The point I was making is that there is a power structure behind the tax code and that unless you give up something, you're unlikely to get the change you clamor for.
As for being off topic, I'm afraid you are. The tax code in question is actually very simple and if you think the calculations for Medicare and Social Security need simplification you're out of your mind. That's not to say there isn't complexity in the tax code, simply that it does not lie within the scope of this discussion.
You missed the point, genius. Your rant is off topic and excessively rant-y. Nobody here wants to debate with you because you're bat-shit crazy. You should seek professional help or at least a hobby where you don't interact with strangers.
When you volunteer to double your personal share of the tax burden you can make it as simple as you like. Until then keep dreaming but do try to stay on topic.
This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. The $1 salaries taken by high-tech execs isn't about avoiding taxes - it's about leadership and morale.
It's actually a voluntary decrease in their compensation from previous years, they aren't shifting their salary into bonuses or other forms of pay. You can't accuse them of trying to get around paying taxes because they're not coming out ahead financially.
Now if you want to blame them for not contributing as much tax as they could, you may have a technically correct point, but good luck trying to frame a valid argument in your effort to make them look bad. And if you do, try not to keep confusing value with compensation- the value a company gets from an employee is not taxable.
Same reason they delay DVD releases. The production companies are giving theater owners a chance to profit off the movies, otherwise some people may just buy the DVD.
Fixed that for me. If you're talking about the children market that's sounds likely to be true, since paying a fortune for the privilege to schlep your screaming kids to eat junk in a movie theater packed with dozens of other screaming kids is to be avoided.
I used to be a guy who would go see something at the cinema but never bought the DVD. I've since gotten myself a decent screen and swapped to the opposite, rarely visiting the movies and buying DVDs instead (though very rarely buying a DVD I've seen on the big screen). These days by the time DVDs come on sale I've forgotten about the movie and the "own-it-yourself" property-centric advertising gives me little interest in buying something I would have purchased earlier.
Downloading is that significantly different from recording from the 70s radio/bootleg coping which anybody could and did do with readily available hardware. If you're talking about 50 years ago, they can certainly use some modernization.
Assuming a free market with record labels fiercely competing to sell their units, wouldn't one of the first tasks for the "invisible hand" be a better experience for the user- say perhaps providing fastest possible delivery? They could easily play a requested song on their website at low cost charge with MAFIAAbucks and I'm sure that would make a pretty penny.
In reality the labels are in cahoots and collectively uninsightful, which gives us the technological feet-dragging, price-fixing, and the suing of their customers. And as pointed out by my fellow curmudgeons- defective products. This minor change does nothing to bring me back to being a direct customer. I'm still stuck with the combination of Pandora and jumping oldies/classics presets on my car radio.
Of course it's socialist, since you can't hop off a train at a moment's notice to use the drive-thru at your pick of a McDonald's, Wendy's, KFC or Taco Bell. That's a very important value to us Americans. It's even in the constitution.
And beside online purchases there is also the emergence of games which are not purchased (Flash games), use micro-transactions (Facebook, LOTRO) and subscription based games (WoW) which derive their main revenue post-box sale. Ignoring these and why they are very popular while speculating on trends is short-sighted.
Something I find so strange is retail sales of game cards, which are not only far less cost-effective than online sales, but are also generally purchased by/for kids for whom that's not technically challenging.
Children attach a lot of importance to their day of birth. Sadly, too many of them never grow out of it or benefit from school and continue to buy the lie.
Perhaps it's more of your reading and reading comprehension skills sucks. And the entire point of my argument is that you don't know "tool [xyz] can detect ghosts" or not, you only know the ones people have attempted to use and reported on the results have not been able to find anything. That doesn't mean that none of them will ever work or that none has every detected anything supernatural. It means if it did we don't know about it.
I take it back. You don't even possess the writing skills of a third grader and they deserve my apology for being so unfairly compared. This passage was exceptionally idiotic: grammatically, logically, lexically, maturely- just name the error category and you've provided an appropriate pedagogical "wrong way" example for text books.
Thanks for proving my point about how convoluted and incomprehensible your posts have been. Your chosen handle describes you perfectly.
