Well, with your 31 years of experience as an independent country, I'm shocked we haven't all followed your example...of partial governance...of your own "country"...

Actually savings at that level are almost always tied up in the market somehow, which (assuming no large crashes) tracks with inflation as much, if not better than, your salary does.

I'm not twisting anything, this was my point to begin with. You have to tie the action to the belief system. You can say "Jesus said" in front of anything, but unless you can tie it to the belief system in some meaningful way (in the case of Christianity, the bible), you're just spewing smoke.

Obviously Christians don't control the market on intolerance. Hypocrisy is a human condition, not a christian one.

I have a question then. If I say "there is no God, no higher purpose, it does not matter if I burn this village". Does this mean atheism is at fault if I burn the village? Because that's what you're saying about Christianity.

Like many other tyrannical governments, the Nazis twisted the religion of the country to their own means. The III Reich did not grow out of the church, it took over the church in 1933, after the rise to political power. The problem with statements like yours is that they make it seem as if anyone who says they are a christian automatically gets whatever actions they take attributed to the religion. If you want to say that Christianity is responsible for the crimes in Nazi Germany, then what you are really saying is that the Nazi argument for the holocaust, world wars, etc is a valid argument within the precepts of Christianity. If you'd like to argue that, then go ahead, but otherwise the crimes can't be attributed to Christianity any more than I can attribute every crime committed by an atheist to atheism.

I'm getting my CS degree from them right now, while working full-time. It's not great for learning, but if you already know how to program, you can definitely check the box there (and probably get a 4.0 to boot).

My guess is one of the floats had confetti or someone in an apartment wanted to take part in the parade. Why was it police documents? There are lots of ways that could have happened. Explanations start with an apartment owner who works at the station taking home a bag of "confetti" to throw out their window, and go all the way to a conspiracy. Also the possibility of a recycling company that shreds stuff and sells it as cheap confetti (I personally think this is highly unlikely).

That's a fair point, but the driver's license is to show you're the registered voter you say you are. In the U.S.A., registered voter = citizen.

How?

Except when you need to do something like, I don't know, prove you're a citizen of said country...

Your tone conveys an attitude that your employees shouldn't be interested in how the company is run, that's a huge red flag from my experience.
It's not prima donna to inquire about the history of the position. You should want employees who think they can succeed where someone else has failed.
I don't understand employers who think company operations are of no business to their employees. I may work for you, but I'm putting my livelihood and that of my family in your hands. You don't have to justify all your decisions, but some explanation of the direction and plan goes a long way.

*facepalm* the sensors are integrated with the engine. That's like saying your oven blew up but the broiler is fine.

Actually, according to SpaceX engineers, it did not explode as they were able to continue to communicate with it. The current theory is the outer covering blew off because of the change in pressure.

From TFA: "We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Our review indicates that the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads ruptured due to the engine pressure release, and that none of Falcon 9’s other eight engines were impacted by this event."

That, my friend, is an over-simplified concept of business. No-one "withholds", "refuses", or "adds" any functionality to another company's product without some form of licensing agreement being reached. Apple did not want to give Google what Google wanted for the features. This is not in any way the same as saying Google "refused" to give them turn by turn navigation.
Here's a link to an article talking about some of the insights from sources. Sadly with things like this, there's no such thing as source data, so we'll just have to go with the sources and articles. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2209539/Apple-replaced-Google-Maps-iPhone-5-controversial-app-wasnt-pleased-Android-turn-turn-voice-navigation.html

Okay, there's no purple in the 4S picture, so you've definitely lost me. The iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 have the same camera spec-wise, the only difference is the glass vs sapphire cover. I don't think it's a fair statement to say that aside from the obvious flaws in the photo, the sapphire cover is better. That's like saying the car runs great except it stalls every so often.