Do you think anyone really cares if you've never bought anything from an online music store? Do you think that makes you superior in some way? The term hipster is stupid and usually used poorly but I think it might apply here.

Those of us with actual jobs and real life obligations have better things to do than track down random artists in person so we can throw an extra $5 at them in person.

And my hipster theory is confirmed. Do you have a point to make or are you just trying to be smug?

Just throwing this out there but you might want to actually check your facts before saying something publicly that can be shown to be completely false by spending 10 seconds on Google's search engine.

You've been able to use iPods as removable hard drives as far back as I can remember. I've done it myself.

But only fairly recently has it been employed in large scale in the relevant area. It wasn't economically feasible in lots of cases due to the availability of much easier and cheaper sources of oil and gas.

Apparently so. Do you have evidence of an alternative reason for earthquakes to go from 2/year prior to 2008 up to over 2/DAY in 2013?

So you are skeptical? That's fine. Have you looked at all the evidence and found a plausible alternative hypothesis we can test?

So what? Either the facts support the claims or they do not. Who it is from is irrelevant to its veracity. There is a reason we insist that scientific findings be repeatable so that others may confirm the findings. The fact that a government agency is involved is irrelevant to the scientific process.

So even if what they are saying is actually true, you plan to dismiss it out of hand because you dislike government in general. This in spite of the fact that you provided no actual reason to dispute the conclusions reached in the study nor any articulated reason to think the USGS is being dishonest in any way.

Of course they have. You'd have to be living under a rock with your fingers in your ears to think otherwise.

More or less, yes this is exactly what they are doing. The playbook is almost identical. Claim that there is insufficient proof, ask for more studies (funded by them frequently), hire "experts" to promote their viewpoint, hire politicians to hinder any regulations, etc. Take the tobacco PR playbook, scratch out tobacco and write in fossil fuels and that is almost exactly what they are doing.

I think it is a rather clear and unsurprising expression of economic self interest which in many cases is contrary to the public interest. I don't think you need to invoke some grand conspiracy theory to understand their actions though I would not be shocked to find out that there was some fossil fuel companies acting illegally in cahoots. Anything that makes it more expensive to drill/refine/sell, increases regulation or reduces fossil fuel use is likely to be opposed by producers of fossil fuels. They all know they basically think the same way on the topic so they're all behaving more or less as expected.

Sounds like you do too.

I don't really give a shit about how people raise their kids until it starts to affect others, myself included. Don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine. Go live in a shack in Montana and home school so you don't endanger the lives of others because you are squeamish about getting a very safe and effective vaccine against a serious and highly contagious pathogen.

I don't care much what China's government does and it's not really clear what they have to do with this discussion. That said if China want to make birth rates fall the best thing they can do is to improve their standard of living. High GDP per capita almost inevitably leads to falling birth rates. Don't take my word for it, the data is easily available to back me up.

Tell you what. You explain to me how and why measles cares about a form of government and I'll concede the point. Last I checked, pathogens don't really pay much attention to governments.

Again, no. I don't have children and I don't get special treatment so why should he just because he chose to reproduce? Not my problem. Plenty of people don't have children but still pay taxes to support their local schools because it is a public good. An educated populace benefits us all. My education is long since finished and my parents still have to pay taxes to their local school district. In fact I actually went to a private school for good parts of my education and I can assure you that my parents did not get a tax break.

It's not illegal to go out in public with measles. It's just a really dumb idea. Every physician I know will instruct someone with the measles to stay home in most cases because it is ludicrously infectious. Furthermore "a cold" describes a huge number of pathogens whereas measles is one specific germ. If there were a safe and effective vaccine for more serious strains of "colds" then I would support requiring a vaccine if our medical community determined it to be a good idea.

Children are not considered mentally competent to make such decisions. How many toddlers do you know who would volunteer to get a shot?

They are already doing that AND endangering others in the process.

Nobody is being forced to get any vaccine. They can choose not to participate and there should be consequences for that. I have freedom of speech as a guaranteed right but that right has limits and it does not mean I will not suffer consequences for something I say. Same with the right to choose not to vaccinate. They can do it but that doesn't mean they should be able to endanger others without consequence.

