There, fixed that for them.

Not at all. Luckey exercised his freedom of speech to express his views. He had every right to do that, though he did it in an exceptionally dishonest way. Now these developers are exercising their freedom of speech to condemn what he said, as well as the means by which he said it. They too have every right to do that. When someone says something you strongly disagree with, you can and should call them on it. That does not make you "intolerant of any type of political message other than your own."

Also, the stat about donating to charity is pure propaganda. In the last week??? What is that supposed to show? Religious people go to church every week and put a few dollars on the collection plate. Nonreligious people don't do that, so instead they send larger, less frequent payments to the charities of their choice. If you really want to know how much people give, ask what they've done in the last year. Saying what they've done in the last week is just an obvious attempt to artificially make religious people look better.

So if you only get exploited for the next 10 years, it doesn't matter? If all the drivers quit today, Uber and Lyft would go out of business tomorrow. They can't exist without those "useless" piles of flesh. Just because the humans may get replaced by automation in the future, that doesn't give anyone the right to exploit them today.

The terms "contractor" and "employee" have legal definitions. The question is which one applies here. Uber says, "We're a software company, not a taxi company. The only thing we do is make a phone app to help independent drivers find business." If that were true, every driver would be setting their own prices, and they'd all be competing with each other on price. Because that's part of the legal definition of a contractor, and the maker of a phone app has no business telling independent drivers how much they have to charge the people they transport.

So either Uber is lying and the drivers are actually employees, or else they're coordinating a massive price fixing scheme. There are lawsuits in progress alleging both of these things.

> No, I don't realize that. Can you quote the part I said anything about using the bathroom?

Sure, no problem. "or who need a stool while they're on stage." Clear enough?

Oh, or were you using the word "stool" in a different sense? I assumed you were referring to the time she left the stage during a commercial break to use the bathroom (which Trump described as "disgusting").

Do you realize you just cited having to use the bathroom as evidence of bad health? I mean... seriously? That's rationalizing. You're looking for any excuse to believe what you want to believe, no matter how absurd the excuse is. Having to use the bathroom is perfectly normal. Everyone does, even you. When you find yourself saying absurd things like that, it's really time to step back and ask yourself why you're saying them.

What is the "everything" you think they should publish? Absolutely any information they can get their hands on, about anyone or anything, from any source, regardless of whether it has any importance to the public? I don't think so. Their latest dump of voicemails really went off the deep end. What is the value to the public from posting messages from random voters complaining that the DNC was favoring Sanders? If it had been a message from a DNC official, that could arguably be newsworthy. But at this point it just seems that Assange is posting anything he can get his hands on without the least consideration for whether it's newsworthy, or whether he's just violating some random person's privacy.

Sitting in a dark theater filled with random strangers, not moving, not talking, is not my idea of a social experience. It's antisocial. Watching a movie at home with a few friends can be a social experience. You watch it together, enjoy it together. But in a theater, everyone is alone. You're surrounded by people, but you can't interact with them, so it's just you and the screen.

Talking about it afterward is social, but you can do that whether you watched it at home or in a theater. And the movie itself is a lot more social at home where it's just you and your friends, and you can all see each other, and you can talk exactly as much or as little during the movie as you all decide you want to.

I'm pretty sure the developers of Crysis did put in the work to parallelize it effectively. Game engines are one of the most heavily optimized types of software out there, and CryEngine is one of the fastest game engines out there.

Stealing is something that people do to corporations, not the other way around. The fundamental right underlying all laws is the right of corporations to make money. If you do something that prevents them from making money, that's stealing. If they do something that hurts you, including taking away something you've paid for, that's just exercising their right to make money. It's not stealing, because no corporation is harmed by it.

Reproductive rates are correlated with piracy??? Whoa, now that's a headline! People who pirate software are more fertile!

Doesn't that logic apply just as well to rich people as poor ones? Why don't we just require everyone to get drug tested before they can receive any government benefits of any sort? But of course, we don't do that. We only require it of poor people. And we come up with rationalizations for why that's a fair, just thing to do. Because it's more comfortable to rationalize than to admit our own biases.

Anyway, if you're ever in a position where you're required to take a drug test, see whether you find it a humiliating experience or not.

I'm not sure what that has to do with drug testing. If you wanted to require net beneficiaries to have their finances audited, I suppose I could understand that. They're receiving more money than they pay back, so you want to make sure they're not hiding something. But what does drug testing have to do with it?

I assume it's clear to you that the proposed bill has zero chance of becoming law, and the congresswoman who proposed it didn't do so because she really wanted it to pass? She proposed it to draw attention to our hypocrisy in the different ways we treat rich and poor people. Because, as she said, she is "sick and tired of the criminalization of poverty." What we give to poor people is peanuts on the scale of the whole budget, but we make them beg and humiliate themselves to get it. So she suggested making rich people humiliate themselves in the same way, to make us all think a bit more about what we're doing and why.

I don't actually support drug testing of rich people. I doubt she does either. But as a way to illustrate what a bigoted society we have, I think her proposal is great.

I could argue with your basic assumption, that whatever money someone happens to possess is rightfully theirs, and they owe society nothing. But I see lots of other people have already made that point, so I won't repeat all the things they've already said.

But you avoided my question. Even if we assume there's a difference between these two situations, why do you think it matters? What is it that makes it ok to require drug testing in one case, but not in the other? If instead of letting rich people claim a tax deduction we instead made it a credit, would you then support a drug test as a condition for getting it?