This is pretty much what I was going to post. This whole "critique of the military-industrial complex" view fails to take into account that the bugs were an actual threat to earth.

Also, the whole "misunderstood masterpiece" bit is absurd. What little satire exists was recognized by the most famous movie critic of all time:

Ebert still gave the film a paltry 2 out of 4 stars. Whether the director was trying to satirize Heinlein or not, it was still a pretty shabby movie.

Blue collar jobs often actually do background checks and just toss out applicants who have criminal records. It's just a supply/demand issue: the supply of blue collar workers is extremely high while the demand for them is extremely low. Therefore, companies can choose to be extremely picky in who they hire. This creates a terrible situation for many who don't have the resources or intelligence to gain the higher education necessary to make them valuable enough for a company to overlook any misdemeanors they've been charged with. I assume that you have either an education or skills that make you valuable enough to your employer to overlook whatever prior offense you have on your record, or your skills in combination with your interview meant they didn't see any reason to bother with a background check.

Unfortunately, blue collar workers, who probably have the most reason to protest, also have the most to lose by doing so. They could make themselves unemployable to all but the lowest paying fast food jobs, which in turn would make crime a more appealing source of income, at which point they become part of the penal system's revolving door trap.

That would be strange considering that she consulted Greenspan when writing Atlas Shrugged and they were good friends.

Although the book vehemently treats all politicians as scum, Rand herself rallied behind certain Republican politicians. In the dystopic Atlas Shrugged the 'collectivists' have already taken over the entire government and it's too late for the 'individuals' to do anything about it. If anything the book is a rallying cry for ultra-conservatives to become more involved in government to save it from the FDR-type liberals that Rand saw as incompetent tyrants who had taken over.

And there's a fourth group and a fifth group and so on. However, I don't believe that the difference Nietzsche's Man and Superman is that between master and slave. My interpretation was that it's more akin to the difference between animal and man. Like how there's a difference between spiders and cats. Spiders are somewhat like automatons -- they do what they do almost purely based on cause and effect. Cats, on the other hand, make good pets because they are closer to man's mental capacity -- even though they sometimes act purely upon cause/effect type stimuli (such as play with string), they also seem to somewhat have a will of their own and they are emotional creatures. Regardless, they have nowhere near the logical capacity as man.

If I understand Nietzsche correctly (which I admit is questionable), then the Superman is a man who lives up to his mental potential. Many people live their entire lives without even attempting to take advantage of their potential -- like animals they can be satisfied with mere carnal pleasure and they only use their mental potential to increase this carnal pleasure. Nietzsche asserts that we ought to esteem to be something greater than what we tend to be; in our ambitions, morals, and our ability to reason.

Ah, yes, blame the French. And when you can blame the French and Communism at the same time, even better. Your red herring is so scary.

I don't even know what to say about this one.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It's sad that whenever the bullying topic gets brought up on Slashdot it brings all the crybabies out of the woodwork. I mean, I get that on a site full of nerds, many were bullying in high school, but it's just pathetic how many still haven't gotten over it.

People who think insults can be harmful have never really grown up.

I think the most important lesson a person can learn in life is that they don't matter. Their emotions don't matter. The only thing about a person that matters is what they do with their life. If you choose to take your own life, especially before you've actually done anything, you really don't matter. This life is precious shit makes me sick. People just think life is precious because they don't want to die.

There's are simple solutions to all the problems you mention: Don't use Facebook or G+ or any other social networking site. Go to your cell phone provider and tell them you don't want to receive anonymous text messages because of the problem -- harassing text messages can also be dealt with by the police (but more importantly, they can be ignored). If someone sets up a website with the express purpose of defaming you or harassing you then all you have to do is shoot an e-mail to the company that hosts it. They won't want to deal with that liability.

Or you could just whine about the emotional vulnerability of THE CHILDREN! and tell them they're all unique and special like a snowflake and no one has the right to say anything that might shatter their ever so fragile self esteem. Go last place trophies! And let's charge children with felonies if they dare be mean to one another! Yeah, that's an awesome solution.

