This is a little disingenuous, because this response is exactly what the terrorists plan on. Their goal isn't to blow up a country and kill all the people themselves, but to turn the country in on itself.

Every single politician who goes along with this crap is perpetuating the goals of terrorism and is a traitor.

Building a bomb doesn't mean you're a terrorist. Plenty of redneck ideas for doing things like removing tree stumps or being bored out in the middle of nowhere involve explosives. That's not terrorism.

I use Chromium instead of Chrome to avoid all the Google phone-home tracking. I just want a browser, not corporate nuptials.

I would rather they not offer requisite undergraduate classes, and simply allow anybody to enroll. If you're already good enough to be post-BS in CS, you'll keep up. If you aren't prepared or can't keep up otherwise, you fail.

Enforced prerequisites are simply a cash draw; ostensibly they should only be recommendations to guide student decisions.

The only problems I've had are using too much memory, not any other instability. I'm using Chromium, and it does slowly leak (either the browser itself, or javascript on whatever pages I'm on). When the size gets problematic, I go into the task manager and blow away large-footprint subprocesses which error-pages some number of tabs. F5 restores a page from that state. Since the pages which get killed in such situations vary, I'm more suspect of the browser itself being the leak source then any particular page.

The reason I do this as opposed to using bookmarks is that visiting a set of N favorite pages is easiest with Ctrl-Tab F5 rather than running through a bookmark list or remembering which URLs to visit. It's also easier to see what changed on a page from a refresh rather than viewing a page from a new blank tab.

Real answer: More than 100. Screw bookmarks.

The problem is that it isn't a free market. There are too few competitors, and they all work to eliminate more newcomers to the field.

I agree that if laws were changed and startups who want to pursue becoming cable providers could do so, that competition would work. I don't think that's going to happen, so the 2nd option is to regulate what these few gatekeepers are allowed to do to try to keep from screwing everybody over.

The reason why it won't work is that you haven't made the decision to cut your television watching, just thought about changing the means. If you decide you're going to be a no-TV family, then do that. Sure, watch your occasional movies, read your news articles online, buy a sports feed, buy or download some programs for the kids if you want, but the "flip on the tube and watch whatever's on for a while" is something that's worth looking at eliminating for its own benefit.

I hope that you actually vote 3rd party instead of just sigh during elections.

One of the things that the video seemed to imply is that they're simulating the expected procedure in their underwater tanks on the ground first, to make sure everything is reachable, and to know what tools they need to do the job.

The crew are not necessarily experts on every nut and bolt of the ISS. While they've certainly studied it, and have done the underwater sims themselves, the hands-on experience with each individual unit is quite rare compared to, say, a mechanic who works on cars every day for decades.

Chris Hadfield's personal mission is to communicate space to regular people and get them excited about it again. He's a hero even if just for that and everybody should watch his videos.

Okay, that's fine. But it's definitely not "standard process everyone follows". Most people seem to either watch them or block them.

However, I have heard that what YouTube does give to its paid content creators is based on views, irrespective of whether or not the ads were actually played, so both of your points could apply more to blockers than ignorers.

The 1970's climate scare was global cooling, which was ultimately dropped as incorrect. That gives a large precedent to not caring about (regardless of denying or not) the next climate scare.

You talk about a single right-wing channel among dozens to hundreds of other channels who fall in some non-conservative spectrum (super-left to moderate). That's pointless.

However, both the far right and far left are evil. Evils of the far right should not incur the promotion of the evils of the far left.

The majority of the arguments against building codes are for people building on their own property for their own use at their own expense.

Yes, building codes are far more important during purchase or rental. In that case, if building codes didn't exist, then full disclosure and understandable ratings of building materials and practices would at least be necessary. If a rental agreement was required to say "Electrical safety rating: 0 Stars, Completely Hazardous via ASDF rating 2013" it wouldn't prevent anybody from doing anything, but would strongly disincentivize people from renting there.

I'm not promoting either direction, but that's at least how a complete argument from the libertarian side would go. Many of them are big on contract law, trying to ensure that contractual exchanges and agreements are properly informed and consensual. Of course, there are the "Well, you should have known better" side of things, but when it gets down to details like many take the route of making sure the legal agreement is more sensible