Republican in libertarian clothing to draw the lunatic and paranoia votes. And then Rand Paul will continue voting Republican.

It's a strategy that's worked well for him for quite some time now. People support him for his current soundbites, and ignore his voting record and anything older than a couple of hours ago. (The last Presidential election cycle, Slashdot was at times practically a Rand Paul For President discussion forum.)

Had G+ launched into the same vacuum that Facebook did... you'd have a point. But they didn't.

And sure, they eventually gave people large numbers of invites, but by then the damage had already been done.

I think you missed the big one: lots of people might actually start using Google+.

I doubt that lack of anonymous accounts hurt G+ all that much, despite the enormous amount of noise generated by a relatively small number of people over the issue. Google's insanely stupid "invitation only" method of signing up coupled with their very feature incomplete system at launch likely did far more harm than anything else. Google just doesn't seem to get social media, and their lackadaisical "benign neglect" management style and... unique approach to UI doesn't help either.

I like G+ very few trolls and flamebaits. I've had some good conversations. It was nice being in a science thread and not here AGW denier bullshit, and actually discuss the science. Many other examples as well.

That's a function of who is on your friends list, or who the community moderator is and how well they do their job, etc... etc... not of the host platform.

Your SRS is showing

You so coy!

damn_registrars has demonstrated himself false to me on several occasions.

The only things new under the sun are the abortions and gender re-assignments.
But those evils don't expose any fresh hell in the human heart.

"considers the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics to fit with our theology"
and
"but an image of God that is a model of the actual God"
Are you pointing to problems in general, or some theologies in particular?
As a sola scriptura type, I'd like to point to some specific English language scripture as a possible solution, but the same problem heads its ugly rear there, too. Guess we'll have to be humble and rely on faith, no? :-)

He can't help it, the leads were weak.

This kind of treatment is itching for a useful application. Screw photographic/military/whatever - put this on a car... lets say a Lamborgini 'cos some how something very angular seems more appropriate.

If everybody's default behaviour is to muddy the waters by generating all kinds of contradictory data, the background noise level becomes so high that discerning fact from fiction is very difficult. Governments and corporations already use this tactic against the population

And it's effective against the population because they don't have access to what governments and corporations do - Big Data. (And because they have the easy task of manipulating emotion, rather than the difficult task of manipulating data.) Unless literally everything you ever do/say/type is [pseudo-random] misinformation (or you're exceptionally consistent with your cover story), sooner rather than later the truth will start to stand out from the background noise.

Yeah, and, after you check out of the hospital?
Does the machine that goes 'ping' follow you around and stand by to neutralize you in traffic when that machine, inevitably, gets hacked?

I think a read of the Old Testament histories will show that history is more of a sinusoid, prior to His return, and the Really Big Dip at the end.

So, you're going with the Alinsky Rule #12 play? Really? That's it? Are you really so bereft of imagination?