The only way that I see that you could entirely eliminate the concept of "money" (aka currency) would be for everything that everyone wants to be available to everyone. This is the only way to eliminate the motivation to barter, and I just don't see how you possibly achieve that.

I think the poster's point is that whether there is formal currency or not, humans will always barter. Inevitably, this will result in some goods and services, based upon their supply and demand, becoming more valuable than others. This becomes de facto currency.

I'm not certain what the OP meant, but I believe that Google acquiring Twitter would be a huge step forward for G+. The biggest problem that G+ has is that, while lots of people may have accounts, no one actually uses their account. If I could integrate Twitter and post to my G+, I would do so in a heartbeat. You would suddenly be taking a great deal of content from Twitter and cross-publishing it onto G+ where others could comment on it, share it, etc.

I think that it could make G+ a real player in social media.

I would definitely let Newegg know about this. This is potentially a very serious issue for their customers.

I've been here a long time, and I can't say that I ever remember conversations being rational - although they are occasionally coherent.

Wow, I wish I had mod points - this is an excellent point, and it's a primary reason that I don't use automatic bill pay. Hell, I didn't have direct deposit until my current job where I wasn't given any choice. The less companies with access to my bank account, the better.

This is the real point: if anyone actually believed that GoDaddy did a complete 180 over the course of about 24 hours, then all could be forgiven and forgotten. I don't know anyone that is buying that BS, though.

This.

The reality is that unless you can have a positive effect on the bottom line, you're spinning your wheels.

And to think that I just used the last of my mod points - well played.

Actually, whether your'e a believer or not, or religious or not, the the concept of a God is CRITICAL to our nation. This nation exists based upon the belief that we have inalienable rights that are endowed by a Creator. This is a long-established legal principle in the United States which recognizes that in a free society there must be an authority greater than government, otherwise anything that government says is legal, automatically becomes just, as well. If our rights come from government, then everything that government says is right - is right, and there is never a just cause for rebellion.

Only when you recognize that there is an authority greater than than government telling government essentially, "you may say that X is legal, but it's still wrong" can society truly be free. The alternative is, "well, that's wrong because I say it's wrong" or "that's wrong because we say it's wrong" - neither of which is a prescription for a free society for what should be obvious reasons.

Note that this model has worked quite well since the founding of the nation, in spite of the fact (or because of the fact) that the U.S. government makes no determinations about any specific religion. 80% of the conductors of the underground railroad were Catholics and Quakers - theologically completely different, but both informed by their religious beliefs that even though government said slavery was legal, it was still wrong and had to be fought. Every major moral victory over government has been won at the behest of believers in a Creator, not a single, solitary one was ever led by atheists or agnostics.

Wrong on both counts - Citizens United had nothing to do with independent expenditures by PACs.

This has nothing to do with Citizens United - it is campaign finance laws that created this. These aren't corporations running these ads, these are shadow PACs created by the campaign to sling the mud that they don't have the guts to.