No, but I see what you think is the issue. Before, you just sounded unreasonable. Now you seem maybe hyper-vigilant, but at least not nuts.

I'm not sure my not knowing how you rationalize your paranoia about FB taking its time deleting your profile in any way suggests I'm stupid. Let's stipulate though that I am. Please explain then, in terms even I can understand, why it is a big deal. You never had to provide any accurate, let alone secret, information about yourself. You don't have to "Like" anything, or post any pictures of your pets, or click on any adverts, or send or accept any "Friend Requests", or even log in. So then, what is the big deal? Granted, it's not your problem, but would you condescend to say what it it that troubles you so?

That is indeed interesting. Thanks for sharing your idea.

This is good news for me, too. Friends have influenced my wife to feed me "The Paleo Diet". I hope she'll buy the idea that cavemen did in fact have cheese after all...so I can too.

That is partly right. On Monday, that was what the weather advisory predicted. However, at 3:39 AM Tuesday, my wife, who works at a DeKalb County school, received a weather alert that said the advisory had been upgraded to a warning. The warning stated that there would be dangerous winter storm conditions, and that only emergency vehicles should be on the road. Everyone in state, city, and county government, and school systems, knew what was coming.

Why were the schools not closed? Several years ago, I forget which year it was, there was a weather forecast for a few inches of snow. The schools closed. Not a flake fell. The school systems were heavily criticized for pre-emptively closing. After that, they have been reluctant to close until they see the snow. This time, that proved to be a mistake.

Hindsight, as the cliche says, is always 20/20. Here in the ATL, even when foresight is 20/20, making the right call is, at best, 50/50.

Unfortunately, I couldn't afford the $300. Fortunately, I never liked my data anyway.

How is it a logical fallacy? Isn't it just an empirical question as yet unanswered?

Why? The fact that no one has yet invented a robot-designing robot is no guarantee that no one ever will. I work with neuroscientists who build animats and cultured neural networks that interface with computers. The latter have been shown to learn. Sure, those examples are to robot-designing robots as protozoa are to humans, but that's the point. Protozoa evolved and here we are. The real logical fallacy is in assuming that because we claim to be sentient now that we have evolved, that the eventual robot-designing robot will make the same claim.

One out of two ain't bad.

The party that values cash more than bitcoins, though, probably will suffer less buyer's remorse.

Does it, in practical effect, count as reducing government power if all you actually do is transfer that power from the constitutional government to large corporations? If so, is that a good thing? Isn't it in fact marginally worse for me if completely unaccountable corporations wrest power from a nearly unaccountable government? Government does a lousy job of protecting me from AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and Monsanto...but AT&T, Goldman Sachs, and Monsanto don't protect me from government at all, and certainly not from themselves.

Fighting over a ball and generating a huge load of statistics. Fantasy football is a fun intellectual pastime...if you have an interest in predictive analytics...which I do. Watching actual games not only provides some insight regarding what to include in modeling, but also makes the process more interesting...even exciting at times. But if there were no actual grown men out there fighting over actual balls, there would be no fantasy football. So I guess I'd have to say that I, for one, give a crap about sports.