I don't know about that. Scientology, for all its ills and faults, doe not try to subjugate women. LDS, on the other hand, thrives as a result of it.

Which apparently, in your case, is a future without humor.

Nope, the same applies to business. People in their 20's are willing to worker longer hours and for less money than someone who is older, has a longer resume and is worth more in salary, and is less willing to devote stupidly long hours to a career which is already established. Those industries which can make their quarterly reports look good by throwing more workers at a problem will always be inclined to hire those who work longer for less. When I think back to my 20's and what I thought was a lot of money then versus what I know I need now, I realize why I was easily exploitable. It's not because you're good and smart, it's because you might be good, you might be smart, but they'll settle for how long you'll work for as little as they can pay. If you turn out to be a rockstar, they might promote you, but more than likely they'll use you for what they can get out of you, and then hire a replacement when you get a job that pays more for fewer hours.

Not that correlation equals causality, but the fact an employee thinks it's a great idea to work hard to buy an expensive cell phone to take pictures of food from a trendy restaurant is not lost on upper management.

"You know——for things."

There is a valid neurological reason why this occurs. The pre-frontal cortex doesn't become the dominant part of the brain until easily the mid-20's, and in some people not until much later in life.

So why there is a lot of intelligence with regard to understanding processes and theories (such as major shifts in mathematics and astrophysics), the common sense/executive function parts of the brain are a while away from development and dominance.

The upside of this, IMHO, is making videos of the lighting of farts and assorted bicycle/skateboard pranks and stunts. While I've learned enough at my age to know that in practice these are not good ideas, I still admire the late-teens, early twenties mindset that feels compelled to think this stuff up and make me laugh.

Had. He has a transplanted heart now.

If it's subject to abuse, and it is (and has been for centuries), and because of those abuses, can drive the world economy to its knees, which was within several hours of happening in 2008, how again does it make it the best fucking economic system yet devised by man?

If I was going to put my trust in the best fucking economic system yet devised, I'd want to make sure that it could indeed negate the abuse. That's yet to occur.

A less-expensive alternative would be to place IR cameras on all approach vectors where the plane is low enough that a small laser pointer would be effective. Where it's happened here, the land beneath one of the approaches is owned by the port, and the other approach is a county park. A few cameras looking for warm bodies would be a start. TSA already patrols those areas anyway.

You don't actually believe that, right? Because the post you quoted in order to throw up that strawman has absolutely no connection whatsoever. Trying to show a relationship between a utility creating an infrastructure to move its product to market, and then charging to recoup that cost and UPS or FedEx using a publicly provided infrastructure, and charging a fee to move a parcel to cover the labor and overhead (and part of that overhead is the taxes that help pay for the roads they use) in order to do that is about a disingenuous as they come. I'll leave it up to you to supply the reason why it sounded like a good argument at the time you posted.

Because it doesn't operate in its own interest, it operates in the interest of others.

This makes me wonder if the reason why Libertarians are so convinced of the soundness of their own principles is because they live largely unencumbered by the realities of everyday life.

It'll never go to shit. Apple will go to middling or mediocre. I'm sure there are shrewd business people who will be able to skim some of Apple's market share when that occurs with something new, shiny and just waiting to be adopted by fan-bois and hipsters. But just like with Microsoft, there's always going to be a core group of consumers who'll buy nothing else, or figure any other product will be suspect, so better to stay with the devil you know.

Indeed. And this doesn't even begin to address the role of the press, at least here in the US. In the name of competitive coverage, the idea of allowing political hucksters to influence the electorate (and I'm referring to the Karl Roves, James Carvilles, and Grover Norquists and their agents and controllers, not so much the candidates themselves) for a week before the election, and even as polls are still open across the US is incredibly irresponsible. Restricting sloppy reporting is not censorship. Enforcing higher standards of reporting and accuracy, while actually paying more than lip service towards it's implied mission of creating an informed electorate would go along way toward redeeming the abysmal job our news media has performed over the past 30-some-odd years.

Prohibiting someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is to censorship as prohibiting from someone firing semi-automatic weapons in a crowded theater is to gun control.

But I'll defend your right to make endless strawman arguments to the death, even if your understanding of logic makes my skin crawl in the process.

As much as we need an iPhone 5 or the next Lady Gaga album, which is to say if there's a group of people willing to spend money to fund it, then yes, there is a need.

Then riddle me this: Why is it we work harder, longer, have more health issues and make less money in constant dollars than our moms and dads did?

All the things you mention are improvements on previous technology, yes, but I don't see my life getting any less complicated as each year progresses. Doing math by a pencil and paper is not hard. It also keeps neural pathways strong. Going to a theater is enjoyable. Watching a movie at home on Netflix is convenient, but not as much fun as seeing The Avengers on very large screen with a killer sound system. Cooking popcorn on a stove tastes better, has less sodium and fat than the microwave stuff (not to mention I use organic popcorn, and not ADM's or someone elses Frankencorn), and I can make more for less. And if it takes you ten minutes, you're doing it wrong. Plus I use a bowl I can wash again and again, so it's less material in the waste stream. A bag of microwave popcorn has three different packages you have to trash.

Yes, medical advances are significant; they also create other issues and unintended consequences. One of which being a growing population we've yet to see if we can sustain, which dovetails into your MPG argument; even if cars get better mileage, the increased numbers have done nothing to offset pollution as a whole, and let's not even start with the resources used to feed, clothe and house the world as a whole. I do agree cell phones are a major convenience, and having Google Maps on my phone makes navigating a new city a lot easier. But if I had to use a map or ask for directions, it wouldn't make much difference. And I've yet to see a map which becomes unusable if you can't recharge it.

So while you make very good points, it still doesn't do much to convince me the world is somehow less complicated than it was 53 years ago, when I was born. And yes, I was anesthetized with ether when I had my tonsils out 50 years ago. FYI it being nasty shit, depending on which anesthetic is being used, and what surgery you're having, recovery now can be a bitch, too. And we could also talk about Awareness; we now have the technology to determine if a patient truly is asleep during surgery, yet not every hospital uses a BIS monitor to make sure. We could also talk about replacement joints, and how they're not the great deal everyone thought they were based on manipulation of data and buying off surgeons, but I'm hoping you get the point by now: there are no clear solutions to solving any problem, just a trade-off of risks and benefits. Technology gives and it takes away. If we all live longer, yet destroy the planet in process, what good are those extra fifteen to twenty years? Hence my original statement. I'd rather live by my wits, appreciate the advances we have made, but recognize they come at a price as well.