Apologies I'm distorting your point but I don't understand your meaning on expectation. Are we talking about finding in the alleged "haunted house" some kind of space where the known laws of nature don't apply?
Is the intention that they should be dropping something and making sure it's acquiring 9.81 m/s^2? Then shining a laser beam and measuring c? Then calculating the speed of sound? Then testing if water freezes at 0c and boils at 100c (and do we stop at H2O or test all elements and compounds)? Then making sure elasticity and friction work? Do we need to thoroughly test electromagnetism, pressure, Newton's third law, buoyancy, and nuclear reaction? My point is why would one think any of these would yield a surprising result in a "haunted house", and what would be sufficient to determine "deviation"-.001%, 3%, 50% ? I would sooner expect a minor deviation be more likely caused by experimental inaccuracy, where your average ghost hunter would point to it as further proof of the "supernatural."
We can't simply run around testing for "everything" - that's not science. That's what physicians do when there's something obviously and dangerously wrong but they can't figure out what. It's a last resort, not the modus operendi of physicists.
Further, all these assumptions that "ghosts" or anything for that matter is "supernatural" is unwarranted. There is no proof of anything supernatural but only speculation, myth and superstition.
Says the confused. Fuck dude, where is the confusion? I'm not confusing anything. It appears that you are the one who is confused based on your own incorrect assumptions.
Fuck you're a lazy one. For one, you don't actually go out and observe transistors in nature and then try to explain how they work. The process of understanding how momentum works is a very different process from utilizing already-known science to build a device you imagined would be useful. State these alleged "incorrect assumptions" if you can find them.
(blah blah blah)....you twit... I did not, and it's pretty clear in my writing... "Further research in the area, after this much overwhelming evidence, is useless". He simply doesn't know if it would or would not be useless until after the research was done.
Hate to break it to you but your writing sucks, kiddo. It's been a long time since your third grade teacher told you otherwise and that hasn't been the case for a long time. Here's a tip: when you feel the need to call someone names, you don't have a decent argument. The whole point of my argument which you cannot seem to grasp is that the hypothesis isn't "there are no ghosts," but rather "tool [xyz] can detect ghosts". More detail explaining what shouldn't need it following more of your nonsense.
First of all, I'm not sure where you got real scientists from. The OP who wrote the story submission didn't say he was a real scientists verses a fake one. Hell he didn't even say if he was or wasn't one.
That doesn't matter. The point is he's not thinking like a scientist despite using the lingo. Whether he actually is is of no consequence. Bad science is bad, regardless of who is doing it.
He said he wanted to run a proper scientific investigation and so far, most of the answers are, "give up, I don't believe in it, can't back that up with any evidence that they don't exists, but I know they don't, so don't even try to find out on your own".
More strawmen. Like myself, these other people explained why the most scientific course of action is not to waste his/her time pursuing this research.
Second, the vast majority of what we know about the world around us is directly linked to mans curiosity and desire to investigate what it doesn't know or completely understand. So this entire give up before you start because it's what I believe in bullshit is for the birds.
Third, you are completely wrong- mistaken the facts on your assumption "never before been ghosts and therefore make for a really stupid hypothesis to test". You simply do not know this because not all ghost stories have been investigated and there really is no way to do it accurately
Again, my post is not about disproving ghosts. It's about the uselessness of looking for them.
...when they supposedly don't even follow laws of nature like Physics. I mean hell, outside of seeing one that couldn't be explained away, how could you legitimately check them? You couldn't weight it because they float, you couldn't lock it in a box because they move through solids, you can't kill it without invoking some other supernatural incantation or something.
This has been answered, and only provides further reason against bothering with scientific endeavor.
This because no qualia are actually specified by use of the word "ghost."
And there likely will never be any with attitude like yours. Don't look into any of it because there is no information pointing to it being real so I "believe it's not real".
Look up the term "qualia"- it might actually help you understand the rest of my point. We can all see past your hostility and detect your embarrassment.
This leaves you with no idea what you are looking for wh
Considering you're confusing the methods behind discovery and invention with the the scientific pursuit of answers to known phenomena, you're hardly in a position to critique comments on the nature of scientific work. But on to the meat of the issue...
