Sexual orientation is usually not a choice. There are those who claim to be "bisexual": they'll choose a man sometimes, and a women other times.

One friend of mine hates onions but is fine with tomatoes. I hate tomatoes but am fine with onions. But one weirdo we know eats both.

That ability to change indicates a choice.

I guess wrinkly skin is just some kind of fashion amongst the elderly, then.

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

You aren't participating in a gay wedding. Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC is. Corporate veil doesn't disappear whenever that happens to be advantageous to you yet shield you the rest of the time.

If you respect the right of gay people to choose who to marry, why not respect the rights of others to choose who the associate with also.

And Gen Con has this right too, does it not?

The issue at stake is not religious freedom (since businesses don't have religion), or even freedom of association (since businesses don't have that either), but using the quirks of current economic system and corporate law to bully people into submission. Which, apparently, is fine as long as it's done to gays, and bad when the favour is returned.

But then again, crying foul when someone hits back is pretty typical bully behaviour.

Spread the blame to everyone that made poor choices: Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Wikipedia and those that enrolled without verifying their expectations.

Those that enrolled without verifying their expectations to some unspecified degree made poor choices, or possibly good choices that went bad due to sheer bad luck, as any might.

Wikipedia made the lazy choice of not bothering to verify its contents, despite being a Power That Be in its own right nowadays, likely more influental than most nations.

Indian Institute of Planning and Management made a morally represensible choice of purposefully lying in order to commit fraud.

Do you honestly see these as equivalent in any way? A fool, a slightly irresponsible "dude" and a fraudster don't have a common type of blame they could share.

Will someone please tell me this gives us a basis for Heisenberg compensator?

Because that would be awesome.

But redundant.

And more to your point, I (the collective manifestation of the citizenry) have leverage against a government that does as you suggest by keeping firearms in my possession, being proficient in their use, and advocating (through constitutionally protected peaceable means) for my right to do so. This is one of the functions of the second amendment: to act as a check on a government that overreaches. Tax-dodging nuts holed up in the mountains notwithstanding, governments need checks on their powers that have teeth in them.

The Second Amendment doesn't have any teeth. The problem is, in a democracy the government already is the collective manifestation of the citizenry. And any single overreach only hurts a small minority of people who can usually be dressed up as unpleasant and/or deserving of their fate to the rest, so the populace ends up shooting off its own foot one toe at a time.

Second Amendment serves exactly one purpose, and it's letting people who are too gutless to even vote for a third party to pretend they could stage an armed rebellion any time they wanted. Altough ensuring that there's a steady stream of armed criminals/cults/tax-dodging nuts acting as boogeymen might also count as an intentional purpose for particularly cynical politicians.

if there were some foundational document that codified your right to both military weapons and speech of all sorts, and prohibited the government from passing laws restricting either.

Even then it would obviously not cover obscenity, which is defined as "I know it when I see it". And, well, the algorithmic description of SHA-1 is pretty suggestive, don't you think?

The beauty of the Internet is that you can do your part all by yourself, without waiting for anyone else to get their shit together first. You don't need to start a movement, you don't need to tear anything down or build some international organization to oversee everything. Just do what you said -- stop using Google, stop trusting root CAs, roll your own encryption, use VPNs, etc.

If other people want to continue using commercial / government crap, well, that's their prerogative. If it's as bad as you say then they'll eventually see the light and the Internet will be a better place for them too.

Has he ever given any reason to doubt him?

Yes, right in the summary: "SolarCity claims its GridLogic program can provide electricity to communities and businesses for less than they pay for utility power and the facilities can still be connected to their area's utility power grid as an added backup."

For the utility grid to provide backup power, it has to have spare capacity. Upkeeping that capacity is not free. This plan is trying to make the electric company effectively subsidize SolarCity customers.

If you can substitute the term "white male" into your premise and suddenly find it offensive, then was actually racist/sexist all along.

"a project that passes the test must feature at least one function written by a white male developer, that calls a function written by another white male developer. "

So... does that offend you? Why?

But even your argument had any truth to it, the question then becomes: where will the Russia gets the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and huge amount of materiel to lose again stepping on the same rake?

Well, it does have over 2 million men in reserve.

More importantly, Finland has a conscription army. Should Russia come calling, I wonder how many Finns would actually fight back? The economy is getting from bad to worse and all the budget cuts are hitting hardest those already weakest and most vulnerable. Add some recent high-profile tax refugees, and the question "Why should I shed my or anyone else's blood over this country?" is getting harder and harder to answer.

A welfare state can trust conscription, since it has done something to earn people's loyalty. But Finnish politics have shifted to the right, and continue to do so, so why wouldn't someone who's told to risk their life for it make a business analysis and cut their losses?

Reminder: Finland is not a member of NATO. It's not an enemy of Russia like NATO is.

Rather, it's a potential target for conquest.

And Russia and NATO are not enemies. They're each other's best friends. Without Russia, how could NATO recruit new members or justify military spending? Without NATO, how could Russia distract its people from bad leadership?

Just look at how lost the entire global economy has been for the last few decades without Cold War creating endless demand. Look how desperately a few cave-dwelling barbarians have been dressed up as a serious threat. But non-secularized religions are too likely to act rather than just talk, even when they can get their act together, which they usually can't. If global capitalism is to be saved, what we need is a new Red October.

Luckily, Putin seems hell-bent on following in the footprints of the last tsar, so it's mainly a race between which country's populace gets tired of economic troubles first.

We could fund it the same way we fund class action lawsuits: By giving the lawyers a big slice of the penalty if they win, and nothing if they lose. That way Google would end up funding their own prosecution, and no tax dollars would be needed.

Google would also fund its own defence. I'm not sure if giving FTC effectively unlimited resources would be a good idea, since wouldn't it basically allow them to do the RIAA?

Also, you have to make significant efforts to lower your water usage to 200l per person per day? Gee, I wonder why you got an 8 year drought.

Water usage is unrelated to rainfall. It is, however, related to climate patterns which in turn are changed by climate change. Get ready for a lot more "worst droughts", "biggest floods" and other extreme weather phenomenom, as the water that previously went to California goes somewhere else. That's why it needs to be stopped, before everyplace is in crisis.