dont use Ubuntu.

Why? Do you have a link that explains this perspective? Or can you provide a summary to get me started?

I too was going to mention that I too was going to mention the rule!

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs should have never been made into a movie.

Yes. My mistake. Thanks.

Apologies. I swear I reread your comment 3 times, and each time I replaced legal with illegal in my mind. I see it now!

You’ve got that backwards. In Sweden, buying is illegal, selling is not. Essentially turning the customer into a rapist and the seller into a victim. And rightly so! Considering that most women selling sex are doing so because of human trafficking, or at least coercion or desperation, it’s cruel, immoral, and ironic that they are criminalized in the rest of the world outside of Sweden and the other countries that have followed their model.

Men who pay for sex are the driving force behind human trafficking.

I think it should be considered rape.

Men who pay for sex are the driving force behind human trafficking.

I’m all for freedom, and I will acknowledge that there are probably women in the “sex trade” who were not trafficked or coerced into it, but that number pales in comparison to the number of girls who have been stolen and forced into a horrific life, having lost all control of their future. Freedom is among the most important qualities of human life, and the horror of human trafficking and the way it completely removes all freedom from the lives of its victims trumps the freedom of choosing to sell sex.

Most places, prostitution is illegal, enforced by going after the prostitute and slapping the wrists of the men who use them. I find it immoral and reprehensible that women would be criminalized for this.

Rather, men who make use of sex workers should be ostracized from society and imprisoned as rapists. And the women should be treated with compassion and care, as victims of abuse.

Monday = Moon day. In Spanish, it’s “lunes”.

This part stood out to me:

… required to accept a license which forbid you to implement those extensions. As soon as you clicked “OK”, you could not work on any open source version of Kerberos. The goal was explicitly to kill any competing networking project

Could we not use this same tactic? I would love to see a Terms of Use drafted that requires federation participants to fully support the project. It could prohibit partial implementations, especially if extensions to the standard were being added before fully supporting the standard. Actions that seem to use embrace, extend, extinguish tactics could be explicitly called out and forbidden.