Experience isn't physical, yet it's something you can buy. When you purchase a game, beat it, and then return it after spending dozens or hundreds of hours playing the title, you've enriched yourself with that experience -- an experience you wouldn't have had otherwise.
You may not be returning something physical, but our concept of property isn't solely tied to physicality. That's why intellectual property is a thing. Now, I suppose if you're fundamentally against the existence of IP you can argue that theft doesn't exist -- but I find this a limited definition that doesn't really match reality. If playing a prerecorded song for hundreds of people at an event can count as infringement (and it does) despite the fact that nothing physical has been stolen or removed, then clearly property has more than a physical component.
But I can't take any "conservative" website seriously when these people -- who used to champion ideas like small government and personal freedom -- are lining up to vilify the man who did more to tell us about how the US government and its partners spy on their own citizens than anyone else ever has.
I can understand people who argue that Snowden should be tried in a court of law and punished for his actions. I may not *agree* with them, but I can at least understand it. But the idea that we should ignore the entire question of government overreach? I don't think that's something that ought to be swept aside -- and once upon a time, 20-30 years ago, I would've expected the GOP to be loud critics of this kind of surveillance.
How times change.
"Maybe according to the Newspeak Wordsbook of the SJW, but not according to a real dictionary"
Let's test that theory.
Dictionary.com says that gender is: "either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior" while sex is: "either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions."
Let's try the Oxford English dictionary.
Gender: "The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way."
Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
All emphasis my own.
So, no. You're just wrong about this, and if you're going to pedantically claim that the dictionary supports you, you ought to be arsed to check your dictionary first. The dictionary supports the modern distinction of gender and sex.
You can fab some *extremely* simple boards and designs this way, yes. You're not going to build anything approaching the computing power of the last 15-20 years on that kind of equipment.
You'll never get there because you need 99.9999999% purity and precisely balanced climate controls to do cutting-edge semiconductor fabbing. Government regulation has nothing to do with it. You can't build semiconductors of modern quality or capability in a bedroom, any more than Chinese peasants could build backyard steel furnaces during the Great Leap Forward.
Wikipedia's core staff is overwhelmingly male (87%) and mostly white. There is no indication that "social justice" played a role in either the creation of the current system nor the difficulty the site has had in attracting greater participation from members of other races and the opposite sex.
"The "social justice" movement is all about exerting control over what others think, believe and express. This is done by any means necessary, including hypocrisy and censorship."
This is a meaningless attack when evaluated in the context of any other social movement or ideological argument. All ideologies seek, by their nature, to exert control over what others think, feel, and express. If you believe that the First Amendment should have absolutely no restrictions and you loudly advocate for this position and push for laws that would enforce it, you are attempting to create a rigid ideological framework that refuses to consider any challenge to the idea of free speech.
I profoundly disagree with your evaluation of so-called "social justice," as well as your characterization of it as a monolithic and uniform bloc. My problems with your argument, however, aren't rooted in my personal opinion.
"These are the people who will manipulate Wikipedia articles to match the narrative that they want to dictate. "
There've been multiple high-profile articles this year about how Wikipedia is actually prone to manipulation by PR firms and self-interested parties. Drug companies that write glowing entries about new medications. Celebrities and others who hire PR firms to write Wikipedia pages for them. Special interests and organizations that pay those same PR firms to edit entries to confirm points of view.
"These are the people who will suppress any sort of original thought. "
The reason Wikipedia bans personal research and "original thought" is because an encyclopedia is not supposed to be "The Collected Thoughts of Todd." The purpose of an encyclopedia is to present factual, well-researched, documented information. That simple-sounding goal is incredibly difficult in and of itself, before we leap into the quicksand of evaluating the personal opinions of any given person.
"These are the sorts of people who will mislabel their opponents as "racists" or "sexists" or "intolerant" or "bullies", even when that's clearly not the case."
Ironically, it has been Wikipedia itself that's been attacked for standing *by* such opinions in recent years. The debate has been over the degree to which this is true, and what should be done about.
Your point is vague enough to be meaningless. I have no doubt that some people have been erroneously labeled as racist, sexist, and bullies. I have seen no evidence that this is unique or particular to Wikipedia, and no evidence that Wikipedians are more or less prone to this type of behavior than any other organization or group of people working together on the Internet.
You throw a lot of invective, but you offer precious little research to back it up as it pertains to Wikipedia. It therefore seems appropriate to end this with a [Citation Needed.]
Fee was $5 in 1966.
It's still $5.
If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?