He was just lashing out from problems at school. The bullies should be grateful, the lower grades probably toughened them up.

And get shot for failing to promptly follow orders.

And that doesn't even consider the panic a person must be feeling when they are suddenly the target of a large number of guns, spotlights and shouting - I'm sure they can calmly asses the situation to determine the correct speed at which the shouted orders should be followed.

If I remember correctly, some of the officers actually complained about how much trouble they had to go to to give everyone that wanted to serve the opportunity. How many useless jobs they had to invent to enable every incompetent person to earn their franchise.

If you look at every other genocide in history, then yes.

Manifest destiny.

Which shareholder would pay the taxes if the stock was traded 100 times in a year? Would it go by minutes/hours owned?

Would the profits be tracked by the minute as well?

So if your mother, sister and brother run out of the building, you'd want the police to shoot them? Since they surely didn't take the time to try and determine if the person at the door was a criminal or a victim.

How would detecting cancer have helped the owner to survive in the past?

You might not be able to do actual bitcoin transactions quicky, but you can trade inside the exchanges (until they collapse).

Does anyone know if laws about dealing with stolen property have ever been applied to bitcoin? Since the stolen coins are now in a single, known wallet wouldn't anyone that is ever paid using those coins be guilty of knowingly receiving stolen property?

A monopolistic ISP can still throttle everything it can't identify. They can slow everything they can't positively identify as someone who is paying their extortion money. And their reputation does not matter if there is no effective competition. Are their customers going to go without internet access?

You still didn't explain why throttling would be a problem.
The ISP doesn't need to know who you are trying to communicate with to throttle the communication. They can just throttle everything EXCEPT the things they can identify and have been 'compensated' for.

The ISP will just route all traffic 10m across the border and throttle it there.

Why woudn't throttling this be practical? If the ISPs are free to throttle everything else, and they don't mind their customers suffering, why would they stop at a VPN, especially a VPN that is meant to stop throttling. In fact they can throttle it much more than any other type of content, since it just means that the users will stop using it and switch back to accessing their content directly.

Wasn't the core of most of the drunk-rape accusations that a drunk person cannot give consent?

Not if it is against the license - you could have access to the source code but have a license that prohibits redestribution. Or a license that prohibits use without paying for it.