Factually incorrect, at least about drugs. Drug use as a percentage of population is remarkably stable across racial lines. Do some research, BLACKS DO NOT USE MORE DRUGS THAN WHITES, if you believe that they do you are indeed a racist. As a matter of fact I don't even know why I'm replying to a -1 post, everything else you say is no doubt equally as wrong, and that especially includes the part about how "Im not a racist".

Except nobody is going to do this, because for one it's just not that easy to do, but mainly (and this may shock you) because most people do want to have insurance in case of an emergency. I'm no fan of Obamacare, despite the fact that it's been enormously helpful to me personally, and in fact has already quite literally saved my life. Regardless, the ACA was a broken piece of legislation from the start, and the only positive thing I have to say about it is that it's marginally better than what we had before. But I don't believe your particular criticism is valid, and the proof is that the big insurance companies are still making big bucks, for the most part they love the ACA. So what you suggest just doesn't seem to be happening in the real world, at least not so far. This is not to say Obamacare isn't deserving of hundreds of other criticisms, but the "people will buy it only when they get sick" thing doesn't seem to be a real worry, so far.

I know I'm wasting my time, especially as a latecomer to the discussion, but I'll say it anyway: with all your (and I include all those making similar statements, not just parent) talk of Caucasian this and Black that, you are overlooking something important. It is meaningless to make references to these groups in a discussion about genetics without first defining exactly what those categories mean genetically. And you simply won't be able to do that, because geneticists currently have no test for "blackness" or "whiteness", in fact there is nothing in the human genome that a geneticist can point to and say, "these genes define blackness, if they are present the individual is black". Nothing like that currently exists for any race, which is why experts in field sometimes say that from a genetic standpoint there is no such thing as race. Without a genetic descriptor for race, the science of genetics can have nothing to say on the subject. Scientists can only look at race indirectly, using various non-genetic stand-ins as methods of racial categorization. This is a big reason why all such studies seem to inevitably end up being open to various interpretations, the scientific tools that could solve these debates once and for all simply do not yet exist.

What are your sources for this statement? Alcohol is much worse than heroin by any measure you wish to use. It's actually more addictive, in that withdrawal from alcohol can kill you, but nobody dies from heroin withdrawal. Furthermore, alcohol is poison to the body, regular use will destroy the liver, kill brain cells at an ungodly rate, raise blood pressure... I could go on, but you get the idea. Heroin, on the other hand, has virtually no negative physical side effects, with constipation being about the worst. You can take heroin every day and live a long and healthy life, whereas alcoholics tend to get sick and die before their time, not to mention "wet brain" which is a term for the mental deterioration that inevitably comes with heavy drinking. You can make statistics say anything you want, but there's not much doubt in the medical community that of the two, alcohol is by far the more dangerous drug. And that fact alone perfectly illustrates the insanity and hypocrisy of the drug war, and why it needs to end.

Yes, he claims they forced him to give up his password, then when they were logged into FB he was forced to dictate a statement to an officer who put it up on his page. The real question is, since when are police knowledgeable enough about social networking to realize that such a public statement would be a good idea for them in terms of insulating them from bad publicity and possible legal repercussions, while at the same time so ignorant as to think that it wouldn't be immediately obvious what had happened once the logs and online records are searched? It'll be interesting to see how this eventually plays out.

I'm confused. You are saying that one reason this is illegal is because it's identical to how cable got started, but your description of that first cable system doesn't include any copyright concerns, the guy just went ahead and did it... Because, after all, it was a free and freely broadcast over-the-air signal, intended for viewing by anyone living within reach of the transmission (note that Aereo's model also requires the recipient live within broadcast range), and Walson was just helping the signal get to its intended audience. But so is Aereo! So the analogy to me would indicate the exact opposite of what you are saying. Early cable systems in fact did NOT pay copyright fees, those were negotiated later. So by analogy Aereo's business model is completely legal, as legal as those early cable attempts. Or so it would appear from your description, I didn't research it myself.

