They have one continuous civilization based on same culture.

Same cannot be said about any other civilization currently in existence.

Ignore the "The current Egypt is a part of Arab civilization that conquered North African parts of Rome". Had a bit of a brain fart there due to lack of sleep.

Current Egyptian civilization is not the same civilization that existed in times of Ancient Egypt. That one lies dead, destroyed by Ancient Persian Civilization. Which was also destroyed by Greek led by Alexander the Great. Which was supplanted by Karthagian Empire after his death. Which was destroyed by Roman Empire. The current Egypt is a part of Arab civilization that conquered North African parts of Rome. Which then split putting Egypt as a part of Byzantine empire. Which was finally conquered by Muslim Arabs, bringing to existence the current civilization of Egypt, based around Muslim Arab culture.

Hence my "you'll have to count current civilization, the civilization that existed in the region before that civilization, and then civilization that existed before that and then possible another one". I was specifically thinking of Ancient Egypt.

Chinese. Their culture dates back more than any existing civilization. If you're going to pretend that they somehow have no right to their land because someone else arrived there first, you'll have to first go through the same claim against every single nation on European, African and Asian continent. Americas don't even need to be mentioned for obvious reasons. After you're done with those, you can start laying claims against nations that were there before the current nations. Then you'll have to do it again a and in most cases, one more time.

Once you're done with all that, then you can start looking at China. The oldest known surviving civilization on the planet, that only got shafted during colonial period because of one bad emperor making a terrible choice to burn the entire Chinese navy and stop their sailing activities.

I suspect the answer to your first question is because people recognise lunacy spewed by your kind of lunatics as just that. Lunacy.

Between epic bouts of paranoia, complaints about a bug that impacted essentially no one (at least that I know of, and I maintain quite a few computers of all which have adblock isntalled on anything ranging from older versions of Firefox to this machine I'm typing on that has it on Pale Moon). No bugs.

You even attribute easylist problems to adblock. Easylist is a blocklist maintained by folks behind easylist. If you don't like it, adblock offers a huge variety of lists for you to subscribe to.

I genuinely can't be bothered to argue about this further. I bared a few weeks of watching the lunacy of hardcore "I must have no ads anywhere ever, and even asking me to check the checkbox is too much to ask" crowd explode in the wildest bouts of schizophrenia about the "Darth Vader behind ad block plus" (real quote that I remember to this day that made me finally stop believing that I'd hear any real arguments from that crowd).

And before the obvious "oh you're just shilling". Full disclosure: I have zero interest of investment of any kind in ad block plus other than to make sure that it blocks all ads for me properly. So far it has done so marvellously. And I'm really tired of constant whining by hard-core lunatics that appear hell bent to make ad block plus dev into some kind of evil entity just because he added a way to monetize the add on without infringing on my ad blocking in any way.

I do the same thing for lunatics whining the same thing about ghostery. "Oh noes, he sold out". Yeah, first page in options, first option. Shut the fuck up and untick the damn box. Thank you.

They are sticking for people that elected them. That's the entire point. It's just that ignorant people like you think that masses elected them.

In reality, their campaign donors elected them. Masses merely did what election campaigns paid by said donors told them to do.

No, he tells you one of the things that would indeed work.

Unfortunately, since most people instead follow the original advice, they get no results while remaining under the illusion that voting for incumbents from two main parties would bring some kind of a change.

I'll point at moderation numbers, at least five people apparently do give a fuck what I think.

Ball is in your court now. Who gives a fuck about your hyperbole?

Yes. It's easy to convince yourself that you did something, when in reality what you did was worse than doing nothing. You actually made yourself think that you tried to make a change, and as a result if nothing happens, you have a "well, at least I tried" excuse.

Which is why this is the reality:
http://www.princeton.edu/~mgil...

If you don't know what that is - that's the study of democratic impact of things like "desires of the masses" on actual legislative process. The study that concluded that US is de facto oligarchy, because when masses want something and capital wants something else, capital almost always gets what it wants.

And if you want to know why that is, all you need is to look in the mirror. "Just write your [legislative representative] (so he/she can ask for a bit more money in donations when he/she makes the opposite decision as to have a bit more to finance his/her re-election campaign)" is the solution that is worse than doing nothing.

At least doing nothing makes you feel guilty about it, and may eventually push you to act in ways that may actually bring about a change. What you are advocating is status quo. As a result, you're part of the problem.

And while "sawing people's heads off on youtube" is also a terrible solution, yours isn't that much better.

You'll have to explain in great detail why he, who made his white listing process extremely transparent and even allowed users to vote on it, he who kept his add-on fully open source and under permissive license that allows you to fork it. And he who unlike those who forked it, actually continues to work on developing the add-on, while allowing you to completely turn off all of monetization functions with a single check box on first page of options is somehow "can't be trusted now". If you are this paranoid, then how could you trust him in the past? Surely you had no way of knowing back then what his monetization scheme was, and it was far more likely to be something really insidious rather than benign "just uncheck this box once and you're good" that it is today.

So tell me. Why should I not trust him. Be specific, and try no to sink into the old "but turned the monetization options on by default when he implemented them (and I won't tell you that he actually warned you about it upon installation because that goes against the message I'm trying to deliver), that makes him completely untrustworthy" hyperbole. You'll also have to tell me who offers an alternative that is actually developing the add on. Whoever forked Adblock Edge is certainly not that person. It's still stuck in previous version of Adblock Plus apparently, because whoever forked it couldn't even be bothered to update his fork by copy pasting code from new version.

Adblock Edge is Adblock Plus without the checkbox on the first page of options menu to enable/disable acceptable ads.

It's literally the exactly same thing in all other aspects of it.

Regulate exchanges. You can do whatever you want with your cryptocurrency, but it's not worth the electricty needed to keep it alive until you can exchange it for hard currency. For example, most of the "we accept bitcoin" companies do not handle bit coin at all. Instead they simply outsource the payment to an exchange which delivers hard currency to the company at certain exchange rate when customer pays in bitcoins.

Exchanges need to interface with standard payment systems. As a result, they are vulnerable to government intervention.

You mean "your data is gone".

Might as well save the pain and just wipe the disk afterwards.

This is incorrect. Depth perception at significant ranges (i.e. driving) is based on parallax rather than stereoscopy.

Stereoscopy is for close range depth perception only.

Perhaps I was unclear on this point. I'm not naive enough to think that politicians that are visibly at the helm set the long term policies. They are a part of the "club" that does it, but far from being the only ones.

As far as "people in power" aspect goes, there is exactly one thing that people in power have feared throughout the ages. Masses. Because masses are the one thing that is capable of unseating them by throwing the entire country into chaos. That's why when French Revolution occurred, all surrounding countries sent armies to suppress it or helped armies that were sent to suppress it.

As a result, I think that leaders at the helm are certainly a part of the elite umbrella "club" that I call "leaders". They're just far from being the only ones. They are however the executors of the will of the club, and effectively its executive arm. Without their help, leading countries would become exceedingly difficult, if not an impossible task. As a result, influence over these people is by far the most important part of managing power.
And as a result, if we have to call certain people "leaders", as in people who actively lead, politicians in power are the ones that match the title. Now if you want to use the wider scope of "who sets the policy", then we certainly have to talk about a much bigger group of people.