I'm not sure what is exactly your point. If you have a cell phone, even a dumb phone, you are already being track at least by your phone company (which will give the data to the government if asked). Sorry, but you already lost your "privacy". So what is your point?

I read the summary and thought : why the fuck does it tell those common facts about the 6502. I mean who doesn't know this? And then there was this awkward moment when I thought to myself : am I that old?

You have absolutely no clue about what autism is.

People in the autism spectrum are neither loners nor asocial. Quite the contrary in fact. They generally are less individualistic, more faithful, much more honest and they have a much stronger sense of justice than "normal people". Also, although they lack cognitive empathy toward "normal people" (the same way "normal people" lack cognitive empathy toward autistic people), they generally exhibit extreme emotional empathy. An autistic person is basically the complete opposite of a psychopath.

The main problem with people in the autism spectrum is not that they are loners or asocial, it is that they are outcasts.

There's no such thing as a natural right to run a business. The only natural right is the right of the strongest. Every other rights are just a product of society.

It is a logical error to change what you are talking about in the middle of your argument.

Your initial point was not against the executioner, but against the possibility that a judge could make an error which will lead to the death of someone. That error is not deliberate. Your argument is logically wrong.

Is it a murder? No, it's not, even if the person is innocent. A murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, it has nothing to do with the concept of innocence. A soldier who kill an enemy combatant is not committing murder. A lawmaker who decide that a kind of crime should be punishable with the death penalty is not committing murder. A judge who come to the conclusion that the crime of someone is subject to death penalty is not committing murder. An executioner who kill someone condemned to death penalty is not doing something unlawful, so it's not a murder. Again, your argument is logically wrong and saying "in fact" won't make it magically true.

Finally, if every single rational objective that can be applied to death penalty was also applicable to life sentence, everybody would be satisfied with a life sentence and nobody would ask for the death penalty. You just choose to ignore the obvious because you're irrational.

Behind all the excuses and false logical arguments, the only real reason against death penalty is exactly the same as being for death penalty : it's purely an emotional reason. The basis of all our moral constructs are our emotions. As long as people will try to justify their little emotions using dubious arguments, this debate will never end.

Yes, I know being rational is not the strong point of humanity. But it's not because you're irrational that I should be!

Yes, mistakes do happen. So?

We all have a lot more chances of being killed in a car accident then being wrongly accused of a crime. Yet, very little is done to effectively prevent death in car accidents. We could limit the speed of cars to 15 miles an hour, but we don't. We consider the convenience of our system of transportation outweighs the life of a few individual (more than a million each year in the world). We consider a million people being killed each year is an acceptable margin.

So what's your point about "mistakes happen"? Because it seems completely irrational to me.

I think you didn't understand at all what I wrote. I'll do the short, short version : privacy laws are why our society is the realm of liars and dishonest people.

BTW, I don't live in the US either. As for who I am, you already know my name and, since I have a unique name, a search on the Internet will give you my address, my phone number and a lot of other information (just so you're sure, I live in Montreal). And that's perfectly fine with me.

From a science point of view, climate change is not a divisive subject at all. It's only people who don't know what they are talking about who are divided in whether they accept science or not.

When you ask for my "source", you're just dishonest and playing games. You know full well those sources. All your argument is only rhetoric. Worse, it's teenage level rhetoric. Sorry, but I find teenage level discourse a bit boring.

It's politics who's trying to use science (or far more frequently trying to deny science), not the other way around.

Here's science : our climate is changing and that change is mainly (and probably exclusively) the result of human activities. What politicians or anyone with a political agenda do with that scientific knowledge has nothing to do with science.

If you want to hide some truth about yourself, it's because you indirectly try to control how I act with you. Limiting knowledge is like putting blinders. You do that because you're trying to make me go where you want. You are afraid I will act in a certain way if I know some particular facts about you, so in order to make sure I don't act that way you put those blinders on me. I call that a form of manipulation. You may use another word, but it won't change what it is.

Are you justified to use this form of manipulation? Considering everyone does it, I'm tempted to say yes. In a world where everyone cheats, not cheating would be foolish. But it doesn't change it's a form of manipulation.

As for what information I can get about you, I'm certainly entitled to do whatever I can to get any information, provided whatever I do is legal. I have control over what I do and you have nothing to say about it. Can I force you to disclose information about yourself? Of course not. Can I search your past and talk to people who know you in order to learn whatever I can? Of course I can. Don't like it - bite me.

That's the world I live in. Is it the real world? I believe so.

Now my point for all this is I dream of a world where no one could lie and pretend to be better than they really are. I dream of a world where people would be judged for who they are instead of being judge by how well then can lie and manipulate. Do you think that world would be bad?

No, my brain is working just find. Science has nothing to do with politics. If you believe otherwise, you're just an imbecile.

So because a few scientists participate in political activism, science should be considered political?

If I follow your "logic", I guess if a plumber somewhere is advocating for a political party, it does mean plumbing should be considered political and government employees should be forbidden to use words like "faucet". Is that what you mean?

I don't use Facebook, so that company knows very little about me. However, since I use Gmail, Google search and I have an Android Phone (which tracks me all day long), Google does know a lot about me. But why should I be concerned? What could Google do?

Beyond Google, you already know my name and since it's a quite a unique name, a simple search on the Internet will allow you to know my address and my phone number (yep, it's there). In fact, if you take a bit of time, you'll be able to learn a lot about me, but I don't care. In fact, I think you have the right to know who I am even though I'm certainly not someone who is politically correct. Maybe you'll hate me, but that's your right! I'm sure some other people will love me. So why should I be concerned about it?

It's me who gets to define what I think is important about you, not you, so you should not have any control on the information I get about you. Controlling what I information I get about you is a form of manipulation. And I don't like to be manipulated.

In that way, programming is a social activity. Boys compare their works, they talk about the problems they encountered, the bugs they had and the solutions they used. But that's not what the original poster had in mind. What he had in mind was something more like what girls like to do. It was about not doing any task alone, constantly sharing their thoughts and feelings with everyone, learning how to reach a consensus without confrontations and most importantly, doing all this without any form of competition.