Climate change happens to be a very important global issue, and the only solution that is even close to practical involves international cooperation, treaties, and economic regulation. We have global economic trade and you guys aren't screaming bloody murder; global governance capable of reining in global entities that can't be assed to deal with climate change on their own isn't some big conspiracy, it's simply a recognition of reality.

You're grasping at straws to cook up a conspiracy theory to suit your "us vs. them" nationalist fantasies. Denying reality feels good, but it doesn't make it go away.

You forgot less commenting on Slashdot.

And nothing of value was lost?

I agree with you there, but specifically in regard to the exceptional amount of mass shootings the United States experiences, the shooters could have used a bomb instead. With the exception of the recent bombings at the Boston marathon, they didn't. The ease of accessing assault weapons in the United States goes a long way towards perpetuating mass shootings; we may not be able to prevent all future shootings with legislation, but we could do a lot better than what we have now.

There are already several types of guns that you are not allowed to own in the United States without rigorous licensing, the second amendment notwithstanding (machine guns come to mind). As much as I would like to repeal the second amendment, it has not stood in the way of gun control legislation in the past and it won't prevent future legislation either.

You would be fighting overwhelming public opinion on that one. The proposal would justifiably crash and burn.

There may have been a time when the second amendment did cover IEDs. Luckily, the U.S. consitution is a living document and we no longer subscribe to those notions of individual arms, much like how we don't allow the average citizen to stockpile chemical or nuclear weapons.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Thorough gun control is analogous to bomb control. Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

People in the United States don't have lots of bombs in their houses. Why, then, would gun control enforcement pose any particular challenge?

As long as I've been here, it's been a technophile site for advertisting consumer electronics.

You've hit the nail on the head. The Slashdot community as a whole touts the virtues of science, unless it's the kind of science that discovers the uncomfortable reality about capitalism and unlimited economic growth. Then they go apeshit and cover their ears as if it makes the evidence go away.

Among numerous other reasons, this is why we need a far more reliable public transportation system (The nearest bus stop where I live is almost 3 miles away and it only gets service once a day). If buses and trains were commonplace, law enforcement could penalize reckless/distracted driving far more harshly and the number of drivers texting while driving would quickly approach zero.

Those two statements contradict each other, especially when "forcing its American Way on others" means an occupying force.

Property is not a natural right.

For an observer outside the black hole, yes. The light bouncing off of the object falling into the black hole gets redshifted more and more, and it never quite appears to fall in.

From the perspective of the thing falling in, it passes through the event horizon without the "redshifting" delay.

When using a site that implicitly (or explicitly, it's probably in the FAQ somewhere) caters to Americans, don't assume that the convention on what to call the United States in your home country is used here. It's not about being polite, it's about being expedient so people don't have to re-read your comment multiple times.

Our immune system already enforces a "no derivatives" clause. Procreation is only possible with an elaborate workaround that keeps the immune system from noticing what's going on.

If states can pursue and kill any hacker as they please without due process, then improperly-secured servers should be grounds for aiding the enemy.

I'm not suggesting either of these should be done, but it would level the playing field. If the sysadmins and their bosses don't like that liability, they shouldn't hook up important infrastructure to the internet.

If you don't want me to have a serious discussion about the subjects you bring up, you don't have to tell me twice. It destroys any shred of credibility you might have in future discussions, but I suspect that's something you've gotten used to.