... no video game at all. Put down the gadget and move your body.

All you do is put the open wi-fi on a different subnet, so if somebody comes after you, you can just shrug and say, "I don't know who it was".

What is this "blank check" you're talking about? How in the hell is housing buying subsidized? Why do builders need to be subsidized when they're making record profits?

There have been a handful of people who've come into my place of work, looked up at our lights and have said, "I'm so glad that you have incandescent lighting. Fluorescent lights really bother my EM sensitivity" or something to that effect. All of our lights are CFL (but look like incandescent).

When you strongly regulate something the effects are negative for the consumer!

You must be living in some kind of bizarro reality. Internet connections are NOT regulated at all, right now. Things will improve when Internet connections fall under the auspices of the FCC.

If we don't want to save the world because it's "not profitable", then we are truly fucked. What are we, Ferengi?

Star Trek is cute, but we have a real group of people who truly believe that. In the US, they're called "Conservatives".

Some people need a new version of the OS because the old one did not do something they felt they needed. Hard core gamers tend to fall into this category which is why the directX program was so vital to Microsoft for the last 15+ years.

Kid, I hate to break it to you, but most Windows users are business users. Businesses upgrade when they need to. There have been plenty of good reasons to move to Windows 7 from Windows XP that have nothing to do with games.

The Feds always look for the most expensive option. They'll end up with pricey battery powered hardware tokens when they could look at cheap Yubikeys.

His point is we have sufficient evidence that current legal dictates with respect to food will likely be wrong,

No, we don't. You make it sound like most nutritional science in the past 40 years has been wrong. On the contrary, most has been correct, and very little has been reversed. For every scientific discovery that changed a position re nutrition, I'd imagine that there are another 99 that are still deemed to be correct.

Yeah, not selling 64 oz sodas is just like USSR-era authoritarianism. You're a fucking genius.

All the consenting scientists couldn't be wrong, could they?

ALL of them? Sure, it's possible, but not very likely. If you want to wait until science is 100% positive about something before acting on it, feel free to go live in a cave.

Yes, "force of law" decisions. Make it sound sinister. I have to drive only 35 mph down the street in front of my house because of the FORCE-OF-LAW. I can't buy heroin because of FORCE-OF-LAW. I can't murder somebody because of FORCE-OF-LAW.

Considering that nobody can travel through time to see the future of science, yes, I think that we, as a society, should be making the best possible decisions that we can based on the science of today. Under your logic, there should be no laws, because somebody may be wrong about something, and we won't discover it until far into the future, right?

Studies back up my experience.

No, sadly, they don't. If you'd like to provide a link to some valid studies showing that, I'd be interested, but I've never seen a single one that says that high fat, low carb diets are healthy long-term.

Why then do you think the FDA used to recommend high amounts of cereal grain and pasta with their "food pyramid" and now they no longer use that model and advise nobody to go by it anymore?

Because they replaced it with a new system that suggests adults should eat between 5-8 ounces of grains a day.