3.3 rubiks cubes per minute for 24 straight hours... I am assuming, of course, that the guy pulled an all nighter.
"Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource"
To this I would ask, does anyone really believe this guy gives a sh*t about the quality of content or the rights of Hollywood actors and playwrights? He is just trying to make more money by shutting down access to his content. He criticizes Google for doing exactly the same thing as him- trying to make more money. The difference is that Google does it without writing articles that treat the reader like an uneducated spoiled child.
Manning has apologized for his actions, but all he did was expose the questionable actions of those in power. Where is the apology from them? It will never come, because the ruling class is not subjected to the rules, only guys at the bottom like Manning.
So, its OK for him to be an intolerant bigot when it comes to being gay or jewish, but we are expected to tolerate his intolerance? I guess this some how makes sense in his messed up head. After all, we are talking about a guy who believes magic underwear will save him from demons.
If he wants tolerance, he will need to show some tolerance himself first.
How is this newsworthy? Why would it surprise anyone that a poll put out by the government would indicate that people support the government? This is just more propaganda aimed at making Snowden seem like a bad guy.
As a general rule of thumb, it is not a wise idea to piss off or humiliate people in positions of power (even if they are petty positions like a local board). Remember that the political class has a different moral nature than the rest of us (apparently). They get to use the guns of the state to do whatever they want, including levy taxes, arrest those who they portray as dissidents, and generally harass the citizenry when they get uppity (as seen here). I can't help but think that this will backfire on this lawyer in terrible, unseen ways.
This guy sums up why, even if you think you have nothing to hide, you should still have a BIG problem with this.
TL;DR- your fate is not your own. You do not determine how 'the public' percieves you. All someone has to do is portray you in a bad light, or associate you with a few bad labels (suspected terrorist, enemy of the state, etc - whether true or not doesn't matter) and they can turn the masses against you, allowing the government to do whatever they want to you in the name of the 'public good'- blackmail, kidnapping, or even murder.
Even though it is true that a significant majority of scientists who study climate change agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will cause warming, the real debate still rages on in regards to the feedback effect that CO2 actually has in influencing the rate of warming. When you frame the question on the issue of 'does CO2 cause global warming', the answer is a unanimous 'yes'. When you frame the question in terms of the actual issue- 'will CO2 warming cause a feedback effect that will lead to the destruction of life on earth', the answer is anything but unanimous.
Socialism is only morally valid if you accept the social contract theory. However, the 'social contract' is complete BS, because it basically says that 'by virtue of living on a certain plot of land, a group of people calling themselves 'the government' has the right to violate your basic moral rights.' We all understand that I can't force a 'social contract' on you that says 'if you come to my house, you have to give me 10% of your income or I have the right to lock you in my basement.' Taking your money and locking you up without your explicit consent is a violation of your basic moral rights. However, we are perfectly fine with allowing 'the government' to do the exact equivalent in the form of taxation. The argument against all forms of government is that they implicitly grant a group of political elites the opposite moral rules as the rest of us.
Social contract theory is garbage. You can't create an implicit contract that allows you to violate basic moral tenets such as 'do not kidnap' or 'do not steal'. Like, we would all understand that a restaurant owner can't say 'if you come into my restaurant, there is an implicit contract here that allows me to kill and cook your children.' But for some reason when it comes to the government we are perfectly fine with doing the equivalent- we are ok with saying 'if you come to America, there is an implicit contract here that allows us to take your income and throw you in jail if you disagree with us.' Garbage.
When it comes to economics, people love to look at the perspectives of the unskilled / low skilled laborers, but they never look at things from the perspective of the entrepreneur or hirer. Like in this case, because auto companies can now hire less people to do the same amount of work, they can lower the price of the cars that they are producing by the amount they are not having to pay in people's salaries. A few laborers lose their jobs but the rest of the world gets cheaper cars.
At least, that's how it would work in a free market, where competition were actually a factor. There are so many government restrictions, rules and regulations (all formulated by the automotive lobby) that keep competition out of the auto industry that the CEOs of the mega auto corps are probably just pocketing the extra money they are making.
This could only possibly be true because belief in God is not properly being diagnosed as dementia.
Conduct this study on the religious again in 10-15 years when the world is majority atheist (as the trend seems to be going in that direction) and we will see if the tables have turned. I'm betting they will.
'Freedom' and 'Legislation' are two mutually exclusive terms as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that if the US govt were really concerned with internet freedom they would NOT be passing laws, as the nature of a law is to forcibly limit freedoms that would otherwise exist naturally.
By this argument, federal reserve notes are definately not money either. In fact, by this argument nothing could be money. Even gold has a trivial amount of inflation each year as new gold enters the market.
As for the argument itself, money doesn't necessarily need to be fixed in value to facilitate trade, it just needs to have a reliable and predictable value. This is part of the problem with the federal reserve today- there is no reliable way to tell how much paper they are going to put out from each year to the next. In comparison, bitcoin has a fixed, algorithmic amount of new currency coming into the market each year which makes it a much more predictable system than the federal reserve. In my opinion (and the opinion of most Austrian school economists), bitcoin is a better currency than USD.