Definitely! There are protections, or used to be, that made certain information totally off limits to law enforcement no matter what kind of "proper warrant" they might have. One example: conversations between husband and wife.

In your world, there would be no such protections.

So now everybody is a "bad guy" - and the military and law enforcement can do anything to us?

It is important, very, very important that we keep in mind that you can't "catch the bad guys" if you become the bad guys. If the military and law enforcement break the law to gather information, then they are the bad guys!

Yes! When my kids were young, we always had fun and Santa was real. We were never religious but, like you, I don't object to religion. I feel sorry for deeply religious Christians having to cope with all the crass commercialization of "their" holy day - but that's another subject.

Now that my kids are all grown, there really isn't any reason to continue that. I love the time and getting together, but the whole decoration and gift-giving is for children - to continue the "magic".

I tell everyone, "If I want something, I'll buy it. If I haven't bought it, I don't want it." This relieves everyone the agony of trying to figure out what to buy me. I opt out of the crass commercialization and save everyone some time and money.

That being said, I look forward to making the time magical for any grandkids.

In general, the mega-study found no significant benefits specifically for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cognitive function. And "mortality".

From that, they claim there are absolutely zero health benefits from supplements.

That just doesn't follow. There is a huge area outside of "cardiovascular disease, cancer, cognitive function and 'mortality'" that could come under "better health".

Talk about drawing vast, generalized conclusions from narrowly defined studies.

Ah, did you miss that "I won't do that" part of that quote? I'm trying to figure out how "I won't do that" is a threat. Trying... Nope, not happening.

Scott Adams did not "threaten to kill someone". Read what he wrote. He only wished that those who actively oppose assisted suicide be condemned to experience the same agony and suffering they have imposed on others. Actually, I think that's probably exactly what's going to happen for some of them.

My first computer was a DigiComp. No memory at all.

What I always did with change requests: The rule was, you must get an estimate and approval for ALL changes. The estimate would include how long it would take -- and I was real good at estimating that. The approval would explicitly be for the additional time required for the change -- meaning how much that change would push back the schedule. Most "urgent changes" became "oh, never mind". Any that survived and got approved automatically adjusted the budget and schedule to accommodate the change - so I remained on schedule and on budget.

So you think the app is a good idea?

What a stupid and horrible idea. If you are driving and some road-rage idiot is after you -- you can't call for help? What about those stuck accelerator situations? What if you are speeding to the hospital with some badly injured person and need directions to the nearest hospital? I could go on and on. What a stupid idea!

Saw a bumper sticker on a truck yesterday: "How's my texting?"

You do understand the difference between proposed solutions and what is/was actually implemented? In case you haven't been paying attention, what is proposed has little bearing on what is implemented.

You don't argue very well, do you? You cherry-pick a bunch of phrases I said out of context and string them together in a confusing jumble to pretend I'm not making sense. Then you mock the strawman you created with ALL CAPS and insane ranting.

I say debt is bad and you go off on a side tangent about how some efforts to reign in debt have had bad consequences. Your "argument" failed to address my point completely. Eventually, you admit that I was correct, but only after tedious argument about side tangents.

You objected to everything I said about our national debt despite the fact that everything I said was accurate. 17 trillion IS "unprecedented". 17 trillion IS massive. The national debt IS growing. The national debt is NOT being addressed. Given these FACTS, our future generations WILL be saddled with this debt. I'll admit that "doomed" was a bit rhetorical, but "massively screwed by us" wasn't so punchy. I understand you cannot confront this and must argue every single sentence, but the fact that you can't confront it does not change reality.

I hope your wishful "Oh, this debt will be paid off soon and not bother our future generations!" comes to pass, but that old pesky reality does not bode well for your head-in-the-sand viewpoint.

In the future, try to remain calm and rational, it makes for a better debate. Avoid creating strawmen, it isn't effective and makes you look stupid.

As for this conversation, I'm done. I will not converse with someone who "debates" as you do. I don't need that kind of crap.

I should just let this go but ... quit being such a pompous ass. Judging by our limited conversation, I suspect I have significantly more technical and historical knowledge in this area than you do but that's just my observation.

That is not "password cracking".

WTF? I said DEBT was bad, you have finally, reluctantly agreed that "no debt would be better than having a large debt". Why are you arguing with me? That's my point.

It appears our actual disagreement is that you seem to think that saddling our children, and their children, with this massive debt is "Ho hum, no big deal". I think it is really unconscionable and you just don't care. We'll have to agree to disagree.