We can quibble about "basic human right", but since it affects deathbed decisions, inheritance, and taxation "marriage" affects a lot of rights.

The government is involved because of the aforementioned issues, since we have jointly decided to give our government some say-so over those issues. We can argue if this is wise, though I'm not sure how else we could resolve those issues.

It is limited to two people partly because western civilization has had only two-person marriage for over a thousand years, party because 3+ person marriages raise some new issues that would have to be worked out, and partly because most western polygamous groups have used it to award underage girls against their will to old, powerful men. I expect that 3+ person marriages will come in a few decades.

I'm not sure that boycotting Firefox is the correct action, but consumer boycotts seem pretty common by all sides of this issue.

We cannot make an explode-proof cell phone battery, but you expect that a charge of C4 in a phone would only explode in the 1% of cell phones stolen by thieves, and not the 99% that you and I own?

Really, that is the same statement as "if I and all of my neighbors own guns, then as long as I ignore all gun-shot statistics I'm sure that only thieves will be shot by those guns." Or "by ignoring all of the death-row cases overturned by DNA, I'm sure that only guilty people are put to death in the USA."

Totally ignoring the "malfunctioning C4" problem, you really want a phone that a hacker using a 0-day could make explode either next to your head or your crotch? Either way, "just say no".

I am amused that you complain about people using blind belief rather than research, and then state your blind belief without any research. Well, it's not much, but 30 seconds of googling implies that this works fairly well in other places and is not regularly abused.

Perfect quote for the gun debate. "The facts don't support me, but gosh darn it, I know that guns make me safer! It may not be truth, but it's truthy!"

I love the idea of phones exploding in a thiefs hand, but since nothing is perfect, we would just have more personal injury lawsuits, and I certainly don't want any more of those!

IP law is so complex that only people who have studyed it for years can understand nontrivial cases? That seems right. I wish it were not so, but them I wish I could understand particle physics and molecular biochemistry without years of study too.

The anti-vaxxers and the anti-AGW folks show the hilarity that results when people assume that they know more than the experts.

3). A patent should have a far shorter term. 6 year patents on technology would usually give the inventor a good chance to capitalize on his invention. We can quibble on the length but shorter terms would solve most of these issues.

Good point. Just like that corrupt mechanic said that my car was low on oil, but he sure changed his tune when I told him to prove it by putting 10 gallons of oil in! You and me are GENIUSES!

Using this analogy, *I* am the one paying AT&T to allow freight to be delivered to my house on their roads. Neither the provider of the trucks, nor the providers of the cargo, should have to pay AT&T because I already did. Doesn't matter if the trucks contain the latest Bond flick, or lots of pictures of cats.

I don't care about permission, but I'd love to make it tax deductible.

Good point. You're very wise to believe the NSA, and to ignore all of the "stories" about Google encrypting everything, and suing the government, and trying to limit search warrants. After all, it would be crazy, completely crazy to think that the NSA would try and cast blame on the very companies that tried to stop them. Why, the fact that the NSA tapped Google's dark fiber between datacenters proves that Google is lying and was giving everything to the NSA!

Another possibility is that the NSA is lying and that a bunch of gullible morons are attacking the very companies which (while not perfect) are trying to protect your data from the government.

Yeah, not much they can do.

Oh noes! You are clearly smarter than Google, since they didn't think of that!

Technically true. The federal government will pay 100% of the cost for the first three years, then 95% of the cost, dropping to a minimum of 90% of the cost in 2020. So the state is on the hook to pay... 10%!

Sure, it's crazy that a state should have some responsibility for it's citizens, even a 10% responsibility. As you say, we should give all responsibility and money and power to the federal government.

From what I have heard, some years ago the government cut funding to NASA and told them "you need to have public/private partnerships to make money".

As part of this initiative, NASA leased part of AMES which they were not using to Google (for quite a lot of money), and did a deal where they could use planes for NASA science missions. Note that they didn't do this because they wanted to; they did this because the US govt told them to do this sort of thing.

So Google got preferential treatment by... renting excess space at market rates. A good deal for Google since it is close to their headquarters, and a good deal for NASA because they could continue doing science even when Congress cut their funding.

I suspect that if Apple, Cisco, and Facebook had wanted to pay the same market rates then they could have also leased space at AMES, though since that is a farther distance from their headquarters (especially with Bay Area traffic) it would be less tempting to them.

So how do you explain the anti-vaxxers or the AGW-deniers?

Sadly, I assert that anyone who fears the radiation in Japan has already demonstrated that hard information is unimportant to them.