Martha Stewart was convicted based on an investigator's memory and the notes he had written in his notebook. It wasn't what she said, but what she said in someone else's words.
Do you really want to bet your freedom on the basis of someone else's interpretation of what you said?
The women I've known who "attempted" suicide weren't really trying to kill themselves. It was either attention seeking behavior or an attempt to punish people in their social circle. IMO it's more a question of intent than method.
How does the title of this post support your unpleasant suggestion that women who attempt suicide are not serious in their attempt (your use of scare quotes is fucking disgusting, BTW) and were doing it to seek attention or to punish people - it is this attention seeking / punishing behaviour that I'm trying to get you to support with any evidence.
When your "truth" is nothing more than an off-handed, ill-conceived misinterpretation of the implications of the research... you should probably reconsider your "truth".
The only ugly truth in any of this is that opinions like yours prevent people from getting the help they need, and the fundamental respect they deserve.
That's why they call it "climate change" now, instead of "global warming". This way if it gets warmer - climate change. If it gets cooler - climate change. Bad weather? Climate change. Nice weather? Also climate change.
>But making the leap from that to "my code can't harm people" is a bridge too far.
Meh. My application is an internal app for a large company. It's basically scheduling software for a part of our business process. To even start to hack it you'd first have to break into the corporate network, and in the end you'd have data you didn't care about. Hell, I'm not even sure the people who use it care.
Worst case, a subtle bug (and it would have to be subtle for my users to miss it) might cost my employer a few thousand bucks.
Again, meh. There are a whole lot of internal applications that fall into this category.
That's not the right way to think about it. Just because you cannot imagine a way your software can be used to attack your company or harm the users, doesn't mean such a thing is impossible or unlikely.
Perhaps, but the beginning of the article reeks of him thinking he's somehow "too good" for prison, and that his transgression was just a temporary moral weakness.
While I'm glad he's bringing attention to the tragedy that is America's incarceration debacle, it would be nice if it didn't have to take a rich white guy getting put in jail before people take note that there is maybe a better approach to dealing with crime.
My #1 source. It's the antithesis of local news. Owen Bennett Jones is a _legend_. He's Kronkite/Brokaw/Jennings all into one. My father is in his late sixties and remembers listening to Jones with HIS father during the peak of the cold war half way across the world. Lyse Doucet does some amazing international on-the-ground coverage. I'll take dehydrated any day over 24-news-hour "let's spend 4 days over-analyzing the same 16 second presidential campaign snafu 16 months away from the primaries" alternative.
Do you really want to bet your freedom on the basis of someone else's interpretation of what you said?