It's not really real discrimination; as everybody has heard thousands of times since being a small child: "Two wrongs make a right!" This is just Google stepping beyond their "Don't be evil" corporate motto and doing something right in the world!

(Do I really need to put my </sarcasm> tag here?)

That is because the rich are more dependent on government than the poor.

I guess that's why the wealthy elite exclusively send their kids to government schools, rely on police protection from rabid fans, and live on "government cheese", while the "poor, huddled masses" are scrimping so they can save enough to afford private tutors/ivy league colleges, bodyguard services, and 5-star chefs to cater in every meal?

Here's a hint: the elites have never needed "good" government--they can afford to pay twice (once for the public version, albeit not much with tax evasion, and once for the quality services). They want "good enough" -- as in, just good enough that the proles won't revolt or pursue alternatives.

How many "models" are going unreported because they didn't work out too well?

According to my model, 100% of them.

Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then?

I would say the Constitution is unambiguously clear on this point: yes. When the government derives all power from "We, the people" [per the preamble] then whatever my government does, I also can do (because it was given the power to do so from me). Likewise, anything the people cannot do, they cannot authorize their government to do.

So unless you want to argue that the Army and Air Force have to give up all of their tanks, planes, and H-bombs because nobody has a right to such things, then the American population has an absolute right to buy them as individuals.

Personally, I think the crimes of Nixon (and cohorts) pale in comparison to the crimes committed by the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama administrations. Where are the impeachments?

Waiting on the American people to elect politicians who don't all dream of one day having their name added to that litany.

The US Constitution does not GIVE us rights. .... Just because the right of privacy is not mentioned is not to imply it does not exist and cannot be claimed.

Exactly so. The Ninth amendment is worded in such a way as to deliberately outline this fact: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In any case, a strong argument could also be made that the fourth amendment's phrasing ("...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...") is pretty much the textbook definition of "right to privacy".

Okay, let me try clarifying by presenting my conclusion first and giving the specific argument afterwards.

Are you absolutely certain that you have the right way of things? Are you 100% sure that your answer is the best possible answer, forever and ever, for all people, no exceptions? Is there any chance, no matter how remote, that this rule could actually cause harm -- not more harm than inaction, but any at all?Faced with a dilemma of where inaction causes great harm versus actions that cause small harm, human beings often choose inaction; the exceptions have significantly higher incidents of sociopathy and psycopathy ... are you so certain you can boldly proclaim, "Yes, even in a world where everyone acts like complete anti-social psychopaths, this action would still be correct"?

If any of this has given you have even the least smidgen of doubt—even just one tiny whisper of "well, but..."—then why are you willing to force suffering upon your fellow human beings?

With such absolutely certainty in your rightness, should I not take your belief seriously, but call you "arrogant" instead?

Are you certain that government cannot fall prone to any classist, racist, sexist, bigoted behavior? Are you so certain in the goodness of "Western" (European and the US) society that I can't provide multiple examples from those same governments (albeit far less extreme) within recent history? Are you so certain a central system is superior you would boldly proclaim "Yes, even if the government itself were to be racist, it would be the superior choice for all people"?

I'm not.

If this is a '90% serious' answer, then you are a barbarian.

It's 90% serious because it's a pure expression of my argument—that absent absolute, crushing certainty in the correct behavior, freedom of choice is better than any mandate—presented in a tounge-in-cheek fashion.

And for that levity, I am called a "barbarian"?

In all seriousness: all "medicine" has started out as either "alternative medicine" or "experimental medicine". Are you so certain that the procedures in place are a perfect, immutable method of separating the healing methods from quackery that you're willing to force everyone to obey your preferences?

I'm not.

Okay. I've presented this argument flatly, with the least humor possible. Is this more understandable?

BTW, what was this basic "human right" again? I can't seem to place it from what you're saying. You've just been yacking about "socialized health care".

