No you don’t. It smells, it itches, it grows erratically, irregularly, and unevenly. It’s been known to hoard unwanted food and drink. Hell, I found dried syrup in my beard 3 days and 4 showers after going to breakfast with friends! Cutting that shit off was cringeworthy!
Avoid ordering physical items from Amazon until July 30th!
This isn’t some petty manufacturing error
This isn’t an outbreak of something stupid like anthrax
IF you make the mistake of ordering from Amazon in the next month and a half not only will you help prototype the new drone overlords, but in addition you could be seeing one of these MONSTROSITIES arrive at your front door
HOW WILL YOU BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF TO YOUR KIDS, YOUR SPOUSE, YOUR MAILMAN, YOUR COUNTRY???!??
HOW??!?
NO
GOD ALMIGHTY WHY
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
the minionapocalypse is among us
SWEET BABY JESUS! I need to go find something to order from Amazon now!
Pop open a bottle of whatever you celebrate with, but don’t get toooo comfortable yet. In a bogus and sneaky move, some members of Congress are using a funding maneuver to prohibit the FCC from implementing its own net neutrality rules.
If you care about internet freedom and you have a spare minute,you can help make sure Congress doesn’t screw up this victory. Call up one of these key members of the House Appropriations Committee and and ask them to take out the anti–net neutrality language from the House Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016, specifically sections 628, 629, and 630:
Rep. Henry Cuellar (R-TX, who’s advocating for the interests of the carriers)
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY, who’s currently the best champion of changes to the bill that will preserve net neutrality)
More details: This is a general appropriations bill that funds independent agencies, including the FCC, through the coming year. Legislators on the Appropriations subcommittee are trying to thwart net neutrality by attaching specifically targeted riders to the bill. Considering that the FCC’s monumental ruling was the culmination of a remarkably open and participatory debate, these background moves are a particularly cynical circumvention of the democratic process and the will of the people.
It’s nasty business, and President Obama won’t be able to do anything about it except by vetoing the entire bill. Let’s not put him in this pickle. Call up and demand the fair and open internet you fought for (and, again, won!).
This shit is important. Get on it like white on rice. Quit ch’bitchin’ boy, do it!
Recently, mediocre singer (but excellent future infomercial host) Michael Buble got in hot water for posting a pic he snagged of a woman in shorty shorts. And some were offended when Neil Patrick Harris took a break from being a horrible Oscars host to expose the unusual behavior of this New York City subway rider:
For some, this issue is very simple: It’s wrong to take pictures of people without their permission. I’ll admit that stance is clear and straightforward, but I also don’t find it compelling. No one disputes that drilling a hole in a dressing room wall to snap pics is wrong. Everyone agrees using a telephoto lens to take shower pics of your neighbor can’t be defended.
But when you’re out in the world, can you really expect that no one will take your picture? You’re putting yourself out in public. If people don’t need permission to look at you, what is the ethical reason they’d need permission to save one millisecond of that glance? What changes the ethical question of holding an image in your memory versus holding it in your phone? I think if we answer that question honestly, it’s the things that might be done with the photo and not merely that someone memorialized a millisecond of your appearance or behavior that you were already showing the world.
The only time it’s wrong to photograph someone in public is minors, that’s considered child exploitation. Otherwise you are free to photograph anyone you like, ala People of Walmart. It’s legal (in the United States at least).