No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.

They aren't forced to have a medical procedure. They just are forced to stay the hell away from the people they put at risk by electing not to have the procedure. They retain their choice but that choice absolutely should have consequences because it can literally have life and death stakes. If they want to elect to live life as a hermit then they should retain that choice.

You cure ignorance by education if and only if the other party is willing to learn. You cannot cure stupidity through any amount of education.

I think the horse is already gone from that barn and has run a long way down the road.

Spare me. There is no slippery slope here. We are talking about extraordinarily safe vaccines which are 100% optional. They can choose not to vaccinate their children, just not without consequence. They do not get the right to endanger others needlessly because they want to hold a ridiculous opinion not supported by scientific fact.

I DO have that right and given the technology to do so I'll exercise that right at every opportunity. They are welcome to try to invade my life to sell me stuff but that doesn't mean I have any obligation to let them do that. Their flimsy business model isn't my concern. If I value it then I will pay for it and I sometimes do. Most times I value my privacy and attention more than I value their advertisements and thus I block them. If this results in TV or other services price adjusting to compensate then so be it.

It's ok for them to try but they aren't entitled to any expectation that I should have to support their flimsy business model. I can assure you that I am not interested in their advertisements without having seen them. If they want to subsidize their content via ads that probably means their content isn't especially compelling or valuable.

I don't care what their motivations are. Not my concern. I value my privacy, bandwidth and attention. I don't give these away for free, directly or indirectly. I'm not about to provide charity to a website operator just because he threw something up and attached some ads to it.

Apparently you think it is ok for content providers to be entitled but not content consumers. Curious double standard you have there.

Sounds like they should get a more clever business model then. Not my problem. Most of the websites on the internet could disappear tomorrow and my life would not be diminished one bit by their absence. I'm willing to pay for content I find valuable but I'm not willing to pay with my privacy by default with no consent from me.

True but irrelevant. Either way the company hoping to get revenue from the ads doesn't get paid. They are effectively broadcasting and I can do whatever I want with their signal as long as I don't re-broadcast it. If I want to strip out their ads then that is my prerogative. I pay Comcast a handsome fee each month to have them send a TV signal into my house. What I do with it there is my business an no one else's. If I want to use a TiVo to skip all the ads then I will do so. Their bad business model is not my problem.

I don't give a shit if they get paid or not. Not my problem. If I decide their content is worth paying for then I will pay for it. This rarely is the case but I have done it on occasion when I feel it is justified. If they decide ads are the best way to get paid that's their choice but they should have no illusion that I'm going play ball. I'm certainly not going to let a bunch of advertising companies track my every move and serve up advertising spam that I can assure you sight unseen that I have no interest in whatsoever.

By that argument we should abolish libraries immediately because content creators don't make a dime from them. Sorry but I think it is perfectly fair. The content provider knows (or should know) the deal they are getting into. They don't get to force me to watch anything I'm not willing to watch and they certainly don't get the privilege of tracking my movements (or allowing others to do so) on the internet. If I think their content is worth paying for I will do so but *I* get to decide that, not them.

I don't agree to that and I'll visit whatever website I damn well please. They put it out there and the financial risk is theirs. By default I value my privacy more than their content.

Have you actually worked with drug sniffing dogs? I have. They're actually the real deal in almost all cases. In fact one of my immediate family members owned a retired one. I also do work with tracking dogs as a hobby. While I don't doubt for a moment that there are some crooked cops using drug dogs inappropriately, this does not accurately or fairly describe most of them. Simple fact is that they are commonly used to find contraband and are successful in doing so regularly. They are successful in finding drugs WAY too often for it to be merely false positives to allow illegal searches.

OK, I'll bite. Why are drug dogs "complete BS"? Dogs are demonstrably useful and effective in sniffing out all sorts of items. They are a well established tool in our legal system and for good reason. Clearly there was no probable cause to use a drug dog for a search in this case. That does not make drug sniffing dogs "complete BS".