It's not like a serious debate yet but it's certainly talked about often and at great length. We consume vast amounts of media on that very subject everything from Space Odyssey, matrix, terminator A.I., Blade Runner, Almost Human (cancelled far too soon), Ultron and the Sentinels are the classic Marvel insight into the situation (i'm sure DC has their own versions too i'm not as familiar with their canon). We have reams and reams of books exploring the subject both as fiction and as ethical analysis.

The problem is that, like zombies or nuclear apocalypse, it's too far in the future for the collective mind of humanity and is dismissed and relegated to "pub chat" or geeky domain. People now, in general, aren't willing to take the prospect seriously enough. Even with drones delivering precision bombs to civilian spaces, and to be fair governments are doing a great job waving around real people in our faces, showing us all those soldiers coming back from combat zones and telling us "oh aren't they heroes!" We're not focussing on their equipment because the media doesn't talk about it generally. Only dedicated activists and interested techheads really keep score.

The rest of us still think this is a problem for a few generations down the line. It's fine, we're safe. We'll never have a drone fly over our town carrying enough.. Whatever.. to kill everyone in a 10 mile radius.

Hell, I live in Scotland and the amount of people that until last year didn't even know we have a nuclear sub situated in our largest population centre that could kill absolutely every last fucker in this country through blast zone or fallout areas was, in a word, flabbergasting. Ask anyone, that shit happens elsewhere. Not here. Never here.

It's so bazaar to see where the norms used to lie. I just watched a film based even earlier in time than this article and it absolutely blew my mind that it was considered the norm to simply walk up to a woman and ask if she would marry you without even holding a proper conversation first (although I am aware films are fictional depictions). I just found myself thinking that I can't even imagine wanting to marry someone who I don't even know if their personality would match with my own. Similarly when I look at this questionnaire that suggests that being a career woman is wrong, I'm baffled, because I would never insist my wife be a stay at home wife, as I would want my wife to be happy doing what she wishes to do, just as I would hope she would want for me. Otherwise how could I claim to love her.

I'm not naive enough to assume that I would be different in those days to everyone else, I'm sure I would be just as indoctrinated as the next person. It's just so strange to try imagine being happy in such a different situation, especially one that puts such huge confinement on someone you supposedly love.

I'm really not sure how you got that out of my comment.

You essentially said, that it's okay for someone to not get paid for his hobby, even when that hobby provides value to people, right? That's the same attitude, that a lot of people showed when discussing paid mods, as if that would be so wrong, for someone to ask money for work he enjoyed doing. But whatever, that's offtopic anyway.

it's about a new, simple solution being found by the industry or society as a whole

Right, but money comes either from advertisement/sponsorship or from end users and end users aren't going to pay for anything, that they can avoid paying for. If we want to get rid of advertisements, I see only two paths, one is where everything is behind a paywall and you can't get anything for free; other is where a massive change in attitude happens and people start donating regularly. In reality, that isn't going to happen and advertisements aren't going anywhere. They work just fine, same as they have worked since before Internet, but on Internet they don't work for certain audiences and content creators are moving away from those audiences.

I don't like advertisement any more than the next person and I would love for something like Flattr to really take off, but I just don't think it's possible.

I blanket block ads and only white-list on a case by case basis. Malicious ads (especially of the flash variety) have ruined it for the online advertising revenue model. I no longer trust advertising networks.

Want me to unblock ads on your site? Then quite simply ask me to. Nicely. That last part is important because if I see the adblock message calling me an ass for blocking ads, I'm just going to block that entire frame and not see it.

Linux Tech Tips did ads another way that I liked as well. They got their own sponsors and gave them a blurb at the end of the videos. Even if I could block those, I wouldn't because 1, they're entertaining; 2, they're usually very relevant to the content; and 3, very non-intrusive. Sites could do a similar thing by actually getting their own sponsors and putting up ads hosted on their own domain. Chances are it won't be on the black list, and I won't bother blocking it. Also they could control the ad and how it effects their users. Much better than giving an entire side of your site to an ad network to put whatever the hell they want up.

