Now, go look up the word "unenforcable".

Excellent Science fiction on many levels.
Takes a while to get started, but he really pulls it together.

Where in "Get yourself ready to go out there and live in the world and then go out there and live" did you find "Don't work, Don't Socialize"?
There are appropriate places for many stages of recovery; I cited (and you quoted above) several of them.

There are people who are so new in recovery and have no healthy coping tools. A casual conversation or some slight frustration often quickly becomes too intense to handle and they act out their feelings or withdraw. They break down and cry, scream, pound their fists (on objects or people), pick fights, sleep (or don't sleep) for long periods.
Inpatient treatment in hospitals or treatment centers provide a place where this behaviour is allowed, and managed safely while the patient develops the skills and healthy coping mechanisms they need. This sort of very protected environment is a temporary situation for all except the most severely mentally disabled. It is a transient condition only seen at the the very beginning of recovery.

"Splitting"--the all-or-nothing approach to which you allude is nothing more than resistance to recovery.
Your attitude is common to people in recovery. They often fight the process. It's also not an appropriate attitude if you want to recover.
Nobody expects a person to go directly from a severe injury back to full participation in society. Recovery is a process.

At later stages of recovery, when patients have acquired some tools in therapy and treatment, they may be able to go home--depending on what support network they have at home. Halfway houses also exist for the purpose of allowing a person to gradually re-enter society with a safe place to retreat if things get too tough.

Recovery is an ongoing process. A person may have years of recovery/sobriety/freedom from gambling--whatever you call it in your program--behind them, and still run across something that "sets them off" or "triggers old feelings".
The healthy response to that is to call your sponsor, go to church, talk to your therapist, meditate, or whatever it is you do in your particular program.

A less healthy response would be to demand that the world wrap itself in Nerf so you don't bump your head on a corner.
Enabling that attitude doesn't help the person in recovery; it slows them down. If you're doing it, stop.

It is a terrible thing that somebody has a traumatic experience.
If you're walking on eggshells around that person, you're part of the problem.

PTSD represents a bona fide injury and needs to be treated.
If you have an injury, the injury is almost always not your fault, but your recovery is absolutely your responsibility. In those cases where it is your fault (deliberate self-destructive behaviour), you have another problem, which is also not your fault. But dealing with it IS your responsibility!
This is a practical, not a moral judgement--nobody can make you deal with your issues. There's truth to the old punchline "the light bulb has to want to change".

Because there is a behavioural component--sometimes including denial--in psychological injury, the injured person may need some external help to get them started. But, even in this case, the injured person is responsible for their own recovery.

Demanding that the world re-arrange itself so that you can continue in your injured condition is NOT dealing with your problem.
Complying with such demands is--on a personal level--classic codependent enabling behaviour, and does not help anybody.
"Codependency" is not meaningful on an institutional level. The harm to the injured person, whether enabled by an individual or an institution, is exactly the same.

Somebody fresh from their injury is likely to emotionally raw to "get out there".
Stay in a safe place and work on your issues: Home. Halfway house. Hospital. Talk to your counsellor. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting. Have a session with your psychologist. Pray. Meditate. Whatever your program for recovery is, work your program and get your life back. Get yourself ready to go out and live in the world, and then go out there and live.

Somebody who goes out into society and tells everyone "please don't talk about these things because it sets me off" is NOT dealing with their problem.
Rather than doing the painful, humiliating and frightening work on themselves, they're assuming the role of director and staging the world to suit themselves.

Even if it would work for one person (it doesn't), there is more than one psychologically traumatized person in any given place. It's simply not practical to ban everything.
"I was locked in a tiny room. If only there weren't all these closed windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I was abandoned in a big train station. If only there weren't all these open doors and windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I'm an alcoholic. If only there wasn't booze everywhere, I wouldn't get drunk."
"I'm a compulsive gambler. If only there weren't internet cafes on every streetcorner, I wouldn't gamble."
"I fought in a war. If only people wouldn't slam doors, I wouldn't have these flashbacks."

