Until a third grader eats his pop tart in the wrong sequence of bites.
I'd be content with a very satisfying "thump."
That's where the "up to" comes in.
To alter the old aphorism:
Sane, personable, capable: Select up to two.
However there is nothing about this that changes the fact that you still have expenses such as those that I have listed.
Nothing but fact was even relevant. I didn't say anything about your personal views or charitable donations. I said that the implication in your original post, that it's inevitable because of "laws of economics" mean that every "free" service is going to find some way to be monetized -- probably abusively -- is flawed.
The end is likely correct, that they will be, but that's not because of laws of economics, but because of a pervasive culture of greed. For some reason, we can't seem to come to terms with letting something exist without slapping dollar signs all over it.
I think you underestimate the time needed to generate a bitcoin.
You can't operate an expense without a source of income. The laws of economics require that you have income to cover expenses.
Your reasoning disregards altruism as a concept. Nothing says that the source of income and the expense have to be the same thing.
You're right. I did choose the wrong word. I did, in fact, mean "immunity." Thank you.
Except you missed one large set of people who are often granted immunity: people offering testimony or evidence against bigger offenders. It's hardly a stretch to fit him into that pigeonhole.
Which suggests that accountability may be more important, but openness is more fundamental (since it's a necessary precondition for accountability).
Better question: Why does my office have one male bathroom and one female bathroom (very small company), when they're both single-occupancy?
Apparently, their cultures do not divert women from these jobs the way Western or American culture does.
I think that's a big assumption. It could equally be that Western/American culture lets females get more for less, in terms of success, so few of them bother to put in the work to make their bones. Or it could be that women are more sensitive to cultural trends that have nothing to do with gender - the devaluing of intellectual pursuits in men AND women, e.g. There are a lot of unknowns here.
Nice job clipping out any relevant context, setting up a bunch of strawmen, and basically showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest and/or functionally illiterate. Kind of makes you look like a tool, doesn't it?
I don't know what your game is, but I don't care either.
by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?
what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?
Nothing, and it's a stupid question in the first place. Why would it be on one man to overcome the well-deserved reputation for duplicity and self-service of the entire government? It might, theoretically, be possible for Obama to do something that will make me trust him, but since that "something" is making a public apology and stepping down -- at a minimum -- I won't be holding my breath.
***I don't trust humans in power systems who do not have accountability***
Rather than asking slanted questions, it might be more productive to consider the possibility that others can reach the same conclusions.
Not the OP, but...
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy
An extremely reasonable position to hold, even before Wikileaks/Snowden.
that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?
Grant him complete amnesty, publicly.