It isn't. It's called censorship if someone else is hiding information from you or denying access. If you don't use Mozilla because you don't like the head honcho for what reason ever, it's called free choice.

Actually, no. When I was 13, I was busily fighting off nicknames others were trying to hang onto me. My current handle is the nickname that finally stuck, when I was 15.

In a free country, everything the government does, can be spelled as "The goverment forbids...", because in a free country, everything is allowed except for the things that are explicitely forbidden.

Only if it was forbidden before, the government actually can allow something.

With the same right you reserve for you the right to pollute people's memory long-term with your opinion. Advertisement is just the spread of an opinion, that it might be sensible/enjoyable/cool to buy a certain product or brand. You might disagree with the opinion (rightfully so), but in general, the advertiser has the right to spread it, and if some media agree to carry his opinion (even if they are paid to), it's their right.

Yes, you don't have the means or the money to spread your opinion as far and wide as an advertiser with his advertising budget, but on the other hand, the way the advertiser is allowed to spread his opinion is strongly regulated, differently to yours.

We know the conundrum since 350 years, it's written down in Friedrich Spee's "Cautio Criminalis". Torture doesn't yield reliable results, if any. Because even if someone in the know might reveal something useful under torture, someone who isn't, won't, but they might just say anything, if true or not. And if you then, based on those confessions of unclear truth, arrest the next one, what will his interrogation yield? And someone in the know, who knows the unreliability of confessions under torture, might even blatantly lie to the interrogators, causing them to go after false leads and thus winning time for his cause, while someone innocent is taken into custody and tortured without any chance to ever produce something of use for the interrogators. All you get is a huge bunch of white (actually bloodish red) noise, and everthing possibly useful is drowned into lots of worthless or outright false statements.

Torture only works for confessions of things you already knew for sure. Then you can force someone to give up and confess. But as an investigative method, it is just unproductive. If you don't know what the suspect knows, how can you tell if he reveals something of value? And how many not-so-bad guys came under torture because of misleading statements, produced more misleading statements (as they didn't know shit), but when they were released they bore a grudge against their torturers and had firsthand knowledge of their structure, mentality, inner workings and locations?

Actually, she was a teenager. As 13 ends in -teen, she was literally a teen-ager, in this case, she was a thirteen-ager. And yes, that's the meaning of the word. A teenager is someone whose age ends with -teen.

Especially he has the right to complain. He got in prison for doing what others now do to him. So either his sentence was injustice (because others are allowed for what he serves time in prison), or what the others are doing to him now is injustice and should be punished with prison time.

Never attribute to malice what sufficiently can be explained with stupidity.

This is a clear case of "blinded by data".

And that's exactly the problem the NSA faces: Hindsight is 20/20. After you know who actually staged an attack, you recognize the pattern that might have raised the alarm. The NSA seems to believe that they can spot the pattern before the actual attack, but so far it didn't happen. At least that's what we know. The NSA seems to believe that more data will help spot the patterns more easily, but to me, it looks as if all it spots is noise and signals indistinguishible from noise.

Sometimes I am reminded of the Bible code. If you look at any, even random, data long enough, you find enough seemingly meaningfull patterns, but in the end it's impossible to make a difference between signal and noise.

Then the NSA does a hell of a non-job. It wasn't able to find the nadle named "Tsarnaev brothers", though there were warnings about them. Same with "Abdulmutallab", which seems to have turned up nothing despite even his own father was warning about him.

No, there are Special Creationists (concerned with space and time) and General Creationists (which also include mass into their prayers).

You rightly quote Wikipedia, and you know what's (according to Wikipedia) missing in socialism? Right, private ownership! All ownership is collective, co-operative or state based. And that's what real socialism is. Not what you use the swearword "socialism" for.

Repeat after me: No private ownership or private control of production means. As long as most of the production means ownership and control is private, you simply don't have Socialism. You can call me Euroweenie or Hans or whatever, but you still are wrong. Swearwords don't change that.

Choose a new swearword for the situation you don't like in the U.S. or be prepared to further be called for misunderstanding and misusing the word Socialism.

Socialism is, when the means of production are socialized, that means owned or at least controlled by the society and not private owners.

And no, you don't still have a clue. You come across like the american jews in the 1930ies and 1940ies, who told their European brethren who could barely flee: "we also had hard times." Yes, there are regulations in the U.S. and there are taxes. That doesn't make the U.S. in any way socialist. The municipal appartement administration has no comparable counterpart in the U.S.. The owner of a house under the municipal administration can't enter any contracts anymore. Not even necessary repairs. He can apply for repairs at the office, but the administration will determine the time, allocate the money, will hire the craftsmen (or send their own), and oversee the execution.

You still have no clue about capitalism vs. socialism. In a socialist country, you have a strong state sector in the economy, private ownership of companies, of resources and even of tools is frowned upon. Call me back when more than 80% of the economic output of the U.S. economy comes from the state owned sector. Call me again, when the house you are living in is state owned or at least state administered, like 95% of all other housing. Call me back when taxes on privately owned enterprises like a pub or a bakery are 90%. Call me back when all mining is a state owned monopoly. Call me back when every trade and every shop has to be member of a state controlled society.

You just don't know how it is when a farmer is blackmailed to join a farmer's collective by having a truck outside his house all night with a running engine, shining the beams into the bedroom. When his son is put in jail for trumped up traffic violation charges, and the charges will only be dropped if his father joins the collective. You don't know how it is when a private owned print shop just doesn't get any paper, because the order for new paper was put back and back and postponed again by the state owned papermill. You don't know how it is when you can't rent out your house anymore, but you are required to report all available appartements to the municipal appartement administration which then will send you whoever people they allocated the appartments to.

Stop your clueless musings about how socialist the U.S. would be. It just isn't true.

No. A programmer is a programmer, and an engineer is an engineer. There are programmers who are engineers, and there are engineers who know how to code. Engineering is about design, programming is about putting down code. In an ideal world, an engineer's design for a program can be coded by one programmer in C++, in Fortran by another one, and in LISP by a third one.