If only the world would re-arrange itself to suit my particular trauma, I could be comfortable in the world NOW, instead of after I've worked for my recovery.

When I tried to sell my RV, I ran across a scammer who tried to extort money from me by claiming "we had a verbal contract and you broke it".
We didn't. I called lawyer I found in the yellow pages, explained the situation; he told me "You're fine; the guy is an idiot and you don't need my services."
No charge.

Most won't charge you for the initial consult.
Lawyers are professionals with a code of ethics. Most of them are decent human beings.

OK, if you're curious, I put it up for sale, some guy called and said he was interested, but never agreed on a price.
Meanwhile I sold it to someone else.
Called the first guy to tell him "You never agreed to my price or made me a counteroffer. Somebody else made me an offer, so I sold it to them."
Seemed more polite than just not calling him back.
At that point he told me "Oh, I've made all kinds of plans and bought all kinds of furniture that will only fit in that kind of RV. We had a verbal contract and you broke it and I'm out lots of money. At least a grand. But I'll take $250 and a sincere apology; otherwise I'm going to sue you."
After talking to the lawyer, I told him "Fine take me to court. I called a lawyer and he says your complaint has no merit. If you found a lawyer to file this suit for you, give me his contact info & I'll pass it along."
And that was about the end of it.

Well, they did say *almost*.

The obvious one--distraction. We're all talking about guns and not the economy, net neutrality, privacy, or other boring things we were all worried about last month. "They're taking our guns!" "You monster--you love your guns more than America's Children?!!
It's blatant abuse of rhetoric but unfortunately, it works.
Everybody already talks about this one. "They're distracting us from the real issues...The tail wags the dog...Don't you see you're being duped by the media? Why aren't they reporting the things that really matter?" This conversation is repetitive, boring, and fruitless.

The other manipulation here is more subtle.
Guns are symbols of power. Note it's SYMBOLS here.
The ritual reply "Oh, so you want to revolt against the government? You're a nut and besides, they'll beat you every time." is also misdirection.

It's not about the actual ability to defy the law. It's about the attitude that I might be able to define and defend my own freedom. But, if it's important enough to me, I might have a chance to say "no" and make it stick. I might win. I'll probably lose. But with this attitude, I might fight more often than I'll quietly crawl away.

If I've got a bunch of shotguns, a few pistols, and a rifle or two, I have the following internal dialogue:
"I have the ability to kill people. But of course I wouldn't and don't do it unless it's appropriate. Like, say somebody trying to hurt me or my family.
If they come to rob my house, I'll walk out the back door; I have insurance and it's not like they rob the place every day. If they did, I'd have to come up with another plan. But they don't.

Having considered those things and deciding what I will do in certain situations means something:
I am making decisions about things that matter--my and other people's lives.
I am using my own moral and practical conscience, as well as my awareness of the legal and social consequences of my action--or failure to take action.
I am not following a strict procedure; I am responsible for the outcome here.

And I like this. I like it a lot.
This personal decision making and personal accountability is much more interesting than living in a world where "that which is not mandatory is forbidden".

I might go further and demand that my public servants--those elected officials that work for the public, not the other way around!--are also held personally accountable for their actions.
I might get the idea I should expect those public servants to hold accountable those persons that I can't personally call to explain their actions. Corporate "persons". Judges and police. Those with financial, military and political power.
I might get the idea that we should all be accountable to each other. Not just the small people required to explain themselves to the big ones.
I might get the idea that we are all equal.

THIS is what is meant by "...Sam Colt made them equal.". Not that the little guy will shoot the big guy because they both have a pistol.
That the little guy has an attitude that he shouldn't have to crawl in front of the big guy.

I may never shoot a person or hunt another animal in my life.
I have no particular desire to do so, but if I decide it's the appropriate thing to do, it is my decision and the consequences are mine as well.

Possessing "symbols" of power--and knowing that I can freely go out and acquire more of them gives me a certain attitude.
An attitude which--were it present in a larger portion of the populace--would become inconvenient for those who wish to retain power only for themselves.

