Sure it is, it's just not happening where it used to happen. Been to Latin America lately? Hell of a boom down here. We're not that poor anymore.

You don't understand - it's the position that corrupts, not the person that is corrupt. You could "elect" the most honest person, and end up with the worst tyrant. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a reason this is not a new saying.

Yep, sounds like one of these trust fund baby Marxists. I will grant the GP the following: the saying "easy come, easy go" is true. Things worked hard for are valued relatively much higher in the eyes of the person who did the work. HOWEVER it doesn't follow that therefore the whole point of life is to suffer, nor that by making your fellow man suffer needlessly you're doing him a favor. Of course most employers/managers seem to believe this, but that is sadism not compassion.

The world is a big place. Deal with it. These kinds of errors don't bother me as much as the obvious spelling or grammar mistakes by native English-speakers who really should know better. Ensure vs insure, affect vs effect, lose and loose, and of course many other creative spelling attempts that are blamed on auto-correct but rather should be blamed on lousy education or the willful butchering of words.

Nothing has changed because basic human nature is the same. This is the way it will always be. So you get to choose whether you want to be part of the herd near the edge looking for the wolves, or oblivious somewhere the middle, or if you want to be a wolf. Being near the edge isn't a problem because you see the danger coming, so you get a head start. Being in the middle, you don't even realize the danger is there until the whole herd is moving.. And of course being a wolf has its own unique advantages: you get to eat mutton and you get to watch the whole herd fear you. But you have no herd for protection and in trying times, the other wolves don't mind eating wolf, too.

No, it's a failed character assassination attempt. It backfires, and proves just how stupid 20 odd NSA employees can be. The goal was obviously to try to taint Snowden to show that he "broke the law" to get the data he later released. What it ends up showing is how readily alleged "security officials" are willing to hand anyone the keys to the operation.

I'm sure Snowden is no saint, however his agenda was to either confirm what he suspected and/or let the "cat out of the bag" about flagrant abuse of power by government. Even if his method was wrong, it does not make governments' behavior any less wrong. And the fact that government is trying to use its power and influence to minimize, trivialize, ignore or otherwise deflect attention from the revelations (with NO intention to change their behavior) is far, far worse than Snowden asking someone for their password who should have known better than to give it to him in the first place.

The storm isn't killing anyone or making them homeless. Poor planning, over population, and lack of education are.

The preceeding post clearly demonstrates factual points in a real manner.

I'm wondering if this is some weird new invocation of Godwin's law...

Hell I had a Chevy catch fire going up a hill in reverse. No debris required.

Call me when someone is actually injured by these fires.

They were good enough to burn the crew of Apollo 1 to death, too. I'm sorry but what is with all this fed worship coming from the US lately? You guys want big, central government? Be careful what you wish for...

Oh I do, but sarcasm and tone of voice are notoriously hard to transmit over the internet.

Perhaps fire insurance would have covered this. It's what insurance is for. Why should I give $600k to someone dumb enough not to insure his asset/content/art/whatever. He's only going to have another fire later...

How much did linux cost you, again? There's a difference there.