And many atheists do not.

The term "atheism" means "without theism". I.e. without a belief in a god. It's about a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.

Destroyed? Hardly.

The entire government is running a money extortion program, in particular the IRS. Taxation is extortion (forcibly confiscating someone's private property using a threat of force if they don't comply). The sooner the scam is stopped and liberty restored the better.

It doesn't to me. If I sell a book to someone and a part of that sale is a contract that explicitely prohibits digitisation, then they should not be able to digitise. The law should not be able to trump private contracts.

They're not specifically doing anything to attract either gender to contribute. Everything they do is gender neutral. This is a non issue.

For us it's phones and iPods, laptops and an old P4 2.4GHz in the garage which drives the CNC machine (wifi is the easist way to get gcode files from the main PC to the garage PC).

Nullum est periculum mercedem non.

What's sad about people making a lot of money? Just because one person makes lots of money doesn't mean anyone else should be sad as a result. Envious maybe. Perhaps even jealous. Unequality is not a bad thing - it's natural.

I can put anything on a CD I like. I can go into the bush and record 2 hours of bird noises. Nobody can tell me I am not allowed to make as many copies of such a CD as I like.

The AARC is making the assumption that the only CDs that can be put into the car's stereo system are CDs with content they own the copyright of. That's patently not true. People can put in CDs that have their own music (that is, music they themselves have created). Because of this I don't think the AARC have a leg to stand on. CM and Ford wouldn't be infringing copyright laws - end users would be.

Life is streamed in the form of a continual inflow of photons to receptors on our retina. From that point of view everything we see is streamed. What a crappy poll indeed.

Or digital television streamed via a satellite dish. Surely that's "streamed media"?

It's their right to do this though. It's their content, paid for by them and produced by them. They should be able to put any restrictions they like on where they can sell it. I do not believe though that they should be allowed to prevent people from using their own personal equipment to copy bits to other equipment. Copyright shouldn't exist.

Of course, because one of the conditions of entry is that such dangerous things are not done. That's called property rights and is a core part of freedom.

You cannot have freedom if the means to acquire it to remove some freedoms. That makes no sense.