Who would you consider as alternate leading voices on the topic of religion in the scientific community? Or should they all just shut their cakeholes?

I don't see much difference in the two statements. I think if someone keeps a cool head they can rebutt either one if that is what one truly believes. I think it is just his style that rubs people the wrong way. The best way to answer this is to confront it directly just as you lined it out and make him answer to it. Problem is, the guy is pretty well spoken and intelligent, so your average person debating with him gets flustered because they feel they cannot defend their view intelligently. I am no huge fan of Dawkins, just my observation. He rarely, if ever that I noticed, spews the same vitriol he gets in return. He says what he believes without much emotion. Hitchens was aggressive as hell.

That's right there isn't. But they are fair game to be called out for their bias.

disagreeing with somebody does not make them a douche. Dawkins is not in the same league as Hitchens when it comes to this. I think Dawkins rubs people the wrong way because he does stay so cool under fire. He comes across as an intellectual (an eeeeleeeet). Hitchens just crucified (sorry for the pun) people of faith.

I don't get this from Krauss. Hitchens maybe, did not like his approach. Krauss and Dawkins are not as aggressive, they only say they need proof and they challenge absurd assumptions based on faith alone. They even say it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. What we know about the universe today leads us to believe that there isn't but in the end it is impossible to know for sure.

I know many non-technical people that are bypassing the restrictions. I think you will see a clamp down on any method that has a critical mass of people using it. Safe to say using your own VPS as a socks5 proxy will never be blocked. But if you are using goober's "geobypass4netflix.com" then it may get blocked.

They didn't print an opposing and well written view by one of the leading voices in the scientific community on this issue. So the claim here is that the WSJ are biased. But you are right about the yawn. That WSJ article was preaching to the choir and there are plenty of other places to get the counter view.

Ya no shit. Store all your settings and access all these devices from the cloud. No thank you. Now the "Intranet of Things" interests me somewhat and most of the interesting stuff is happening in the do-it-yourself space. People are doing incredible things with RaspberryPi's and Arduino's and other variants and they are posting their code publicly so anyone can hack around.

Ya every goober out there is going to do this or send money to some shady guy in another country.

Lame reply to myself...... ....and I would just cancel my Netflix, which they know and is probably why they don't do that.

Netflix could just tie your account to a geographic region. No matter where you login from you get your country's content. I just think they don't really care and will not do this until they are motivated to. Want a US account then you need a US address. I don't know what the issue is. Seems easier than playing IP Range Wack a Mole.

And how will they do that? It is not an issue of price. The idea is that you would need to be using a US IP that is not through a VPN. There will still be ways but its not a matter of getting people to pony up cash, they already are.

It has little to do with "hoarding" of weath because wealth is not stuff - it's not food, it's not cars, it's not houses wealth is control of the means of production. And we benefit greatly if wealth is hoarded by people who are great at making investment decisions. Wealth is not what you seem to think!

So someone who owns million/billions in real estate, investments and all that other stuff is not wealthy? It is solely controlling the means of production? (which if you do you will probably have all those billions) If you are some trust fund baby with no clue but billions in the bank you are not wealthy? And you twist it around to say that it is good for you if the very wealthy and powerful remain that way because we benefit from their intelligence. Sounds a little like trickle down economics to me.

My initial point to everyone enjoying a life of luxury, where all of our immediate needs are provided so that we can focus on other pursuits to better ourselves, had to do with the paradigm shift that would be required. One that humanity itself could not do because we are not hard wired that way. We compete, we keep score. We want to be better than the next guy, either by pulling ahead or putting a boot to their throat to keep them down. I don't lament this, it is who we are.

One liners do not convey a point at all. I guess I could have elaborated. To have everyone live a life of leisure would require sharing of wealth by also foregoing future hording or it. Create and produce for the benefit of human kind so we can move on to more important things. We aren't wired that way and even a koombaya scenario would be boring to a lot of people and would most likely fail. But the 350K number is very interesting. I honestly thought that would have been higher.
cheers

Oh calm down. Nobody is advocating stealing from anyone. Just a light hearted response that the 1 hour work week and all holding hands singing koombaya will never work. Take your free market trickle down dogma bullshit elsewhere. Happy New Year!