As I said, it's no more correct using an 's' to pluralize LEGO than it is to pluralize words like sheep... other examples of such words are deer, moose, swine, and aircraft. Putting an s on the end is gramatically incorrect, the word is both singular *and* plural. (most correcty, in fact, LEGO, when not being used to refer to the company itself, is actually a mass noun, and is comparable to words like 'snow', where the notion of "pluralizing" it doesn't even make any sense).

They aren't the same literal acts... but both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief. Whether you kill or simply beat up, both are ultimately violent acts spawned from nothing less than the exact same hatred of things that are different.

The all-caps usage is acceptable... but in addition to being the company name, Lego (or LEGO) is a word that refers to any number of individual pieces, Adding an s on the end to pluralize it is about as correct as putting an 's' after words like sheep.

I'm not saying that people don't have every right to be pissed off about having their privacy invaded.... I'm saying that when violence is *ever* the defaut response to simply being angry about something that is not physically threatening in any way, shape, or form, then there is already a problem with the emotional maturity of that particular person.

I'd be inclined to not include Buzz Aldrin in that category because the person that he assaulted was physically stalking him, and deliberately creating a situation where Mr. Aldrin did not have the physical freedom to ignore him or walk away (since he and his camera crew simply followed him when he tried). That said, I think Mr. Aldrin should have told them to leave him alone, or he would place harassment charges on them if they tried to follow. It's not like he wouldn't have had a legitimate case against them.

Anyways.... supposedly, human beings are a civilization... so maybe people should try acting civilized. Your neighbor being an asshole should never be any justification for you to be one. See ethical vigilantism (point 12) on the ethics scoreboard.

Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?

Your stats are wrong... there are 30 firearms per HUNDRED people in Canada.

A (slightly) higher percentage of Canadians have firearms than Americans, but the difference in statistics comes from the fact that most people in the US who are armed in the first place possess multiple firearms.

I'd dare say not so much "hopeful", but perhaps "morbidly curious" would be the more accurate term.

Obviously such an overreaction would be wrong on every level, but when a person has actually attempted non-violent means to deal with a problem and only faced grief over it, doesn't that indicate that there's something already wrong with the system?

Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state, so by my understanding of wiretapping laws there, what this kid did was illegal.

Now, this isn't something I would want to see, but I am morbidly curious about what would happen if somebody tried a mechanism like this after being a victim of being bullied, got charged with wiretapping... and then when it happened again, the victim decides to simply kill the bullies in retaliation.

Now clearly, homicide would probably be considered "excessive force" as a means of dealing with bullying, but I think that this hypothetical scenario also shows that two-party or all-party consent requirements for recording might be broken. If a person tries non-violent means to get the matter dealt with, and only gets punished for it... then what difference should it make, in that sense, whether they resort to violent extremes anyways?

In Pennsylvania, if you secretly record somebody who is committing a crime, then instead of being considered helpful to the police by providing it as evidence, you would be be considered guilty of another crime yourself (which would then suggest to me that the video could not be used as evidence.... which would strike me me as pretty amazing if the crime that was recorded were heinous enough).

No, you pay Comcast for internet access at UP TO X speed. It's all in your contract, they promise nothing.

Someone who is so easily enraged that they would resort to physical violence over what ultimately amounts to a difference in beliefs over an intangible issue like privacy is no better than those who have, in the past, gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of God.

That's perfectly fine, but in practice, the HR people are the only ones that you are ever going to have a chance of seeing until you've done something to get yourself noticed by somebody higher up.

If you have connections that can get you past HR without any hassle, that's all very well and good... but not everyone is so well connected.

While it's not a solution most people want to consider, pumping sulfuric acid into the atmosphere would counter act the green house effect. But it's sort of the "old lady who swallowed the fly" issue since we then would need to figure out what to do about all the acid rain.

I decided to double-check that point on a government web site, and in fact, all "slower traffic keep right" signs mean is that the road is expected to accomodate a variety of vehicles which may be moving at various speeds (and of course, by law, all of them should be at or below the posted limit), and where the inner lanes are reserved exclusively for vehicles that are travelling at or very near the posted speed limit, other vehicles which may need to travel more slowly are advised to use the outside lane. Slow moving vehicles travelling below the posted limit are forbidden from using the left lane except where it is necessary for a left turn, but under no circumstances is a vehicle going the posted limit prohibited from using the lane, even if other vehicles around them are speeding.

"Keep right except to pass" is another sign which only occurs where an auxiliary lane has been added to a highway for passing purposes only. Usually, the roadway expands in width, with the lane markings shifting the existing lanes slightly to the right, making room for a new lane on the left, similar to what you mgiht find near an intersection having a dedicated left-turning lane All lanes to the right of this new lane are permitted for regular driving, however. The auxiliarly lane is usually of limited length, and the purpose of the sign is to caution drivers who might otherwise expect to be able to utilize the additional lane for regular cruising.

I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.

This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?

And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?

But that would mean the people stealing phones where doing things that were illegal, and that would be BREAKING THE LAW!