Personally I don't believe in charity. You can't just throw money on social problems and have them magically disappear

You seem to think charities exist only to help the poor. With that in mind, many, many people will fall upon hard times at some point in their life and need assistance from others. Apparently you would rather they die off than help them out for a while until they get back on their feet.

Aside from helping the poor, charities also exist to:

1. Reduce the spread of infections diseases.
2. Help people recover from disasters (i.e. Red Cross).
3. Provide grants to help people get an education.
4. Operate museums to preserve history and spread knowledge.
5. Fund medical research.
6. Provide role models for children to help make up for poor parenting (Big Brothers, Big Sisters).
7. Stop the government from overstepping its bounds (i.e. EFF, ACLU, NRA)
8. and many other things...

How about AIG awarding $165 billion in bonuses AFTER receiving bailout money

I think you mean $165 million.

Taxes are paid by the entire community. Child care expenses are paid by parents. So the four day school week is cheaper for some people while a five day school week is cheaper for others. That is what politics are all about.

And yet the issue is back. Do you know why? Because the lobbyists only have to win once and they will keep trying until they do.

The United States used to break up monopolies, pass environmental protection laws, establish consumer safety standards, workplace safety standards, etc. Corporations have now cornered the electoral market. 90% of the population will consider voting for one of two candidates, both of whom depend on large corporations to get elected.

I would be willing to bet the lobbyists in Europe have already made some small advances in their agenda. Sooner or later a more business-friendly atmosphere will develop and your optimism will be shattered.

American icons like the F-150 and Silverado don't even make the list, so people buying trucks from Ford or GM thinking they're supporting America really aren't, they'd be better off buying a Toyota Tundra.

In all fairness, the F-150 was at the top of that list from 2004-2008. The Silverado used to be fairly high on the list as well.

This is only true if the money taken would not have been put to more useful purposes had it not been taken. You can't say if it would have been or not, but you're told to trust the 'superhuman dictator' to make better decisions than everybody else.

You can certainly look at the portion of our resources that leave the country. Based on that you can come up with a pretty good estimate of how much would have been spend in the US versus outside the US.

Also, if people simply had a bunch more money what would really happen is inflation. Take a look at the housing bubble. Large low-interest loans were easy to get so people were willing to pay more for housing. Now that loans are harder to get the price of housing is dropping. Similarly, someone with a bunch more money won't think much of paying $30 where they would have previously hesitated to pay $20.

If his mother uses FaceBook it would not be all that difficult--especially if the document was found someplace like the web browser cache.

Because the US has extensive military operations in Afghanistan. The easiest way to get to Afghanistan is to cross over/through Pakistan. Without cooperation from Pakistan, US operations in Afghanistan would be severely hampered.

What does it say about society that if you advocate legalizing almost everything you'll be labelled a conservative?

What does it say about society that if you advocate criminalizing almost everything you'll be labeled a conservative?

I believe that 1hp is about equal to .75KW so you would probably want one in the 200 KW to 300 KW range since that would put you between in the 275 to 400hp range.

Horsepower affects how fast a car can go and still maintain its speed. There is a correlation between horsepower and torque. Cars with that kind of horsepower have it, not for the horsepower, but for the torque. It is torque that allows a vehicle to accelerate quickly. Electric motors have tremendous torque at every speed. So, if the nuclear plant is driving an electric motor you just need enough power to overcome wind and rolling resistance.

"Drillers say they would like to keep the exact formula of the chemicals they use secret because it represents a competitive advantage"

They want to keep the formula secret to protect their legislative advantage. If people knew what they were putting into the ground the EPA would shut them down before they get a foothold big enough for everyone to cry about jobs when we try to shut them down.

For curious folks, there is a video of it on YouTube.

There is also the fact that anyone can buy a Visa gift card with cash, register it under any name and address they want, and use it anywhere.

The obvious application of this is advertising. Every business wants to sell something. If this research tells them how to convince you to friend them they will be all over it. Political organizations will do the same. I have to wonder if the basic concepts have broader applications outside social media.

Organizations routinely do the exact same thing with politicians. They set up servers which can fax or email a politician then ask millions of people to use the service to contact their representatives. It would not surprise me at all if the same organizations use auto-dialing services in their lobbying efforts as well. To top it off they also swamp politicians with snail mail.

While the court claims the issue was the volume of the communications and not the content. I argue that it absolutely was the content. If the union had advertised the services of the business and created the same volume of email from serious customers the business would have immediately increased the capacity of their inboxes. They would not have claimed a violation of the CFAA.

The key issue in this case is intent. The case has not gone to trial yet so the court ruled entirely on whether or not the alleged actions were sufficient to prove intent. According to the court, asking people to "fight back" by sending email and calling the company proves intent to cause harm.