And you're the reason why laws exist... If people acted with human dignity instead of the bottom line, a lot of these laws wouldn't exist. People like you, who would fire a woman for getting pregnant, who would fire a guy for being the target of discrimination, and who would immediately fire someone for being injured are the very reason these laws exist. You won't do the right thing, so you must be forced into it.

He is not responsible for the actions of another. If everybody let their rage and inattention behind, driving would be much safer. Utopia isn't achievable, but it is only through the efforts of everyone that we can approach it. The best any of us can do is act in good faith and with caution, while hoping everyone is doing the same.

He was actually referring to the parent batting the politician, not the camera.

I've been looking for a place to say this. I disagree with the assertion that Bluetooth is too dorky to wear. I have a Motorola S10 headset and you can have them after you pry them off my corpse. They loop around my ears and look like behind-the-head headphones without a cord. Bluetooth earpieces are simply a shitty form factor. Bluetooth is a great solution that just needed to find the right look.

I admit, the Google Glasses control scheme seems dumb to me. I'd rather have a hand remote, maybe the size of a car key fob.

Well yeah if we start building enough wind farms to cause mass bird die-offs, there would be a problem. If there was a discovered unintended lethal effect from production of solar panels, there would be a problem. Isn't the death of a significant portion of the biomass, due to our actions, something to be worried about? Also, there are 315 million people living in the USA alone. There are bound to be nuts who prize the lives of seagulls over the construction of wind farms.

I was focused on his second paragraph, which appears to be a common libertarian myth. 'A free unregulated market will solve many economic issues.' A myth that is a total lie perpetuated by the exploitative and their sucker followers.

I was also creating a metaphor. The free market is indeed a system. Systems have rules. There are actions dictated by the rules, almost like a boss telling you what to do and when to do it. Therefore, a market is a boss.

I'm a little confused about the next bit of your post though. I think you said that you'd be fine with a sociopath as a boss. Someone who understands and pursues a free market outlook knows that extracting the most work out of the least people, to make the cheapest useable product possible, is the way to win in that market. Ah, I reread what you wrote. You are saying that a boss who understands the market would have the positive qualities I mentioned. That is a baseless assumption. People tend to cede their moral responsibility to the groupthink.

then it's not a free market

That is the "one, true Scotsman" fallacy. We have had mostly free markets before and they tend to monopolies. Once a monopoly is established, quality decreases in the product, as well as pay and overall worker welfare. You need look at history and grasp the cheapness of human life.

The free market is not the answer. The free market may be the efficient decision maker, but it lacks the things we say makes us human. The free market has no empathy, compassion, intelligence, foresight, or shame. Would you ask a person lacking those trait to be your boss?

Or, maybe, they turn against it when new evidence came forward showing that the dams were contributing to the eradication of the fish populations and preventing the farmland below the dam from flourishing. You know, like what rational people do when presented with evidence that one of their favorite things is hurting people.

Well, you put a dollar bill over the left eye and another dollar bill over the right eye... Ta-da! Your vision has been "corrected."

We'll just have to install them ourselves.

I have a vision! The liposuction power plant! "Do you need to lose a few pounds? Is your electric bill out of control? Come down to Lipo-Electric, where we will suck out those pesky hard-to-lose pounds. We'll even pay you, in the form of electric credits! Lipo-Electric is not responsible for any missing family members."

If I hit you, do you hit me back? If I slander you, do you defend yourself? If I oppress you, do you rebel? I would hope so. That is what us 'homosexuals' are doing. As an oppressor, you don't get to take the "poor oppressed me" position, especially while we gays still have a ways to go till we achieve world domination. When we run the government, ban straight marriage, and outlaw straight sex except for procreation(with government supervision), then you can say we are the oppressors.

I read Ada's report on what happened and their reasoning behind their action. It was not "well argued." The gist of their argument is that talking about sex turns men into animals who can't help but rape women. Therefore, people shouldn't give public talks about sex. An offensive, irrational attitude that is dressed up in reasonable sounding words is still offensive. Also, it is quite clear, from their own words, that they asked to have the talk cancelled before knowing anything about it besides the title. How is that "reasonable?" It sounds like censorship to me.

Blue and the conference organizers did err in not providing details about the talk beforehand. While I find Ada's goals violently distasteful, I understand the reason behind their protest. It was really the conference organizers who messed up here. First, for apparently being unfamiliar with Blue's work (why ask her to speak if you found the subject distasteful?) and second, bowing to a rather heavy handed attempt at censorship.

Now all Google has to add is the hunt-down-and-do-violence-to-their-person button to find the designers who thought that music on opening was a good idea in the first place.

How is that a disadvantage? It implies that if you care enough, you could be one of those passionate people that makes a difference.