So it's ultra-hard like steel, ultra-light like aluminum, and ultra-clear like glass, while being a decent insulator of heat and electricity? Why aren't my windows made of this stuff?

Honestly, this whole stance is stupid. You can't control that kind of information in any meaningful way. It's like deciding only the Shepherds of the Righteous will have weapons: you're just creating an imbalance.

The more access dangerous criminals have to dangerous toys, the more society moves to control them. When society gives up hope on controlling their access to dangerous toys, it finds other ways to control criminals. In the most extreme, the criminals become so dangerous as to create a failing no-man's land; but they are still taken by infighting, until you have a small group of leaders controlling a large group of subjects. Essentially, the most-powerful group beats down the least-powerful for encroaching on their power; then everyone feels the sting of oppression, and, eventually, society rises up to crush them, learning (temporarily) from the experience to be more hostile to people who threaten society.

People have this idea that they can keep dangerous hacking technology out of the hands of parties known for human rights violations. Strange that they don't take an aggressive stance against such parties; they simply want to protect themselves, without really removing that threat. It's as if they want to hide their heads down and go largely unnoticed, not drawing the attention, and not giving them any new toys to get their adrenaline rushing over the prospect of rushing into town guns blazing to show off what they've just acquired.

Encryption wouldn't protect you here. The application can access the underlying data; the database can access its contents (to search on indexes); you have the access to ask for the decrypted content.

Excess labor is self-buffering. We have welfare systems for that (and I advocate a better one because it's time). Even in the appropriate economic conditions for full communism (which may never occur, even though we can define them easily), you would run out of shit to spend your money on (nothing you want or need), and so simply take shorter working hours (and give up part of your income), requiring the hiring of more employees, until everyone is working 10-15 hour weeks, or 1 hour work weeks, making a full salary: you don't "implement" communism; it happens as a natural result of capitalism having expanded wealth beyond what any human society can spend. The Soviets missed this, else they would have realized it won't work unless it's already working.

Every time you improve efficiency--new tools (specialized hand tools, power tools, machines, automated machines) or management techniques (artisan, assembly line, cellular manufacture, advancements in project management)--you reduce the human labor required to produce a unit product or service. Those chairs you sell for $60 involve $40 of human labor; you cut that in half, you sell them for $40, you make the same profit. That makes unemployment, while the rest of consumers have more money in their hands (the extra $20, which is why they come to you and not your ass-expensive competitor still selling for $60; you just got to take away his business for free).

That means new markets can open to target that $20 with a new good or service, or existing markets can expand to sell more of a much-desired good or service. The cost of selling that thing? Ultimately, human labor. Volume discounts, competition, and all other price (read: profit margin) suppression factors later, that $20 employs exactly the same number of laborers your prior efficiency improvements displaced (if your profit margins overall for the new products are exactly the same--your profits, in total, will be higher).

Welfare buffers this turn-over by supplying a means to maintain the labor force in the interim. Even without welfare, as long as they don't die out, we keep the unemployment numbers we need.

Better welfare retains wealth: a Citizen's Dividend would cost as much as our current system (I computed profit plus risk margins; the numbers sound low, but they're on the order of ridiculous shit that will make me richer than Warren Buffet in under 3 years if I become a landlord), and wouldn't inflate in a recession (everyone is getting the dividend; everyone making under $625k is coming out ahead), while keeping the poor and unemployed operating as economic drivers (the poor buy food and housing, which creates employment for other less-poor, who can buy other products... it trickles up).

Functional economic drivers keep money in people's hands, meaning any efficiency gains which damage the economy by creating too much unemployment (AUTOMATION) will benefit even the displaced worker (cheaper goods), helping the economy to more rapidly recover, create more opportunities to sell cheaper goods to consumers who spend less on current goods, creating more need for human labor (someone has to run the machines--that it takes 2 people instead of 20 means you can make those new goods *really* *cheap*, so your market is bigger: more people have that much money to spend; it also means you can make and sell 10 new goods instead of just the one), bringing employment back up. Keeping the consumers well-monetized without giving the unemployed a luxurious lifestyle and without raping the rich and the businesses to fund the poor accelerates this process; as well, reducing labor costs (e.g. by providing for means of living, thus you can repeal minimum wage) helps slow the initial damage (machines don't become as cheap as people quite so fast, and not all at once) and speed the recovery (cheaper labor means cheaper goods).

