The counter-argument would be that property is defined by the government, i.e. society as a whole, not the individual. You may consider the piece of land you sleep on to be yours in some intrinsic way, but there is plenty of debate on whether property is an inalienable right, if such rights exist.

Actually it is quite natural because, for religious people, moral meaning relies on the eternity of their metaphysical beings. Philosophically meaning is about affect. If object A has precisely no affect on object B, then for object B, A is meaningless. If all we are is a chance, temporal assembly of atoms and, no matter what our actions, the end result of the universe is extinction, then morals are indeed meaningless.

Certainly ethical behaviour has non-religious sources, mostly from a (short term) species survival point of view, but this is different from the absolute sense with which most people consider morality.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been in mid-swing, got a call, and had to waste a valuable split second while the head fell before answering.

But interesting post.

I don't think this is unfortunate as the expansion of NATO is partially responsible for Russian aggression - they have a motivation to maintain a strong buffer. What you otherwise suggest has merit but is still risky. The U.S. is unlikely to engage Russia in war over an invasion of Latvia, for example, regardless of what the NATO agreement says. Placing U.S. troops there might change that, but the risk is that Russia considers it a bluff.

Or conversely, maybe when the government looks after your health you don't need to worry about researching it yourself, and you take it for granted and don't value it as much. But let's stir up a big argument about capitalism versus socialism.

Possible, like the saying that musicians have the worst sound systems. Still I'd say this is backwards. The more you value any activity, the more likely you are to seek out the community and other indirect aspects of what you enjoy.

For example, technology. Surely discussing IT on Slashdot indicates you are more an enthusiast than someone who clocks more 'technology' hours than you simply web browsing on their consumer device.

It's hardly surprising for a company to hold its financial results close to its chest, but this is made more delicious given how much time they spend pointing out the downsizing of rival Fairfax Media.

Fairfax papers, especially, have suffered from the internet while News Corp has soldiered on, but it was only a matter of time. Being more left-wing, Fairfax's demographic is younger and more inclined to embrace new technology. As they age, and likely become more conservative, they will still consume news online rather than return to dead tree papers.

I think you misunderstand the concept of a mandate. It is used when a party wins an overwhelming majority in the lower house to suggest that the upper house, where the party has a minority, should capitulate on a particular issue. I.e. suggesting the checks and balances should step aside. It has nothing to do with complaining about losing in a democracy.

Personally I think a mandate almost never exists. In a representative system you might say that all elected members have a mandate to vote as they campaigned.

Very informative. The density of the German population makes sense, but can you explain why Germany, a nation with a lot of manufacturing, would have less troubles than the US with balancing?

P.S. I'm hoping the answer is their lack of strong sunlight, for delicious irony.

All caches have a non-zero miss change, it doesn't mean the concept is useless. In this case it could still work. If it predicts your Sunday night show 80% of the time, then for the 20% miss you'll have to stream from the original server. However if the 80% applies to all customers then network congestion has been significantly reduced and your streaming can work at HD.

It's not stated but my assumption is that the admin was removing his/her sig.

How does fractional reserve work with Bitcoin? If they loan out some deposited coins, fair enough, but if the original owner draws on it they cryptographically need that exact coin, not some other random one.

Or do depositors hand over the coins to the exchange for a virtual account, destroying the signed-ownership benefit of Bitcoin and replacing it with trust in an institution?

It's worse than that, half the posters don't even read the post they're replying to, they just want to say their bit.

Spot on, it's basically a modern version of Friends with a few popular science references. It's not about science, it's character and relationship-based and easily digestible.

Perceptions are interesting, my understanding was completely the reverse, that as the empire declined the church had to pick up the slack of looking after the population, and so developed the attributes of a state rather than being a pacifist religion.

A good point, it helps explains how the empire survived for centuries after its territory had ceased expanding. I think we see the same effects today within former colonial powers like Britain and France. The trade connections don't disappear just because they no longer officially own the country.