From the program in it, I guess it was a demo, not running anything.

I found it completely by accident by searching for the part number of one of the modules that happened to be in the chassis with the controller and the ethernet bridge. The ethernet bridge has its own web page which automatically displays the contents of the chassis, with links to the modules.

I added a controller-scoped tag to it called "ICanSeeYouFromTheInternet", and a tag description of "Please put your ENBT on a private network"
A couple days later it was gone.

Originally one of the best ways to update your twitter status was via SMS. It was awesome back when data plans were for millionaires,

Actually, that's exactly what it is.
The lower reciever is the "firearm" as far as BATF are concerned. The rest is just unregulated parts.
So, if you want a gun, you have 3 (legal) choices
          Run down to Dick's Sporting Goods, hand over your Visa, and (after satisfying all the regulatory burdens), walk out with your gun.
          Wait for a gun show, find a random guy, swap cash and gun on the spot. More privacy, less convenience, no warranty.
          Build your own. As long you're not transferring it to someone else this is (for the moment) perfectly legal.

The last option, as parent points out, is only safely available to a relatively small group of very skilled experts.

A "plastic gun"--more specifically a safe lower receiver which can reliably be manufactured with little special skills is significant.
We are watching the development of a process and set of instructions that will make this available.

I think we're about to see some very interesting (and fun) developments in firearms design.
Some folks hear "Holy cow--people could do anything " as a joyful expression of individual freedom.
Some folks hear it as a threat that must be curtailed at all costs

As you are the KING of smeg, no. Only girls get pot for free.

Indeed, and then I even got to feel like actually voted cause I took my ballot to the county annex and watched it get stuffed in the box.

I even got a sticker!

If Dawkins truly believes that religion will quietly tolerate being told it is wrong, he is an idiot.
Well, he's not an idiot. He's trying to point out the absurdity of holding a point of view that takes offense at any question, challenge, or outright dispute. And that this type "offense" is fabricated to manipulate polite society and should be ignored.

There are such things as boundaries in human society, and while they're never absolute, there comes a point when one group extends the boundaries of its own propriety so far that there is no room for anyone else to exist--let alone coexist with a similarly absurdly broad set of boundaries. We can't all be pope.

Affected outrage is worn like a mask and used like a weapon to cow the rest of society to the will of an aggressive and dangerous few.
It's not the responsibility of the rest of the world to tiptoe around a group of people who have subverted the natural human desire for social harmony. Nobody offended you; you chose to "take offense". Well, now you've taken it; you have it; enjoy it. This is your offense, not ours.

To cite examples from the religion into which I have been indoctrinated:
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea

You don't get to "opt out" and believe something else on your own time. You're either with or you're against. The domain of God and His representatives on earth is absolute. "Heresy" is ANY teaching inconsistent with dogma. It doesn't matter who teaches it or to whom. Church member or not, challenging dogma is not only an insult, it's a crime.

In modern times, the power of the Church to prosecute heresy has decreased significantly. They grudgingly acknowledge the existence of other views, but VCII, Ecumenism, etc. are still controversial with a lot of people. "OK, sure, we don't have to convert all the ignorant savages. We tend get a lot of really dirty looks from folks when we do that, and besides, we can't enforce it anyway. So, in the spirit of God's love for all His children, we accept that all..." But make no mistake if the Church had the power to enforce canon law everywhere, they would. Manipulation of the secular law where canon law has lost dominion is an effective and efficient tool.

One can only imagine that another's religion, especially offshoots of the one into which one has been indoctrinated has similarly totalitarian views of dissention--by members of the church or by people in general. I invite their own apostates to speak for their religion's tolerance to heresy.

Bad HTML is Bad. PBS Kids REAL website

I have a 6 and a 3 year old and I will second this recommendation. Both of my kids used this a lot. It is pretty good training on how to use a mouse and it is creative. I pretty much limit their usage it to this and letting the older one go on the PBS Kids webpage though you might not like that as much if you are strict on TV.