http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably

I don't mind Google having my data. At this point, I'm resigned to the fact that I'm not going to have privacy, so my concern becomes #who has my data. Google has plenty of good reasons to want information, and while I'm not saying there's any guarantee that they're not doing anything nefarious, their track record seems to be pretty good on that front. Additionally, Google leverages the information they have on me to make my life more convenient, from the Google Now cards on my phone to the targeted ads which are generally more relevant to me than generic ads.

Facebook is not the company I would trust with my data.

I wouldn't mind football if it didn't involve my friends endlessly jabbering "Oh smith is a beast, he'll crush Jones" "nuh-uh! Jones is crazy" "no way dude he'll get rub over" and on and on and on

That would work, although I think nowaypablo's idea is a more elegant version of this

No, it's not a conspiracy thing, it's a human nature thing. People are going to invite people they know, and people know people through similar interests and ways of thought. While I'm not saying people are going to scrutinize invites to make sure they're not against their opinions, must of the people they invite will be people they know, who are biased to agree with them. The trend will not be absolute, of course, but it will be significant.

As to why I would remove myself from the user pool, I have all of one hubwhell in the five months I've been here and feel no obligation to the community.

The thing is, people aren't going to wait. They come to the site, see that if they want to join they'll have to do it in three weeks, and promptly return to whatever forum they came from. Prospective members aren't invested in the site enough to wait.

I suspect the result of such a restriction would be only people who found the site on a sign-in day would join, lowering the number of recruits but not having much of an impact on their quality.

If hubski becomes "exclusive" I'm gone in a heartbeat. ESPECIALLY if invites are done based on shares, so the most popular users can invite others who agree with them? There will be a serious lack of ideological diversity as the majority base grows and minority thoughts (which receive fewer shares) does not at a comparable pace. Hubski would become a giant circle jerk.

Edit: Nowaypablo's idea sounds good to me, though

Backslashes

One of my professors claimed that this (or at least something like this) is how must of the world doors grade. The "metric grade", if you will.

I guess "most of the us" is broader than I can really speak to, but in California that was true at every school I attended.

In most of the us A is 100 to 93, A- is 92 to 90, B+ is 89 to 87, B is 86 to 83, B- is 83 to 80, C+ is 79 to 77, C is 76 to 73, C- is 72 to 70, D+ is 69 to 67, D is 66 to 63, D- is 62 to 60, F is below 60. Most of the variation I've seen is with Ds and Fs.

The term I prefer (although never actually use because it often demands explanation) is adeist. I am open to a spiritual system, but consider a deity clearly impossible.

Some common ones including Nike and chick-fil-a. But also any grocery store that actively doesn't sell gmos.

Auld Lang Syne by Lunar Republic

I would consider someone responsible for something if they are subject to its consequences.

And if every educated person was against corporate personhood, we wouldn't have it in the first place. There are arguments to be made in its favor -- not that I agree with them, but the issue is not so simple or one sided as you suggest

You think in neurons, words are ideas and ideas are patterns.

There is a massive divide between politicians and the media, who are outraged over the whole torture thing, and the rest of us who thought we already knew the CIA tortured people and don't understand why the dead horse gets another whack

Not being responsible for your behavior can be very easy in this country. See, our forefathers realized the profound economic disadvantage that being responsible for your actions carries, so they invented the LLC and corporation. Corporations are legally people and are responsible for their employees' actions, which is much more convenient than the employees themselves or the company's owner being responsible. And since a corporation only really exists as a financial entity, what this means is that if you own a corporation, the worst thing that can happen in terms of liability is the corporation runs out of money and your bank account stays safe. Your company gets sued for what you did, and your company is the only thing at stake.

Transferring responsibility to a company is ridiculous, by the way. It's like having your gun be responsible for all the people you shot and then when people come to punish you, they just break your gun.

Responsibility, it could be said, is the prerogative of the poor.

With law enforcement running exit nodes tor isn't secure in the first place, if it goes down it will be for the better

>I like this review because it analyzes the album conceptually without telling you whether to enjoy it.

The article sounded like it was coming down pretty hard against the album to me...

To make it worse, a recent study showed that shift work actually decreases intelligence, which I would interpret as probably a result of exhaustion. Shift workers are literally too tired to climb the social ladder (not to mention all the financial issues from the article). We should pass laws requiring more consistency in workers' schedules as well as increasing the minimum wage dramatically.

Unpredictable schedules are also p problematic because they translate to unpredictable earnings, making it impossible to plan your expenditures well.