Larger and stronger at a younger age would seem to be a good survival trait, not a bad one.

Too inexperienced to make good decisions + too strong to be easily controlled = excellent chances of dying young.

I mean, can you IMAGINE the dam structure you'd need to create a pool of water deep enough to float a block of stone to the top of the pyramid? Hint, it'd dwarf the pyramid!

Not really. Remember, the pyramid gets less wide towards the top. So your dam walls only need to be higher than one layer of stones: after a layer of is finished, move the walls on top of its outer edge and refill. Sure, you need a system of levees to get the ships to the lake at the top of the growing pyramid, but that's okay: it can just rest against the pyramid wall. 45 degree rise is no problem if you can move weight one bucket at a time.

And if you use windmills to pump the water, you don't even need all that much human labour.

making the init system a large complex system that does lots of things rather than the old school ideology of doing one thing and doing it well

Which init scripts didn't do. They approximated what's really dependency system (B and C need A to be up before starting, and D needs both) with a bunch of sequentyally-ran numbered scripts. The end result was both inefficient and fragile.

Apple the corporation exists to enhance shareholder value. All corporations do.

You do realize that every legal entity that counts as a person under the law is a corporation, right? This includes such non-profit entities as cities and towns.

Apple doesn't design attractive platforms for developers for entertainment, or because they love changing the world. They do it to increase shareholder value.

That's probably the biggest threat facing Apple in the post-Jobs era. There seems to be a rather ironic trend that those corporations which focus on "enhancing shareholder value" are worse at it than those which focus on delivering goods and services.

I bet you're a lonely guy. Bitter, much?

Whether he is or isn't, false accusations of pedophilia are a real risk for any adult working with children, which is unlikely to increase the quality of said people any.

After Marcus Aurelius, every subsequent Caesar had less ability to change the trajectory of the Empire thanks to the political realities imposed by the bureaucracy. They had to act within the constraints of the previously established bureaucracies.

You're almost speaking as if the rulers having a check on their power was a bad thing. And of all the rulers you could had chosen, you chose the infamously nasty and insane Roman emperors.

Is your post supposed to be some kind of parody?

I never understood what motivates pedants to waste everyone's time when nobody else cares.

Sexual perversion. Scroll down to number 1.

It was a rhetorical question. Doesn't seem so hard to figure that one out.

What was? You didn't ask a question, rhetoric or otherwise, you made a straight-up assertion. Moreover, rhetorical constructs still carry content, and your content - that people should be able to attack others without being criticized - is simply wrong.

I agree with that, but I don't see any "outright evil" in supporting a group someone belongs to.

It's okay to support a group you belong to. It's not okay to do so by trying to harm other groups.

Unless you think the blacks who support affirmative action are also outright evil, as are gay people who support marriage equality.

Since you brought this up: it's the anti-gay that really gives your game away. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone but gays in any way, so demonstrated by countries that already have it, so opposing it is not a matter of "supporting a group you belong to", but some mix of malice and sheer insanity.

Anyway, I'm done arguing with what's almost certainly a sock puppet. Wallow in your filth if you must, just know the days you could do so in public yet pretend respectability are gone. And good riddance.

I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.

Why would you think so, when the very First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech?

But to call someone out like you did, simply because they might believe something you don't like, is bullshit.

However, attacking someone for spreading an outright evil belief is perfectly okay.

Intelligence isn't a liability. Trying to tell other people they are wrong all the time is a liability.

Mmmm.... no. Anything that makes you stand out in any way whatsoever is a liability, since it makes you a target. Intelligence is especially bad since it marks you as a potential future rival but won't boost your current ability to defend yourself.

Childhood is a jungle, and children are beasts.

Implies it can be reassembled again.

Well, all the atoms are still around, so reassembly might require a bit of work, but is definitely possible.

I love them. And I will try to keep getting them.

Bragging about driving an overpowered sports car or a pickup might impress someone. Bragging about using an overpowered vacuum cleaner is very unlikely to. It might work as a comedy sketch, though.

But in return I have to actually plan out when I'm going to wash my clothes because it takes twice as long.

...Your point?

When your head has been blown apart by multiple 9mm hits or you're rendered brain-dead by a thorough beating, you won't hear any "wooosh" anymore.

Everyone dies, Anon.

Try your armchair revolution tactics before a phalanx of well-armed cops, see what happens.

What happens is that the cops must choose between doing nothing or attacking unarmed people. Former means their weapons do them no good, the latter means they expose their evil for all to see, thus deligitimizing their authority. It's an extremely efficient tactic that turns the very armed might of your opponents against themselves, but of course it requires you to be ready to die - or spend the rest of your life in jail - for your cause.

You do realize that this has been demonstrated multiple times in the past century alone?

But I strongly doubt you would dare.

Nobody knows until the moment of truth comes. But I think it's more likely you're afraid they just might dare, thus exposing your worldview as a delusion held due to fear.

Might makes right: if someone with more power than you says you can't do something, then you cannot do it. There are no noble and high principles that can stand up to reality. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Get over it.

Which is why Pirate Bay has been shut down, just like Ghandhi's resistance was quickly and efficiently suppressed by the British Empire. Not to mention the hard-line communists who stopped the dissolution of Soviet Union through military power, and the US stamping out drug use through its War on Drugs.

Perhaps you should take a look at reality, and consider how well your own principles stand up to it? Then again, posting as AC strongly implies you already know you're spouting bullshit.

No, they want the science to be settled more-thoroughly before we re-model our entire society in response to it.

No, they want to avoid any change since that risks the status quo that works just fine for them and their buddies. Demanding more evidence is simply a delay tactic at this point.

But the bottom line is: people aren't as stupid as you'd like to think they are, and they don't need the science community usurping the decision-making power by internalizing the debate and lying to everyone.

And they're never more ingenious than when they're coming up with excuses for why they don't need to change. Which is their problem when it's their own body or personal life they're ruining, but becomes my problem when it's the entire world that's at stake.