Yes, because offices should be clean, puritanical white laboratories of production where all concepts of cultural solidarity, friendship and conversation get hung up on the coat rack at nine and picked back up at five when you leave.

We're supposed to be a mosaic, not a melting pot. There's a difference.

Do they? Last time I checked, that's just for Wall Street - everyone else's international money transfers take the same old 2-5 days or sometimes even weeks.

Turns out you can use cryptography to make banks sign transactions without knowing what the input is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Internet_banking

DVR - mobile can do that just fine
Game console - mobile can do that just fine
Office management - desktop wins here
Home management - desktop wins here
Communications and web browsing - mobile can do that just fine
Telephone and video chat - mobile wins here

New flash: users don't care about RAM, super-overclocked multicore 4 GHZ CPUs or any other such acronyms. They care about UI responsiveness. We've had that since the 1980s, all you need is to keep the bloat down.

But the amount of land that their lifestyle uses per person would make a hectare counting environmentalist scream in horror...

> Paying rent to the company and being forced to buy from the company store IS a form of slavery

There is no slavery. Workers have a right to enter, and they have a right to leave. Guess what, some people actually prefer having the security of a meal every day to working 16 hours a day and being subject to the whims of the harvest on the field.

And labor laws and unions are really not as useful as you think. If you look at the historical record of what wage laborers' conditions have been over the centuries, you'll find that the chief determinant is not "greed" or unions or laws - it's supply and demand. 14th century, Black Death happened, and, as counterintuitive as it seems, living conditions shot up across the board. We had an 8-hour day for the first time. 19th century, population boom, wages at subsistence. Early 20th century, population growth started to go down as we invented birth control, and wages went up again. Now, things went down a little one more time for those of us lucky enough to be born on the right continent because the world markets got opened up, while living conditions have been measurably going up across the board in the rest of the world (somewhat less in Africa and southeast Asia, which just happens to be where the evil exploiting multinationals are the weakest). Freedom - it's a socialist wealth redistribution scheme :)

Of course not. And neither is any non-democratic institution. Ultimately, morality is subjective and the only final arbiter of what's moral for you is yourself. I, for example, don't find Foxconn evil at all as its pay is better than most of its competitors, its suicide rates are lower than the Chinese and US average and its safety nets make it no more evil or foreboding than the Eiffel tower. On the other hand, though, I do not buy Apple products because Apple infringes on my freedom more than its Android counterparts.

I think social opprobrium provides a perfectly reasonable amplifier for ethical considerations; would you really keep buying your Apple products if you were in a social environment that publicly despised them? Studies suggest no; peer pressure, for example, is even more effective at discouraging smoking than the health concerns that are the reason behind the peer pressure themselves. That's the true bottom-up democracy. All it takes is enlightenment and awareness, and the internet's slowly but surely bringing that to us already.

Your phonotactic complaints are very umproductive.

No, that would make it more confusing.

"This is a derivative. The derivative of the nth power of x is n times x to the power of n minus one. The derivative of the sine is the cosine, and the derivative of the cosine is the opposite of the sine. The derivative of the exponential is proportional to the exponential itself multiplied by the logarithm of the base. Memorize that, test next monday"

What would work better - that, or intuitively explaining to people what functions and slopes actually are and why all those things are the case? Education isn't about shoving stuff in, it's about having students bring it out by themselves - that's right there in the etymology

They're a financial services business, they have to deal with issues like these in ways no one else does. Given that MF Global can have $1.2 billion, or about 100% of what was its net worth, just disappear, this really isn't that unreasonable.

I think you're wrong here. With drugs, police go after production to combat possession (and use), which is what they ultimately want to reduce. With child pornography, police go after use and possession to combat production.

> No, humanity can do these things because they are great to do.

And humanity can also build giant pyramids because they are great to do. Or we can build ghost towns. Or give every home in the Himalayas a high-speed DSL internet connection. But we don't, because we have limited resources. And that's the point of the free market. In a free market, things are done because they meet people's needs, not because bureaucrat decides to implement his childlike imagination. And it doesn't look like people are interested enough in a base on Mars to pay for one.

It's a question of practicality. Yes, we could rewrite the constitution right now, but if we were to do that it would be an opportunity for the government and associated powerful interests to take some of our last standing bulwarks against tyranny and neuter them with a "this is subject to reasonable limits as justified by the public good in a free and democratic society" clause. If the people actually had the level of control that would allow a reasonable constitution with guaranteed rights and freedoms for the 21st century to be implemented, I think more people would be fine with it. But we don't, so it's best to stick to what we have.

But people continue to voluntarily watch them, and I'm pretty sure we all agreed that actions speak louder than words.

What does "conservative" even mean? Sometimes it means "not radical", sometimes it means "frugal government", sometimes it's "military adventurist". Same with "liberal" - it seems like the terms are set up to mean whatever people want them to mean.