Their desire to make money? So what. I desire to make money to - can I block their services and force them to use mine?

By that desire, the Hotel has the right to block all Cellphone services, after all they put phones in your room (and charge you ridiculous amounts of money to make calls on them).

No.

Providing one service on a premise does not grant you a monopoly on all ancillary services provided on that premise.

We can start with the fascist pig that thought a water boarding wasn't torture, and move on to Cheney, who when questioned about torture ignores our own actions and instead discusses the the crimes of our opponents - as if the ends justifies the means.

I will however state that in my opinion your sense of humor needs a lot of work. It is clear you were trying to be funny but failed.

Many people want/prefer a less assertive/aggressive child. They do what they are told, instead of trying to invent/create new things to do on their own.

That makes for a less assertive/aggressive adult. They do what they are told, instead of inventing/creating.

Another clear example is the 'polite rage'. Studies have shown that the more polite a society, the more seething rage develops inside it. Where a traditional brash American northerner gets angry, but never fights for honor, a traditionally polite American southerner stays polite until you go to far and then goes for blood.

That should be illegal - at least without the express written consent of the people being impersonated.

Yes, the cops have done this and the person sued. I would love to hear what happened in that law suit, because impersonating someone else is a very different matter from creating a fake account.

Ended their red light program test this week. I guess having these run at the state level means less conflict of interest.

Each cell divided from your original ovum/sperm combination. Those came from their parents, which came from their parents, etc. etc.

Cells have been proven to be able to divide into new ones FOREVER, given minimal changes. Telomeres and the other forms of aging are all just anti-cancer techniques.

You do however have a good point when you mention the brain.

But that is also not insurmountable. It's called gradual replacement. Kill about 1% of the brain every year and grow new cells.

Yes there will be some partial memory loss. So what? By that age, you already have memory issues. Personality and the 'soul' (if it exists) will remain the same. You ameliorate the memory issues by leaving personal recordings of important things - video, etc. Basically, you look at your own Facebook page [ ughh, I found a real use for Facebook :( ]

You are correct we will never win against entropy.

But you are wrong when you think the constraints are freer for artificial intelligence. They simply are not there. The 'weaknesses' of organic life are actually strengths that people do not understand. Things like blinking - it is an automatic health maintenance procedure, not a weakness in human vision.

My counterargument is simple: a) Genetic engineering and b) information transfer is a weakness

The main obstacle to medicine preventing aging is cancer. Aging started out as a simple way to prevent unlimited cell reproduction, i.e. cancer. Give us another 200-500 years and we will stop aging and cancer. We won't really be immortal, as humans will still die from accidents - but so will artificial life forms.

What few upgrades that are good ideas (for GENERALISTS, not specialists - don't give people tools that not all of us of need), we will be able to slowly work into the genome using the same genetic engineering.

Finally, high speed, unfiltered information transfer is NOT a good idea for life forms. It lets you be hacked. Any creature that has a simple way to upload a ton of data is susceptible to having a virus inserted into that data, which means they get stuck in low level jobs, not high level ones.

Aside: what the hell is up with that? Linking to a 15 minute YouTube video that, by definition, takes 15 minutes to sit through, rather than a five page article that can be skimmed in two? And the videos don't even use the medium to show graphics or charts - they're generally just some talking head in front of their computer's webcam. Are the pundits of this new generation illiterate, and can't simply write down what they want to say? Or are they assuming that their audience is illiterate?

Actually, one issued the story and then others responded to it, many of them jumping on the same bandwagon. It's like seeing something in the NYTimes, then subsequently the WaPo saying, "The NYTimes reported X. We believe X'."
I mean, hell, if you're going to call that a conspiracy, then you just issued a similar story, so mark it up to 14.

Those are not inconsistent statements. You believe that the number of sockpuppets was less than 100%. GP says that according to wiki, it's greater than 50%. If it turns out anywhere within that range, it's still bad.

Gosh, you're right, these sure are harassing tweets:

I'm sure the FBI will be cracking down on Wu any day now.