"Design to thwart lawful search warrants" , or even marketing that way, is NOT the same as being unable to respond to government warrants.

Yes, if lower standard of living is acceptable, it will work. Generally populations do not accept a lower standard of living than they have, but it is not impossible.

Do you think some of these "nations" will try to bring back slavery?

Do all the 5 nations use the same currency?

If yes, they bicker about the currency policy. All of those 5 would not benefit identically by same currency policies.

If not, their economies collapse as oil is no longer forcibly sold in their currencies, their currencies cannot be artificially/militarily propped up like the US dollar is. They lose the other economic advantages of the large US military like forcing other countries to live by US ideas of intellectual property. And some of those 5 nations go into cold wars or arms races with each other and with other parts of the world.

But much less than the pressure it would take to bend Moto X, a Lumia, Note 3, and iPhone 6.

Moto X, some Lumia, iPhone 6 bend much much less than iPhone 6+ on similar force. HTC One M8 bends more, though not as permanently as iPhone 6+.

No. I am describing the meaning of "why" as used by almost everyone without many realizing it. "Why a shirt exists", makes the "shirt" the subject of the sentence. Grammar and philosophy have a subconscious connection - and in this case sows the seeds of the idea that shirt is somehow the actor. It is not. The questioner is the actor.

Not "even if". Only by realizing that "why" actually means what I am saying it means, does it not sow the seeds of an idea of a creator or universe being sentient. And "why" actually does mean what I am saying it does.

It is useful to separate grammatical "subject" of a statement and philosophical "subject" of an action. My restatement of "why" does that.

Above all, it explains that "reason" is not a scientific concept, when applied to non-sentient things. A "reason" for a shirt to exist is actually the "reason" the questioner should expect it to exist - using the other definition of "reason" which only applies to sentient beings.

If you donate to red-cross, you bought abstract goods or services. As abstract as a blowjob - fundamentally what makes it "obvious" that you pay taxed money to the hooker and non-taxed money to red-cross? It is also as abstract as "investment advice", or doctor's advice in return for money.

It is not obvious. And certainly not because you are not "keeping" the money given to red-cross but "keeping" the money given to the doctor.

Those that understand taxation wouldn't. Because tax in a huge majority of places and cases is NOT on kept money. If you have an employer, and they "kept" the money instead of paying you, government wouldn't get any tax in that process. In NOT "keeping" the money, and giving it to you - the employer created a tax opportunity for the government to tax you. So "kept" money and "taxed" money are not only not same, but have somewhat of an inverse relationship.

Taxation is leak in money FLOW, not from money STORAGE. While there are wealth taxes and accrual based gains taxes in many places, the amount thus taxed fades massively in comparison to flow taxes.

Any comment on taxation without this fundamental understanding is likely invalid, and it turns out in your case it is invalid.

Great, so people here using the word grammar nazi have given themselves away too. They must be thinking grammar teachers have real political power.

Not sure why you appear to be complaining. It is a great business opportunity for you.

1. Start any labour intensive business.
2. Employ lots of women.
3. You get 40% more return on capital than your competitors.
4. ???
5. Profit

Cheap, easy and better. Plastic doesn't dent, protects innards much better than metal, and even protects the screen somewhat better than metal. Metal is plainly the wrong material for phone body.

Aren't you the idiot stereotype ? There is a difference between UNIX and open source.

You aren't going to "keep" any of your money. For appropriate definitions of "keep". Sooner or later. Money isn't for keeping.

Not a counter example. This is also about "what information would have enabled me to predict that sky would be blue without looking at it".

OK. So using statistics to prove statistical facts is not science? And/or statistical hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis? Much of chemistry, physics will turn out to be "not science" then.

No. Answer could be
1. John didn't let me destroy the shirt
2. We failed to H-bomb the warehouse before the shirt was shipped from there.

See what happened? Asking "why" about non-sentient beings, or about sentient beings doing things unintentionally actually means "what could I have known which would enable ME to predict that this would happen ?" It is an imprecise question because the question is put in terms which mean different from what is being said. It is better to directly ask "what could I have done to predict this" when talking about precise things.

The real "why" is always about sentient beings. Either the being doing something, or about the questioner being able to predict the event.

"Why" is a very ambiguous and unhelpful question. In typical language, why means one of 2 very different things :

1. When asked of a sentient being, with an agency, doing an intentional activity - e.g. "why did the chicken cross the road". Here the question "why" expects the answer explaining something about the mental process of the sentient being which made it "want" to cross the road.

Once the question "why" is asked and like you do, speculated that there might be an answer to the "why", this is a huge logical fallacy many people fail to catch. This presupposes that there is a "sentient being" or one with agency that caused events. But since most people don't realize the meaning of "why", they are trapped.

2. When asked of non-sentient things, or beings doing something unintentionally, the question "why" is very ambiguous. E.g. "why did the pen catch fire". The answer is generally to read a lot into the question and describe "why" (1) the event should have been expected even before it happened. The expectation is by a sentient being, so the first definition of "why" is applicable. So the answer could be
A. "because it was made of wood".
B. "because ink in it was combustible".
C. "because Greg burned it with a matchstick".

See what happened? A sentient being was invented - a great way to advance the cause of religion again.

In answer A, it is assumed the questioner did not expect a pen to be made of wood, but actually questioner did not ask what the pen was made of. Answer B is about the ink, again something that was not asked.

Basically, it is not incorrect to say, that "why" doesn't mean anything. At least when talking in precise terms, vague questions like "why" which are intentionally vague only make the conversation more difficult without contributing anything positive.