I kept calling bullshit as I read the summary, but I wasn't going to say anything because I figured these people are smarter than me. They may still be smarter than me, but it may have been more believable if they hadn't thrown the kitchen sink in there.

Well, it looks like nuclear is right in between solar and wind.

For a second I thought you said "Salo" and thought "Man! That's brave to post that you've watched Salo!"

What people don't understand is that every language or programming method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Take, for instance, string processing on SQL server. It doesn't really exist. Sure, I can write a Perl script to get SQL data and manipulate it, but that's only useful if I am writing an interface and will be doing something with the data outside of SQL afterward. I loved the list processing functions in Coldfusion (and if I go back further, those from Advanced Revelation in the 80s), so I wrote a whole bunch of SQL Server functions that operate on lists: cf_gettoken, cf_listlen, cf_listfirst, etc. When it comes to manipulating strings on SQL Server, everyone else wonders how I can get the work done so fast, and none of them are willing to even sit down and look at the functions, which are actually very short by nature.

The fact that you refer to them as geniuses should tell you something: they do stuff that you can't do, or they do them in a much shorter time than you can do. Of course you proceeded to call them "plainly overconfident". Well, if they're overconfident, then they probably aren't geniuses and just assholes. But if they're true geniuses, then you learn to put up with some of their idiosyncrasies because chances are that they're still right. Curious and wondering what you think about our good old Linus?

Collusion? Copying? I can think of many reasons to hate people/companies on how they treat other people. Airlines are a good example. Nobody is happy with how they're being treated by the airlines, but we all put up with it. Selling water to people for $25 for a bottle is just wrong. Nobody should be able to get away with that, regardless of whether someone else is willing to pay for it.

I agree with your assessment. On a superb sale at Binnys, I have gotten handles of Baccardi for $12.95, which is insanely low. On their regular sales, which come up all the time, I get it for $14.95 (yes, I would be considered an alcoholic), which is still very low compared to other places. On a visit to Iceland, I gave up my drinking for the most part just because the price of booze was so high. A fifth, which is 750ml (for comparison to a handle, which is 1750ml) of Captain Morgan cost me about $75. Turns out Iceland had a problem with alcoholism and they remedied it by making booze less available (special stored, which are only open during days) and pricing it so high people just couldn't afford to drink a lot of it.

So, how has the price of booze staying solidly low over here in the U.S.? Is it because of competition?

Next thing you know the price of booze is gonna go up because there's little demand for it, while the price of water has gone up as well. Looks like more money for all the greedy bastards.

I don't need a train to enjoy taking time off shit. I'd rather get the travel over with so that I can spend the extra days at home, listening to awesome music and enjoying what I'm paying a mortgage for.

I rode the train from Shanghai to Hangzhou in 2016 and have a picture of the train moving at 307 kph, so 191 mph. And the ride was so smooth you couldn't even tell you were on a train.

Our problem in the U.S. is not technology. It's bureaucracy and red tape as well as way too many middle men who want to make money, not to mention materials and wage differences between the U.S. and China, making something like China's trains cost prohibitive. Other possible issues could be right of way related for optimal routes maybe.

lol. I hear you, but it won't happen in this case. A "with tooth" law limiting phone use to 2 hours infringes so broadly on individual freedoms that it'd get struck down by any supreme court in a heartbeat. I'm not worried about this one.

I don't know. I'm a fierce believer of "individual liberties rock" camp (and live in the U.S.) and I'm okay with this. Not because I agree with it, but because it really does not affect me if they're not going to enforce it, monitor it, or talk to me about it. The worst thing about it is that it's a waste of taxpayer money, but then when has congress stopped wasting our money?

This is very clarifying on where your thoughts are. I think we both realize what is physical and monetary damage to others and we'd both be in agreement that it's wrong. What you're eluding to here, however, is the idea that it somehow pains you (or the society in general) to watch or even know when I do something that's against your morals or liking, even though I am not physically forcing you to see my actions and you have every opportunity to walk away from. And that, my friend, is where your right to not be offended does not get to infringe on my right to do what I want.

You are correct that I was conflating the two subjects and I appreciate your sticking to the one that matters.

I think what you're not pointing out in your example of slavery as an "affront" is that slaves were forced into slavery against their will. Of course that is wrong and nobody's arguing for something like slavery to come back, although some would probably not mind that -- and, in a tangent, I could argue that we're all still slaves of just a different sort.
 
 

I guess that's the crust of the argument. I'm originally from Iran and when I moved to the U.S., I saw that the individual liberties afforded to us (or rather not taken away) are unparalleled in the rest of the world (Yes, including countries like Norway and Sweden). Because of that, I agree with the OP's "slippery slope" argument. What's a slippery slope to one is not necessarily so to others. Even what's a slippery slope to most is not grounds for laws against or banning it. Case in point, take the treatment of gays throughout the ages. If you took a poll in the 50s on whether homosexual relationships should be legal, you would have gotten an overwhelmingly "No!" answer. Just because most people don't like something, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. If you ban someone killing themselves and filming it while doing so under the guise of it being an affront to human dignity, what's next? Why should prostitution be illegal? Should mutilating your body be illegal? Do note that, in my examples, I am only taking this stance when it involves adult humans wills (the term adult to be defined by local laws, I guess).

It's HIS dignity, not yours. He wasn't hurting anyone else. When the police investigated him because of his channel, their conclusion was that he was in full control of what was happening and he was doing it for money and fame. Where do you get off making decisions on how someone else should live their life when it doesn't concern you? Your "an affront to humanity" argument is rather weak when his actions don't affect you.