Oh, right, the old argument that "if you're truly open and interested in diversity, you'll let me shit all over openness and diversity, including your own, and you will be happy about it."

Here's the dirty little secret that you're trying hide with that platitude: some ideas are objectively terrible, lead to social disaster, and go against everything the Enlightenment and the revolutions of the 18th century fought for. As a result, the people who espouse those terrible ideas should be called out and ostracized. And while you're right that no party has a monopoly on good ideas, there's only one party that is actively promoting anti-science ideas, segregation, and a general Galt's Gulch approach to society. As soon as the republicans stop being loony, I'll vote for them again.

In the meantime, stop shitting in my cereal and telling me that it is chocolate.

You might be able to use a dictionary, but you clearly lack reading comprehension. A prediction, to qualify as any sort of useful prediction, requires some bit of information that can be acted on. What they said was that the odds of Mt Fuji blowing up increased, but we have no idea by how much or how that would translate into an actual date.

Furthermore, they didn't say that it got close to an eruption, but that the odds increased. Put down the dictionary, and pay more attention to what you read.

There is paranoia, and then there is you. Here's the deal: if you're worried about backdoors in your routers, it doesn't matter what you use - your security is hosed. Same if you're worried about backdoors in password managers - what makes you think that your browser doesn't have one? Your OS? The instant you type in your password, even if it is a 50 random character one that you keep on a steel plate in a vault, it is gone.

You think you're being secure, but you're just being lazy. Specifically, you're being lazy about your security analysis, and actually have no idea what the ramifications are of something being insecure. To extend your analogy to your approach, you think that a padlock is bad, so you put all of your stuff into three separate bins that you then keep in storage locker that is protected not by a padlock, but by door and lock system. Congratulations, you're still making the same mistake all the password manager users are doing. Except you're not aware of it, and therefore much more open to getting exploited.

What - ocean acidification that kills off shellfish, warmer waters that kill off reefs, warmer climates that spread pine borer beetles to brand new areas causing billions in forestry damage and millions in local business damage, the current droughts in Texas and CA that have caused millions in agricultural losses - that's not enough?

Oh, right, it isn't. Some people will say that it isn't happening until the sea floods their house and their crops and animals die. It took famously seven plagues to convince the pharao that something was amiss. I'm guessing that we'll need our own seven plagues in a year before anything happens.

Then please tell me: how does this decision not apply to any other "sincerely held religious belief of a closely held corporation"? The SCOTUS might say that the decision is only supposed to apply to these particular scenarios, but I can't see how you can distinguish one sincerely held religious belief from another. Unless, of course, you let the government get into the business of deciding which religious beliefs trump which.

Then again, this is already happening, thanks to some enlightened congress critters wanting to legislate Baptist beliefs into government law.

The problem is that the only difference between your libertarian and your anarchist is that the anarchist goes to the logical end of "all government intervention is bad", and the libertarian just happens to support exactly the intervention that you like.

In other words, it's just another form of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

The Hobby Lobby owners are not forced to pay for other people's contraception out of their own pocket. However, they decided to form a corporation to take advantage of a lot of tax and liability incentives. Apparently, the SCOTUS decided that incorporating is all upside and zero downside.

Can I form a corporation, and, because I sincerely believe that paying taxes is immoral (I'll even provide some documentation that I sincerely believe that), not pay taxes on any money I take in through the corporation?

Yeah, didn't think so. Don't hide your religious bigotry behind a legal construct.

I think you're probably right in a lot of cases, but what I think this proposal is getting at is that right now we have a single contraceptive implant on the market that needs to be swapped out every 3 years. And, swapping it out means numbing up the area (which smarts), making a 1 cm incision with an 11 blade and fishing around with mosquito clamps to get the Nexplanon out which is often encapsulated with connective tissue and it doesn't want to come out, then injecting another one in. What if it could be turned on and off according to whether the woman wanted to have kids or was abstinent for awhile, so then we can avoid excess poking and prodding and hormones? If we could make that secure, would it be worth it? The cost of the Nexplanon in the US isn't much related to its materials (perhaps $5) as to the research costs and insurance and pharmaceutical company marble toilets with gold handles ($700). Couldn't an electronic Nexplanon with extended duration reasonably be cost effective if we can avoid the excess minor surgery, physician visits, and unintended babies?