Question: Do you believe that someone without insurance, or who otherwise has no ability to pay, who is suffering from an acute medical emergency, should be turned away from a hospital emergency room and left to die on the sidewalk?
If the answer is "No," then I've got some even worse news for you: we already have "socialized medicine." The patient will, in fact, be treated, and you and I will, in fact, pick up the tab.

Answer the First: You present a false dilemma; "the patient (or his insurance)" and "the public" are not the only possible answers to the question of who pays. It's quite sad that so many people are ignorant of the March of Dimes' origins as a anti-polio charity that they never imagine that there could be such a concept as a medical care charity. If somebody can't cover the costs of their treatment at the time they enter a hospital, they can seek assistance from a charitable organization (either specific to the nature of their care or a "general" community charity, like a church).

[That is, if we didn't live in a world where government-run centralized care systems (like Medicare/Medicaid) hadn't driven 99% of such charities out of the marketplace. After all, a focused or local charity, struggling to raise even $100K in donations, will collapse with no donations when 'competing' against the government who can swoop in with millions of dollars in tax/"aid" money.]

Answer the Second: <sarcasm seriousness=90%> I have no problems with turning away a patient from a hospital because they can't afford to pay. After all, they can always go to a charismatic/Pentecostal minister for miraculous healing, and they tend to charge far less less for their services. Heck, while we're at it let's also allow witch doctors, homeopathy, acupuncture, and every other "alternative medicine" practitioner to tend to medical care!</sarcasm>

[In all seriousness, hospitals are far from the only people who claim to heal life-threatening medical conditions. On what grounds do you limit the legitimacy of "health care" to hospitals alone? Furthermore, on what grounds can you then claim to limit my choices to those same restrictions?]

Answer the Third: <sarcasm seriousness=0% tone="humorous">Oh, I absolutely LOVE this game!
* Do you believe that someone who has no ability to pay, who is suffering from an acute starvation, should be turned away from a McDonalds and left to die on the sidewalk?
* Do you believe that someone without relevant skills or a degree, or who is suffering from medical conditions that make them unable to work, should be turned away from life-affirming "gainful" employment?</sarcasm>
* Do you believe that someone who has been mis-informed, or who remains willfully ignorant, should be forced to live according to "the right and proper nature of things", rather than allow them to chart their own course, even to the point that their incorrect beliefs will kill them?

I think here people are waiting for the "The circle is now complete.... once I was e-waste now I am the cleaner product." jokes.

It has been very nearly 30 years since the founding of the GNU Foundation. In all that time, what is your biggest regret?

In fact you can register for their beta-program right now.

Thank you for mentioning this without actually linking to the survey. I don't want a flood of Slashdotters lowering my chances of getting in the beta early.

It isn't the function of government to protect your "intent" against your own stupidity.

Bingo! Furthermore, the last few wireless routers I've setup automatically prompted to turn on some form of encryption during that process. If you choose not to use this feature, it should be viewed as a deliberate (not ignorant) choice in the nature of your setup.

We all knew that! Of Course "Anonymous Coward" doesn't use Facebook -- you have to log in first. </snark>

No, the ultimate message of the denial lies in the phrasing. My words may say the same basic thing: "No, what you are asking is potentially illegal / unethical". However, the potential tone, presentation, and listed context says: "I am lying to you, and I need you to be aware I am lying to you." Together, the unspoken implication is twofold: "I am willing to be unethical as long as it is not obvious" and "If you take this information, it will only be on my terms."

It's a very, very nasty piece of social engineering to pull in interviews. Sure, 9 times out of 10 it will result in a negative recommendation from that reviewer (you called them on their bullshit), but it's that tenth time that actually nets you the really interesting jobs.

When the article about the Facebook checking company appeared, I determined in advance what I would say to any prospective employer asking me to grant them access to Facebook:

"Ahem. I do not have any public social networking accounts. If I did, I regret what you are asking would violate their terms of service, and I would have to respond in the negative."

That would be literal, even down to cleanly enunciating the word "ahem", and even if I had been recruited via a social networking contact. I'd probably try to make it sound stilted, or look at my cupped hand like I was reading from a cue card, to make it painfully clear this is a prepared response.