Yes, the anonymous person is accusing the person who calls himself "Archangel Michael" of being an egotist. That seems perfectly reasonable. Am I missing something?

Nope! The information age has made it easier to see the entire world's issues than ever before, but realistically, overall I think civilization is in the best shape it's ever been in. Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of issues, and we've got a long way to go before things are perfect, but I think we'll get there eventually. We're certainly far better off now than, say, the people who lived back during the US revolution, or back during medieval times in Europe.

Not that I'm saying it's a good thing, but that's what the government does. They tell you what you can and cannot legally do. That's the entire point of government. Who are they to do so? Well, they're the government.

In what way are you prohibited from saying what you want?

The draft was discontinued in 1973, and you't not required to register for selective service until you're 18.

That's a deceptive way of putting it -- everybody is forced to pay for it, through their income taxes.

You may also be interested in knowing about emancipation of minors.

No, they already do that, too. Familiar with the death penalty?

No, he admitted that the point to his life (all of ours, really) is to contribute to the propagation of his species. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

Why does there even need to be a point? Am I allowed to decide my own purpose rather than having one forced on me?

I can just ignore most of that post, but wow, really? First of all, there are many Christians who have no problem with homosexuality (unless you're going to make the argument "no true Christian accepts homosexuality!", in which case apparently you're the sole authority of what "Christian" means and there's no point in even making that argument, because you could just change it at will).

Second, saying "I hate who you are but don't have anything against you" is feel-good double-talk. I guarantee you that no gay person will ever say, "Well, I know you think I'm going to be tortured eternally, you think I'm an abomination, and you want to use the law to prevent me from being with who I love, but that's all ok because you say you're not against me." That's bullshit.

And finally... Christianity is "gay-friendly"? Seriously? How many religions can you name that condemn homosexuality as much as modern Christianity does? Can you name any non-Abrahamic religions?

Of course it doesn't. The problem here is that there's nothing wrong with the act, either. You deserve to be bashed just as much as if you said that eating shellfish or wearing clothing made from mixed-blend fibers was an abomination.

No, what's sad is Christians who are so deluded by their faith that they cannot imagine what life would be like without it, and so they make up stories about how horrible life must be in order to convince themselves that they made the right choice.

The truth is that I know I have to treasure what I have right now, because eventually I won't be here any more. I have to do my best to leave the world a better place than when I entered it, and I will (hopefully) live on by being fondly remembered for the impact I had on the world and people around me. I don't have to fear not being good enough to enter any "paradise" because I know that's just a fable, and I can do more than my life than spend it trying to appease some invisible omnipotent friend.

I'm not bitter at the ideal, "true" Christian who acts like you described. They sound like nice people. I'm bitter at the real kinds of Christians who actually exist -- the ones who use technology to spread their doctrine of fear and ignorance, tell nonbelievers how horrible they are, and try to use the government to enforce laws that are solely based on their ancient religious texts.

You completely ignored what he meant because you got offended.

He didn't say that atheists are immoral or incapable of spirituality. He said there is no moral component to atheism -- and there isn't. All "atheism" implies is the lack of belief in deities. There is no sort of moral prescription in there, either overt or implied. You are certainly capable of determining your own moral code, but you could do that regardless of your religion. You could just as easily be an atheist who believes that your country's laws decide what is right or wrong, or you could follow a godless spiritual philosophy that declares you have to behave in a particular way in order to eventually reach enlightenment.

I'd go so far as to say that most people determine their own moral code, even if they attribute it to their religious teachings -- have you ever noticed how most highly religious people never say that they disagree with their holy text's moral code? Nobody ever says, "I don't care about homosexuality and think it's great, but my bible says it's evil, so I have to persecute you anyway." Strangely, their holy text always agrees with their personal opinions.

How do you define "failure"? If the measure of success or failure is purely how many more or fewer units you've sold than your competitors, then sure. On the other hand, Nintendo made a lot of profit on both systems, and plenty of good games were produced for both of them. Considering that they're still in business and doing very well with basically the same business model they've always had, I don't think they could be considered massive failures, if even failures at all.

The USG doesn't want to use Verisign/Symantec's CAs. If it was using them, then it would be possible for Verisign/Symantec to sign something and make it look as though it was signed by the USG. That's why they need their own.

(believe it or not, the government does things with SSL other than impersonate web sites so that they can do MitM attacks on civilian communications)

Here's the thing: it's never going to happen. NAT is a hack, and one of the major purposes of IPv6 is making it unnecessary. Really, there is no point to it.

Here is your problem: you don't want people outside your network to be able to access computers inside your network.

Here is the solution: configure your router to drop all incoming connections (in fact, that's probably the default).

There is no added convenience to NAT; it adds extra complexity to routing and makes it a pain to host servers, especially if you have multiple servers that want to listen to the same port. The added privacy (requests all coming from a single IP) is an illusion; anybody who actually wants to tell the connections apart can do packet inspection to look for the characteristics of different computers.

From the perspective of the developers, you're wanting them to spend a considerable amount of time implementing a feature that is completely pointless for reasons that are just as "religious" as you accuse them of being.