Immediate attack on the parent poster's political affiliation... obviously the party that he belongs to (judging by this one issue, even though I don't know where he stands on others) is absolutely full of complete psychos and want to do all kinds of other bad things that will destroy civilization as we know it. And they completely fulfill the most extreme version of every stereotype about them.

Immediate attack on the two-party system. Accuse Democrats and Republicans of being exactly the same in every way. Baseless claim that Libertarians offer the only meaningful solutions stemming from my mistrust of the horrific lurching monstrosity called "government," whose true functions, in actuality, I only vaguely understand.

Blee-otch.

"I have an existential map; it has 'you are here' written all over it." -Steven Wright.

What an injustice. Perhaps someday all will recognize the important contributions of German mathematician Dr. Johann F*ckton.

This is a ludicrous mindset, that making a living should only be secondary for an artist. Replace "artist" in your sentence with any other profession. Try, "the purpose of being a teacher is to teach because it is what you love. If you can manage to not starve while you do it, more power to you." Artists serve an important function in our society (arguably as important as any other profession), and to dismiss their needs because of some cliche mentality of how the arts should operate is trivializing how important they are to our culture. I'm not saying you should go into the arts expecting to become rich, just as you shouldn't go into ANY profession expecting to get rich, but by the same token being an artist is a profession like any other and artists should be able to make a living from their work if there is a sufficient market for it.

Yeah, I can't see how this will withstand a constitutional challenge. Commercial speech in the US is less protected than political/expressive speech, so if anything the government should have a weaker case than it did when that New Hampshire conviction got overturned (it will have much greater difficulty showing compelling interest for the statute, assuming the same level of scrutiny is used). Freedom of speech includes freedom not to speak.

My phone has a keyboard, and the developers of Tetris for Android won't let me use it. Have you ever tried playing Tetris using a touch screen? It's a joke.

...Cue hordes of bitter posts bitching about how they won't play the game because it doesn't support LAN, without regard to how good or bad the game actually is.

Yes, moral relativism is bad.

Bullshit. Morality changes all the time, and has constantly throughout history. Try reading the Old Testament and then tell me that we should live by the code of morality expressed within - one that sanctions slavery, genocide, repression of women, and countless other atrocities (by our modern standards). If morality is absolute, then how do we even know that our society has it right, considering how many other standards of morality have prevailed throughout human existence? Absolute morality is a myth, as any cursory examination of history will reveal.

...at a sound-stage on Mars.

Unfortunately, for a member of Gen Y, it is not a question of an interest in personal privacy. Facebook has become a legitimate part of our social identity. A great deal of communication and social interaction goes on through Facebook. While I agree that the changes to Facebook are horrendous, deleting my profile is simply not an option if I want to continue to have a full social life - for example, many events/parties/gatherings/whatever are coordinated solely through Facebook, and off the top of my head I cannot think of a single friend of mine that does not have a profile. Not having a profile at this stage would be akin to an 18th-century Frenchman deciding not to go to salons because he thought they were lame. It is simply not an option unless I want to become a pariah.

Of course, the trouble is that Facebook knows how important it has become, and now can essentially do whatever it wants knowing that very few people will ever leave due to the reasons I expressed above.

'It is something that would really capture the imagination,' said Dr Ellen Stofan, from Proxemy Research, who leads the study team. 'The story of human exploration on Earth has been one of navigation and seafaring, and the idea that we could explore for the first time an extraterrestrial sea I think would be mind-blowing for most people,'

Sometimes the point of science need be be nothing more than to capture our imaginations and/or blow our minds.

...that when he was talking about increasing openness and accountability, he meant from himself?

I can't wait to see what causes it to malfunction this time!

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws making texting while driving illegal and seven states and the district have banned driving while talking on a handheld cell phone.

This is an example of states setting their own laws to respond to an issue that directly affects the lives of their citizens. The possibility of the federal government stepping in and usurping this power is analogous to America's situation as far as the legal drinking age goes - MADD used its lobbying power to get Congress to essentially coerce the states into following its will. Keep in mind, barring a constitutional amendment, congress lacks the power to directly affect the drinking age - hence their questionable approach (albeit one that has been upheld by the courts) of saying, "well look, states, we're not telling you you HAVE to set the drinking age at 21, but if you don't, something might happen to your federal highway funding. We're just saying, it could happen." I realize that it would be somewhat impractical for the federal government to stay limited by an extremely strict interpretation of the Constitution, but there is absolutely no reason for the national government to waste its valuable time meddling here (don't we have a health care crisis or recession or whatever that they should be dealing with?). Cell phone use, like the drinking age, is one of those areas which should not be controlled nationally - if we take away all the powers of the states to set their own laws, then what's the point of even having a federal system to begin with?