This is inspiration incarnate. Now we can create any sort of wondrous future we desire and the main project heiroglyph page is all I needed to see for proof. It's marginally functional without javascript!!!!

Obligatory old joke:

One day, at a U2 concert in (insert traditional butt of jokes for your area, I'll say Newfoundland,) Bono stops the music and starts clapping his hands, slowly, rhythmically.

As he gazes out over the crowd, still clapping slowly, he intones 'Every time *clap* I clap *clap* my hands, *clap* a child *clap* in Africa *clap* dies *clap* of starvation. *clap*'

From the audience comes up the outraged cry of 'Then stop fucking clapping, you idiot!'

Offering free music? Fine. Forcing it onto you? Not fine.

It's not luck, why would luck dictate my ability to quantify the amount of spacial reference around me and react? Granted that driving in India of China might be a different ball game but I still fail to see why I would need super human ability to text and drive, driving is only about taking in the amount if matter around you and reacting to it, something which a human brain is pretty good at, texting is simply typing a message and thanks to all keyboards being standardized you should be able to do that with out looking at the screen, so I fail to see your points, you're either a bad driver or you believe the lies about non-existent distracted driving.

The cameras like that already exist - all that's needed is adding an accelerometer to one to detect the shot being fired.

If you think you need super human skill to text and drive then you need to give up your license.

The fact is that 99.99% of what we use PC's for can be done on Linux, in fact 99% of the server room can run on Linux with out effort. It's time for Microsoft to admit we don't need them.

There is no such thing as distracted driving! There are bad drivers, incompetent drivers, morons, assholes and people who should never of been given a license in first place but there is nothing called distracted driving. Just because you can't use your cellphone and drive doesn't I can't, I could have 20 naked women all grinding me and still drive a prefect straight line well taking in everything in my environment, which doesn't mean that if another person, in the same situation, crashes it's distracted driving. Just as video games don't cause violence, Atheism doesn't cause a loss of morals, cell phones don't make you a bad driver, you either are a bad driver or you're not.

All this talk about how to handle cell phones in the car is just silly, don't do anything! It's not up to the car or police to control phone use in car, it's up to the driver to realize that they have no control of a car well texting or calling. Yes people have died as a result of someone using a cell phone well driving, but in reality they died because the person behind the wheel was given a license when in fact they shouldn't of been. A cell phone has never caused an accident, only a driver can cause an accident, can we start calling out piss poor driving and stop trying make excuses. Bad driving is the problem, don't make your cellphone take the fall for the fact you can't drive.

Atheism means that you believe it's more probable for the universe then create itself then it is for a pedophile, misogynistic, sadomasochist, asshole, to create the universe 6000 years ago and you exist now thanks to incest, murder, killing, abuse and rape. If you want to believe in the literal bible then please go ahead, but you don't look intelligent, rational, mature or even like an adult. The same goes for Islam, Judaism and any other religion which claims to have the answers.

(b) it's an easy mental barrier between people venting at you, and, well, you (because they're not yelling at me, they're yelling at "Antonio".)

When your introductory training includes psychological coping mechanisms, rethink your decision to be there. :-)

Of course not. But you give the right answer immediately.

Exactly. Embargo is a convenient scapegoat - it lets the government to explain away harsh life and crackdowns by an ongoing conflict, "us vs them", "everything for the victory". Remove it, and it makes that much harder for them to maintain that. Long term, it will accelerate the inevitable collapse of the dictatorship and the transition to something saner. If Castros are smart, they will do what Chinese and Vietnamese elites did, and head the transition rather than trying to resist it, so as to reap the maximum benefits. If not, there will be another revolution.

Either way, all that embargo does is delay that process. So it hurts the people of Cuba, not its government.

The embargo started before the Cuban missile crisis (in fact, many historians believe that it was the extreme hostility of US towards Cuba after the revolution that pushed the latter towards Soviets). In any case, the notion that if the embargo is lifted, Cuba would rebuild the missile bases, just defies any common sense. It was not their bases to begin with, and if someone else would want to rebuild them today, the embargo makes it easier not harder (because it takes that much less to pay to Cuba for them).

If you seriously consider the Black Book of Communism to be the "best estimates for communist regimes killing people", you're either deluded or retarded. Heck, even if you take the book at its face value, even then it counts "victims of communism" - and by this they mean anyone who has died due to e.g. starvation during a famine, regardless of whether said famine was artificially induced or not (and Soviet Russia had plenty natural ones in the aftermath of its Civil War). For the actual killing estimates, they tend to take the highest figures from the sources that are basically pure guesswork, like Solzhenitsyn's books.

The embargo is by US on Cuba. If US truly wanted to lift it, it could just do that. The fact that it is not lifted because "Cuba does something" means that US doesn't really want to lift it, either.

Which is stupid, because Cuba is as communist as it is only because of that embargo. Hell, look at Vietnam: a country that US actually went to wage war in, with numerous civilian casualties, and now? They're rapidly catching up with China on that whole capitalism business, and you can actually talk to a Vietnamese guy on the Internet and ask him what he thinks (and tell him what you think).

More like 11th century, actually.

I mean, this is Europe we're talking about here. If two states had a common border, you can be pretty sure they had at least one war per century, and often more than that. In case of Russia(/Ukraine/Belarus) and Poland, the only reason why it doesn't go back earlier is because Rus was a proto-state before then, and it wasn't until the end of 10th century that it was fully formed.