My experience with Origin though, make me never want to buy a game from them again, suffice to say, I refuse to buy ME3 unless I see it on Steam.
OWS: We want the "rich" (anyone who makes more than we do) to pay more taxes so the government can give us free stuff! Only evil people are rich (except for the rich politicians and other rich political players on *our* side...that's *different*!)! And if we don't get what we demand despite being a voting minority, we'll use violence (*this* is what democracy looks like!!!1!!one) to achieve our goals.
TEA Party: We want government to stop taxing us so much and wasting so much of the taxes they take from us, and to actually start obeying the laws and the limitations on government power that's in the Constitution.
You were saying something about irrationality and destructive rabble-rousing? I must have missed the TEA Party riots, arrests, violence & assaults, drug dealing/use, rapes, property destruction, and the massive clean-ups needed like that which occur/occurred at OWS protests.
Let me teach you a few things you seem to not understand.
The Tea Party Protest is aimed at Government adherence to the Constitution, opposition to excessive taxation, reduce government spending and waste, while the Occupy movement are about Wealth inequality and Corporate influence of government, basically corruption and the increased handle that large businesses have on our government(source:wikipedia). The mean age range of the Tea Party Protest is much higher than the Occupy Protests(Just look at pictures of people from both protests). First you should understand the Age Crime Curve, which is a basic curve showing crime rates of certain age groups and displaying that age increases the crime rate decreases, not excusing the actions just saying they are more likely via statistics. Secondly you should understand the media's perception and bias of both movements, while originally the media didn't side with the Tea Party Movement, after a few politicians jumped on the bandwagon the media started being very supportive until the dirt started getting kicked up about this, but actually the Tea Party generally was supported by the bigger picture. While the Occupy Movement was against everything the majority of corporations wanted, some specific things that the Occupy movement wanted were a repeal on the ruling that money was freedom of speech, specifically because lack of money is lack of speech. The Occupy movement also drew a hard line on the fact that that the income gap has grown in leaps in and bounds due to the circle-jerk method of deciding CEO pay. I.e you increase my pay, I increase yours, and then we deduct excessive pay from our taxes making the people pay for it. Also at hand is the 15% flat tax on income gained via investment, while anyone who makes money vie exchange of hours can be taxed up to 35%. So basically what the Occupy movement stood for was very contrary to what the majority of corporations stood for, why should they want less power in the government. So then you get to the good part, the modern media is all owned by large corporations, and are backing them. Also due to regulation and licensing it is very difficult(read, impossible) for a start-up television company to get going without some heavy handed backing. Thus the media market is- wait, what was I talking about again?
Anyway point is both movements have negative and positive sides, and your perspective of them is rather skewed and actually feels more like a troll than a real point.
I play Starcraft 2 from time to time, but not nearly as much as I played the first Starcraft, and mostly because I don't have a lot of fun playing the multiplayer. From the article it looks like they built SC2 to cater directly to the sport play. If it wasn't for the single player, I would think twice before buying future games from Blizzard. Don't want to spend money on something I won't have fun with, but the single player aspect of SC2 was fun, just not sure it was worth the amount I spent. Might wait a while for the price to go down or consider other options when the next expansion comes out.
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
1. Confidence or trust that science will "Deliver".
2. Let us hope some scientists had this at sometime or else we wouldn't have many of the discoveries today. This is also most likely the definition he was referring to.
3. Obviously not the definition we are looking for.
4. This could be applied to the concept of ethics within science but not really relevant.
5-8. Again not what we are looking for in this context.
It seems to me that you didn't know the definition of Faith. It only needs one definition of Faith to fit the context in order for the word to be used. Just because the word is so tied in with religion you get into a big huff, and must put down religion in your post. Let the masses have their opium.