I don't think it is a win for freedom when your company, run by very few people at the top, gets to tell the employees, a generally much large number of people, how to run their private lives. Each person should be free to make important decisions about their lives without interference from companies or the government when their decisions harm no other people. Embryos are not people.

More importantly, no secular government should be paying any attention to any religious belief when making laws. Iron Age superstition has no place in deciding important moral, philosophical, or law questions. Our body of knowledge about what is moral has change drastically since those days, and especially since the enlightenment.

Keep religion out of the law - it is the only way to have freedom. There are thousands of religions, and even if you restrict yourself to Christian sects, you still have thousands of sects - there is no way to pick the "correct" morality from this mess of contradictory, and generally backward beliefs.

Don't get offended when I call Christian beliefs backwards; go read the bible. I'm always amazed at the number of people calling themselves "chistians" who haven't bothered to read the bible. Often, reading the bible, and/or making a serious study of theology cures one of religion.

Once all the cars are autonomous, and networked there won't be traffic jams.

And everyone in that plane is going to want to kill you after only 5 hours. For the love of god, don't do it unless you have a miracle child that will sleep through the whole flight.

As a parent of three grown children, I never inflicted my perfect, but often screaming, children on theaters, high end restaurants, or long plane trips. It is is selfish, unthinking, and rude.

...slimy business practices...

I don't see how a bug that will likely be fixed soon is a "slimy" business practice. Normally if an imessage doesn't go through it gets resent as a normal sms. Some sort of bug is causing the resend to not happen.

From my point of view this is frivolous lawsuit, I hope apple wins, and the plaintiffs lawyers lose a bundle.

And, while this is interesting tech, a large stationary power-plant should be more efficient - even with transmission losses so I'll be waiting until I can get a battery powered car at a reasonable price with good enough range. Battery research is what cars need.

Electricity is cheap where I live so my "fuel" costs would be cut by about 85% if I got an electric. (7.5Km per dollar for gas vs 50k per dollar for electricity).

What boggles my mind is that this despicable behavior was done in front of a teacher! Any school I, or my kids went to, that bullying tirade would have been stopped, and the student marched down to the principals office by the teacher. A "cut it out" is for talking to your friend when you should be paying attention.

I'm from Canada, but I'm going to guess the bully was an athlete. Untouchable.

And I agree with others that have pointed out that the school admin seems more concerned with protecting the schools reputation and athletics program than with learning and justice.

And in what way is tirade shouted out in a classroom not public? What is wrong with that magistrate, and that cop?

Sorry, but there is very little doubt that mass murder is evil, and that goes on at frequent enough intervals for there to be no doubt that god allows evil.

If god doesn't think mass murder is evil then he isn't good, and no amount of "god's way is a mystery" hand waving will change that fact.

The Catholic church was certainly aware that unfiltered thinking could cause problems with faith which is why for centuries the clergy read the bible in latin and told the "flock" what to think, and they burned at the stake the man who first publish the bible in English.

I don't mind others faith until they try to turn into law and jam it down my throat.

Actually, we do have an arbiter of good evil outside the bible which is why good christens are not keeping slaves, stoning their neighbors to death for not observing the Sabbath or killing kids who disrespect their parents. This arbiter is the knowledge that certain actions harm other people, and our empathy allows us to know that other do not want to be harmed. Basically, the morals and ethics that arose during the enlightenment (which do owe something to some ancient Greeks) are the basis of most secular western law and principals of judgement.

Do the gods love the good because the gods say what is good, or because the gods love what is good?

As humanities moral development has improved over the ages, more and more of the bible has become metaphor.

You bring up two topics: the morality of gay marriage, and the completely separate issue of the financial and legal benefits the the USA government bestows on married couples.

You make a persuasive argument against the government giving special rights and benefits to married couples that are denied to other long term, stable relationships. I agree with you that the government has no business doling out special rights to some couples because they made a commitment called marriage while similar commitments are denied these benefits.

It is my opinion that government should not give any financial benefits simply because your are married. Further, I think the government should get out of the marriage business completely. Marriage, outside of religious ceremonies, should be replaced by civil contracts.A lot of people don't really understand that when they get married they are agreeing to a huge and convoluted legal contract. A range of simpler contracts should be available that spell out the rights and privileges of both partners: power of attorney, child custody and guardianship, shared assets, and how to dissolve the partnership would be some of the key things to include in these contracts..

The moral issue is should being gay be treated like being a red head, or being black, or being white, that is something that the law should prevent everyone from discriminating against.

In this case I disagree with you and say that being gay should be something that no one, and no law, can use as something to justify discrimination. Being gay is like having blue eyes, something you are born with. All government programs, civil rights, etc... should be available to gay people just as if they were straight.

And hospitals do NOT decide the rules about who can visit and who has the right to make medical decisions those are all laws - laws that currently discriminate against a lot of people. rules governing wills, child custody, etc... are also generally unfair to anyone other than straight couples.

Gay people are not forcing their morals on anyone. They are asking to be treated equally before the law. Asking for people to stop discriminating against yourself is not forcing your morals on anyone; it is asking for the law to be fair.

Finally, gay people are not "greedily" grabbing benefits they are just asking for the same benefits others already have, and you so eloquently argued that everyone should have. Are you saying that all committed, long term relationships should get benefits, except gay ones? That would hardly be moral.

And I'd say your description of the communication issues the autistic face is a definite disadvantage. The intelligence boost in 50% of mild cases isn't worth it.

You've never actually met an autistic person have you? It is NOT an advantage in 99.99999% of cases, A few people with mild cases can live normal lives, but this is the exception. Most autistic people cannot live on their own and require close supervision 24x7. Most people, even saintly social workers, find it extremely unrewarding, frustrating, and generally unbearable working with autistic people.

Autism is a horrible affliction.

Companies are "persons" only for the purpose of applying a few laws, not in a general legal sense, even in the USA.

No, limited liability corps limit the financial liability to the company, and prevent the owners from being personally responsible for DEBT the company racks up.

Limited liability companies were invented to encourage investment in risky ventures, like buying a ship and sending it to India for the spice trade. If the venture failed creditors could only go after the companies assets, not your personal assets.

Limited liability companies have no affect on criminal responsibility. It is hard to sue individuals in companies for criminal acts because it is generally very hard to determine which individual is responsible. Who knew, who decided? It can be very hard to prove.