I suppose that causation could work both ways. In my experience some atheists can be just as close-minded and judgemental as some religious fanatics. So anything that helps either group think about their beliefs and why they hold those beliefs is ultimately a good thing.
In fact this sounds a lot like the Harvard grads only dating site the Winklevoss twins claimed that Mark Zuckerberg stole from them and and turned into Facebook. I wouldn't be surprised if this website also fails and turns into a footnote in some other tech billionaire's life story.
While I suppose that this kind of attitude, if indeed she does think this way, would make her a terrible Secretary of Labor or Commerce, the office of CTO of the United States would require a different way of thinking than other departments of the Executive Branch. Presumably her job, if she gets it, would require her to apply technology to policy problems. If that is the case, then somebody "brought up in the culture of Google solutionism" would be perfect for a position like this one.
A less polite person might suggest that the parent comment meant to use "phallacy" as a synonym for "dickheadedness" which may not technically be a word but let's face it, we've all had days when we wished that it was one.
You seem to be filled with paranoia, an easy sense of outrage, and distrust of all media. Are you by any chance a news pundit?
Vader was Luke and Leia's father and embittered by years of service to the emperor. He deliberately hired incompetent engineers and starship captains in hopes that his children would be able to fix his mistakes and help him kill the emperor.
I think you're conflating several batshit insane religious nutjob theories. I've heard some Mormons for example suggest that black people suffered from slavery because they were descended from Cam, Noah's youngest son who was cursed for ridiculing Noah who was the one who got drunk and naked in his tent.
The part about the lost tribes of Israel I've seen comes from certain evangelical groups as a justification for America's westward expansion (and the death and destruction for American Indians that came with it). Basically Jacob, the ancestor of all the Isrealites, promised his favorite son Joseph that his own sons, Manassas and Ephraim, would give rise to great nations of their own. Flash forward a couple thousand years and somehow these two lost tribes of Israel go on to found England and another group of them breaks away and founds a little country called the United States of America. So basically according these groups, WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) were destined for greatness by God because they are a lost tribe of Israel. This was a hugely mind-blowing idea when I first heard it at age twelve.
The point of all this nostalgia for a more superstitious time is that the same people who are coming up with all these crazy ideas are the same people who are trying to make Creationism sound scientific. And a lot of them are perfectly nice, friendly people so it's not like you want to (or even can if they're family) cut them out of your life. Eventually mocking them with tales of Flying Spaghetti Monsters gets tiring and you just find yourself talking about sports.....
You've just described the prevailing attitude during the Jim Crow era.
Since private companies began offering health insurance as a form of compensation in lieu of higher salaries. So yeah, your company is not actually paying for your medicine, it's paying for the insurance that pays for your medicine. That's the way health insurance works in the US. Now that may be a bass ackwards way of doing things but it is how they get done these days. The argument here is about what this health insurance should cover.
If we had a single payer system, this would not be a problem. But we don't, so we have a million bean counters out there asking "do we really have to pay for that?" And now the bean counters have been joined by prudes saying, "hey! We can't get laid, why should we have to pay for you to sleep around?"
But even the First Amendment does not guarantee an absolute freedom of any and all religious practice. Just ask a polygamous Mormon. I very much doubt that a Jehova's Witness surgeon who refused to preform blood transfusions could use the First Amendment to prevent the loss of his medical license. And just to be facetious for a moment, human sacrifice used to be rather popular with some religions and while I am not a lawyer, I think I'm pretty safe in concluding that the First Amendment would not protect anyone trying to bring back this practice. A less facetious example would be animal sacrifice which actually does come up as an issue from time to time - usually with bored prisoners looking for an excuse to sue the prison by "converting" to satanism or voodoo.
This issue is somewhat similar in that health insurance is a form of compensation. Allowing the Catholic Church to dictate that say, a receptionist who is not Catholic but who works at a Catholic institution, cannot spend any part of her paycheck on condoms because they are a form of birth control and the church opposes birth control would strike most people as a violation of the rights of that receptionist. So why should health insurance be any different? If she pays for condoms out of her own pocket, she's doing it with money she earned working for a Catholic institution. If she gets birth control pills from her health insurance plan, that's still money that she has earned working for a Catholic institution. In both cases, the church should have no right to dictate how she should spend the money which she has earned.
I always figured it was a table you could buy at Ikea.
The Egyptian protesters who used Twitter and Facebook to organize protests that drove two dictators from power say "hi."
Of course they're features. They are very important features for Facebook's real costumers.  Advertisers.
 Even though you have a Facebook account you are not a customer of Facebook. You're its product.
And I'm one of those millions of users even though I can't remember the last time I actually posted something on Google+ or even looked at it. And as somebody else already pointed out, the only reason a lot of Google+ users have an account is because Google goes out of its way to foist Google+ on users of its other services. And since when does a service have to be a failure for Google to abandon it? *cough* Reader *cough*.
Having said that I doubt that Google will end Google+ any time soon. At this point Google+ is to Google what Internet Explorer is to Windows. You may not like the former but if you want to use the latter, you're going to be stuck with the former anyway.