Actually, except for the little snowmen, I've seen every one of those parts in other sets. They were different colors & didn't have printing on them(or is that stickers?), but the mold was the same.

The issue isn't that everybody else is doing, but more that Facebook said that the "Trending Topics" was based on automate heuristics, something similar to what Google & other search engines do. Had ABC or Fox News said that what they showed on their front page & a part of their nightly news was based on Twitter or some other social media trends, but in actuality had editors who curated those news items, then people should have a problem with them.

Dude that's probably the best analogy to some of the most stupid arguments against science ever. I wish I had mod points to upvote you.

Yeah, the kind of material is almost as important as the type of printer, especially when there are several different materials that can be used in each of the different printer types.

Even if that data might reveal information about private citizens? Have you considered the fact that the people this data is about might not want it made public?

What if someone voted for the candidate that their spouse is violently opposed to? Should we endanger that person because you want to know how everybody is voting? That's obviously an extreme case, but the scenario is a valid one. How many people would vote differently if they knew that information would be made public?

I'd agree with you if this was government data about government activities. But this is government data about private citizens private activities.

The same as there's nothing to hide by your refusal to hand over your phone's GPS data to a cop just because he asks. Oh, you don't like everybody & their dog knowing what you did or who you voted for? Neither do the people who live in Kansas.

I was about to say, of course they sued, it's the only way that movie could have made money. I want to sue Netflix for promoting it & letting me watch it. It was horrible.

But that's just it. Monsanto hasn't sued people for accidental contamination of their patented genes. They'll even pay you to have those crops removed, or something like that. Remember, the guy willfully killed his crops so that he could know which plants were resistant. His actions directly contributed to his acquiring the patented genes.

a) As other have said, this is a myth. All seeds are viable to some degree, specially those that produce seed crops, ie corn, wheat, soy, etc. You can't be sued for planting seeds with a terminal gene, since the child seeds wouldn't be viable.
b) You mean the process of introducing genes from another organism, like what happened to the sweet potato naturally?
c) Again, another myth. Monsanto(and other GMO makers) have not randomly sued poor farmers who didn't know what they were planting. But people who replanted seeds(which directly contradicts a) that they knew were "special". The cases that Monsanto won they showed that the farmer(usually a corporate farmer, not some poor guy who barely grows enough to pay his bills with) knew that he had seed that was protected by Monsanto's IP & that he willfully planted it without paying for it. Not much different than if Gearbox decided not to pay for the use of the Unreal engine.

Yeah, and I love that he thinks eating paste or eating out is actually using less energy that simply cooking fresh food that's locally sourced. Heck, growing a garden is trivial, even in an apartment and would reduce your carbon footprint, save energy, and cost you much much less. And I'm sure there are storage methods that would allow you to get rid of both your fridge & your stove if you really wanted to. But this guy didn't want to do that. His lifestyle is not about saving anything, but showing how much better he is than the rest of us plebes.

I've read this guy's blog post & came to the conclusion that he's an idiot. He champions his lifestyle as a way to reduce energy usage, but does so by doing things like having new shirts shipped from China instead of doing laundry. Or that he's saving energy by eating out when he doesn't want to eat his nutritional paste, and somehow that's better than cooking for yourself mainly because he doesn't like going to the grocery store. Nothing this guy has done is scalable beyond just himself.
This guys whole blog post reads almost like someone saying it's better to have a 3d printer because you can print Lego bricks for free.

I got my 3d printer not to make something that's going to last a very long time, but more for novelty items & a few custom builds. For example, I bought some Red, White & Blue PLA so I could make some July 4th decorations & stuff. I think I'll print some custom cookie cutters for my sis-in-law. Oh, and my dad wants some letters so he can see how to place them on a wind chime he's making. I've also printed some things for my Cubscouts. The other things I've printed have mainly been to show it off or play with it. I'd put owning a 3d printer along the same lines as owning a regular printer these days, unnecessary but can be fun or useful.

The problem is when they use government resources to target organizations that they dislike & have no real cause to, and do so after issuing declarations that they consider their behavior kin to that of terrorist. Had the IRS treated left wing organizations as they did those on the right, things might be a bit different.
What are your thoughts about Bush (and now Obama) saying that if you encrypt your internet communications you must be a terrorist? And then what would happen if they used the IRS to go after the Linux foundation(or some other FOSS tech company) for making encryption readily available?

With the current administration, the same could be said for anything that they dislike. They've not only used the IRS to target groups that oppose them, but also put out a list of attributes that they are using to classify domestic terrorist which include things like having more than a month's worth of food & owning a gun.

The difference in racial bigotry & homosexual bigotry is the former is forbidden by a matter of law, something the later does not enjoy. Just as importantly, these laws are a knee jerk reaction to gay marriage proponents trying to force their beliefs on those who want no part of it. What did people think was going to happen when they sued a bunch of private businesses that refused to cater to gay weddings? And given the Hobby Lobby SCotUS win along similar grounds, I'd be willing to bet that these laws will stand judicial review for the same reasons.

Here's the thing, we do not have a right to not be discriminated against. We are all allowed to walk down the street & cross it if we encounter someone who outwardly portrays something we don't like, be it his/her race or the way he/she walks & dresses. When you walk into a store the salesman is allowed to treat you as courteously or as mean as he feels like, even if it's because you walked in with your same sex partner, to the point of refusing to sell something to you.

Businesses have the right to refuse service. Is it discrimination if the bank refuses to give a loan to someone who walks in wearing smelly rags pushing a shopping cart? Or what about clubs that only let "fit" men/women in? Can your John Candy & Chris Farley's sue for discrimination?

If I don't like you, then I should have the ability to no associate or do business with you, for any reason I see fit. The only exception to that is if I'm providing a service & my dislike for you is due to you belonging to a protected class(race, sex, religious beliefs, disabilities, or national origin). Notice what's missing? It's what I said at the beginning, sexual preference is not a protected class.