I like how you worked gay marriage in there but you are wrong. Gays always had the same rights to marry that everyone else has had- to marry someone of legal age of the opposite sex who was not closely related to them. In other words, they have always been human. Interracial marriage wasn't about not being human either. It was about genetics and their grade. Look into Eugenics to find more but it was the same line of thinking of nazies and the aryan race.

No it could be possible that a cyborg is not considered human. If a computer or AI is controling its actions, it is probably proper to not consider it human.

The question pops up when the human is no longer sentient. Suppose you had an AI implanted to run through probable scenarios when making najor decisions. This works well for 50 or so years and you pass on or get struck by a car or whatever and become brain dead. Also suppose the AI takes over body functions, draws off your memories and can take commands from other computers. Now are you still human or something else? Do you have the same rights or less because you are not really you?

A cyborg is a human silly.

It would have to be determine on an indevidual basis but a general rule might be that any implanted object is covered under the rights of the person holding it. Something like this would protect an implanted recording chip's data the same way a person's cell phone is. But if the person is braindead and a computer or AI is making them function, then it can be treated as the cell phone or whatever if a person with reduced mebral capacity. Some of them will be deemed incompetent and a ward of the state while some might just need someone appointed as a guardian.

No. I'm saying that when ready and expecting them, the British would lose the battle even with about an 8 to 1 advantage just by organizing some sod busters as was competently shown in the battle of New Orleans. I'm also saying that burning of DC is not all that impressive when you consider the facts. Its sort of like winning the special olympics and thinking you are a world class athlete.

"consumer personal information"

Contrary to popular belief, Obamacare doesn't actually provide healthcare, they are an intermediate between a person and an insurance company that provides a level of coverage for health care.

The fact that many are forced by law to use the PPACA website shouldn't detract from the fact that people are actually consuming the insurance product (although at the end of a gun). So people who purchased insurance or consumed products from the website is what they are talking about.

Why does people who do not like the idea of the government collecting and storing personal data (under threat of law in most cases) that until recently was private and confidential on servers accessible by the internet have to be trolls for the Koch brothers?

And why would that be bad?

Here is the problem that maybe you simply do not get. Storing all your information on the internet is not a good thing. We have fought tooth and nail forever trying to get people to understand that and now the government decides it is best practice. So yes, completely make fools of fools might very well be warranted here. Maybe then it would cause people like you to wake up.

Yup.. Sure did happen just 4 months before the battle of New Orleans.

Like I said, some southern dirt farmers and a handful of regulars turned all that around. Out numbered by more than 2 to 1, they killed 7 times as many British, wounded 8 times as many, and caused almost 6 times as many to run off and go missing.

But you can say the invasion of Washington D.C. was a huge victory for the British but I would suggest that a victory against largely women and children and slaves isn't all that much of a victory (the main forces were on the fronts not lounging in the capitol. Rear Admiral Cockburn was only able to make the invasion because the war with France ended. It was basically a sneak attack. They knew the defenses were weak and planned on attacking Baltimore and Philadelphia too.

In New Orleans, they thought they could over whelm the defenders and found out they were wrong.

I see you completely ignored the battle of New Orleans like I specifically spelled out as my qualifier.

Had you actually comprehended what you read, you yourself wouldn't appear to be trolling right now. It happened after the war of 1812 ended but was part of it because no one had told them it ended yet.

That's good and all but only works if the boots on the ground employ it. The problem here is that they abandoned the equipment (presumably in fear for their lives) so a way to do it remotely and after the fact is somewhat desirable.

However, this is probably wishful thinking as whomever we sold the equipment to would likely look for things like that and disable it in case we ever turned on them or something.

How did you get anything remotely resembling that from what I have posted?

First, the entire WWW=666 thing wasn't Israel, it was a christian preacher in the US who gained some support until someone set them strait. Second, I'm pretty sure it all is crazy and it all fails.

Sigh.. The entire government in the middle east was destroyed and disbanded at the end of WWI. Of course WWI was not about imperialism but even Thomas Jefferson had to bitch slap them because of the detestable things they were doing.

When WWI ended, something needed to be done with the lands. Most of it worked out somewhat well. Of course things change over time. Here is more on it.

It really isn't and wasn't about imperialism. It was about ending the status quo and getting aid in WWI.

HA.. This will be easy then. We kicked the UK's ass in the war of 1812.. Well, after we ended it but didn't get the word out to all the troops.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm talking about the battle of New Orleans in which an overwhelming British force was defaced and humiliated by a handful of regulars and some volunteer dirt farmers from the south. Communications were slow back then and it took some time before everyone actually knew the war ended.

The parent mentioned a religious attack on the internet and facetiously said I wonder how that will turn out.

The only relation intended here is the fact that one already happened, failed, and was forgotten by most people. The detailed was just explaining how the religious attack was set. It wasn't expected to be connected to Iranians or Islam.

Quite right. The problem though is that the entire premise was wrong before even needing to get to this level of analysis.

Interestingly, I posted that as an example of an "attack" on the internet that fizzled and failed and people seem to be spell bound about the details instead of there being an attack on the internet that failed. I guess the premise is interesting which is why it somewhat caught on until calmer heads pointed out the screw up.

So eill the passengers who caught a ride with them and likely anyone who's phone is malfunctioning.

As long as it isn't me or whatever.