Your principles there are true (more or less) but they don't really relate to the question.

You're assuming that a universe such as ours can exist and (perhaps) many universes with different features do exist. The question was "Why is that the case?" Since we're here, obviously the universe does exist, but why? Or more specifically, why is there "stuff" in the universe. If you threw space-time into the mix the question would reduce to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which is a good question...

Though, it's not a science question.

They were walking around in front of it. Leads me to believe it's not particularly dangerous. Maybe extended exposure is bad though.

the key there was "raise to adulthood"

What do you do when he turns out to be as crazy as you and criminal? As in, when he gets out of prison (assuming he even goes to prison for stealing a laptop) and then finds you and sends you to the hospital, or kills you?

Would I want to live 150 years? Yes.

What would I do with the extra time? Same things I do now. Work, travel...you know, live.

I wonder if it would extend fertility. Maybe you could have a family and raise children to adulthood then separate, find a new partner and do it again.

Well, well Sir Labelsalot, where exactly did anyone say "film is low res"?

Apparently not. Since no one makes the cameras anymore.

I'm not saying they're going to disappear next year or anything like that. But digital will beat film out in most respects sooner or later and then it will just be nostalgic. When CDs came out some people complained that the low bitrate cut out a portion of the music but everyone used them anyway. How many people have vinyl? How many people even noticed and cared? Not that many. And now the quality is better anyway.

So...yeah, film is here now and has some time left but I'd be pretty surprised if it has more than a marginal place in the market 50 years from now (aside from digitizing old films at least). Much like vinyl.

Welcome to Hume's nervous breakdown.

probabilities of what? If it's "probability that X occurs in situation Y" then there's absolutely no difference between that and Newtonian physics. Except that instead of Y => X you have Y => {probability set}
I don't see any differences in terms of causality. There's a sense in which neither assume it (i.e. neither says "cause") and a sense in which both rely on it (as in, without belief in causality the assumption that these are predictive are unjustified). What's the difference?

My computer is compromised. Probably severely compromised. I take bare minimum precautions (as in no IE and knowing what sites are fishy). I've gotten 2 viruses that I've noticed. One removed safemade and did other fun things. Got rid of it in about 30m. The other I'm not sure what it's doing, I think it's a key-logger. I'm pretty sure I have some sort of bot that likes using my internet when I'm idle too. Probably a host of other bs that's not noticeable as well.

I also pretty sure my opinion is worthwhile. You see, I just don't do anything involving money on this machine. Setting up a machine to be secure enough to trust banking and credit cards is time consuming, annoying, and all around makes using the internet a trying experience.

So I just have a cheap old desktop to buy things and do banking on (or, actually not do banking on since I don't need to, but if I did...). It does nothing on the internet but update software and buy things from trusted sites.

The only significant risk I'm taking is email. Someone might compromise my account. I accept that risk for the ability to use the internet without having to deal with all the trouble of securing my machine.

Everyone in Japan uses Yahoo for some reason. There Japan page has a bunch of useful Japan related stuff like train info. I still never use it for search though.
Google runs television commercials here for chrome. Probably in part to convince people to use Google instead of Yahoo.

Is there a "+1 answers rhetorical question" option?

That's a good point. I suppose Italy is the only country with Italian as it's primary language (excluding city-states) but how many people outside of Italy speak Italian?

Also, how many people in Italy use the English Wikipedia where they won't even notice this?

Seems like it would make a lot more sense to block all of Wikipedia from Italy. Maybe Wikipedia wanted more worldwide attention but they could have gotten that with a banner or splash page for everywhere.

On the other hand just taking down the Italian site was probably a lot easier than any of the alternatives.

I am offended by your mocking of our laws, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:

Sincerely, The Italian Parliament

Nope. I must not know what I'm talking about. What a perceptive reader you are.

Yes, and expending energy in "transferring your weight" to a higher position on the plate is not at all like pushing through resistance. Or, since gravity provides a resistive force against you moving up and the plate depresses through resistance to produce electricity, is analogous to it in not just one but two ways.

I bow down to your superior analytical skills. I'll burn my physics degree later when I get the chance.