There's precedent for the FLOSS community not giving a fuck about software patents. They're not enforceable globally and the internet is still mostly borderless, at least in the "free" world. How many open source media players are out there that technically violate the patents on MP3, Windows and Apple codecs, et al? There's no trouble distributing those.
The number of people who think along those lines, and who are reasonably informed, morally competent, and not shilling for the NSA, is precisely zero. If you are against Snowden and what he did, you are defective in one of the aforementioned ways.
YOUR feminism doesn't sound like mainstream feminism. YOUR feminism doesn't sound like feminism at all. It sounds like you're an egalitarian who mistakenly wandered into the feminist camp and picked up their lingo. Here's a tip you'll be thankful, get rid of that label. Stop calling yourself a feminist, because when you really examine what they stand for, you'll find that's not what you want to be.
Do you know what you call a mainstream feminist in 2013? An egalitarian. Those who choose to differentiate themselves by adopting the feminist monicker are either true believers of female-supremacy or ignorant of the core beliefs to which they're hitching their wagon. If you consider yourself a feminist, you're importing a great deal of positions and ideas which you might not be proud of when exposed to the light of day.
There's an undercurrent of hatred for men in most feminist theory. The current strain lusts after the idealized future when men will be exterminated; made exiguous through biological and genetic science as the human race becomes a species entirely composed of females.
If you want to get away from that implication of hatred, you have to drop the label of "feminist". There's no other choice. If you choose to use the feminist label, you're choosing to stand and be counted with those people who want all male babies to be castrated.
Feminist thought doesn't need to be caricatured to be ridiculed. It's ridiculous enough all on its own. These are the "all heterosexual sex is rape" crowd. These are the people who believe, and this is mainstream feminist doctrine, that women are unable to commit rape; and that the accusation of rape (by a woman against a man, only) constitutes proof of the crime.
We already have a perfectly good word and social movement promoting real equality. It's called egalitarianism. Feminism excludes half the population from concern right in the statement of its name. Feminism is not the solution to my problems as a man, and I will not stand to have it said otherwise. I refuse to be talked to in that tone of voice.
You really, really, really, don't want a "free" market anyway. A "free" market leads to Somalia. What you want is a fair market, and a fair market requires government intervention to stop one company from becoming so dominant that they can dictate all the terms. This naturally happens from time to time and requires government to force the company to break up so the market can be "reset" and healthy competition restored.
It's also possible for the mechanism of government intervention to be captured and used for the opposite of its intended purpose. That's what's happening here with AT&T. But this is not inevitable or uncorrectable, and it is not a knock-down argument against ever using government intervention to make the market fair. It can work effectively and provide better outcomes, it has worked in the past, it will work in the future.
Decades of absurd protectionism is how they achieved those margins. It's their only viable business model at this point. They are terrified of becoming a provider of a commodity product, a dumb pipe for bits that anyone can compete with. There's no easy way for a business to justify readjusting to lower (realistic) profits after raking in unreasonable amounts of money for so long. It'll look like a huge loss to their investors, and not what it really is; a return to sane market equilibrium and healthy competition. Investors will consider the leadership to have failed massively, and they'll be held accountable. So the leaders are doing what they can to stop it. It's a perverse system.
Try out Self-destructing Cookies. It allows cookies to be set, but once you close the tab they are deleted, or deleted on a timer, or both. You can whitelist sites with a toolbar button. Then set Firefox to always reject 3rd party cookies and you're safe as far as cookies go.
The vast complexity of the universe, down to the delicate balance of our solar system and how that makes the earth habitable.
The anthropic principle dispels this argument with a stroke, not by explaining the mystery, but by showing how there is no mystery to be explained. It would be very odd indeed to find ourselves living on a planet on which life could not exist. Also, you seem to suffer a failure of imagination. What sorts of life might be possible in differently configured universes, solar systems, or planets? It's very arrogant and solipsistic to say that our form of life is all that is possible, or could be possible.
started at some point in the past (which implies a creator)
It does no such thing, not at all, not even in principle let alone in practice. If you allow for a god capable of creation ex nihilo then from where came the creator? If you're willing to make the admirable leap that it's capable for some things to always exist and be self-caused then reduce the complexity of your claim and just posit a self-caused and eternal precursor to the universe without a creative force. Spare yourself the experience of falling into the trap of an infinite regression.
The existence of religion throughout the ages and almost universally in every culture, even those cultures with no outside contact.
Belief in something cannot possibly be used as evidence for its existence. This is just lazy and fallacious thinking, and it's beneath you. Religion is universal in man because the human traits of wish-thinking and imagination are universal. That's why our gods are so much like us, so numerous, and yet so familiar--and why they're so concerned with our tawdry earthly affairs.
You're making the incredibly arrogant and anthropocentric assumption that all a "lower" organism "wants" to do is evolve into something more "complex". None of those words actually make sense in an evolutionary context. Bacteria are doing quite well just the way they are, and in many ways it is they who have dominion over us. Evolution is not directed like an arrow from simple organisms to more complicated ones, although this has occurred and the evidence for it is overwhelming.
I'm astounded that someone could be so credulous and so suspicious simultaneously.
Short of shutting down the internet, or deploying auditors for everyone (and auditors for the auditors all the way down), there's nothing that can be done to "shut it down". Besides, I see Bitcoin as more a threat to Paypal than banks or the USD.
The Government did allow you to keep your plan. It's Aetna that decided to screw you over and try to get you to blame someone else. It seems to have worked, because instead of directing your ire at the insurance industry's thieving, scheming, middle-men, you're angry at the administration trying to reform a horribly broken system in a political climate where it's virtually impossible to get anything done even when you're willing to adopt ideas from the other side as a compromise.
And that's exactly what the individual mandate was--a huge compromise of liberal values to adopt a Republican idea. The fact that no Republican voted for it even then shows how spiteful and divisive they are.