Sigh.

Honest question: do you even read what you fucking write?

> there are large genetically distinct human population groups that correspond ~80% with our notions about race.

Oh really? What exactly are "our notions" about race? Who precisely are you referring to as holding "our" notions?

And why was it so important for you to try to insert [again] your own everlasting axe-grinding notions about "race" into this particular discussion?

Your attempt to rephrase his question to try to suit a silly ideology has nothing to do with "science", is merely your own appeal to emotion, and isn't doing a thing to advance the discussion, moldburg.

Now, do you have anything at all cogent to say about the obvious cultural and economic forces that create differences?

[citation needed]

And stop ducking the question, genius. Are you really trying to tell us that the solution to your homelessness problem is to bus people who you magically somehow don't think are from your area clear across the country to a place they almost certainly aren't from?

Makes fantastic Klein bottles too.

There is absolutely nothing "sensible" about intolerance and racism.

Your arguments from numbers and history are not "sensible" or rational either.

Enough.

Save your unsupported observations and your fucking breath.

Your contributions and the contributions of other libertarians in this thread amount to little more than endlessly bleating that (in the opinion of the greedy), greed couldn't possibly have led to financial calamities, and that impediments to greed like democratically elected governments and legislated, popular laws are to blame for financial calamities....the disasters that history has shown repeatedly arise only when those same laws are weakened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Economic_disasters_in_...

A match made in heaven, between this genius financial entrepreneur and this competent, reliable trading platform, seems to at least sum up Bitcoin nicely, if not the brainless economic philosophies underlying this horseshit.

Your examples are unbelievably silly, as both Enron and the financial crisis of 2008 occurred in the context of deregulation of those "traditional markets".

Wanna watch Bitcoin absolutely implode and die? You libertarians keep up your adolescent, blind fervor for nonregulation.

Do you even read your own writing from one paragraph to the next?

How in the fuck do you have any clue whatsoever about what happened to "this guy" before and at the time he had his child?

The only "entitlement" here is you making really amazing, shitty assumptions. Over and over.

"This guy" has a "sense of entitlement" in your little world....because he's taking care of his daughter, worked at a menial job to make ends meets and while he kept studyting and just got his college degree, programs on the side, just got a new job, and took the time and energy to try to improve conditions for his fellow employees....and then geniuses like you whine about "free condoms" and "entitlement"?

Please. Just delete your comment.

Please find something more socially responsible to do with your time.

In other words, more complete illogical bullshit.

The question remains: if eating meat is not necessary for nutrition, and it (killing animals) causes unnecessary suffering, then tell us again what argument you have other than the utter brilliance of "it tastes good"?

Maybe you could explain to us all how taking life unnecessarily somehow does not equal suffering in your little snowflake dream world. Maybe you could explain to us all why adults (top of the food chain, eh ominivore?) shouldn't eat children if they meet your gourmet taste test, eh sport?

Explain to us all again how taking life unnecessarily is "responsible". I'm not aware of any legitimate ethical codes that would align with that particular thinking, but perhaps yours is special.

In other words, bullshit. Are you really trying to convince us that because some large number of people want to mindlessly eat meat, nothing can be done?

Kindly explain to us all how "eating meat" and the suffering that inevitably accompanies it is necessary or even desirable.

I'm not sure why the bus has to stop on 19th Avenue, as there are numerous side streets it could stop on -- and not one of the major north-south thoroughfares in west SF.

The difference with Muni buses, of course, is that they stop, let people off/on, and then get out of the way almost immediately. I'm not sure why the rest of us are waiting on Google employees for extended periods.

EDIT: I'm not sure how some of the peanut gallery here is reading anti-public-transportation sentiment into my comment. I'm a big fan of BART and Muni and use them regularly.

What I'm marveling over is why Google employees and/or their bus driver(s) can't seem to tell time sufficiently well to not require illegally blocking a major SF thoroughfare for extended periods of time. The Google bus blocks and delays Muni and other forms of public transportation on 19th Avenue just as effectively as it blocks autos. Muni doesn't do that.

You just decried an article without once pointing out any errors in the article, then attempted to paint any number of submissions with the same brush. Nah, the article was just shrill and the only things the site is useful for is Caesar salad recipes.

Seriously, this kind of commenting is the reason Hacker News has become known as anything but a hangout for actual hackers - you know, the folks who use little things like reason and facts and logic in discussion.