Some service are socialistic in nature because not having them would break us all. Fire service for example or community security (police for example). So de-facto you have socialistic services in the USA too. The philosophical divide is how many of such socialistic service we need. Western europe more or less added social medicine to that common list, whereas some politician in the USA are viewing that as the apocalypse and are trying to brake such action by all means.

Bottom line you are already using socialistic service. You are in a society. Not an anarchy. Society have for basis that some common understanding and service will be shared. Stop making it as if it was only "pinko communist" which had socialistic shared services.

"The answer is clear. They make the bureaucrats look bad."

How about frigging human decency. This persons had a family, friends, and acquaintance. How about this was a HUMAN being. You see free speech as trumping *everything* including human decency. I see human decency as being more important than free speech. As for your qip about bureaucrats looking bad , frankly where do you pull that shit out ? It only makes ISIS or whatever flavor of barbar did that looks bad. It does not reflect on any administration badly, be it american or jordanian. Why do i get the feeling you analyze *ANY* events with the tainted political glasses ? At least that explain why you did not think of human decency first.

Realistically the first will be the pirate bay , isohunt and various other torrent site. I am pretty sure you will be able to find CP or terrorism torrent there.

It is a the4chnic which is solely about mitochondria. Which therefore does not even touch those subject. Once there is a doctor proposing to change dark hair to blond hair we can have that debate. But you are debating something which is neither possible nor even discussed. Why the heck bring eugenic up ? This makes no sense. This always happen when a scientist propose or correct a genetic illness , people immediately jump and yell "ethical concern ! Eugenic ! " as if it had ANYTHING to do with the proposal.

how about discussing the proposal at hand, rather than raise ghost of something which was NOT proposed at all ? We already have had that debate on genetic selection of positive trait. We already massively refused it. The debated stuff now is not eugenic, but the removal or selection against NEGATIVE trait. And I hardly see the ethical implication of that. Attempt to switch to the selection of positive trait is fallacious and not part of that debate.

How can we have an open debate when one side censors the other, through lawsuits, censorship, or even making discussion outright illegal (see Holocaust denial)?

Open debate does not include the fallacy of ad hominem. It does not include defmation. In fact ad hominem and defamation are attempt to torpedoe the open debate and attempt to deflect the thematic away from science toward the persona of the people doing the debate. If you value open debate then you value stopping ad hominem and defemation.

You do not gain 18 Kg of lipid tissues in short time with eating borderline normally. You have to eat way more than you need. It may be that some people have so inefficient guts that they metabolize their food badly, but the law on matter and energy conservation are still valid > when you get fat that quickly it is because you eat far more than you need and you do ntoyhing to rein yourself.

Except they get the money from you every month in your pay directly so it is probably not 100% comparable to the US system. You can make a formular to get some back once per year. I easily got a few thousands back for example a few years ago.

People are good at nagging doctor. So they will get them write off the exemption, for no medical reason whatsoever. And if that doctor refuse, there will be another one which accept. They pretty much gutted the law.

"critics raising ethical concerns" no seriously, beside religious catholic concern about offing an embryo to save another, what real ethical concern is there *at all* ?

basically *every* private entity or public entity, be it the FAA or some guy selling property fall under the sovereignty of a nation state, which fall under the moon treaty. Checkmate. Trying to redefine term by saying "yeah but I am not a sovereign natioN" fail the litmus test : you are a sub entity, belonging to a sovereign nation. You are not an independent entity in a vacuum.

They are obligated legally to get you and transport you where you wish. You are not at the mercy of some asshole wanting to get back at you if you had bad mood or you gave him/her a bad tip.

If you get acquired by somebody, like say, colombus nova, and work under them, you are not an independent studio anymore.

So far all death and heavy injuries were related to mechanical incidents, not radiations. Even your wiki article shows it to be so. There is a projected increase of cancer, but it is relatively low compared to other environmental effect (like living near a coal plant).
 
As for the evacuation it was a *precaution*. The fact is, the measured radiation were actually lower than in some part of the world where people live on regular basis, like people living in granitic area (for example france : macif central).

Once an assets is declared to a government entities to be at a certain place under a certain laws, it should be valid for all government entities, and any change to that to a different government entities declared as fraud. If you declare in the US that your tax is in ireland, then in ireland declare it in the US, then that alone should be enough to declare you a tax frauder in the US. Or in ireland.

Just like any of the other interpretation of the measurement collapse (Copenhagen), it has no evidence speaking for it. It just an interpretation of what we see in the mathematical equations. There is some way one *might* go to test it but at the moment we have nothing but the math (and I have my doubt about the proposed experience but it is for another thread). It is fun to speculate on what the consequence of MWI, especially if you might stumble on a way to make it testable, but I wish people would stop calling it a theory. At best it is a testable claim.