Right now my only costs are from my internet connection. :) I also do have offline backups of course, but I like SpiderOak because it'll monitor for file changes and upload right away if you have it set for that. (uploading only the changed sections too, and it has versioning built in) It's great for text files and pictures and other things that I just want to backup automatically throughout my day. I don't want to have to hook up my external drive every time I edit a document or download a single song.

I've used SpiderOak for about 10 months now, and it's the only cloud backup service that I trust won't be handing my data over to anyone. Everything encrypts client-side, and they (supposedly) have no way of accessing this data even if forced. It's basically online backup for those paranoid about privacy.

The client does need several improvements, but overall I'm quite pleased. The company offers extra free permanent storage to those who refer others, email with a special promotional code, or participate in online "tests". My favorite was their context for System Administrator Appreciation Day, where you had to fix a broken system and were rewarded with storage space. The contest is over, but the challenge is still up: https://sotss.spideroak.com/ (It was originally won if you managed to get the right program running, and it would ask for your username for the reward space. This doesn't seem to happen anymore.)

So far I've managed to get 29 GB of free space with them, which is permanent and accessible to even free users. So far, SpiderOak is the only cloud backup I've seen that has this "zero knowledge" service. If there are others, I'd love to hear about them.

Even if killing civilians or even killing them all WORKS, how does that make it right? These are human beings we're talking about, not mindless robots or monsters. This isn't like a video game where you win if you completely destroy the opposing side. If you go around intentionally killing innocent civilians, that is an evil act according to most of the world. You might win the battle, but you end up becoming what you had opposed.

Sadly, some people just chant "USA! USA!" and think that we can do no wrong. They'd cheer even if we bombed and killed everyone in the country. With this sort of black and white thinking, they're just "bad guys" deserving of death. If you are one of the people who thinks this way, I doubt that I could convince you otherwise.

The only problem is that it does not reduce the number of "bad guys". If you bomb someone, their friends and family are going to be angry and take up arms against you. If you kill them too, THEIR friends and family will take up arms against you. You're literally creating enemies because they want revenge\justice. The better option is to stop killing them and withdraw our troops. They can't kill us if we aren't there. They'll still be angry and some may still take up arms against the US, but they'd have to come here to do that. This is what a military is meant to protect us from.

Imagine it this way: If a foreign country started using drones or occupying troops to kill people in the US that it considered to be dangerous, don't you think that we'd be angry? I would hope that Americans would be angry and fight back. How many of you would say "Oh well. They're killing our people, but it's none of my business."?

He paid into Social Security, so he deserves to collect it. He wants there to be a way for people to opt out of it. Some people may wish to put the money toward something else instead of giving it to the government.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Social_Security.htm explains his view on this in more detail.

So no, I don't think it's hypocritical or flip-flopping. If you were forced to pay money into the program, why shouldn't you collect from it later on?

It's already happened, specifically in the Republican primary elections:

Short version: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1
Long Version: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1

That's just it, though. He didn't suggest a return to the gold standard of before since it obviously had flaws. He has spoken in favor of making gold and silver legal tender as well as allowing competing currencies, including gold-backed notes and digital-gold currency.

Most people don't actually look beyond the surface-talk of the mainstream media. "Gold standard? That sounds nuts!" Do some actually research and you'll find that his views have been heavily distorted by the media.

May you live long enough to be ridiculed for your age.

A quote from Ronald Reagan: "I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

Just because someone is elderly does not mean that they are senile or ready to kick the bucket. Listen to Ron Paul speak about monetary policy sometime and just try to keep up with him. He's also physically very fit, going on long bike rides in the heat of Texas. Whether you otherwise think about a candidate and their positions, ignoring or laughing at them because of their age is just silly.