You still didn't...

I've always thought the best way to govern is to favor incentive over punishment. I'm sure she could think of a way to get you moving...

Any producer or provider will not 'ultimately do this' as long as the market barrier-to-entry is not too high. This can occur for a few reasons, one of which is actually the existence of regulations that favor the existing businesses (e.g., Regulatory Capture). Another reason is that the infrastructure required to support the service is incredibly expensive, which serves as a 'natural' limitation to the number of players. It seems in this case we have a bit of both. The only viable solution I see (solution being something that benefits both the market and the consumer) is to not allow the person who owns the lines to also provide service, only rent out the lines in a neutral fashion.

First, I would not like to be one of the researchers / technicians / soldiers stuck underground and trapped for an indeterminate period of time after a bomb like this drops the only entrance. Depending upon how long it takes, its entirely possible that destroying the entrance could kill off a lot of the talent necessary to make the weapons as they all starve to death or suffocate deep underground. It's a hell of a deterrent.

Second, the reconstruction efforts would have to take place on or near the surface, which is in range of more conventional weaponry (cruise missiles, JDAM bombs, etc...).

Third, though I am not generally opposed to an army owning powerful and highly specialized weapons, I get the feeling that just having these makes a first strike option against Iran seem like a more viable option. I don't like this.

But if the job of the institution is to deal with the practitioner's actions without succumbing to pressure, then it is appropriate to blame the institution as well as the practitioner. But the problem is, one of them has complete authority over the other if they choose to. It's kindof like blaming drug dealers for getting too powerful when they start buying off the cops for protection. The problem isn't entirely the drug dealers, although there are ways of dealing with them, the problem is the dirty cops. You don't make the dirty cops more powerful, as they're likely to just start doing a better job of protecting the drug dealers.

Also, we all know that people are fallible. You will never not make a government 'powerful' enough that people won't just do what is in their best interest. The point of limiting federal authority and maximizing state authority is that there are more points of failure - odds are, eventually, someone with a backbone and a genuine interest in protecting the people of their state will get elected, and then 'they' won't get what 'they' want everywhere. Also, I bet state senators would be offended you think if you only offered them 1/50th of what you would pay a federal senator to buy them off. :-)

I have a problem in that I'm fairly libertarian at the federal level and not so much at the state level. I'm against increased federal authority because it makes for a single point of failure for a governing system. If you have 50 states doing their own thing each person gets greater representation and one of them might get it right, and when people flock there others might get the message. If you look at American politics in the last, oh, sixty years, it has been all about increased federal authority regardless of party. We're pretty screwed.

Kotaku had a decent write up of why this is basically either a huge cultural misunderstanding or a naked attention-grab by PETA. Knowing the history of the organization, you decide...

Some folks on hackernews have suggested it could be a massive salt or mineral collection operation. Not sure myself, but here is the comparison shots.

One in Israel

California

So basically what you're saying is that the church still thinks I am? Meh. I was baptized at birth (without consent... lol, hard to get at that age) and confirmed. When people ask religion I still answer 'Catholic', even though it's pretty far from the truth. It's not really a big deal to me. I haven't attended church since I was... 17? Basically when I got a job that worked on Sundays.

Not sure about that one, but I don't think so. I grew up Catholic (though I'm not really anymore). Catholic schools in the south (at least the one I went to) are a bit different than the 'Christian' schools. I remember reading Genesis in our religion classes and all our teachers saying that none of this should be taken literally. I also remember learning about evolution in biology class. I don't remember anything about that specific idea, although it sounds like it could be a parable.

To be fair, most people just use a web browser for all of those anyway.

Oh, I know. I just think it's strange that some atheists seem to think that scientific progress somehow 'belongs' to them, and that every single time science is properly applied it somehow only happened in spite of all this religion. If anything, the scientific renaissance was spurred on by the Catholic Church at the time.

Also, if an unrepentant racist serial killer gave a decent explanation of the purpose of the sacrifice of Jesus, I fail to see why he should be dismissed, as long as he remains philosophically coherent. We humans are known for having ideas of how things should be, and then doing the opposite anyway.

I think using the term 'discussion' for what's going on up there is being a bit too generous.