That struck me, too. I wonder whether this is merely a psychological ploy.

Have not been repeated yet. People have been hurt. It's only a matter of time before some Occupy kids decide they've had enough and actually fight back; if some of the cops are willing to assault completely peaceful protesters, what will they do given a reason to be afraid? It seems very unlikely to me that they will suddenly become professionals with a modicum of restraint. It doesn't take a corrupt police force; just one coward with a gun. We've already seen that those are being deployed to these events. I think it is inevitable unless the protests die out fairly quickly.

I take it you do not understand how percentages work.

C'mon. That exact paragraph could be written by the vast majority of employees everywhere. People always think the ones above them are overpaid and underworked, and they always try to sweeten this stance by pretending to cry on the customer's behalf. The lie is evident in the presentation, though; the customer doesn't care how much people are paid in absolute terms; only results matter to them. So all the comments about the organization being "top heavy" and the saintliness about people "in the field" reveal the entire rant as entirely self-serving. You should not listen to this with any seriousness.

I will admit that I've only worked for a dozen or so organizations in my whole life, so maybe my experience is unusual, but I've never had a contract that stated any reason had to be given in the first place, extremely good or otherwise. I was once "downsized" from a company in the midst of all-time high profits: the very soul of being fired for no reason at all. Even if I could prove that the employer had made a disparaging remark about perfectly legal behavior in the past, there should be no way to prove a connection between that statement and the termination unless the employer is a complete moron.

Do most jobs not work this way?

Science and religion cannot co-exist because they are both searches for truth, but have different notions of the nature of truth. Religion treats basic truths as already known (my god exists and is responsible for everything) and then seeks to justify and glorify this base knowledge. Science assumes that truth is unknown and seeks to get closer to this unknown goal, regardless of where the search takes us. For religion to co-exist with science, the first step would have to be for you to admit that you might be worshiping the incorrect god and to be open to switching gods should evidence cast doubt on your current position; since that's incompatible with the very concept of "faith", the two approaches are irreconcilable.

I wonder whether that's a logical argument. If the claim really is basic logic that's widely known, then why would it be used as a selling point at all? No bottled water company uses "it's wet!" as a selling point, and if they did it wouldn't sway consumers because it doesn't differentiate the product. Therefore, doesn't it follow that they must be trying to do something that's not quite so obvious?

I would take the money, and I am not embarrassed. A lot could happen in 200 years. Maybe we get out of here. Maybe an asteroid hits the Earth and it is essentially blown up anyway. Maybe aliens come and convert us all to a tasty paste. Maybe the Tenth Crusade happens and we blow ourselves up. You are right that it is difficult to argue sacrifice now for such a far-flung future, but I'm not sure that's unreasonable. Make your scenario 20 years and perhaps things change.

The problem with that position is that you are always the smart one to you, but to everyone else you're one of the idiots. Since it all balances out, we pretty much have your system in place already.

Google has a separate search page for images; why not a separate one for social sites? I do agree that I might want Facebook comments in my search, but most of the time I certainly do not.

That would be an excellent point if you hadn't completely made it up.

He never went to court in Sweden, so they gave him no such instruction. He went in for questioning, but the day after that the rape charge was dropped, so certainly he wasn't issued any such instruction by the police, either. A prosecutor re-opened the rape case, but by the time Swedish authorities wanted him for questioning (six weeks later, ) he'd already left the country. Sweden had, in the meantime, denied his application for residency there, so his leaving the country isn't particularly suspicious.

He has fought the extradition with unusual zeal, but I don't see how that's not his right. He has fully cooperated with London police.

Steve Wozniak: a man who can afford two phones.

You lost all respect for someone you've never met, based on what you imagine his intentions to be, surrounding actions taken during events at which you were not present.

No offense, but I get the impression that your respect isn't really worth a whole lot in the first place, if you treat it so arbitrarily.

The facts are only clear to you because you accept them on faith with no proof presented at all. Traitors get trials. We are not at war; George W. Bush called this a war, but declaring war isn't an authority granted to his post. Obama has kept the language but since he's in the same post it's irrelevant. Congress, who retains that authority, has not done so. It's okay to use the word for convenience but from a legal perspective it is wrong.

"We need more people like this guy wiped out, not less." Only the death of your enemies is worth contemplating. You have become them.

If all that happened was conspiring, then there would be no actual bombing, and bombers don't always need conspirators, so yes I do draw a distinction; one is potentially indirectly harmful while the other is a criminal act. Regardless of whether you agree with that, I say the death penalty without trial is an inappropriate punishment for stating your beliefs, no matter how vile they are.