My last sentence is a testament to the fact that "your" (I don't know if you're American or not) elections are already bought, so what's the difference?

In Canada, they are not, and electronic voting can be fairly secure. Nothing is 100% secure, but it can be made mostly secure.

By the way, all of your examples - hacking, social engineering, threatening, they all already could be done to game the system. After the physical ballets are counted, someone could tamper. Before someone goes into the polls, someone can (and already do by handing out things) tamper. Threatening is obvious. And others, such as using dead people. So why do you worry so much about this?

How is that any different than all the other items I listed that are centralized? Hackers could hack into tax returns and make all the accounts for deposit their own and get a hefty pay-out. They could also change the numbers and bankrupt the government during pay-out.

We already have a verification system in place in any case. The government mails out IDs through physical mail (or hopefully confirmed e-mail later), and you use that ID plus some form of ID (such as some #s from your previous tax return, or your passport #, or whatever) and it is secure enough.

There's always a fairly safe way to do it, enough that nobody can buy an election.

In any case, I'm surprised this is the concern. Elections in the US are already bought by corporation funding. We've all seen the correlation between US election spending and results. So do you really care if it's bought by hackers or by corporations?

Good work pulling numbers out of your ass. How about you give me some evidence that even 1% of online tax filings are fraudulent, because I am sure you cannot.

All this crap about "hackers buying an election" is bullshit made for you to eat by politicians.

In Canada you can file your taxes (and even get the replies via e-mail), renew your driver's licence, file for immigration changes (visa extensions, etc.), renew car plates, get a new passport, etc. all online. And yet, we don't feel we are secure enough to allow people to vote? How the fuck does that make any sense?

In the end, all this bullshit about "we can't provide enough security for voting" is just a smoke and mirrors job. The real fear is that everyone who doesn't vote now because it's a pain in the ass will start voting, and that could seriously change the political landscape.

And while you may be tempted to start giving me examples of how it's not a pain in the ass, such as how you can pre-vote with an envelope (wait, why is this allowed but online isn't?), or go physically in the morning/afternoon/whatever, NOTHING beats the ease-of-use of and time saving of online voting.

Doesn't ICANN now enforce 'real' information on custom domains? It's less anonymous.

I never understood this. What are the passengers doing to do if they see something? Cry? They can't do anything, and the tower / pilot would already know about it if it was dangerous.

Nature finds a way.

Certainly no study is perfect, and you are right that there are studies that show it is unsafe too. But what I've linked are federal studies by various governments, the national cancer institute, the FDA and the EFSA. These are pretty big, well funded institutes who would actually benefit by finding it not safe and banning it - for example, Canada has government funded health care, and does not want to have to pay for all sorts of people getting sick from something, which is why they tax so much on 'bad' things and ban what they can.

So I feel pretty secure that it's safe in 'regular' amounts (don't drink like 20 diet pops a day basically). But that goes for everything.

There are two major reasons why people incorrectly think aspartame causes cancer:

1. In 1975 a bad study was released saying aspartame caused brain and other cancers. This study became “legend”, and is what everyone thinks about aspartame, but it is not true. There is even an article on Wikipedia specifically about this controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy
2. In 1998, a hoax was released saying aspartame caused all sorts of serious diseases, and people believed it: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blasp.htm. It’s also on snopes http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Due to the 1975 study, studies were launched and FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut" (http://web.archive.org/web/20071214170430/www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html)

1. The European Food Safety Authority concluded in its 2013 re-evaluation that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe for human consumption at current levels of exposure (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496.htm)
2. As do other independent studies (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184)
3. The national cancer institute has cleared aspartame as having no links to cancer (http://web.archive.org/web/20090212130028/http://cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/AspartameQandA)

There are many more scientific studies on it by national governments showing it’s safe as well:

• UK https://www.food.gov.uk/science/additives/aspartame/
• Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/sweeten-edulcor/aspartame-eng.php
• Australia / New Zealand http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/additives/aspartame/pages/default.aspx

It's really not that big: google earth picture of the location from sat.

The pictures make it look like it's an entire city, but really it's just a small area. Of course, they don't show you aerial views because that would stop any sort or rational opinion from forming on the subject.

This is done a lot. Here two examples:

• Handmade hero. This guy creates games in a live stream and explains it. Over 3,500 followers on twitter.
• Watch people code site. This site helps aggregate streamers who do this.

There are many more examples, but it is common.

I think your opinion is rather bias. Both job offers I had offered a signing bonus (no strings attached), as well as stock options (if I stayed there for 2 years) and of course free re-location, as well as a tour (that I did go on) of the area beforehand. If I took the job, I was more than free to quit and move back to Canada at anytime if I disliked it.

So I don't know what you mean by 'vulnerable' position. If you take a job in another country, you take that job. You can quit and return to your own country at any time.

Everyone seems to imagine those holding H1-B visas to be from poor countries who are ready to work 12 hours a day as a slave to avoid being shipped "back to the slums."

As a Canadian, I've been offered over the years 2 separate jobs in the US with the offer to do it through a H1-B visa. Many of my ex-co-workers took up this offer at one point and have since moved to the US. I have no idea if they'll ever move back.

The salary offered through both of my offers were very competitive, and I only turned them down because I disagree with a lot of the way the US is run and prefer Canada, and the extra amount offered wasn't enough to make me want to leave.

Not triclosan. You shouldn't buy anti-bacterial soap with triclosan to begin with, it does nothing (probably).

Directly from the Wikipedia page: "Triclosan safety is under review by the FDA[15] and Health Canada.[17]" You can read the page to find out why if you're interested.