We don't need fake jobs; that just destroys wealth by increasing costs, decreasing the amount the consumer can spend, slowing market growths, increasing the damage recessions cause, and slowing our recovery from dips in employment. We just need a good, inexpensive (in my terms, that means "not significantly more expensive than current, and not prone to become more expensive over time"; this "tax the rich 45%-80% to fix all our problems" shit needs to go) welfare system to improve our laborer stability as wealth grows and naturally churns our labor.

Pretty good for being founded in economic theories I had to develop myself, I think. (The entire theory of wealth is a unifying theory of economics that explains every current economic theory--nobody had one, so I made one.) I still built a shitload of risk controls into my Citizen's Dividend plan, to the point that it's not too damaging (and potentially still beneficial) if I'm completely fucking wrong about *everything*; why trust that you're right when you can ensure that you're right *even* *if* *you're* *wrong*?

It does not add up; it multiplies. There is an important difference: multiplication is addition across a span of repetition.

$45 million out of $1 billion? Let's take that as a bench mark. It's 4.5%. Let's say that kind of waste is all across military discretionary spending only (not the mandatory military spending), since we know that's about $500 billion. People make a lot of noise about this number, since they can compare all discretionary spending and show the government throws some 80% of its discretionary spending at military, and then claim the US Government spends 80% of our tax money on military--sly manipulation of numbers.

What's 4.5% of $500 billion? $22.5 billion. We're still not into staggering numbers here. With 300 million Americans (more like 224 million adult taxpayers), that's some $75/year. Our welfare system--most of it, excluding Medicaid and Medicare, as well as higher education support (both of which you could argue are welfare, since they supply non-state services to people who can't afford them themselves)--cost $1.62 trillion in 2013. The welfare system, if cut back and redistributed as a Citizen's Dividend (essentially an expansion of social security to pay lifetime benefits instead of retirement benefits--if you save your lifetime benefits all your life, it comes out to about equal your retirement benefits now), would amount to $563 per person per month, distributed to all American adults.

We should absolutely look into fixing the DISA processes, making them more efficient by straightening out the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, bureaucrats like rules, regulations, processes, systems; they want new rules to justify their existence, not slimmed rules to expedite the process. Wealth is simple: people cost money, and every cost in everything you buy is people labor; cut half the people labor, you cut half your costs, you can drop your prices by that much, and you make the same amount of profit, leaving more money in consumer hands, opening new markets, and creating new profit opportunities while undercutting your competitors on price. Expedite the bureaucratic process and you need fewer clerks handling forms, since it takes less human time to shuffle those forms around, and thus you can fire the bureaucrats; bureaucrats have all kinds of explanations about checks and balances and regulation and the important function of having these forms pass constantly through people's hands to sign off on without really thinking about the impacts, much of which never actually occurs in practice.

What the hell is sexual bonding?

The arguments are funny. "There should be more women on their team!" vs. "Of the top 12 competitors, 2 were women." Women engaged in math competition are obviously interested in math, and have demonstrated staggering academic achievement in math; when placed next to men who have also demonstrated staggering academic achievement in math, they suck.

Men and women have fundamentally different brains.

He's saying what Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, and the Democrats have been saying for many years: we shouldn't put just *any* information out there to land in front of the populous; someone has to decide certain information--like advertisements or criticism of the Government--is toxic and should be kept from the fragile, easily-manipulated minds of the masses.

A quick Wikipedia

Phosphorus I'll just claim is an essential mineral for life, which is why we put trisodium phosphate in cereal (although if you eat four boxes of it at once, you start nearing the toxicity threshold).

I developed a system to allow non-trackable cellular phones, in which you could receive a phone call without revealing your location (once answered, you revealed your location); nobody will go for it, though. It only requires like a few bytes of broadcast packet exchange (goes up to a theoretical maximum of 48KB if every single phone in the world is ringing all at once on a global scope), and has a 0.00002% chance of ringing your phone when you're not actually receiving a call. I mitigated this with geographical limits, although they don't help for a non-answer (if you don't answer, it tries a regional, then a global ring, meaning your initial chance of a false ring is like 0.000000000000000000000000013% for any phone call made).

Trivial shit.

Silicon-on-Silicon CMOS: non-toxic.

SOD-CMOS: non-toxic.

Indium-Gallium-Arsenide: toxic heavy metals combined with toxic metalloids. Holy fuck. If ROHS doesn't lift their ban on lead after this, they've got their heads up their asses. Mercury is a little worse.