FTFY. Unfortunately, the only viable form of government I can think of that's not subject to human corruption is SkyNet.

Because if they put it on the sides, everyone would be complaining about wanting the ability to move it to the bottom of the screen.
See also "Unity launcher".

Naw, I'm not blaming congress for King's copyright. I'm blaming corporations for screwing with the copyright system. That speech should be in the public domain now; it's only not because certain powerful people wanted to make money and had the laws modified to include insane terms. This speech is just collateral damage.

MLK: I have a dream.
FOX: We have a congress. Your move.

This just in: Water is still wet! The Sahara is still hot! Politicians are still lying!

First they're pitching G+ as an identity service, then they're killing the SuperPoke! Which is it? Are you evil are not, Google?

You mean Facebook isn't actually entering the terrorism and drug fields?

Read it in context. Preferably the whole book.
At this point, Paul has said that when God told us what he wanted from us (by means of the Old Testament Law), mankind as a whole rejected it and did our own thing. Paul's basically addressing exactly what the other poster said - if God can forgive our sin, why don't we just sin more so God can forgive more? He answers that by saying that when God forgives our sin, we are supposed to be different in the future. It would be wrong to take advantage of it.
If this doesn't help, hit me on XMPP at mcivor@jabber.org and I can try again.

I know you just meant that as a joke, but there's actually a verse about that in Romans.
"What then? Shall we go on sinning that grace might increase? By no means! If we have died to sin, how can we continue in it?"

I can't find the article I was thinking of, but I remember that against the average person, one "shred cycle" would be enough; against the government you are screwed no matter what. All I'm saying is that unless it's physically destroyed, it could theoretically be recovered.

Yeah, but I've heard of cases where data has been scrubbed 20 times and they could still recover parts of it. I'd hardly call it "irrevocable".

What, did he smash a hard drive or something? Please tell me he didn't just click "Delete" and move on!

For that matter, how do you lose something irrevocably?

That sounds nice in theory, saying that a real scientist would always be challenging accepted thought and looking for the next big breakthrough. And yet somehow, every time someone brings up creationism, they are told in no uncertain terms that all real scientists accept evolution as a true and proven fact and that anyone who questions it is by definition not a scientist. (I'm not making this up, I've been told exactly that numerous times by people who claim to be rational thinkers.) You can't have it both ways.

This is the only possible upside I can see. It seems all the shows that everyone loves do poorly in the ratings (Firefly), while the crappy stuff (Glee, Jersey Shore) scores high enough to keep it around.

You get a "Clever!" and a metaphorical pat on the back.
What do you want, a medal?