MonDie

Your discussion might be easier to follow if you spoke about burden of proof of claims rather than innocence/guilt of people.

I retract the borderline personality claim. Gender patterns in borderline personality disorder. (Sansone & Sansone, 2011) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21686143

It's called a psych ward. Though of course we can't lock you up (or kill you) just for being suspicious, for that would extend deterrence beyond the criminal realm, unnecessarily restricting our freedoms. Individuality and eccentricity would vanish.

I think this is what most people have in mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convenience_food Returning Jan 23

Well it's supposed to be an ongoing game involving an alternation of turns, but you have shown how easy it is. Maybe new rules that are more challenging or require more steps? We could just disallow splitting (into multiple words). Alternatively, we could continually split the words as we introduce ever more letters. That is, the end goal could involve many words or many letters. This would entail some rule changes, however, e.g. we'd scrap the multiple deletions rule that was to address the problem of unreasonably long words. Ideas are welcome. But yes, your multi-step charts show that you understood the rules. edit: Maybe I made it easy to attract participants? I can't remember.

Women are moe likely to be diagnosed with an anxiety disorder or borderline personality disorder.

Can all those dogs interbreed? Can you get a viable offspring from a Chihuaha and a Great Dane? Nature can produce clines wherein there is still gene flow despite the opposite ends being incompatible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_%28biology%29 addendum: We picked the same dogs!

Obscenity is a matter of opinion. That is, the ambiguity in the definition is due to differences in personal tastes. "Processed" should be more objective since it's purportedly describing the physical.

Good point. If we don't kill them, they might just end up killing eachother... and far more inhumanely too!

Whoopsies! This article (by the same blogger) is probably what you would want. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/how-did-general-intelligence-evolve

The issue may not be "hurt feelings" in the typical sense, but the terror of being an object of others' hatred and disgust. If somebody threatens to kill you, you are already harmed. It may inconvenience you to ensure your safety, and you may feel terrorized. Now suppose somebody gossips something about you that would make others want you dead.

Apparently they just changed the name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control As far as I can tell, it's just another form of file permissions: a program without administrative privilages wants to perform an administrative action (e.g. read, execute, or alter a system file), so it must get permission first. Linux systems are similar. I will regard your opinion if you merit it. What's a "cronjob"? I'm horsing around. Returning Jan 16.

I'm still trying to understand Ubuntu!

I wouldn't dismiss punishment just because DP is no more effective than a life-sentence. Perhaps the utility wears off after a certain severity is reached, and at that point other factors become more important, such as the probability of being caught.

IMO there are three appropriate responses to a crime: 1. Punishment/Penalty 2. Rehabilitation or Treatment 3. Confinement Confinement is for cases that cannot be rehabilitated. Punishment serves a separate function, instilling in other citizens that such acts aren't condoned.

Because the JohnCuthber is a network vulnerability that mustn't have free reign!!! Coffee.

Does nobody think about security!?!? Not that I use Windows anymore, but I happen to know that Windows 7 implemented a file permissions hierarchy. This is what the distinction between "Low", "Medium", and "High Integrity" files is all about. This means that somebody who hijacks your browser (or other port-connected program) will have limited access to your machine. I imagine they'll be restricted to "low integrity" files only, since that would be safest. Note: Linux systems had this all along Windows 8 implemented sandboxing. Sandboxing allows you to fine-tune the permissions for individual programs. So instead of Firefox saying "Oh, I can only access Low Integrity files", Firefox will say "Oh, I can only read/edit/append/execute these specific files, because only these permissions are necessary for me to function properly." Note: Ubuntu Linux has had AppArmor for half a decade But none of these ensure network security, which is relatively OS independent.

Running XP is equivalent to not vaccinating your children. No sandboxing. Not even a file permission hierarchy.

This is irrelevant; they've passed the point of deserving rehabilitation or forgiveness. Is that what iNow meant? Dead people can't learn.

An unknown percentage may be innocent. More life-years lost from DP than from witholding medical care. DP itself is expensive from legal proceedings.

We could "Rate Topic" more often.

关于变量之间的关联， 该 explanatory variable 想必影响 response variable

I'm irritated that most facebook content is barred from non-users. I go elsewhere instead.

Got any explanatory variables in mind?

Most were just mundane depictions incorporating muhammad. A couple seemed intentionally provocative, but I imagine those came after the initial threats and attacks, to which their response was to ramp it up. At any rate, I don't see how those intentionally provocative cartoons would qualify as hate speech, and a reader would know that they only wanted ot provoke their attackers.