shirgall

Yes, for over a decade I have contributed to enterprise distributions of Red Hat, SUSE, Ubuntu, and Debian. I'm not sure what you are looking for, though. As for the Free Software Foundation, they are an important influence on free and open source software, and I've contributed to a number of their projects. One of the things that drew me into open source was that C compilers used to cost a heck of a lot, and gcc was free. So I bootstrapped gcc and other tools onto the platforms I had back in the 1980s and the rest is history.

http://www.eutimes.net/2014/11/ferguson-trial-eye-witness-found-dead-burned-and-head-shot-in-his-car/ "Snitches Get Stitches" indeed.

Is the child reacting to the look of shock (or worse) from the parent?

In case people don't read the article, "gaslighting" is encouraging people to mute or hide strong feelings or reactions by telling those people that the situation is not as bad as they feel. The archetype of the stoic tough guy who man's up and shut's up came to mind immediately when I saw the definition in the linked post, but the article explores gaslighting of women and children.

I think she's talking out of her patoot, since lawyers are not allowed into the Grand Jury proceedings. The jury could have asked anything it wanted, and the prosecutor went to them for a thorough investigation. What is clear is that the prosecutor didn't feel there was cause to indict. So what? What is fundamental is that this Lisa Bloom character doesn't think that a large person moving to take your weapon is a threat. But if someone thinks they can take the gun away from you, that should be good enough for you to believe they can, and you should act accordingly.

There's always knighthoods and producer credit, like the No Agenda show.

I think it's "charge people with perjury" time, if not "charge people with inciting to riot" time.

Sigh. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/29/cnn-michael-brown-autopsy-expert-may-be-a-fraud/

Yeah, he should be taken with a grain of salt, but he *is* a retired prosecutor, iirc. He often comes across as biased toward the left to me (how's that for a soft judgement?). Most of the time he is pretty refreshing. In a previous video he states rather emphatically to never engage the police on their own turf, as I do, simply as a matter of survival. They are trained to eliminate violent threats. Never become perceived as a violent threat.

That's certainly the way I took it. It's all over my Facebook feed right now too.

Trouble in the first volley. I perceive you are using reason with the implication of "justification" instead of "explanation" in the above, because you contrast a "cold" form of logic versus a "warm" phase, "alive and kickin'". The well is poisoned before we sip the first drops.

Um, here's a classic: "monetary policy cannot systematically manage the levels of output and employment in the economy."

This is not enough for ownership. Ownership is a legal claim of possession. Minimum requirements for possession are knowledge of the thing and access to the thing. In order to build the legal claim, you either had the thing's title transferred to you, or you improved something that was previously claimless and was granted title as a result. The only animals that have title on anything get them from transfers, not from improvement, and they never have title to themselves, because they generally have assigns with powers of agency in order to keep them alive. My cat may be alive, but my cat is entirely beholden on me for support. I am his guardian. He has no title to himself, nor could he do anything with it if I were to transfer it to him. If my cat kills a chicken in the neighbor's barn will he be charged with murder and trespass? Or with the farmer scan his RFID chip and return him to me if he's feeling generous? Or will he try to get recompense for the chicken from me (and not the cat)?

I'm not seeing it.

And, after being told this, they'll still fake their age to sign up to Facebook.

I'm trying to figure out how "snitches get stitches" will fit into the narrative. Doesn't feel very Judas-y. http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/ferguson-eye-witness-intimidation-chilling-details/

Of course the reddit thread where I got the picture is downvoting my disdain for lifeboat problems. https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2nl51n/an_ethical_dilemma/

Everyone else enjoying the bump in frame rate to 60fps on the youtube postings?

So, let me get this straight. Prosecutorial discretion in self-defense cases where the races go a particular way is wrong. Prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases where races go a particular way is not only right, but supported by executive action. Did I get it right?

Getting less relevant to the original discussion, but yeah, there are lists... and Levi Strauss has been on it since the 90s. Time/Warner too.

Let's see, I generally caucus with conservatives, I homeschooled my children for sometime, I identified with the Tea Party, I was a delegate for the GOP... and I'm a third generation atheist and have never been a racist. I've seen Obama do a number of things, and even his golf and basketball can't be considered "good", let alone his policy. Is this one counterexample enough to fix your theory?

Being conspiratorially minded, I think the underlying goal of the elites is to diminish the value of "science" since truth is often at odds with policy.