Tyson's job is to explain things to the masses.

It's his job.

Of course that's not a good thing. By that reasoning the parents shouldn't have gotten them an xbox in the first place. It's not a public service to take away the toys that you, personally, disapprove of.

December 25 is not known for its good weather in much of the world where Xboxes are sold.

Snooker can deal with strategic thinking, and both are both driving you up to the upper edges of hand-eye coordination.

Really, any competition that is not totally random (like a coin-tossing competition) is about driving you to the upper edges of something. Poker would fit. It seems we lack a consistent definition of what the Olympics are about.

You are claiming that 9/11 wasn't done to the US?

I think you're forgetting that the ads to this movie didn't look very good in the first place.

If Korea hadn't made a fuss I doubt most people would remember the movie existed in six months.

I'd watch this movie on an airplane, or if I'm sick and bedridden. I wouldn't buy this movie on Christmas day (with my family?), regardless of the geopolitical posturing.

No, we don't.

It seemed like you were suggesting we try free markets, but now you're agreeing with people who are pointing out that they "cannot exist".

Perfect knowledge by all participants is impossible, which makes the claim that free markets haven't been tried vacuous.

To make it a fair comparison, you must move the time window such that the oldest boomers alive are the same age as the oldest millenials are now. That makes it the late 70s at earliest.

In the late 70s, the World Wide Web did not exist yet, and would continue to not exist for a decade.

The Internet was invented by the generation before them, and it was not yet all that important.

If you want to do intergenerational comparisons, you need to do one of three things:

1. Wait ~50 years.
2. Restrict yourself to the world as it existed when the oldest Boomer was in their early 30s (even if they already a great thing, it must be recognized as a great thing).
3. State your values clearly so we can know what defines "improvement of America".

I don't find Barack Obama particularly damning as a Presidential choice (it's not like he was a big drop-off from the last guy). You obviously don't value social media, which is kind of interesting actually, given that:

- In my experience things like facebook are more widely appreciated by the older generations than by the Millenials.
- Web forums, including slashdot, are social media. Forums were invented at the tail end of the pre-millenial generation, so you get a bye on using social media to complain about social media's worthlessness, but what makes you like forums but dislike others? What is the essential difference that makes the latter worthless?

This is not a new issue; this is not a Millenial invention.

First: so what?

Second: literally every generation ever has done that. The US had a cultural norm that slavery was okay, and it was later replaced by a norm that slavery was abhorrent.

Note: I'm not an American so I have no horse in the "who improved America most" race.

And we all know that if even one person survives in the West, then civilization is saved!

I don't know what point you think you're making. She's a religious person who is *herself* damaged by religious fanaticism regarding abortion.

Everything ends up hitting poor people though. That's the problem with poverty.

If you just outright banned dirty gas, prices would rise and that disproportionately impacts the poor.

If you just outright allow whatever to happen, then health costs will rise and will disproportionately impact the poor.

Poverty means everything impacts you disproportionately, including inaction. Money provides cushioning.

Is there a way we can attempt to solve this problem in a way that is not overly onerous on the poor? Instead of just deciding not to do anything?

You're thinking of net income. Median net worth is closer to $81k (as of 2014), and the mean considerably higher than the GP's estimate.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Regardless though, there's a huge problem here where there is an assumption that the total charitable contributions of this guy in his lifetime is encompassed by one charity auction purchase.

Let's flip that around:

Right, it will go on a spree to exterminate all humans. Like every other program.

How can you be so sure?

Seriously? You seriously believe that?

If there is no opposition, then let's do it already. Sounds like everybody is for it.