Leave unions be, just don't let them lobby the state in any way.

Thus violating both the First Amendment and various human right treaties by denying union members their right to assemble and petition the government. But that's a small price to pay for keeping the dirty peasants from getting uppity with their lords, amirite?

He probably could work backwards from the observable patterns in the simple games of the day to some kind of understanding of the math and/or code behind them.

It's not like current game AI is really any more complex with some rare expections. Graphics are prettier, and levels are usually at least semi-3D, but the enemies are still dumb and your own allies dumber automatons.

And that's the way it's going to stay, too, since the gameplay balance depends on it.

Hint: It doesnt matter what velocity the craft is going relative to any arbitrary reference frame, be it 0.001mm/s or 299792458km/s.. its still going to on average collide with the same amount of shit.

So what is the craft's swept volume in its own reference frame?

Half of all people score in the lower 50% of intelligent tests.

Tautologies don't imply anything.

Liberal Crime Squad?

But to use your analogy, imagine for a moment that the FDA required all beef - even that mixed with pork or chicken products - to be marked as kosher.

"Kosher" is a term specific to Jewish dietary laws, while "marriage" is not specific to abrahamic religions. Furthermore, marking everything kosher would make it difficult to avoid pork, while calling gay marriage marriage makes it no more difficult for you to avoid marrying someone of your gender than it already was. Your analogy is flawed to the point of irrelevance.

Or, to put it another way: selling something as "kosher" when it's not is false advertising and falls under (secular) consumer protection laws, while calling gay marriage marriage does not, since no one's trying to sell you something.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims consider marriage an act of God, not of mankind. Surely you've heard the term, "A match made in Heaven", which alludes to God's involvement in bringing a man and a woman together. To call two men or two women married profanes a relationship considered sacred, and reduces marriage to mean, more or less, that two people are simply fucking each other on a permanent basis.

To call some relationship a marriage in no way affects any other relationship. How could it, if they are "acts of God" and "matches made in Heaven"?

It reduces the societal esteem of all marriages, because marriage no longer means that something sacred and wonderful has occurred between a man and a woman, but only that two people have decided to live with one another.

So basically, what this really comes down to is that high school never ends?

Also, it occurs to me that judging the same thing to be either sacred or profane based solely on the shape of the genitals of the people involved seems very much like something a mortal meatbag, rather than an eternal spirit, would do.

To further put this in perspective, consider how offensive it would be, if a police officer were to inquire about your wife, "Is that your bitch, or is she someone else's ho?" If it would be offensive to regard your relationship with your wife as nothing more meaningful than that of a prostitute, how much more offensive is it that the Supreme Court of the United States considers your marriage to be roughly analagous to two men committing sodomy.

Except, of course, no one has claimed that people having sex is the same as people getting married. Beyond that, you're a human being. Gays are human beings. Should we declare that gays are not, in fact, human beings, since otherwise someone might think that you are roughly analogous to them?

Grow up.

I believe there's a rule in the US, wherein if someone likes their job that indicates a management mistake. Whenever my job starts to not suck, management messes with it so it sucks again.

It's not really specific to the US, and it actually makes sense from a certain point of view: if someone is enjoying their job, they're not being squeezed as hard as they could be, thus you could make them do more and fire someone else. Of course you end up destroying motivation, loyalty and long-term productivity, but you've long since cashed your bonus check by then, and the shareholders have got their bumb'n'dump opportunity.

Basically, everything sucking as hard as it can is the price of economic efficiency, and in fact is pretty much its definition.

I'm sure the civil-liberties obsessives here would hate the idea of ubiquitous ANPR, but the practicality of the situation is that it works.

The practicality of the situation is that we don't know if it works. No, a single datapoint featuring particularly dumb terrorists doesn't prove anything, nor does the rather inane slippery slope of "avoid taxes today, murder people tomorrow". If anything, you'd imagine that someone transporting a bomb would be more likely to ensure their vehicle is squaky clean.

On the other hand, the expression you used - "civil-liberties obsessives" - does reliably flag you as a threat. Just look at Europe's not-so-distant history to see what happens when people start giving their leaders more and more power in the name of security. Or do you perhaps think that this time power will miraculously fail to corrupt and end up at the hands of a homicidal tyrant?

But I guess it's inevitable that the same shit will begin again as the generation that got the lesson hammered into them by artillery dies off.

But redefining marriage to specifically include immoral relationships is particularly prejudicial against Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and infringes on their rights to live according to their faith.

Gays marrying no more infringes on the rights of those who think it's immoral than me eating pork and washing it down with beer infringes on the rights of Jews and Muslims.

Poison remains poison, no matter how "smart" you sell it.

But the same things are not poisonous to all life-forms.

Others speculate that he's only going to Moscow in transit to Iceland (which has offered him asylum) or some other place.

Can Iceland offer him an effective asylum? It's a (pretty remote) island in Atlantic, with low population and almost no military. What, exactly speaking, would stop the US from simply taking him? It does have a history of invading small countries for whatever reason, and both R and D have plenty of reason to scare other whistleblowers into silence.