First of all, you are right, the category is "your rights online". Some discussion about how there is no longer an online and offline distinction might be interesting, but you are right .

About citizens having some rights and foreigners only having privileges, that is very convenient, but deeply unethical.

All people have the same rights regardless of anything. You usually can deny some of them to foreigners, based on practical considerations, like lack or resources or something similar.

In any case, it's so very wrong to say that someone has different rights only because they were born inside some geographic shape, or have a specific lineage.

You overran Iraqs government, and armed those guys. Just saying it isn't so won't change it.

A table of poker is linked to probability. Playing poker for a living is more associated to statistics. That's would be a good example, yet bad advice .

.. unimaginative douchebag.

News at 11

In order to keep they buoyancy, they won't be able to fart a lot.

Shutting down terrorist accounts would require knowing who own which account, which requires strong identities for everything.
That would effectively mean closing up the internet.

This is exactly what you were waiting for.
There are lots of awesome battery ideas out there. Prototyping the battery in the 18650 format means that it can work as a drop-in replacement for lithium batteries.

To the crowd that wants product, not science, this is a big thing. A new battery technology is ready at last, and can be used to replace what we have. They will surely need need a fab process, and money (probably the reason for the press release), but the technology itself is ready at this point.

The fact that Senna existed proves that saying teaches you nothing .
He was a lot more aggressive than other drivers, had lots of problems because of that, not just accidents, but managed to get 3 championships.
I'm pretty sure the reason others are not more like Senna is that they don't want to end their life against a wall. AIs won't care about that kind of thing.

It's not exactly that.

If successful, you also get the existence of the product, in the offered conditions.

Example, you pay $200, and you get you widget next year, or you have to wait until Apple/whoever "creates" it in 4-5 years, patents it, and then you have a chance to buy it for $500.

It _is_ an investment.

Yes, that's essentially the same thing, you believe the economy will keep growing forever, because there will always be scarcity to fuel it.

The problem with that is that you can sell only 7 billion iphones a year, and the minute you achieve that, you just can't keep growing anymore.

The few things that are naturally scarce are not enough to fuel an economy. A small fraction of people work because they want nicer things, but most do it because they need to pay the mortgage or feed their kids. That's a large part of the economy.

3 is just an implementation of 2, maybe flawed.

In any case, it's easy to understand that there _will_ come a time where money stops being the center of our lives, and we produce enough stuff for everyone without having everyone work 40+ hours a week.

The question is _when_, and _how_ that change happens. Marx thought it would happen soon. The commies thought it was possible a century ago. Looks like they were wrong in that, also in their methods. They also thought they knew what people wanted, looks like they were mostly wrong. We still need to see what happens with China's version.

The lukewarm socialist think that the welfare state is going to grow until everything is taken care of by the state. Has it problems, but might work. Basic income is one of the big steps in that direction, and one of the easiest measures to implement.

Right wing people seem to just think that economy, both physical and virtual, is going to keep growing forever, and that scarcity will fuel its growth forever. If there comes a time that that no longer happens, there's no plan, and they probably hope to be already dead by then.

Worked for Superman, didn't it?

My government can't.
My government _could_ do it or pay someone to do it, if the code was open.

What you say doesn't deny what I said.

You say that some open source code went unaudited, even though it should have been audited.
Open source enables people to do stuff, it doesn't magically make them do it.
Just because openssl could be audited, it didn't magically get audited. But still, it _could_ be audited. That's the first step.

In the case of cars, it's easy, you can just have governments pay for auditing. But you need the code for that to be manageable.

That's proof by lack of will, or imagination.

Open source means that you, or an army of people like you, can get it audited, somehow.
For example, you can set up a kickstarter for it and pay someone you trust.
You might also have the competition look at cheats.
Your government can also audit the source, if it's important enough.

People do have power, it takes a lot of getting together with others and stuff, but a lot more is possible than what you can do personally.