Well as far as I understand in the explanation, hogwarts represents the mental institute/ special school harry goes to. The death of voldemort suggests his alter ego no longer haunts him (would that be why he is allowed to leave/stop attending?) Or does his departure from the hospital imply that he has completely seperated from reality and everything he perceives is imaginary which allows for his happy ending?

It's actually interesting to think about this sort of thing because I attempted to write a similar concept in the writing prompt tribe. It's how I interpreted the prompt given. I kept trying to ask myself, how would it look to him, which given I'm not insane, or at least don't think I am :P, was rather challenging.

DISCLAIMER: I didn't write the blog post but I'm the one speaking on the talk.

This was the first large talk I gave so I was very nervous, but any feedback is welcome.

It was from a birthday post on Mubi's Tumblr blog. Unfortunately, they didn't detail the source.

http://blog.mubi.com/post/124237781676/happy-birthday-barbara-stanwyck

This game is a huge time sink, if you're willing to lose for a while until you learn to control momentum. Unfortunately the game isn't growing as fast as it used to be, so you'll be playing with a lot of more experienced folks. Make sure you say that you're new so people help out rather than think you're a smurf (player who is pretending to be new in order to get a competitive advantage over those who underestimate them).

The developers are working on TagPro Next (name will change), which is supposed to be an update to TagPro with a few changes to controls and BIG changes to coding and also platforms (Steam, etc). Check up on the progress here.

I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases, campaigned hard to repeal it in CA (barely failed), and do not want it for the Charleston terrorist, but I disagree that this specific case is a good time for debating it. Unless of course your only goal is to repeal the death penalty, in which case this is the perfect opportunity, as many see this man as a poor troubled boy who deserves a second chance (whilst not doing the same when it is an unarmed black person the same age). That, to me, is taking one step forward and two steps back. Why not instead frame the debate from the side of police violence and disproportionate criminalisation rates for black and brown communities and ask how we could expect that we could fairly administer the death penalty when we cannot even fairly deal with traffic and noise violations or nonviolent drug possession crimes? The Boston Marathon bombing killed six people, and the culprit was just recently given the death penalty for it (which, again, I disagree with because I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases). To immediately turn around after that and decide that this man, who killed more people, all of whom were black, deserves a seemingly lighter sentence is only feeding into the national narrative that white lives matter more than others, and that narrative is central to so many of the problems in the justice system.

Again, I agree that the death penalty must be repealed. I disagree that the case of the Charleston terrorist attack is the right way to frame it. While I understand arguments that this terrorist would elicit more empathy and therefore be most effective for gathering opposition to the death penalty, I disagree on the grounds that doing so would exacerbate other problems in the justice system and indeed the country, namely systemic racism and white supremacy. The entire justice system needs reform, and focusing exclusively on the death penalty without regard to the rest of the systems seems misguided at best to me.

Are you saying Xena is fat? http://www.ges-energietechnik.de/patmin/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Xena.jpeg ;)

I see no downsides to that, as long as you believe that there's nothing that is in dire need of emergency funds and we should optimize current spending before increasing it.

I'm all for optimizing spending and cutting waste. But an amendment requiring the federal government to maintain a balanced budget is inviting disaster. States that have balanced budget amendments fare the worst during economic crisis. There are so many reasons why this is a bad idea I can't list them all in a single post.

Might I ask where you commonly hear it?

But when you say "blind to faith" that does privilege the majority religion. Even if you're not personally religious, you were raised in a nominally Protestant Christian culture, with those assumptions in the background where you don't see them.

You're making big assumptions about the culture I was raised in.

Like crosses, for example. Most catholic and orthodox wear crosses, but they're culturally normal, you never notice them because they're everywhere.

We notice them because there's a stigma attached to them. If you wear it, you're labeled as one of "those". You can't generalize for all of the western world.

In fact almost all western Christian practices are grandfathered in. Our weekend (when most are off work) just so happens to coincide with the Jewish Sabbath and Christian Sunday. Christmas (on the western calendar anyway) is a major holiday. In short, for most Christians it doesn't even come up. You're already off on those days, so your not at risk of getting fired over them.

Getting fired for asking for a more convenient schedule?

