Did you know that AAA (which is heavily religious and insists that you state that you have no control over your life or addiction and you must transfer your addiction to religion) is literally no more effective than nothing whatsoever?

Well then, I'm definitely not going to renew my membership!

I think the problem is not "a single man posting tweets on an internet website" but rather who then takes, repeats, and uses that information to their own ends, no matter how seemingly benign or intentionally hyperbolic. I am not worried about one man, I am worried about the most ardent supporters of one man or person, and the sycophants who will drive them to violence if it works to their benefit. Just because it's twitter doesn't mean that it doesn't or won't have the same intended effect as any platform or medium used to call for violence or intentional misinformation, probably the opposite due to its widespread adoption.

Jim Jones didn't use Twitter.

I haven't logged into /. for over a decade but this comment is such an absurd oversimplification of US history as to be a complete falsehood. You may have missed all mention of the US Civil war aka the "War between the States" aka the "War of Northern Aggression" (depending on who you ask) at a time what "all ideas" did not, in fact, work together. Many times not only do all ideas not work together, they are quite often antithetic to one another. You cannot sort of agree on slavery (civil war). You can't kind of agree on invading a country (Iraq). You can't bargain on the occupation and rebuilding a country (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam)

So no, the United States has been wrought with political division perhaps since it's inception with some exceptions, as joining in common cause after a domestic attack (Pearl Harbor, 9/11), and it is that propensity for division that many people and entities use to their advantage, whatever that advantage may be. Perhaps something like attempting to overturn the results of a free and fair election?

Thank you for posting what I wuold have said.

I've actually been called a war profiteer by someone with no idea what they were talking about. Things play out pretty simlply to the person with no experience or stake in the military, or armed conflict.

To the simple mind, anyone working for the military in any capacity, is a "war profiteer", from the 18 yr old infantryman, to the lunch lady serving food on a base back in the US.

A video game manufacturer, or a movie studio, or X cultural enterprise depicting armed conflict does not have a stake in the creation or continuation of armed conflict profit, and as such, are not profiteers.

I tire of people who insist that media which deals in the depiction of conflict are somehow predetorial.

Make a beowolf cluster? But only if they run on linux. In Soviet America, USBs insert you (into the front page on /.)

But does he use lin.... excuse me, there's a knock on the door. ^^^^^NO CARRIER

...said the AC on slashdot. LOL for you, sir.

Probably the bottom of my keyboard. I guess that means "me".

POE

Now then, where's my grain alcohol?

Ooh, I know, I know!

Because unless the state is providing some sort of service to the entity from which you are downloading content, it should not expect to receive money from that entity. You know, things like roads, police, utilities, etc. That's what taxes are for, you know.

Unless that brick and mortar store is located within the state, then I hesitantly agree with you.

Perhaps our ideas of what constitutes "fair" differ. If "fair" to you is giving the state whatever taxes it legislates that you owe, then yes, that this proposal is "fair".

No, it sounds nothing like that. The latter is an exclusive statement, and a false dichotomy. The idea that several want to be happy and hopeful, and the (voting) minority want to be disdainful about the outcome of the election is in no way "for us or against us". I think you've intentionally misinterpreted that idea.

Can you name any country that has been "taken over" by Islam in the last few hundred years, that hasn't had a majority Muslim influence prior? From what I've heard, Qatar and the UAE are pretty secular/liberal. Besides, these all sound like characteristics of countries that have been "overrun" by Christianity too. Nice partisanship though. It has nothing to do with the original story.