You would have lost that bet every time in history. The humans always win.

Yeah. Missing option: "I'm a fan of music, not audio."

Lazy / efficient.
Careless / focused on what matters, not distracted by irrelevant trivia

If you report that that you have a video of a news event, and you don't make it available for the public to see somehow, that's hiding information.

Does hiding news from people serve a legitimate journalistic purpose?

Because the DVD's director and editor are a better director and editor than you are. Even if they are pretty bad. This feature sounded neat when it was first talked about. It's not a very good idea in practice though.

By socializing with adults, your child can learn how to socialize with adults. That will help your child prepare for the adult world.

You should also probably try to balance this with other activities where your child can learn to interact with children. Children can be really nasty to each other. But in voluntary activities (basically anything except school), your child can do what adults do when someone is nasty to them: escape and stop interacting with nasty people. Your child won't have the opportunity schoolchildren have, to be bullied every day with no escape and no recourse.

What happened to merit? It was re-labeled "privilege". You don't think you actually earned your accompilshments, do you?

If you are good at something, your achievements will be labeled as a "privilege" and redistributed to others. I hope you like the society that most of you voted for.

Question: Does creating a new, powerful disincentive for (the wrong kind of) people to achieve help or hurt our chances to have a prosperous society in the future?

How about just a fan?

They've created a buzzword so generic that it has already conquered 1/5th of software development. Bravo, pundits! Bravo!

Let's get the government to rescue us from the bad deal the government made. We can trust the government to help us to when dealing with Verizon, can't we?

What do you think the "big picture" is? I think the "big picture" is modest warming that falls short of a crisis. In the "big picture", there aren't many effective levers to pull to solve the warming problem, and the cost of pulling them is higher than the benefit.

There's no "save the planet" or not. Because a slightly warmer planet is still a healthy planet. And we'd be better off focusing our resources on solving problems like disease and deprivation than on problems like a small amount of warming over a few hundred years as we advance technologically -- eventually to non-fossil fuel energy sources.

The temperature difference that made 2014 the "hottest year ever" is also less than the margin of error.

Historical temperatures are adjusted for comparison. This is well known. There are relatively few sites where the exact same thermometer, in the exact same structure, surrounded by the exact same surrounding structures, developments, and foliage has been in use for a hundred years or more. There are more in the US than in other countries. Many, many adjustments have to be made to the historical temperature readings to normalize them all with current readings and combine them into a global average representation. There are different methods for doing this that produce different results.

You should read up on the subject if you're interested in understanding it. If you just want to shoot down conspiracy straw men, then proceed. No knowledge or understanding of the subject is required.