Actually, when people say googling, they really do mean "look it up using Google."

Actually, no, they don't. They mean "look it up with whatever search engine you usually use". As in, google it with Bing".

If gun ownership were more tightly controlled, those 14000-19000 nonfatal injuries and the hundreds of fatal injuries from accidental shootings would be reduced by at least an order of magnitude - lives would be saved.

The number of firearms accidents is statistical noise. Anyone making a great hue and cry about them is clearly not actually concerned with gun accidents, but is trying to use them to veil a prohibitionist agenda.

If gun ownership were more tightly controlled, the 60,000 to 2,500,000 annual incidents of firearms self-defense (yes, huge error bars) would be reduced -- more people would be murdered, raped, and robbed from. Lives would be lost.

Also, of course, enforcing a prohibition law ipso facto means locking people in cages for acts that do not credibly threaten the rights of others. Liberty would be lost.

Here in the civilised world...murder rates and prison populations are proportionally tiny compared to the USA.

Folks in Mexico, Philippines, and Brazil might take exception to being called "uncivilized".

Yes, we have more violence than other wealthy nations. We also have more of a problem with an unaddressed legacy of slavery and segregation, ongoing racism, ongoing economic injustice, and lack of access to useful mental health care than those nations do. Those factors have far more to do with our violence problem than access to firearms does.

According to CDC's WISQARS, there are about 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S.

And according to that same source, for 2012, there were 8,974,762 non-fatal accidental injuries from falls. Floors are dangerous. 2,145,927 from cutting or piercing objects, 972,923 from poisoning, 423,138 from fire, 357,629 from dog bites...

Heck, there were 58,363 from "nature/environment", which includes "exposure to adverse natural and environmental conditions (such as severe heat, severe cold, lightning, sunstroke, large storms, and natural disasters) as well as lack of food or water." Nature will hurt you with more probability than guns will.

But yours is a common mistake people make when talking about guns, because they just don't know (or care) about the actual numbers.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Numbers are meaningless without context for comparison. By any rational comparison with other things that can hurt you, firearms accidents are rare.

Evolutionary selection pressures never stop.

It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any long-term evolutionary advantage for a species. Horseshoe crabs have been rocking along on tiny brains for about three orders of magnitude longer than Homo sapiens has been around.

"...it's illegal for these ride-sharing services to charge passengers an individual fare..."

If you're charging for access to X (for any given X), you're not sharing, you're selling (or leasing). And you don't get to be exempt from consumer protection regulations just because you're doing your selling on the web.

...but some European countries (France is another one) have all these stupid little "we're special...and we don't understand the internet" rules...

Sounds like these nations understand the internet quite well. They understand that it's not magic and does not relieve companies of their responsibilities to operate in an accountable manner. "But...we do it the internet!" is not a legal escape clause, as companies like Uber are finally being taught.

ISIS has been very clear about their desire to attack America and the West.

A desire motivated in large part by over a century of America and the West (mostly the thrice-dammned British Empire) screwing around with imperialist games the Middle East. Let's go pour some more gasoline on that fire, I'm sure we'll put it out eventually.

If I ask for money or something else from YOU, as a payment for some favor, that's extortion and the burden of guilt is on ME.

No, it's not extortion. "Pay me or else I will do <unpleasant thing>" is extortion. "If you pay me, I will do <pleasant but illegal/unetical thing>" is soliciting a bribe.

[FDR said it eighty years ago ] "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

Well, that and federal troops coming to lock you in concentration camps and steal your home. But only if you're of Japanese ancestry, so, no worries my fellow white folks!

Do you know how many courts have ruled it self-defense to react to the police with lethal force if they try to arrest you wrongfully? In America we have dozens of these cases at state and federal levels

Can you cite one from the 20th century? I've only seen 19th century cases on this. Thanks.

What it does reveal is the attitude of the local reporters who appear to be somewhat supportive or at the very least neutral to the police action.

Maryland's Eastern Shore is an island (well, a peninsula) of old-fashioned ignorance.

If the author of a Tea Party manifesto were treated this way, local reporters would be up in arms. But here the author is a black man.

I find it interesting how everyone emphasizes freedom of speech yet freedom to trade is heavily restricted but is not considered a basic human right.

Because it's not. Trade exists only where property exists. Property exists only where a state exists -- "ownership" is exactly and only the ability to call on state force to maintain your control of something. Trace any claim of "property" back and you find a state-issued piece of paper, a land or resource deed.

Used properly, property and trade are ways that we help protect basic human rights. They are not rights in themselves. Our neglect of that principle is at the root of many of the world's problems today.

"The low-fat group included more grains, cereals and starches in their diet. They reduced their total fat intake to less than 30 percent of their daily calories, which is in line with the federal governmentâ(TM)s dietary guidelines."

This is not a low-fat diet. The 30% recommendation was an incredibly tepid compromise: the standard American diet is around 35% fat. So this its along the lines of telling peoople "Oh, you smoke 35 cigarettes a week? Try to keep it to 30."

For comparison, the Ornish plan is around 10% calories from fat.

So this study compared a high-fat, high-sugar diet (no restrictions on an America's sugar intake == high sugar) with a higher-fat, no-sugar diet. The usual crap research that people tout as showing low-carb diets useful.

...if the Chinese government wants records for an American citizen's account at Bank of America, then America will have no reason to protest since BofA has offices in China, and the principle of extra-territorial subpoenas has been established. If Microsoft loses this case, it will be a terrible precedent, and a victory for oppressive governments all around the world.

So don't do business with banks that have offices in other countries. Move your business to your local credit union. Demonstrating that big banks can be legally required to divulge your data to governments in any country where they operate sounds like a way to break banks' power a bit, and thus a win for humanity.

There is a reason there is *intellectual* property law.

No. There is not. There is copyright law, there is patent law, there is trademark law. None of these relate to "property". Calling them "intellectual property" is inaccurate, an attempt to obfuscate.