Oh, and EU "efforts" to make attacking another country to be suicide are pathetic at best. This only works when you are stronger than any possible attacker, which is unfeasible in a world where many factions have nuclear weapons.

Unstable it may be, but there is nothing better, and therefore the best option we have is to keep it working, and we have been quite successful at that, mind you.

In this case it should be and most likely will be treated with other means than a massive second strike, because there isn't even a target for it. This threat must be dealt in different ways. The second strike capabilities are the deterrence against nuclear powers, not against sole bombs that terrorist groups may be able to procure somehow, and the need for this deterrence will keep existing regardless of the presence or absence of terrorists.

Nobel peace prizes say absolutely nothing about the people who got them except for the fact that it was politically profitable at the time to give it to them.

Yes, mutually assured destruction has its shortcomings and limitations, but it is still the only possible way to prevent nuclear wars in a world where this technology has been developed. Any other idea of equilibrium based on good will and niceness is even more far fetched and delusional than the idea of a permanent MAD equilibrium.

And censorship is a tool of thought policing. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Anytime someone prohibits you from viewing, listening or reading something it is thought crime, and policing thought is barbaric and unjustifiable violence against individuals.

Sure it is, but the CEO is a critical part of it.

Nice theory, unfortunately it is completely removed from reality. Your nice ideas of cooperation and civilization only apply when resources are plentiful and the social structure is in place. In extreme situations where food is scarce and the social structure has collapsed only the strongest survive, and those are likely to be those that are most aggressive, well armed and trained for combat. A single person well armed and well trained can slaughter a whole lot of people. A well trained and coordinated group can slaughter thousands and take everything they want from them.

Desperate people are all but organized. The guy who has things and cannot defend himself is the first to die, even if he is trying to help everyone. Those that can defend themselves are likely to last or to the the among the last to die.

When an Accounting or Biochemistry related subject needs programming is because it needs Mathematics. Programming IS Mathematics. Basic programming is basic Logic, basic Arithmetic and basic Algebra, which are all fields of Mathematics. You don't need formal training to do it, you may use it intuitively, but that is what you do. And the more complex what you are trying to model with your program is the more Math you will need.

It highly depends on what you do. If you work mostly with the common database applications, basic math is enough for you and it is unlikely that you will ever need anything above Calculus or even Calculus.

On the other hand, if you work with RF you will most likely need a lot of math. If you work with high level optimization algorithms you will need Abstract Algebra. If you work with Geolocation you will need a fair amount of high level Geometry, specially Non Euclidean ones.

So in the end the answer is: Higher Math is not necessary in all fields of programming but it is certainly very necessary in many.

As is any government that prints too much money and causes inflation.

And most of the buts and trade-offs, if not all, are arguably unnecessary and exist solely to give control to bureaucracies over individuals. Other are not in opposition to the rights themselves. Libel laws, for example are not necessarily an exception to free speech, unless they demand the take over of the offending information. Civil consequences for the damage you make by lying are in perfect harmony with total and unrestricted free speech.

Rights as long as they are included in the law should be as unconditional as possible, always, and the difficulty of doing that is just another motive why rights should never exist in the law. The law should be negative only and anything it doesn't deny should be an inviolable individual right.

It does not need to be a Human Right. Even because the Human Rights Chart makes all countries in the world offenders if taken seriously. What I mean is that as long something is defined as an individual right by any legal chart applicable, it should be absolute as long as the law exists, not dependent upon the whim of the majority, a bureaucracy or whatever.