Do you mean marijuana or heroine?

That reminds me of Mr Bones' Wild Ride.

According to this, only around 108 billion people have ever lived. Given that about 7 billion are still alive, the survival rate of life is roughly 6%.

If you're American, aren't your felons disallowed from voting? It would be consistent, then, to disallow them from owning guns, via background checks at gun shows.

Exactly.

This is the problem. Microsoft is a game publishing company, and the amount of control gamers have over their own games is essentially another price point. Publishers will put that price point exactly where the market will bare it, which means things will get worse until people stop buying games. So if you don't want things to get worse, don't roll over.

Don't buy this console, tell your non-tech-savvy friends not to buy this console, tell your tech-savvy friends not to buy this console, and tell your tech-savvy friends to tell their non-tech-savvy friends not to buy this console.

How is it that census data is creative enough to merit a copyright?

Do you have any evidence for this, or do you just want to restrict people's freedoms based on what you think?

Not true. In Quebec, we have the CEGEP system, which is equivalent to the last year of high school and freshman year of university. Dawson is a CEGEP, so Ahmed was almost definitely between 16 and 18.

I agree completely. Big props to Bioware (pre-EA) and Namco for making their splash screens skippable. Also, big shits to EA for mandating that their splash screens be un-skippable.

Have you ever seen Richard Dawkins answering questions? I don't think he generally worries about that.

Except that bullets can be traced to the gun that fired them, and are usually destroyed on impact.

If we assume people get to own the cable, then, presumably, each person is responsible for maintaining his or her part of the cable. But what if the same cable also runs through your neighbour's property? What if your Internet cuts out due to your neighbour's negligence? What if your neighbour moves, and your new neighbour decides they don't want a cable on their property? Do you pay for the ISP to run new cable around your neighbour's property? What if no one else wants the cable under their property? Do you get to negotiate with them each individually? Are you just out of luck if they still say no?

Do you feel the same way about power lines? Natural gas pipes? Sewers? Roads? Libertarians say that private enterprise accomplishes things more efficiently than public enterprise, but I really don't think that's the case when it comes to infrastructure.

Has that ever happened? And I don't mean a city charging someone to dig up a road; I mean a city refusing to let someone pay for it.

How do you figure? It was never illegal to start a new ISP. Like all infrastructure, it does naturally become a monopoly. After all, it doesn't make sense to have multiple companies each running cable to your house so you can choose your favourite. In fact, a few local governments have been sued by ISP's for trying to break their monopolies.

Not quite. In fact, the opposite. Granted, Comcast appealed the decision, and won, but it was the FCC that stopped them, not the market.

Ideally, net neutrality legislation wouldn't dictate what goes over a network. It would instead prevent ISP's from dictating what goes over their networks.

What, exactly, do you think will happen without net neutrality laws? Will all the ISP monopolies suddenly start acting like they have competition? Will Comcast just never try to get away with throttling torrents again? Do you realize that if there are no "rules from the government", then ISP's can just do what they want anyway?

While RISUG looks like a great procedure to me, intellectually, I am much more comfortable emotionally with taking a pill than with having a doctor inject a spermicide into my vas deferens.