I believe this is not as crazy as some of us might think. For the sake of argument let’s generalize the problem to the detection of all humorous references not intended to be taken seriously. This is not a trivial task, in fact it may well be beyond the capabilities of current technology. Think about it, we use humor and sarcasm constantly in all kinds of situations, and we take it for granted that our audience always knows enough to discount everything not meant literally. I’ve often thought that if we ever do make contact with another intelligent species, communication might be rendered impossible by this very problem. Imagine a truly alien race that lacks the entire concept of humor... After all, humor is not necessary for effective communication, it’s just something we happen to use really frequently. There’s no reason to think that humor is a universal trait among intelligences, it may well be unique to the human race, a random consequence of our evolution and ancestry. What would a non-humor using species make of our television and radio broadcasts? Would they understand any of it? Think of all the misunderstandings that would arise if everything was taken literally! Mistakes of this nature frequently get made even amongst humans, especially online where emoticons can only partially make up for absent tonal and visual cues. Resolving the serious stuff from the sarcastic background noise of the internet is both a worthy and technically interesting endeavor. I have no doubt that someone will eventually get filthy rich by solving this problem.

They decided based on what the constitution says? Oh yeah? Well OK then, show me where the constitution says that corporations must be given the same free speech rights as individual citizens. Go on, show me the words. Except you can't, because there's nothing like that actually in the constitution, certainly not in the first amendment. As far as I'm concerned, if you can read that idea into the constitution as written, you can read almost anything you want into it, thereby making the constitution conform to your personal ideology... Which seems to me precisely what they've been doing.

It's questionable whether typing stuff, even just a few letters, should always be considered faster and/or more productive than using a mouse. Sometimes, especially on a laptop, it's a pain to keep shifting from mouse to keyboard and back. Besides, since when is running a particular program the only thing you would ever want to do on a given operating system?

Windows 8 if filled with non-intuitive commands, and offers almost nothing of value in return for scaling its rather steep learning curve. It wasn't wanted or needed by anyone outside Microsoft, and it will eventually be abandoned and completely forgotten by everyone outside of a few business textbooks, where it will stand forever as a classic example of a large corporation shooting itself in the foot.

Furthermore, the Ibex only became extinct in 2000, so they had material taken from a living Ibex to work with, a considerably easier proposition. And as you say, even that didn't work.

This is clearly a technology not quite ready for prime time, and certainly not suitable for such a mammoth undertaking as the resurrection of an entire species.

Except we're not spending billions of dollars to improve healthcare, we're spending billions of dollars to increase the bottom line of the corporate "healthcare sector" and to line the pockets of insurance company CEOs. Improving healthcare was never really the goal, it was merely a talking point used to sell the ACA to a gullible public.

FWIW, the Obamacare silver tier plan I signed up for has already saved my life - no lie, I was diagnosed with a rare bone disease 10 days after signing up thinking I was in good health. I spent six weeks in the hospital and I'm extremely lucky not to be paralyzed or dead. I highly doubt the ER would have sent me for that all-important MRI ("just to be on the safe side"), the one that finally revealed the underlying problem, if I had still been uninsured, regardless of any laws mandating treatment. So yeah, I was and am still among the big winners under the new law - but that doesn't change the fact that only single-payer will ultimately save the already half-dead US healthcare system.

You can't use a current example to prove patents are necessary, of course they are now, in this brave new world of IP protection mania. Once you introduce the idea and reality of software patents, they become essential for both defensive and offensive corporate strategy. But they're still an abomination, and contribute nothing of value to anyone who isn't a lawyer. Besides, I was talking about true innovation, Zynga and its ilk hardly qualify as shining examples.

I think a better example of how unnecessary software patents are is to look at the period known sometimes referred to as "the PC Revolution". Virtually all the software written in the early days of personal computing (Apple II, IBM PC, TRS-80, etc...) was not patented, in fact it was believed by most programmers at the time that software just wasn't patentable. And yet that period saw unfettered innovation in software, I will cite the invention of the spreadsheet as just one example. Nobody in the industry worried about patents, everybody made money, and innovation soared. What better proof is there that software patents are not only not needed, but in practice actually suppress innovation?

No, I don't, why don't you tell us, and maybe you should include an explanation of how you know all this. Be sure to document your assertions with links to unbiased research supporting your hypothesis.

That would make it a Ponzi scheme, no? Which means the correct answer in GP's list of possibilities was in fact: