Then explain why an American worker today can be more productive than his or her predecessors, yet paid a substantially smaller fraction of the proceeds from his or her labors?

Greater productivity per worker means less demand for workers. Less demand means lower price. Thus, more productive workforce means worse-paid workforce.

Yay capitalism.

The real question, to me, is, why was the flight attendant not on the flight deck while the pilot was away?

Because you can regulate anything, but in reality the pilot is not going to announce every time he has to pee. Nothing has happened before, so nothing will happen this time.

Except when there is a terrorist threatening the pilot outside, asking him to enter the code...

But that terrorist will be bum rushed by everyone on board and beaten to the ground. Even the hostage knows his best bet is to take the knife between ribs - better odds surviving that than the destruction of the plane.

Terrorists - or anyone - stopped hijacking airplanes the second such hijackings stopped meaning a delay and started meaning everyone aboard dying.

People don't lose their humanity just because they work for (or own) a corporation.

But neither does it extend to the corporation. Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC doesn't have a religion even if its owner(s) and employee(s) do, and thus can't refuse anything on religious grounds. An employee of Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC may feel servicing sexual, ethnical, political or other minorities is unacceptable, and if so Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC must deal with the issue as it sees fit within limits dictated by law; but Aardvarkjoe Catering, LLC is not that employee.

You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.

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?

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.