You are wrong. There are several studies from various tribes where children don't get raised by their mother and father, but by the whole village.

Well, we don't live in those tribes. In our societies, statistically the kids of single mothers who marry someone else than their father, do no better than children of single moms who never marry. Biological parentage matters.

The idea that children should be raised by the community and not be so dependent on mom and dad, was one of the first they had to abandon in the Soviet Union. Even if such societies exist, it's not given that there's a path from here to there.

In 2012, if you knock up a 16 yr old girl, you get counseling

In the US? No, you end up on the sex offender registry. In some cases even if you're 16 or younger yourself.

True as far as it goes. The legal status of your parent's relationship doesn't matter (much), but being raised by two biological parents do.

The higher divorce rate is a consequence, not just a cause, of poor people's woes (of all races). Money can't buy happiness, but it can plaster over a lot of problems, including relationship problems.

there is still plenty of additional blame to heap on the individuals for their own bad choices

Funny how "bad choices" aren't randomly distributed, but concentrated with people who struggle with things they can't be blamed for (their parents, where they're born, etc.)

Bear in mind that the variant of checkers played competitively outside UK/US, International Draughts, is played on a 10x10 board and it has "long" queens (a la pool checkers in UK/US). It is far from solved, although it has even more problems with tied games on high level than chess.

For tic tac toe or straightforward connect N games, It is impossible to construct a situation where not having a piece in a position is better than having it. Zugzwang is impossible. Thus you know these games are either a first player win or a tie.

But this argument doesn't work for connect-4 (a la Hasbro). There, you sometimes prefer not to have a piece in a position, because your opponent could win by putting one on top of it. As it happens it's still a first player win, but it's tricky to prove without exhausting all possibilities.

Again Go proves superior: Memorizing Go openings is a start. Learning why they work the way they do is required.

Again poor Go players show their silliness. Do you think Carlsen can skip why Caro-Kahn works the way it does?

And yes, I refuse to believe you are a strong go player, because then you'd know how silly that statement was.

the best Go software commercially available

Does it say that on the box? Because I strongly doubt he does. Can your dad beat a top pro with only 4 handicap stones? Because both Zen and Crazy Stone have achieved that.

Maybe he can beat the best commercial go software from 2008 or so. In that case he's still very good, and few people would manage that without being at least club players (and thus ranked).

Go is a perimeter game and is really no more complex than Othello. A simple neural net (I hate that fucking term) algorithm trained against average Go-playing humans will end up being average at playing Go.

How impressive that you can know that without having tried. How do I know you haven't tried it? Because it's totally wrong...

Apparently there is no decent Go computer player in the world that can beat more than an average Go human player.

Not true any longer. Not by far. The best humans are still best, but computers are getting good. Really good. Holding 6 dan at KGS good. That means they are a match for the top club players.

To put it into perspective: If you make Go your only hobby right now, and practice every day for 5 years, and you're a damn smart guy, you're still unlikely to become better than Zen is now - let alone better than Zen will be in 5 years.

Traitorous spies? No, that is false. The law was written to deal with socialists advocating isolationism in WWI.

The dice are there to force you out of your prior expectations, and keep you from going down the same old paths.

This was one of the central messages of Kirk Botula's "Complete book of Villains", IMHO one of the most underestimated RPG accessories of all time. Many bestselling fiction writers would have been better for reading that book.

If you tell a person "make up a hero", or "make up a villain", he might make up an original one - once or twice. Then odds are they'll start to resemble each other, and display lack of interesting diversity. Botula's advice was to use die rolls, and try to make sense of them. So your villain has high intelligence but low wisdom. How can we interpret that?

Or you could roll for a villain's motives. Wealth? Power? The need to feel loved? Or even the need to be seen as the good guy?

And as always, of course, not slavishly follow the die rolls. If every villain is super-complex, you get a soap opera. Some combinations just don't make sense (or, at least, you're going to get a really weird world if you always try to force them to make sense.)

Basically, you use randomness to resist your own biases and predictability, and push the limits of your creativity and imagination.

No, a property transfer has two parties

So you're a libertarian. You think property rights have some sort of objective platonic existence apart from the social framework they exist in. Fair enough, tone flag all you want, but it'd be nice if you adressed my arguments as well.

I gave examples that even people who run bitcoin tumblers, presumably even more hardcore libertarians than you, do in fact object to anonymising some people's payments (namely, the FBI's, or anyone taking money from them). Whereas they earlier had anonymized even known stolen money (from hacks, scams etc.) when the FBI is involved, they suddenly think some people don't have the right to anonymous payments. And we're not just talking the FBI here, we're talking any people getting money the FBI at one time touched - so they can't just say that government is especially evul so normal rules don't apply wrt. them.

People using zerocoin or coinjoin get privacy for their own information-leaking transactions - but at the cost of getting coin that may have been involved in some extremely evil shit. "Well, nobody would care about that since they know you got them blindly", advocates say. Not so. You risk people treating it like stolen goods and demanding its return, just like Jewish families demand the return of art stolen during WW2, or Egyptians demand back stuff from the British Museum.
So you got that stuff good faith? Tough luck, people don't have to be reasonable (and there's a question of how innocent you are, since you participated in a scheme capable of obfuscating even the most vile and illegitimate property transfers).

Property claims don't go away so easily. Much as you would like it, the block chain isn't the final word on who legitimately owns what.

For that matter, it doesn't have to be governments or nice and upstanding citizens demanding return of stolen goods. Picture this scenario: Someone burns a mafia boss for $100000 in bitcoin. He swears that he'll get his revenge on whoever holds the coin, and tells the world (in order that the thief should get as much trouble as possible cashing out, and pay as high a premium as possible). However, the thief uses zerocoin. So do you, because you thought it a little awkward to buy condoms. From Zerocoin you end up with a coin stolen from the mafia boss. Unfortunately, you never heard of the mafia boss' ultimatum, and you get gunned down some weeks after spending the money at a known location. A libertarian martyr, for the thief's inherent right to anonymously transfer stolen money. Worth it? I think not.

That's an extreme example. But it shows that the whole premise of tumblers, decentralized (like zerocoin) or not, is that people will give up their claims on an asset just because it's passed through many oblivious hands. That is a flawed premise. Only people who don't get that will be dumb enough to put clean money into tumblers.

Yes, that's not surprising as elections aren't very democratic:

It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election. -- Aristotle

It does matter that the coins are dirty. If you purchase a painting, and that painting turns out to have been stolen by Nazis from a Jewish family during the Holocaust, you're out of luck - even though the war was 70 years ago, you will probably have to return it. Where the painting has been in the meantime, and how many hands it's went through, doesn't matter.

Bitcoin differ from regular currency in that they are not homogenous, and are forever traceable, like works of art. More so than works of art, in fact, which can be forged or defaced (removing signatures, etc.).

The people coming after you might have a reasonably just cause, like people seeking the return of stolen artifacts. Or they may have an unjust cause - the government, or the mob, might decide to make an example of you for trading with people who've stolen from them, even if you did so unwittingly.