Strictly speaking, in the US, we're not paying people to have kids but paying for people who have already had kids to have baby food and clothing and medical care. Even in places where people don't get government support for their kids, they still have plenty of kids - as I think you may be alluding to in your second paragraph but I confess confusion about how reactionary undereducated dicks are particular to Pakastani folks and not, say, Kentuckians.

Government-supported access to contraception is likely highly cost effective - it makes not just intuitive sense, but studies seem to bear this out. Without all the bother of just letting teen moms and their homeless kids, you know, die in the streets and spread measles all around.

The key word is right there: Presumably. Are they? As far as I can tell, most CEOs can be replaced by chipmunks for at least 6 months at a time, and absolutely nothing happens. What's more, I can think of quite a few high-profile cases where a chipmunk would have produced better results (hello, Carly). The only thing I know for sure is that the bigger the pyramid atop which the CEO sits, or the bigger the flow of money that runs across his (or, in much fewer cases, her) desk, the bigger the pay check. I see little correlation with actual productivity.

Since you're so wonderfully loading the question, I'm going to rephrase it a little bit. Does a civil engineer deserve less money than a marketing director whose sole job is to pump out pretty graphics to tell others what to buy and his bosses what that money went to? Because civil engineers, especially those starting out, make diddly squat.

You haven't met many CEOs, have you? Those that are CEOs or owners of small companies are indeed extremely busy. They also make shit money. Those that make the obscene salaries on the other hand have enough time for mistresses, hobbies and extra-curricular activities - far more so than any working drone underneath them.

False dichotomy. Your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

Most likely, they actually believe their drivel. The stupidity that is rampant even at well-run corporations would indicate that something far more susceptible to politics, theater and attracting the least qualified would result in positions like this. The TSA is utterly useless and needs to be abolished. Too bad that's only going to happen the day that we wholesale dissolve Congress, remove the POTUS, scrap all existing rules, and start from scratch.

You kinda got it right. Corporate social networks are there to promote the distribution of information. But for God's sake, do NOT call them "Facebook for the Enterprise", "Enterprise Social Network", or anything like it. Do not mention enterprise, do not mention facebook, twitter, instagram, or any other idiotic time killer. Call it what you want - "Acme's place for Engineers to comment on feature update requests from PMs", "Worldwide Information Sharing Platform", just don't use the Facebook analogy.

Second, employees are asking for tools to better share information. Sharing your latest beer run or cake social pictures is not information. Sales people want to know if someone knows someone at corp A, where they just got a meeting for. Support people want to know if anyone has seen weird behavior x that isn't documented anywhere, and hasn't been tagged in a case yet. Others want to know if there are some good presentations on a topic so that they don't have to create them by hand, or just want to get in touch with someone in a particular position but who they have never met. An enterprise social network helps that.

Here's the third issue, and this is where most corporate social networks fall down. It has to be used by the execs, and the execs have to show to everyone how to use it right. If they start posting pictures of their latest executive retreat where everyone has a Margarita in hand, or they start to talk about what movie they saw over the weekend, shit will irretrievably go in the shitter. Lack of adoption of a corporate social network is always and every time the fault of the corporate leaders. Whether the execs, or just the people everyone wants to listen to.

What's the problem with knowing that someone got charged for assault in a case that is very understandable?

The right to be forgotten is a terrible solution to the problem of people not being able to judge others properly.

No, not personal data. PRIVATE data. Plus, Google is handling other companies' data that has been put by them onto the public internet. Why the fuck is Google responsible for what is in it? Are you going to blame trash collectors for what people throw out on the highway?

You don't understand statistics very well, do you? Or how actuarial tables work.