filosofo

The idea that war and specific acts of war are unavoidable parts of the human condition is supposed to seem as insane and pathetic as the protagonist's passive view of his life, a view that comes from his beliefs about time travel.

Also, a just society needs to operate by certain fictions: for example, that people are innocent until proved guilty or that all men are created equal. Among those should be the assumption that others can be persuaded through logical means (as opposed to say force or habit). I think it's somewhat akin to the principle of charity.

Better to keep the example on its own independent page.

Where does PayPal state that you must have 501(c)(3) status to accept donations? (I'm concerned because I do something similar to CompuerGuru--accept donations for free software via PayPal and have done so for years).

Using the same logic we could characterize 20th-Century people as accepting mass-murder, because it was practiced by numerous nations on a never-before-seen scale.

It is not one of those books like Strunk and White's that teaches you a set of arbitrary rules.

Rather, the author defines a set of general principles. Then he develops and illustrates those principles with good and bad examples. And talks about the exceptions to those principles.

Much of what separates really good writing from merely correct writing seems ineffable; it sounds the right note. Williams makes many of those seemingly indescribable qualities identifiable, so you can then recognize them in others' writing and learn to build them into your own.

Doesn't one work against the other? In other words, a government with enough power to make citizens' organizations squeal by practical necessity risks becoming a "surveillance state."

Citation, please? All three of my kids have taken the initiative themselves to learn to walk, and I've never seen a non-walking older child without a physical disability.

The author details the ways in which entertainment has become the metric by which many Americans judge their lives.

I can't see any technical reason or understand why one would penalize NoScript users (like me).

Someone has modified and redistributed GPL-licensed code in an apparently shady way. That doesn't strike me as newsworthy.

There are badly-behaved people on television shows around the world; to conclude that such people represent their native countries in any meaningful sense is naive at best.

No, but I suppose it might imply that you could be your own subordinate. Since the boss can fire you, but you can't fire your boss, you have a subordinate relationship.

However, to answer your question: if someone can determine whether you get to keep your job, whether you like it or not you are that person's subordinate.

The news-making hacks of WordPress are almost always of sites running versions significantly outdated.

"Drupal's defenders are eerily reminiscent of those movement Democrats who were constantly knocking at your front door in the summer of 2008."

or

"If Drupal were a piece of legislation, it would be the farm bill"

No one should take comments like that as a serious criticism of Drupal or the Whitehouse's use of Drupal; it's poking fun at Obama supporters. It's a joke.

It seems like this is easy enough to solve with a little instruction: have users make up a phrase that has to do with the account, and use the first letters from each word as the password: it's unique, non-dictionary, yet memorable.

Yeah, I've been reading it to the kids recently.