You just count the number of fingers/toes >10, number of arms/legs/eyes >2, and note which super powers are emerging.

They've already got the script:

"First, let me say that I'm sorry that you're having a problem with your Bitcoin service today..."

That's LordLucless's point, you perceived a subtext where there was none and then promptly put the words of the subtext (that only you perceive) into the author's mouth. It has nothing to do with comprehension and everything to do with your pre-existing (and firmly held) opinion on the subject. You appear to see only the negative impacts of gentrification, but like many social issues it is a double edged sword. Sure some people are permanently priced out of the area where they grew up but others find job/business opportunities that would not be possible in that area without the influx of cash required to rebuild a slum.

Disclaimer: Yes I have experienced being homeless, in my early twenties I lived in a 4 man tent for 3 months with wife, baby, and dog in tow. The problem of inequity is not due to people living in nice towns, there is more than enough wealth in the US (and the world for that matter) for everyone to enjoy a reasonable living standard. The problem is a global society where it's considered normal to have the world's richest 500 people "earn" more than world's poorest 3,500,000,000 people in any given year. According to Red Cross figures, the combined income of these fortunate 500 is enough to end world poverty four times over. I have nothing personal against these people, I actually quite like some of them. However society has been overgenerous to them, we grow resentful of their wealth and power but do nothing about it because deep inside we all wish to be in their shoes "one day".

I'm not from the US but I believe that the US government is currently spending something like $1.00 for every $0.60 it earns in revenue. Income inequality in the US is not entirely the fault of politicians and CEO's, it is the unintended side-effect of a society that still believes they too can become obscenely rich through honest, hard work - if they could "just get a break".

There just aren't enough mod points for this post. We will have a decent society when we have a just society.

"Well, at least it sounds scientific."

If you ever want to see this in spades, take a look at some of the work of the Discovery Institute, especially books like, "Darwin's Doubt", in which it is established that because life is so complicated, it couldn't possibly have come from evolution, because organisms are like computers, and you don't see computers coming from evolution.

I'm not joking. This is the guy's refutation of evolution. "Because intelligence can only comes from intelligence (see: Computers), and organisms have information in them, there must be an Intelligent Designer." That, and because there should have been more fossils found from the Cambrian Explosion.

The guy says it's not a religious argument, but rather scientific, until someone asks him about reduction of, "well if intelligence only comes from intelligence, then you must be a polytheist, because where did the Intelligent Designer come from?"

Then, the answer always boils down to, "Well, it's God obviously, but this is about science, not religion". I'm not joking. The book is called "Darwin's Doubt" and it has become the camel's nose of creationism, poking under the tent of science education.

They say they want to "teach the controversy".

In the USA you have a right to be a dick!

Explains our current batch of politicians.

I'd expect them to run the fire department in their own burbclaves. ;-)

The problem is not that Google won't run the services in their own burbclave, it's that their employees keep insisting on living around normal people.

That movie was so bad it was good. Or, at the least, fun to watch.

There's more than a few of us who survived the era before software took over the planet.

No, you cannot hide a crime with a settlement, you can however hide the details of a civil dispute. Here's how you tell the difference, with a crime you call the cops and your lawyer, with a civil dispute you just call your lawyer. Also think about what you said "escalating fines", people aren't arrested for discrimination nor does it attract a fine / prison term. There is no "criminal" in a civil suit, just winners and losers.

You can't hide the fact a settlement exists if it was used to dismiss a court case.

She didn't, so he violated the agreement the second he told his daughter. Which, when dealing with a normal adult - you say "we won, we got our judgement, and we agreed that we would not talk about it, so we'll use the money to find a job and life goes on." And a normal adult would celebrate in private and never say anything unless asked, or would be cagey about the results (they came to an agreement, and my dad is looking for another position). No harm, no foul - it's like doing 68 in a 65mph zone.

But this adult, his (presumably 18 year old) daughter, decided to crow about it and make a stink in the very community the school wanted to avoid the publicity. So it's his fault for telling her, but her fault for basically ratting him out.

I'm not sure it's really all that harsh. It sounds like this "little" girl (who might be inferred to be over 18 now, God help us all) is a real piece of work. Now, if the settlement included rescinding the $60,000 award to plaintiff's attorneys, which would then cost Mr. Snay real money out of his pocket, that would be a much tougher pill to swallow. As it is, they won't be receiving any money, which is much different than, say, sharing mp3 files and being given a bill for 5-6 figures.

I mean - I get it, we should all be aware on line. But it's not the end of the world to "like" a product manufacturer or service provider. It can be a symbiotic relationship - I like your stuff and want to keep abreast of what you're doing so I "like" your page and get updates. That might be the release of a new octocopter, or a new show opening at Disney World, or casting dates for an indie film, or a coupon for a new makeup product.

This sounds more like false advertising from a sleazy online porn shop. So, yes, we should all be aware; but we shouldn't be paranoid.And, yes, I think Facebook has a role/responsibility in vetting their advertisers and leveraging their data for appropriate marketing targets.