At every step saying "just adapt to us" gives them a disadvantage-- they have to ask for what you're handed. And I think it's unfair to state that the default is good for everyone when what it is is grandfathered Christian practice and everyone else works around it.

Because you are living in a world OP posted about. Not all of the western world is mostly Christian and our issues with religion are thus different.

Greetings /u/namo, we are working towards an improved voting system, we would however appreciate if the down votes weren't being rage called out in such a way, it only brings attention to improper down voting and increases the likelihood of more down votes. I will personally announce the upcoming solution in our /t/blog tribe sometime this week, so please everyone, lets contain our anger with down votes until then.

But when you say "blind to faith" that does privilege the majority religion. Even if you're not personally religious, you were raised in a nominally Protestant Christian culture, with those assumptions in the background where you don't see them.

Take for example the religious clothing. I bet when you were considering that, you weren't considering things Christians wear all the time. Like crosses, for example. Most catholic and orthodox wear crosses, but they're culturally normal, you never notice them because they're everywhere. Some baptist women won't wear pants, but since women in skirts are normal, that wouldn't be something a private company would ban very often. That changes when it's a different religion. Hijabs and Sikh turbans are not normal to us, and would probably not fit into a cultural image of a professional. So if you say "not a big deal to restrict religious clothing " it's not a big deal to most of us in America because most of us are culturally Christian and Christian customs are grandfathered in.

In fact almost all western Christian practices are grandfathered in. Our weekend (when most are off work) just so happens to coincide with the Jewish Sabbath and Christian Sunday. Christmas (on the western calendar anyway) is a major holiday. In short, for most Christians it doesn't even come up. You're already off on those days, so your not at risk of getting fired over them. If you're Muslim, worship is on Friday, and you have to get permission. And eid too, because funny Muslim holidays aren't days that we recognize. At every step saying "just adapt to us" gives them a disadvantage-- they have to ask for what you're handed. And I think it's unfair to state that the default is good for everyone when what it is is grandfathered Christian practice and everyone else works around it.

If you follow his blog you'll see he recently posted not three but twelve detailed steps for turning our nation's economic future back around with accompanying videos. We have a prescription for recovery, but we lack the political will to follow it. This post was a reminder of why we should find it again.

Seems good. As is the man himself. Thanks for alerting me to yet another blog I really like but haven't read for a while :)

I'm not sure, but since it's posted on an active blog you could ask over there and I bet the blogger, Chelsea, would tell you. She seems to be pretty good about answering everyone's questions. I found this to be a fine cake even without the crumbs. I actually used it to make cupcakes once. I bet you could make crumbs with flour, butter, and a sweetener like stevia. I'm not sure about alternative flour for the cake itself as I've never tried that.

"I just ask that you keep an open mind."......... Works for the likes of myself.

Its so easy to read this story and just dismiss it as some quack in his houseboat, but

Chronic fatigue. Skin and hair issues. Arrhythmias and other neurological disorders. Foggy thinking. Gluten sensitivity and other digestive troubles. Sometimes even the possibility of Lyme Disease.

That sums up my life right now (absent the hair loss). I am seriously going to ask my doctor about Lyme Disease the next time I'm in, just to see, because the symptoms roughly fit.

I read that you have to diffuse the CBDs through the blood of a unicorn first, for it to be most effective in healing bones (according to the blog post's author's nephew's best friend's sister, who read it online).

So, you have a news article that cites a different article that is then citing a blog that only links to a University and not the actual study or any quotes. This could literally all be made up.

This makes me so sick.

I don't even understand how the journalist can ask the children the question.

I guess they can only get information if you have enough credit to buy something with exact price - they can ask do you have 5$ to buy an app. But they can't know that you have 1000$ of credit to spend. In that case they should ask are you able to buy each one of their products before an ad is placed on your device. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Pen and paper is all you need to track. I like the concept of being able to get people motivated for fitness but at a certain point I do agree it sucks the fun out of it. More worried about getting steps then just enjoying a hike. As a trainer, clients constantly ask me about these gadgets and I tell them the same thing its only going to be worth it if you want to balance your fitness like your checking account.