A mind-blowing concept that doesn't seem to exist in the default form of any browser I have come across; only in a few extensions and add-ons that don't always work exactly how I would like them to.
The ability to individually mute tabs. I'm no expert in browser-progamming, but surely if Chrome can have a separate process for each tab, muting individual tabs can't be much of a stretch. Every time I open up a range of tabs, with one having a stupid auto-playing video, I have to look through every single tab to find it.
Worse still if I have a flash game open in one tab (I know, I know, 'too old for flash games') that doesn't have a mute option I can't just mute that tab if I want it to temporarily shutup while I watch a video in another tab. Forget hover-boards, where is my tab-muting? It's 2013!

Sounds like a free ticket on to several government watch lists.
If you opt out of the filter, you can guarantee all of your internet history will be saved by the government and I wouldn't be surprised if you could find your way on to no-fly lists and such.
I am very, very glad I don't live in the UK right now. Although, living in Australia, it probably won't be too long before my government follows suit.

...that the land could probably live off me longer than I could live off it.

Of course the lizards survived. How else do you think our glorious alien-lizard overlords survived the journey here?

What drugs cost $40 for 2 grams?

I can understand the thought behind the ruling, but I have to say I'm really against against against against against against.

Generally people who have a more positive outlook on life are significantly less prone to stress. This could be a very good reason for why they live longer, as life is somewhat less strenuous for their heart.
I think it would have been useful if to measure the average stress levels of people involved in this study. I think you may very well find a connection that is less gene-related.

Eventually people will learn that throwing your money at devs before they even have a finished product ready is not a terribly good idea. My only wonder is how many Minecrafts and Project Zomboids it will take before people realise this. I would say things like these are threatening to do more harm to the gaming industry than some of the big company's like EA and their vicious day one DLC. Giving money to devs before seeing even a vague semblance of a finished product is NOT a good idea.

I sincerely hope this fad dies out and the bubble does burst so we can go back to giving money to indie devs AFTER all their hard work, lest we end up with more devs seemingly abandoning games after they feel they have made enough money from them.
This isn't to say that I don't support indie developers, because I absolutely do. I love the idea that you don't need to be a giant corporation to compete for sales in the video game industry. But I think things like kickstarter are absolutely not the right way to go about these things and I think they will end up ruining the indie game scene if taken too far.

I wish our national anthem was Waltzing Matilda.

Even though the lyrics make no sense, it beats Advance Australia Fair any day.

I'd say anyone who has ever been a teen looking to buy alcohol would know this.

I would say that wouldn't be labelled as a hate crime mostly because you are outing someone for their immoral behaviour as opposed to their sexual orientation.

If you were to release a video of your wife cheating on you, it would be illegal, but not a hate crime.

If you were to release a video of your wife cheating on you with a black man and remark on the fact that she is a dirty nigger-lover, that would be a hate crime.

I'm not sure you're replying to the right person.

Normally I would find this sort of thing scary.
But, let's look at it through our un-biased glasses for a second.
A judge made a ruling that may lead to certain companies pursuing court orders to have the site blocked by telcos within Britain.
Now, this is not even the government censoring Britain's internet. These are companies who (obviously) have a vested interest in having the site blocked as the site exists almost solely for the purpose of illegally distributing copyrighted material (let's be completely honest here).

This is not the government trying to mute anyone's opinions.
This is not the government trying to censor what you are allowed to see.

I know people will probably claim "But it could be X, Y or Z". It is not. This is a judge making what is IMO a just and fair ruling that may or may not end up in private companies making an attempt to have a certain site, whose profits mostly come from distributing copyrighted material, blocked within Britain.

This is not as big as people are making it out to be and I'm not particularly scared (for now).

One problem about the gun laws in America is that it is assumed that most people will have access to a gun.

This leads to situations where the police can shoot somebody dead and get away with it because "It looked like he was reaching for a gun". So really, it swings both ways with gun laws. If you don't have them it's harder to fight back, but if you do have them, the police will be more inclined to kill you.

Although, by the time they are in their late teens, you should be letting them handle their own mistakes and only coming to you if they can't hand something themselves.
Otherwise you end up with kids who can't actually fix their own problems and keep coming back to Mum and Dad to hold their hand through life even in their 20's and 30's.