Good thing anonymous internet "justice" doesn't work THAT fast. Someone might've got hurt by "vigilantes".

Many do because mostly it's still amazing ROI. A collague started with small five figures and took home small six figures only a couple months later. Of course it's amazing ROI as long as the bubble is growing, but whatever. It still is.

I mean, baby deaths in third world are more part of a solution than a problem. They're actually a good thing. The worst that can happen is that the infant still is damaged by, god knows, lack of oxygen or infection, and would be permanently injured or decapacitated. Then what, one more unproductive person in third world, one more mouth to feed? Completely healthy little fellows starve to death every day, and they survived the first test. Think about how much time and effort, energy and money, is invested in a growing child. Isn't it better that it dies right off the bat, and now after, say, 4 years when his/her parents neglect him/her or fail to provide enough food?

A slight mistake there... "he should, however, be able to forbid" > "he should, however, not be able to forbid"

"Forcing authors to lose rights" - NO! A common misconception. *Some* rights maybe, but only to guarantee the rights of the public!

This is the central question in all authorship legislature and morale: how to balance the rights of the public and the rights of an author?

Author should receive all attribution and credit, and certainly has the right to that. He also should have the right to forbid this attribution if parts of this information are used inappropriately (e.g. pasting a face into a pornographic image, or farting a sonnet); he should, however, be able to forbid the public of composing and publicizing the inappropriacies.

Public should receive the right to enjoy the work, spread it and re-use it, in the name of productivity in an information society. Out of pragmatic point of view, information is only useful when it's used, i.e., copied, spread and applied (or enjoyed).

Freedom of information (or freedom of speech, if you will) must go before the freedom of men to do what they please. The first is feasible, the latter is not.

Because fear is what keeps the ball rolling! Don't worry, have a loan!

The bar quite definitely will be destroyed. You have three propositions that you assume to be true: [1] Two Higgs (A(1) and B(1)) walk into a bar (at t = 1); [2] One destroys the bar (let it be A(2), at t = 2); [3] The other one goes back in time (let it be B(2), at t = 2); [4] and destroys the other Higgs (let C(1) destroy D(1), at t = 1); now the way you couple A and B to C and D defines how their imagined "life-lines" would look like; there are (at least) two alternatives: either the one that destroys the "third" is the one that will destroy the bar; or the destroyer will be the one jumping back. I suggest you draw a picture. It will all match up, all propositions will hold; including [2], that is, the bar will remain "destroyed". Or you could just as well say that one leaves the bar, that will make drawing easier too, and answer your question about the exiting particles. Answer is, one exits, the one that didn't jump back.

I guess that by reading the first comment about lobby system you understand why that will only happen after hell has frozen over and melted a couple of times...

Stunning!