Sometimes you can't solve problems. Less government power is the answer to not creating new problems.

When you have a non-government problem, you can often escape it or fix it for yourself or at least mitigate it somewhat. When it's the government causing problems, it's a lot harder to deal with.

This is one reason why some of us want to stop giving the government more power. Because they can never be held accountable when they misuse that power and hurt people. No one in power is ever guilty of anything. Care and recklessness are rewarded equally.

It's easy to say you're for "openness" (and whatever other buzzwords) when you never have to actually live up to any sort of standards. Why should anyone listen or believe or trust? Apparently, we shouldn't.

DuinoKit until you try it

If they don't care about the 4th Amendment, why would they care about FCC licensing laws? Besides, what is the FCC going to do? Fine the FBI?

Two things about software-based instruction: it can improve over time and it can be widely distributed. Human-based instruction is limited in both those areas. Someday the software-based instruction will be really good. Human teachers can get better for a while, but they eventually retire -- losing all their instructional capability.

Like I said, no simple countermeasures.

Please cite some examples of similar services that were attacked by a similar attack and managed to stay up and still be useful to the users. I don't doubt it's possible. But let's see some examples.

Because of Sony haters. And entitlement mentality. Sony was a victim of this attack. They don't need anyone's sympathy, but they shouldn't be treated like they did something wrong in this incident. It's not like there are simple countermeasures to prevent or fix DDoS attacks.

All of these things have pluses and minuses. Rather than picking a side and defending it, companies should regularly weigh the benefits versus the costs of these choices and watch for opportunities that might tip the scales away from the current policy.

Why not? Who does "listening" harm? What would be the specific benefit from not listening? Do you have a plan of action for living together peacefully in a civil society that doesn't involve "listening"? If so, please describe this plan.

Venezuela is on the way there. It's taking a while.

Planned Parenthood does not perform mammograms. (Unless they started doing it since late-2012.)

The President should definitely listen to the Tea Party. He's supposed to be the President of everyone in the US, not just another partisan asshole.

He says he is open to ideas from anyone. As President, that is the correct attitude for him to have.

Building a factory in most African countries is far too risky. Even if the wages were zero, you can't make a long term profit if the government nationalizes your factory. It's also not worth building anything in places where the government might decide to tax away or otherwise take the profits. Moving production to Africa won't be a trend until honest government prevails in Africa.

I think it's sad that people in your area are so poor they can't afford basic transportation, but also so economically secure that no one is willing to become an Uber driver and give people rides during non-peak hours at regular rates. And it's doubly sad that the combination of poverty and economic security you are describing is completely immune to changes in the price of car rides. That place must truly be cursed.

Arguing is rarely rewarding period. But these discussions hone my and others' understanding of the world. Understanding of the world can be rewarding.

I'm always hoping thought can win out over feelings -- especially negative feelings like envy.