Your rant claiming GP argues you shouldn't check on strange noises is simply a strawman of your own device, and the "think of the children" appeal to emotion was tasteless. Instead GP simply states the obvious notion that a real scientist would not continue to associate strange noises with ghosts, because strange noises (or anything for that matter) have never before been ghosts and therefore make for a really stupid hypothesis to test. Should you actually discover a ghost, that'd certainly be worth studying, but until then the whole topic at hand is nearly as useless as your post. Speaking of the topic at hand...
Even a proton pack prop, as suggested above, is as good an idea as you can get for a test for "ghosts." This because no qualia are actually specified by use of the word "ghost." This leaves you with no idea what you are looking for when you happily ignore the fact that there's actually something causing the air to vibrate which should be the real focus of inquiry. Choosing night vision goggles like all those idiotic shows on television is no better a choice than a seismograph, scales, or Geiger counter. They all share equally unreasonable expectations of detecting whatever it is your think a "ghost" might be.
and (2) if many people do it, it will bankrupt the people who are advertised by the spam. This threat may convince companies that will hire spammers to think carefully before hiring a spammer.
But that's exactly what makes this one guy unremarkable. He's not going around helping others to sue the spammers which you suggest is the solution to the spam he "hates."
Sadly, he's not there to solve the problem. He's just another asshole out to make a quick buck without doing an honest day's work. That should never be praised, regardless of the harm he inflicts on other parties we don't like.
It's entirely possible that his taking $4,000 from that company actually causes them to increase the amount of spam they send in order to compensate for that "business expense". In this scenario, would he still be worthy of the praise he's getting?
... considering that accessing an email address requires you to verify that it's "really" you...
Ah- but those quotation marks are key here.
Email only requires that you are a partner to the secret for unlocking access, not the person whose name is on the account. Gmail doesn't care that I'm neither my mother nor grandmother when I'm asked to sign into their accounts on occasion. So an identity verification analogy doesn't well. A closer analogy would be to FedEx delivering a package to my house and giving it to anybody who opens the door and signs for the package (even a burglar could get it).
As for technical ability to open the email, the defendant claims she stored the password in a book sitting next to the computer, which is the only thing you'd need as her husband. That she didn't seek to guard it settles arguments about locking her account.
Your right, we should just make everyone sign a contract.
1) It's "you're", as in "you are". 2) You can't force people to sign contracts. He did so of his own free will. He didn't have to accept being deputized, and he could have found a different place to get a gig as a pilot.
...blah blah blah...
3) Uh-huh...
Hes so dangerous as he is now./sarc
4) It's not him who is the concern of the TSA, it is his action of revealing possible security holes which is the danger with which the government must be concerned. If you want to talk about how this is only "security theater" that's fine, but what does liberty have to do with this matter? Note that he has not been arrested, or even detained for questioning. What trial are you talking about? What treason charges have been brought? Your grip on reality is what you should be concerned with. 5) You're a jackass. You should get that checked.
...TSA is not a company (correct me if I am wrong), it is public: which means he is informing the owners of the company (the public)...
Nonsense. You don't get to just waltz into a military base and take a tank out for a ride, because you "own" it.
Perhaps collectively, you could say that the public owns everything that government does. But as individual private citizens we don't own government. We only determine it. It's independent of us, while being subject to our approval. Your right to information about the TSA's operations is limited to the FOIA. No more, no less.
This pilot was acting as an individual, not in an official capacity which would require him to report his concerns to his supervisors. He was not "whistle-blowing" because, as you pointed out, he was not speaking out against his employer. More than that, his speech is probably contractually limited based on his access to security protocols, in which case he's may have breached that trust as well as actual security. It's nice to see people standing up to government, but it's not certain that this man was doing the right thing.
Your understanding of the definition of "smart" is wrong. You confused my use of the word "grow" for "evolution". And then you misunderstood my use of the word "evolved" to mean literal evolution, rather than being a slight against the idiots among us who think scientific progress stems from religious conviction. When people call you a neanderthal, they don't really mean you're not as much a homo as they are. Not genus-wise anyway.
All in all, great job showing us how incapable you are of reading what wasn't a very difficult post. Picking part of one sentence to take out of context to suit your "argument" kinda gave away the fact that you are nothing more than a loon.
