The problem is removal of responsibility, which puts everyone in their own fluffy bubble where they can't be hurt nor they can do anything.

You don't go to Spain because you heard about the Spanish flu? Your loss, and an advantage for those who use their brain.

I am not letting anybody dictate how I must express myself, how I must think. What I do can have social repercussions, what I think or what I say (most of the time) are not business of societies that proclaim themselves free.

First it's about national security, then religious sensitivity, then normal sensitivity, then whatever is deemed offensive for whatever reason, then the truth dies.

Argumentum ad systemd.

Well grandpa, do you remember the HiFi craze? we wanted to completely simulate an orchestra, or whatever sound. Turns out that you can get easily to 95% of fidelity while the other 5% still makes the difference and can't be overcome, unless you spend insane amounts of efforts.

Look at this demo. Impressive, yes. Real, no way. At this stage I think we could convincingly fake a super8 movie, sure. So what? what for?

As usual, the hotly debated themes are ill structured, intentionally I guess.

The problem is not what the telecom companies should do about their packets.
The problem is that if you sell me INTERNET access I should be expecting:
- a way to send/get packets to all internet peers, at my own risk and responsibility
- an IP with the ability to open the ports I want
- if technically feasible, and now it is, symmetric band I/O

If telcos decide to meddle with anything above they should
- lose common carrier status and become co responsible.
- not call it internet. Youtubenet facebooklink flixnet for netflix or whatever, sell it at reduced price and get the new generation of imbeciles on board there and off the real net.

It's a win/win.
Back to topic, Rand Paul should focus on freedom of communication, which sidesteps this debate once and for all.

Gnome is also the most unpopular, I gather.

If being gay were being blond, the blond agenda is not "we are persons like you", but "all hair color is the same, don't talk about it", which is reactionary. I sure understand the historical reasons, but it becomes an exercise in controlling other people's ideas. Today it's gays, tomorrow who knows.

- apple is bitten, like in the genesis story
- apple I retailed for 666 dollars and 66 cents

As the saying goes, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence...

Unfortunately for your fantasies, they will probably limit themselves to the right hand or the forehead, like the original plan went.

And a very subtle troll at that. I mean, citing a respectable place like 4chan.

> "terribad" isn't an english word
*English

Yep, it's standard operating procedure. Ordo ab chaos. The hand that offers help first is likely the one who had created the mess.

George is a two dimensional character, like all others he is merely functional to the story, so you might sure think this film is crap, but justify it with different reasons, because the legality or moral acceptability of the main character's behavior is completely unrelated to the quality of the movie.
If the movie sets bad examples, that becomes a problem for the viewer, for society maybe, but not for the movie itself.

> He makes a living by consulting, motivational speaking...

Cool, then it's a big step forward for humanity if he succeeds. A smaller one if he doesn't.

Reminds me of the blu ray DRM that made them unsuitable for linux.
Result, no blu ray here.
Not even when the player got cheap and linux supported it.

The problem is that people keep insisting that action at a distance is spooky because it doesn't match their model of how things behave, forgetting about the fact that the scale of our perception is different from parsecs or nanometers.

What's wrong with particle A being entangled to particle B without nothing ever being between them? What's wrong with the same entanglement working with a positive or negative time delay, so the result is visible before the choice itself (which doesn't BTW imply the lack of free will)?

This is like saying the rules of conway's game of life are not realistic because one dot can emerge from nothing. OK, doesn't model our universe, So What? All alternatives simulation rules are equally arbitrary, and we simply consider emergence from nothingness a problem because we don't see it happening in our world. If it happened we'd have other models of reality, they would work as well as those we have, and if somebody made a simulation where nothing gets created from nothing we'd scratch our head and say: "Why?"