement powers, or are their comments always visible by default, due to their endorsement privileges? I'm assuming not.

What if a privileged user were also required to be endorsed by a fellow karma-enabled user who was not the author of the comment under review, as a form of peer review? In other words, just because you have enough karma to review someone else's comments, still does not guarantee that your own judgement of your personal statements might hold universal, objective merit.