Any way you want to measure it, there's never been a more secretive administration in the US. And this from a president who promised "the most transparent administration in history".

I apologize to everyone here for having voted for them a second time.

Or China? Or the US?

There has never been a warhead that "provided" any freedom, not in my lifetime, and not in yours.

And Dwight Eisenhower was president when I was born.

Imagine a 15 foot tall, 40 foot long bird of prey with a 4 foot jaw and 9 inch long teeth.

You wanna watch how you talk about my wife.

2. Abodah Zara 26b is taken seriously out of context. What the original says is "but minim [idolatrous priests, whether Jewish or gentile], informers, and apostates [specifically Jewish] may be cast in [a pit], and need not be brought up." This says nothing about killing, and much less about killing gentiles. If it says anything about killing, Jews are included. The discussion, however, is whether a gentile may circumcise a Jew. The argument about who may be thrown into a put, pulled out but not thrown in, etc., concludes by saying that the pit should be covered so that nobody goes in.

I'm glad you cleared that up. But is the pit covered before or after the minim is thrown in? And are we talking a deep pit or a little indentation in the ground? You would think a book of law would be more specific on these matters.

A real man uses Chinese hook swords against zombies.

I say, throw a knife into a group of waiting passengers and let the first one to emerge alive board first.

In other words, let the invisible hand of the free market decide.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net...

Can you call them "bugs" when they were specific design specifications?

The F-35 is a $300billion dollar abomination. Earlier today, there was a story about a $300million dollar IT mess in federal government and there were howls of outrage.

This useless plane is 1000 times more expensive and unlike the IT mess, the plane's "bugs" are there by design.

What exactly is "free for the taking"? Water? How much may I have? All of it? Half? Or only as much as I need? Do I get more if I want to take a bath, or bathe my dog, or add chemicals and pump it into the earth at high pressure to extract oil?

There's a problem with seeing anything as "free for the taking". There's always a cost. Always a value. To me, to you, to everyone.

Best to ask your neighbors, "Hey, there's water running under my land, you wanna see if we can put in a well and use it? If we pitch in, we can all use the water. That's more useful than putting up a fence, sucking up all the water and then selling it for $1/gallon. Because eventually, your neighbors will cut your throat unless you can hire some of them to protect you from the others, and that will eat into your profits.

Ain't nothing free for the taking. Think of it as free for the sharing. Even, to some extent, yourself. Do you really "own" yourself?

Former CIA spy and writer Robert David Steele talks about a very interesting concept: "true cost accounting". It means that you have to figure in externalities when you derive price. When you go down that road, capitalism starts to look very different. It's like seeing it for the first time. I recommend his books, especially "Open Source Everything". Not so much because I agree with everything he says, but because he forces you to see things differently.

I got your weasel meat right here.

That's because in the 90's programming got more difficult, and programmers *liked* it. No more soccer moms entering the field because they heard it was a way to earn a decent wage.

Complexity makes programmers feel they can do things most people can't. So, they seek complex solutions. If it's not complex, it must not be the intelligent way to do it, since a lesser person could do the simpler thing.

They have it backwards, of course. The ability to reduce the complexity of a task is actually a higher skill.

And I've worked with enough people who were so smart at 18 years old that they decided they didn't need to go to college that I've decided the requirement of a degree has some merit.

Some of these people really are great at syntax and terminology, and a few of them are actually good at coding certain things, but mostly, they do things the hard way, they organize their projects around data when it is process that better defines what they're trying to accomplish, the write overly complex solutions to simple problems, they saddle their employer with unnecessary technology, and there are certain classes of problems that they simply can not solve at all. For one, why do they think it's funny that they don't know math, and that a solution involving guessing, approximation and unreasonable process limitation is an acceptable alternative to algebra?

In short, they suck at problem solving. That's not a surprise since the first adult problem they faced, they took a shortcut.

Also Israel. Another successful socialist state in the European/American/Canadian/Australian model.

Or how the citizens of Finland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden actually do pay their taxes without demur.

Don't just rely on the anecdotes that confirm your preconceptions.