While you're pondering what question to ask a dead frog, the ceiling squashes you. Your life and your adventure end here.

Thanks for responding. I do disagree with you about free trade though. I believe it to be good. It might be disruptive but it is economically efficient (overall) and it is peaceful. In fact, surpluses created by trade and other means are essential if we want to fund all the good things societies want. The problem isn't trade per se, it's that the benefits aren't reallocated back to the people that might be displaced by it.

Seems like a good idea to me. What happened?

I don't know. Our managers, good or bad, are tasked with some pretty mind numbing things like tracking progress on things that are hard to measure and endless days of nothing but meetings. Why would anyone want that job?

He should be tossed out for violating the constitution.

How about just not re-electing him?

Thank you Mr. Car Analogy Person. But us programmers are simple people. We just tell the machines what to do. Other Engineers are responsible for making the machines.

Programming is nothing more than telling a machine what to do. You can tell your car to start by turning a key. You can tell the light to switch off by flipping a switch. You can even etch your own circuit board without typing anything. However, using actual words to code is much easier than designing an entire system from chemical and mechanical processes. That's why we have programming languages. Despite popular perceptions, those languages significantly simplify complex tasks.

Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Supposedly the idea isn't just to make you drive the speed limit at the speed trap, it's to make you drive the speed limit *everywhere* because you don't know where the speed traps are.

Well, the real answer would be speeding cameras everywhere instead of random checks. It would be more fair to everyone and reduce speed more consistently than random checks. But guess what? Those are not popular.

Right now driving is a game. A game with screwed up rules like: It's okay to drive the speed you feel safe. Unless there is a cop trying to enforce some arbitrary limit. Then you must drive the arbitrary limit. You are less likely to see a cop during rush hour because they don't want to slow down traffic. You are more likely to see the cop when the lanes have fewer people and are therefore safer for higher speeds. It's a crazy system we have.

I would leave out the 2 significant changes part. It is ambiguous (lawyers will argue over what significant means) and complicates the law unnecessarily. Time limits are straight forward and serve the purpose.

As long as the game is actively for sale, I don't see anything wrong with the copyright holder continuing to make money from it. The problem is when games and other works can no longer be found for sale. For other works the copyright ownership might be unknowable. For these works, they should be in the public domain. To me this strikes the right balance. If someone cares enough to keep the game working on current hardware, they can keep the copyright. If they no longer care about the game, then the public can have it.

The real problem is the voters. Too many voting Americans are all too eager to favor sanctions (or worse) on whomever they are told is villain of the week (or half century). And to the extent that these "villain" countries have traits that should change, too few Americans are patient and forward looking enough to see that trade and engagement would better serve that purpose than sanctions and isolation and an occasional war or two.

The reason we point out the bad things about America is we're American. Other countries are irrelevant.

American colonies had indentured servants in the 1700s. According to Wikipedia, about half of the voluntary European colonists during this period were indentured for a period of time before becoming free.

Hogwash. One of the fundamentals of programming is understanding the machine or system and the "rules" for controlling it. How are you to develop an algorithm for solving the towers of Hanoi on a specific system if you don't know whether or not that system is capable of recursion (or perhaps even requires it)? How are you going to handle input and output without knowing the "rules" for the interfaces? High level algorithms can be solved by mathematicians but computer scientists use "rules" to make the machines do what they want. There is no computer science without the "rules".

Medicare fraud doesn't cause the same kind of visceral rage as forced traffic jams. Everyone hates being stuck in traffic, while almost nobody is directly impacted by fraud against the government.