You're half-way there... We are indeed social animals, and we are inherently tuned to respond to talking. The problem with hearing a phone call is you only hear one half, so the natural rhythm of talking is disrupted to the point of being jarring, as there are long periods of silence in the middle of a conversation, and to make matters worse, said conversation is often louder than normal, due to the inherent shortcomings of microphones, speakers/headphones and voice transmission.

Instead of "conversation", think of "piece of music", and then figure out why it might be jarring to be exposed to only half of it, in sporadic sections.

Give it a rest. It's like claiming Einstein was just sandals. There is a bit more to it than just what it's running on, and it's that bit which makes it what it is.

You seriously think they haven't thought of that? Why do you think yourself so intelligent and scientists so stupid? Is it mere arrogance?

Trees decompose, returning their CO2 into the atmosphere, so it's useless for permanent sequestration. The coal we use was created before bacteria evolved the ability to decompose trees, so it's not quite as simple as you seem to think...

You do realise that is only a thing in countries without socialised medicine, right? If you're going to complain, at least get it right, and try to not make yourself look foolish in the process. Better luck next time.

6 to 8 minutes at a red light? Where I live if it's over 30 seconds people would riot.

As the post below yours pointed out, the safety of the workers is not the only reason the speed limit is reduced.

If drivers such as yourself realised you don't know everything about the road condition, and realised that the way to defeat unfair or improper speed restrictions is in court and not on the road, roads would be safer. Just because you think the speed limit is incorrect doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it OK to speed.

So no, most drivers are not conscientious if they barrel through a construction zone 20mph over the limit, by very definition.

If you say so. Some people mis-using accurate language to further an agenda doesn't instantly mean all uses of accurate language are suddenly bad. Your lack of citations didn't really help your point.

Context is indeed king, but it's still debatable as to what characteristic "regular" was referring to. The poster could have simply chosen to use the correct, more-accurate word from the beginning and there wouldn't even be a need for this discussion.

Accuracy is free, not using it is an indicator of either laziness, ignorance, or malice. None of those are particularly worthy qualities to defend.

Then you are arguing for ISPs to charge for the amount of caching they employ for your connection. If not, you need to figure out a better argument, as that doesn't apply to bandwidth.

"Dicking the pragmas" - genius :) Thanks for that.

You have a point, but by your logic it would be deemed unsuitable to ridicule alchemists when a new element is discovered in a particle accelerator. The vast, vast majority of Cryptozoologists don't engage in science - they engage in wild speculation and pseudoscience. Plus I wouldn't call the southern Arctic or dense jungle "right under our noses" :)

The accurate way would be "able-bodied". "Regular" is so vague it's devoid of all meaning. PC isn't about not offending, but about being accurate, so when someone says something, people know what they're talking about. You can get all offended that your ambiguous, nonsensical way of referring to things is incorrect, but don't blame the person correcting you, but your upbringing and laziness when it comes to knowing how to correctly converse with other people. Language is a protocol - you are free to ignore the protocol, but don't get confused when you cease to be able to communicate effectively with others, or when others point out your misuse.

Google Analytics lets the websites you use know which parts are working, which are not, which are visited and which are rarely used. It lets them know what browsers their users are using, letting them tailor their site to their users needs. It essentially lets the websites people use do what they're trying to do more effectively and efficiently. Ads pay for the websites. If no-one used Google Analytics or viewed ads, they would have fewer sites to use, and the sites they could use wouldn't be improved based on their users' habits. They would have confusing navigation, and the users' flow between pages of interest would be convoluted, making the sites harder to use.

If you want to go back to the internet of the late 90s, fine - but to be ignorant of the benefits is just being lazy.