Ok, so you've basically said Javascript sucks so just get used to it. I think that is excellent advice if the goal is for him to be miserable.

There is lots of cool stuff in Javascript that isn't in C++, I started with C and then C++ myself, and I find Javascript incredibly liberating. I'm not going to go through all the different things I like about it, others have done that before. My only point is that treating it so negatively is, from a psychological point of view, the worst kind of advice.

Here's a recent article, just to back up the claim that this is about making money for special interests, and not about catching bad guys or saving money for the general public.
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/mckeon-drone-lobby-speech/

The real goal of this is not to save money. The goal is to make money for the drone companies, and to score political points for the politician that can say they value national security.

As the other comment said, supporting SOPA was basically literal gold. So the politicians can choose between literal gold (campaign donations) and figurative political gold (in the form of popular support). I would much rather have my candidate acting based on popular support than potential campaign donations.

If you take out the "Ohmygod!" and "oh the horror!", this seems perfectly rational. Maybe I'm missing your point, but I think it's valuable to know that the tea party conservatives seem to be making the right decision on this issue. They are more concerned, on this specific issue, about their popular supporters (bloggers, etc) than about their financial/corporate supporters such as MPAA. And I greatly prefer this type of issue based reporting over the horse-race type reporting such as multi-page articles about whether Gingrich can catch up to Romney before the next caucus or whatever.

I'm not sure why you say this, it sounds like Dem/Repub propaganda. Even if the Libertarian party (or any third-party) doesn't win the presidency or a federal congressman, every vote helps push their platform. If Libertarians start getting enough share of the vote, then Democrats and Republicans start to notice and think about what they can do to appeal to some of those voters. You may not agree with much the Tea party platform, but the protests did demonstrate that a popular movement (even when they are later co-opted by a major party) and non-mainstream candidates actually can affect the outcome of elections.

This would be awesome for the first person to use it. They'd have a pretty sweet advantage in finding a spot.

Once everyone has it, it will doubtfully make a difference.

When was the last time Iran invaded another country? According to wikipedia it was over 100 years ago. When was the last time the US invaded another country?

If you want to know the actual threat that Iran holds to the United States, Noam Chomsky has a pretty good explanation .

At least as important, in my opinion, is an independent study to determine whether the body scanners and other security changes are effective at reducing terrorism and other criminal activity. If they are not effective at their stated goal, then we should just get rid of them regardless of whether they are safe or not.

Even if it isn't a competitor now, it could certainly become one. "Built into the OS" isn't so much a good thing, although having access to everything it needs, is. If this service can do the hard part, it isn't that big a deal for Android to add API's to allow apps like this to work as seamlessly as Siri.

Well, at least two justices disagree with you, so it's reasonable to argue that they made the wrong decision here.
This is what the consitution has to say regarding copyright:

To me this means that any copyright law which does not promote the progress of science and/or useful Arts is unconstitutional. So you would have to make the case that moving these works out of the public domain accomplishes that.

I don't agree with the OP, but I also don't agree with calling affirmative action "racist." Racism isn't just treating different races differently, a typical definition (wikipedia) is "the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination".

Affirmative action is the opposite, it is based on the idea (flawed or not) that 1) groups should be treated the same, 2) the current situation is that they are not, and 3) the most effective way to move things toward equal treatment is to compensate by giving extra advantages to those who are otherwise disadvantaged due to racism.

Whether or not you agree with this, it is not racist. But it does indeed distort the free market, which often is a bad thing.

You are assuming the supply of each movie is fixed. They can change the supply by modifying the number of theaters each is shown in. Movies that are unpopular play for shorter periods.

I think it would be smart if theaters did variable pricing, but it wouldn't necessarily mean Mission Impossible would be more expensive (since it would probably play longer). But in the most efficient world, there would be lower prices in play to lessen the number of empty seats, which could be considered waste.

That's absolutely untrue. For it to be a commodity, the consumer should not care which item they buy, they should only care about price. Are you going to see Young Adult simply because it is 50 cents cheaper than Mission Impossible? Probably not. Hence, not commodity.

Probably because dec 31, 2011 is in lots of legal contracts. If you eliminate that date, you have a lot more chances for people to try to weasel their way out of contracts, and more work for courts.