The police are interested in anonymous tips insofar as they will keep your identity secret from others. If you call in warning about a bomb, they are damn sure going to want to find exactly what you know and why you know it. After they get that info, they very well might let you stay anonymous to the public.

I would say if you make a threat, which he did, and local law enforcement is forced to determine whether it is credible or not, you have already stepped outside of the bounds of free speech. Free speech most assuredly does not include threats.

Are you, or the people you asked, from Virginia Tech or the Blacksburg area? Maybe that's why they don't know. At Virginia Tech, they would almost certainly know about it, seeing as how there is a yearly memorial service that was all of three weeks ago. Context matters. Let's say your mother was named Mrs. Ememisya If someone sent me a message with "Mrs. Ememisya is going to die tonight" it wouldn't mean jack shit to me, I don't know who they're talking about. To you it would rightfully be perceived as a threat.

Clustering is a very real thing, especially when it comes to the very best workers. We are starting to see that in the DC area: For quite some time now, there have been a ton of tech workers for government and government contractors, but lately non-government related firms are starting to appear on the landscape, attracted to the amount of talent employed in the area. If you're building a tech startup, your number one priority isn't land, (you don't need it) it isn't taxes, (you aren't making money yet) it is top personnel, and it becomes much easier to go to them than have them come to you.

I think you are underestimating people's capacity to forget. Some of the same people who should remember "how things were" forget the salient details as they get older. A great example of this is the number of people who have forgotten how awful water and air quality was in America prior to intense government regulation, despite growing up with thick smog and polluted rivers.

So we take something with the same success rate, and give it a veneer of science and technology?

What world are you living in where the bush presidency started in 2000? He took office in 2001.

People keep saying this, but I can find no record of settlement previous to the Polynesians. So is there actually history behind this, or is this something you're making up to pretend like there's some kind of parity?

They do. They are saving the money they would need to purchase, house, insure, and maintain a separate fleet of vehicles, plus depreciation. They are also maintaining capacity in case of an unexpected surge, say a party or club letting out. Not to mention that the end of the route is not necessarily the bus depot, so switching to another vehicle involves more driving time where no fares are being collected. There are cases where using smaller vehicles makes sense, but on a more ad-hoc basis.

This is a ridiculous supposition. Criminals don't just magically get things due to their disdain for the law. If you choose not to follow the law, drugs and military contraband don't just appear in your presence, there has to be a supply. That supply is either bought or stolen or a mixture of the two. With no legal civilian supply of these bullets, anyone who wanted them illegally would be forced to steal them from the government, which is possible but difficult. This is why grenades aren't commonly used in street crime in the US, despite being relatively common worldwide - there is no civilian supply chain to siphon them off of, unlike handguns.

I'm sorry, but the mental gymnastics to find a rationale of why this is bad are just a smokescreen to cover up the truth: People don't want to pay for things that they could once get for free. Nobody cares about mod developers, or the mod community, they just want free stuff. If I was a modder I'd remember this as the day that the rightsholders said "hey you deserve to make money off your work", and my alleged fans said "No."

This is pretty much what I was thinking (well not the piss part) - That Google has shown that they have no commitment to anything. Facebook is committed to Facebook because it's pretty much all they have, Google is a bored dilettante in comparison. The one demographic that has seen adoption to Google+ is businesses, and now Google is leaving them out to dry. It's getting very hard to put faith in any of their new projects, if they don't realize some grandiose version of "success" they just drop them.

Good thing we learned so much about the obligations of ethical reporting from the Rolling Stone debacle.

Yes. but it's one reference that has literally no relevance to any other part. Every other thing mentioned has to do with medicine, and then one random point relating to agricultural science? It's like they threw in a bit relating to his views on the Keystone XL pipeline, why would you bring that up? It certainly has no bearing on his appointment, and it makes them look as though they have an another unspoken agenda.

If it wasn't important to their argument, it shouldn't have been brought up.

I guess nothing is reliable then, because we've pretty much had politics wrapped up in everything we've done since we left caves.