As for the demonstration of Godwin's Law, that's some really twisted "logic" you've got there-. How exactly did you get from a discussion about the relationship between belief and science to intentional depopulation and genetic machination? You might want to get some professional help for that- that wasn't where I was going, you introduced that line of insanity all on your own. My actual opinion is you'll never breed with anyone worthwhile and that's good because we'll always need your type to milk cows and flip burgers. Mmmm... Cheeseburgers...
If they had then a federal judge never would have found the law unconstitutional.
I believe you meant to say "...one out of three federal judges examining the issue so far, who is also connected to anti-healthcare reform, never would have found the law unconstitutional."
Just because one lower-court activist judge has a problem with the law doesn't mean the law is actually unconstitutional. Of course, we could change that if you don't mind throwing away the constitution in which you only claim to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh huh. It's not you, it's everybody else in the world. See, that's exactly why ShnowDoggie made the tinfoil hat comment.
You're lucky we don't throw you people in asylums anymore.
The point I was making is that there is a power structure behind the tax code and that unless you give up something, you're unlikely to get the change you clamor for.
As for being off topic, I'm afraid you are. The tax code in question is actually very simple and if you think the calculations for Medicare and Social Security need simplification you're out of your mind. That's not to say there isn't complexity in the tax code, simply that it does not lie within the scope of this discussion.
Did you read the rant I replied to? It actually is bat-shit crazy.
Why isn't "profit" considered "income"?
Obvious. Because corporations aren't peo....
Err... Can I get back to you on that?
You missed the point, genius. Your rant is off topic and excessively rant-y. Nobody here wants to debate with you because you're bat-shit crazy. You should seek professional help or at least a hobby where you don't interact with strangers.
When you volunteer to double your personal share of the tax burden you can make it as simple as you like. Until then keep dreaming but do try to stay on topic.
This is a ridiculous line of reasoning. The $1 salaries taken by high-tech execs isn't about avoiding taxes - it's about leadership and morale.
It's actually a voluntary decrease in their compensation from previous years, they aren't shifting their salary into bonuses or other forms of pay. You can't accuse them of trying to get around paying taxes because they're not coming out ahead financially.
Now if you want to blame them for not contributing as much tax as they could, you may have a technically correct point, but good luck trying to frame a valid argument in your effort to make them look bad. And if you do, try not to keep confusing value with compensation- the value a company gets from an employee is not taxable.
They were named after computing culture icon- Larry Laffer.
Same reason they delay DVD releases. The production companies are giving theater owners a chance to profit off the movies, otherwise some people may just buy the DVD.
Fixed that for me. If you're talking about the children market that's sounds likely to be true, since paying a fortune for the privilege to schlep your screaming kids to eat junk in a movie theater packed with dozens of other screaming kids is to be avoided.
I used to be a guy who would go see something at the cinema but never bought the DVD. I've since gotten myself a decent screen and swapped to the opposite, rarely visiting the movies and buying DVDs instead (though very rarely buying a DVD I've seen on the big screen). These days by the time DVDs come on sale I've forgotten about the movie and the "own-it-yourself" property-centric advertising gives me little interest in buying something I would have purchased earlier.
Downloading is that significantly different from recording from the 70s radio/bootleg coping which anybody could and did do with readily available hardware. If you're talking about 50 years ago, they can certainly use some modernization.
Assuming a free market with record labels fiercely competing to sell their units, wouldn't one of the first tasks for the "invisible hand" be a better experience for the user- say perhaps providing fastest possible delivery? They could easily play a requested song on their website at low cost charge with MAFIAAbucks and I'm sure that would make a pretty penny.
In reality the labels are in cahoots and collectively uninsightful, which gives us the technological feet-dragging, price-fixing, and the suing of their customers. And as pointed out by my fellow curmudgeons- defective products. This minor change does nothing to bring me back to being a direct customer. I'm still stuck with the combination of Pandora and jumping oldies/classics presets on my car radio.
Of course it's socialist, since you can't hop off a train at a moment's notice to use the drive-thru at your pick of a McDonald's, Wendy's, KFC or Taco Bell. That's a very important value to us Americans. It's even in the constitution.
Very informative- thanks for that.