I think that monitoring what your child does online qualifies as helicopter parenting. I can understand some type of filter system (proxy or software, like what schools have) that will block out porn and extremist hate sites, but on social sites like Facebook or G+ it's difficult to meddle without being overbearing. Especially for preteens. But I don't even know how one goes about that on smartphones. I'm sure there's probably something.

I don't think I've heard anyone even mention the Green Party since Nader was relevant in 2000. Maybe in 2004.

Just from observation, I would guess that Slashdot is approximately 1/3 libertarian, 1/3 socialist, and 1/3 'mainstream' (Republican/Democrat). I'd agree that the vast majority of American Slashdotters probably voted Democrat in the last election, but that's probably more a reflection of the Tea Party influence on the Republican party than the voters being more liberal. Intelligent fiscal conservatives don't really have a viable party right now with the way the Tea Party is shaping the Republican party.

Or maybe it's because if they micromanage their child's life it will cause resentment and their child will never trust them.

I would also add that we need smaller classrooms. It's easy to get distracted when the teacher has to give a generic lecture for 30+ kids. When I was in high school we'd play euchre in most classes and the teachers wouldn't even know. Some kids would chew dip, some kids would sleep. It just wasn't possible for the teachers to ensure that everyone was doing something constructive or paying attention. Class size is one of the most important distinctions between a crappy school and a good one, and unfortunately reducing class size costs a lot.

It's only an epidemic because the media portrays it that way. People being mean to other people is just a fact of life. It's nothing new, and I'd argue it was a lot worse in the past than it is today. The only difference is that today stories like this go national rather than remain confined to a local news station. Then the various news outlets beat the dead horse until a new salacious scandal can take its place.

The biggest problem with bullying today is this attitude that children need to be insulated from it rather than stand up against it. What ever happened to 'sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me'? If we're going to blame anyone I blame this girl's parents for raising her to be so emotionally weak that she would rather die than stand up for herself.

Who know who doesn't get bullied? Kids with backbones. Because it's no fun to bully kids who stand up for themselves.

The difference between Facebook and automobiles is that automobiles aren't just convenient, but for most people they're necessary. Your food analogy is even worse. A more apt food analogy is that the OP eats a balanced diet of organic food that provides him with nutrition and energy, represented by useful and informative websites; while you eat fast food every day that clogs your arteries and gives you postprandial somnolence, represented by Facebook.

You're not an ethical consumer. We get it. You think it makes you fit in. I bet you only watch reality TV. Hell, you probably don't even remember what a book looks like. We understand you here.

Snark is the wit of morons.

That doesn't make it a plentiful or efficient source of nutrients. There's a reason corn still looks like corn when you poo it out.

This is very true. One pattern that can been seen is that to convince people to fight suicidally in war (i.e., without retreating despite how grim things look -- something that's necessary unless the opponent it completely outmatched) they need to believe it's the right thing to do. This isn't so difficult when fighting defensively against an opponent whose goal is to rape, pillage, and murder. Fighting suicidally against the Vikings, for example, was the only option available.

It gets a little more difficult when the conquerors only wish to oppress. Then ideals need to be fought for -- "They can take your lives, but they'll never take your freedom!"

It gets real difficult when you want to take the offensive. That requires some more abstract ideology -- nationalism, religion, or better yet a combination of the two. A good example of this is the power of the Roman army when it consisted of proud Romans who believed they were civilizing the world (they actually kind of were), and the fall of Rome when the armies largely consisted of mercenaries gathered from conquered territories that were far from the capitol. Nationalism at work. The Crusades are another clear example of this -- fight to keep the holy land holy. Religion at work.

Joan of Arc did both. The Japanese did both in WWII, which was epitomized by their kamikaze attacks. They didn't just fight suicidally -- they fought with suicide.

Basically, a robot allows one to cut the bullshit and just send it out to kill. We're already doing this with drone attacks. Perhaps these things will help illustrate to people how horribly unethical this is.

They're probably just programmed not to shoot white people. Kind of like the police.