That might be what the NSA says, but how could anyone believe them after everything else that has happened?

Because without OKCupid, most of the readers here are probably down to a one-handed sex life.

Since most users have no idea what browser they are using, or that they are even using a browser, then just boycotting OKCupid period is the safest thang.
That's how stuff can backfire easily.

It died. Moral Libertarianism isn't profitable enough to the folks who fund political campaigns.

The conditions that apply means there needs to be a solution AND it needs to be profitable.

You want a different example: cholesterol
That may have always been a medical problem but it was never a popular one until _after_ we developed profitable cholesterol-lowering drugs.

For ADD, Ritalin was used as a DIAGNOSTIC drug. If it solved your issues, then you had ADD. If not, then ADD was not your problem.
That's two examples.

Isn't the incidence of bulimia and anorexia related to class status also?

I think it's rude to look people in the eyes.
I think that was also a norm in Asian and Native American cultures such as Japanese, Sioux and Arapahoe.

In fact, to examine the cultural bias effect, _if_ it is true (my memory may be off) that the Japanese have a bias against looking people in the eyes (considered hostile staring), then it seems you could compare America and Japan against various foods and vaccines and what have you.

Maybe "all" that is happening (I'm a parent and don't intend to diminish the anxiety of having a differently-abled child)
maybe all that is happening is that we are entering an era of more random mutations (for a variety of reasons) and some of the interpretations change between cultures. An added fact for that pov is that autism is not a single thing; the spectrum probably has multiple independent causes.

I agree that being different is not a disease, but I am flummoxed by the reasoning.
What is it we are supposed to determine deviance from if not the norm?

I like the left-handedness analogy.
There are far too many people who seem to assume evolution has a direction or goal instead of being a process of making completely random choices in order to be ready to survive in a completely random future.

It's hard to say if handedness is an advantage or not. Being ambidextrous is correlated with different brain wave patterns but that is correlation, not effect-cause or vice versa. What is caused by being left-handed, or "sinistral" is how society views you.During sword-fighting days when most folks practiced against right-handed fencing opponents a left-handed fighter was called "sinister."

I can't believe gmail is actually ten years old.
Is it finally out of Beta also?

sarcasm: And apparently that has now been "disproven" by Tea Partiers, fundamentalist Libertarians and Texans (except for when they want their Federal handout).

The supply of money is completely independent of the economics of trading.
If a cow is worth 4 goats, changing the monetary price of a cow to 3 dollars or 300,000 dollars or 25 bazillion lira changes nothing about the trading situation. A goat is still worth one-fourth of a cow. If cows die off and become scarcer and more valuable, then they might end up being worth 10 goats but notice that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the "value" of our money.

Money is merely a tracking device. You can track items using pencils or pens or spreadsheets, but the stuff being tracked doesn't change regardless of how you wish to track it.

Money is not a commodity. That was actually the basis for the first revolt against the new American government of George Washington's.
They implemented a tax on corn liquor but jars of corn liquor were actually trade items--dollar bills if you will--because they didn't go bad
America essentially taxed you on the bills you used to pay. That's complete different than taxing your income or your net worth.

For anyone who thinks monetary policy matters globally or that the gold standard or bitcoin have any sort of control over economics, they haven't actually thought thru econ from basic principles.It is not part of any economics class whatsoever so don't be shocked.

1. First assume the total worth of everything in the world is 5 trillion dollars or be as accurate as you wish.
2. Next, assume the total worth of everything in the world is just 5 dollars.
3. Now explain how the trading situation between different resources is modified simply because we change our idea of what money itself is worth. Eggs aren't worth any different in relation to bacon and gasoline than they were before or after the monetary change.

Economics is based on biology. Lots of different organisms trade resources back and forth. In fact, if you don't trade and you can't find resources, you die.
Basic economics and it applies equally to protozoans, elm trees and human global civilization.

As far as money per se, that is an illusion or artifact of civilization. People who think credit or cash or the gold standard drives economics don't actually spend any time thinking about the concepts or limits. Consider--what is the total dollar value of everything in the world? Let's assume it is 500 trillion dollars.
Now assume it is only 5 dollars.
What actually changes about how people trade things or what things are traded for what other things? Nothing changes.
Money itself actually is just interpretation. It's a scorecard; not a driver.

Economics, according to Sowell is the how we value _scarce_ resources. That truly identifies most of the issues we have as a society. When clean air or water is plentiful, then there is no cost/value associated with it. When we pollute the water or air, now it becomes more valuable and as a society, we either say goodbye to clean air or figure out how to value it as an externality and pay for the use of it.

Still go nothing to do with money and everything to do with resource trading which is something all biological communities engage in.