Can't speak for everyone, of course, but some of us enjoy consuming in the evening because we spend the whole day making.

How do you anonymously receive mail?

Sure, but by the time you've got users running scripts or installers locally you've already won. No need to also trick them into using a fake web page when you could just be logging their keys on the real page.

Just a guess, but maybe the part where he said "Then use the corn for ethanol!"?

It's not finding out that the guy is a douche that would get him in trouble; it's going on Facebook in the first place. It would be like asking "What do you like to do on Sunday mornings?" in an interview--it's something that could reveal the applicant's membership in a protected class, and the interviewer should reasonably be aware that it could reveal the applicant's membership in a protected class.

This wouldn't justify an EEOC complaint in itself, but it's another data point that could be used to show a trend.

That's ammo for an EEOC complaint, right there.

It could be a random number base64 encoded.

And furthermore, it's actually less expensive to buy a Newsday print subscription than it is to get just the electronic access, so the article could really be rephrased as "Thirty-five people pay extra to not get a real newspaper."

Yahoo?

The phrase uses "imply" in the sense in which it is used in logical proofs; "If A then B" is logically equivalent to "A implies B."

Don't worry, as long as you don't post the exact same comment tomorrow you should be fine.

You're arguing that freedom and capitalism are good. I'm not sure why you're doing that.

Things like capitalism and socialism don't exist in a pure, undistilled form. At least not in our lifetime. Arguably never. Even when the US was run by Ronald Reagan, even when Ayn Rand followers were running the Fed., the US was STILL a mixed economy.

If you want freedom and non-government intervention, you might get it if you move to Somalia. That's your only choice these days.

Interesting thought, though I would expect the difference to be one of magnitude. That is, if cell phones cause cancer, recent ubiquity would cause *more* cancer than the relatively less common use of them years ago. But I would expect there to be a measured, statistically significant increase regardless.

Unless you think it works like a sort of critical mass where you aren't at an increased risk until it gets to a certain level

Depends on the industry. Some industries you can only trade the offsets between other players in the industry - i.e. the government sets a max for the amount of carbon offsets issued; so everyone trades until they are happy. People not producing much in terms of carbon can get extra funding by selling (or leasing out) their spare carbon offsets to those that need it for whatever reason.