And beside online purchases there is also the emergence of games which are not purchased (Flash games), use micro-transactions (Facebook, LOTRO) and subscription based games (WoW) which derive their main revenue post-box sale. Ignoring these and why they are very popular while speculating on trends is short-sighted.
Something I find so strange is retail sales of game cards, which are not only far less cost-effective than online sales, but are also generally purchased by/for kids for whom that's not technically challenging.
Children attach a lot of importance to their day of birth. Sadly, too many of them never grow out of it or benefit from school and continue to buy the lie.
Perhaps it's more of your reading and reading comprehension skills sucks. And the entire point of my argument is that you don't know "tool [xyz] can detect ghosts" or not, you only know the ones people have attempted to use and reported on the results have not been able to find anything. That doesn't mean that none of them will ever work or that none has every detected anything supernatural. It means if it did we don't know about it.
I take it back. You don't even possess the writing skills of a third grader and they deserve my apology for being so unfairly compared. This passage was exceptionally idiotic: grammatically, logically, lexically, maturely- just name the error category and you've provided an appropriate pedagogical "wrong way" example for text books.
Thanks for proving my point about how convoluted and incomprehensible your posts have been. Your chosen handle describes you perfectly.
Apologies I'm distorting your point but I don't understand your meaning on expectation. Are we talking about finding in the alleged "haunted house" some kind of space where the known laws of nature don't apply?
Is the intention that they should be dropping something and making sure it's acquiring 9.81 m/s^2? Then shining a laser beam and measuring c? Then calculating the speed of sound? Then testing if water freezes at 0c and boils at 100c (and do we stop at H2O or test all elements and compounds)? Then making sure elasticity and friction work? Do we need to thoroughly test electromagnetism, pressure, Newton's third law, buoyancy, and nuclear reaction? My point is why would one think any of these would yield a surprising result in a "haunted house", and what would be sufficient to determine "deviation"- .001%, 3%, 50% ? I would sooner expect a minor deviation be more likely caused by experimental inaccuracy, where your average ghost hunter would point to it as further proof of the "supernatural."
We can't simply run around testing for "everything" - that's not science. That's what physicians do when there's something obviously and dangerously wrong but they can't figure out what. It's a last resort, not the modus operendi of physicists.
Further, all these assumptions that "ghosts" or anything for that matter is "supernatural" is unwarranted. There is no proof of anything supernatural but only speculation, myth and superstition.
Says the confused. Fuck dude, where is the confusion? I'm not confusing anything. It appears that you are the one who is confused based on your own incorrect assumptions.
Fuck you're a lazy one. For one, you don't actually go out and observe transistors in nature and then try to explain how they work. The process of understanding how momentum works is a very different process from utilizing already-known science to build a device you imagined would be useful. State these alleged "incorrect assumptions" if you can find them.
(blah blah blah)....you twit... I did not, and it's pretty clear in my writing... "Further research in the area, after this much overwhelming evidence, is useless". He simply doesn't know if it would or would not be useless until after the research was done.
Hate to break it to you but your writing sucks, kiddo. It's been a long time since your third grade teacher told you otherwise and that hasn't been the case for a long time. Here's a tip: when you feel the need to call someone names, you don't have a decent argument. The whole point of my argument which you cannot seem to grasp is that the hypothesis isn't "there are no ghosts," but rather "tool [xyz] can detect ghosts". More detail explaining what shouldn't need it following more of your nonsense.
First of all, I'm not sure where you got real scientists from. The OP who wrote the story submission didn't say he was a real scientists verses a fake one. Hell he didn't even say if he was or wasn't one.
That doesn't matter. The point is he's not thinking like a scientist despite using the lingo. Whether he actually is is of no consequence. Bad science is bad, regardless of who is doing it.
He said he wanted to run a proper scientific investigation and so far, most of the answers are, "give up, I don't believe in it, can't back that up with any evidence that they don't exists, but I know they don't, so don't even try to find out on your own".
More strawmen. Like myself, these other people explained why the most scientific course of action is not to waste his/her time pursuing this research.
Second, the vast majority of what we know about the world around us is directly linked to mans curiosity and desire to investigate what it doesn't know or completely understand. So this entire give up before you start because it's what I believe in bullshit is for the birds.
Third, you are completely wrong- mistaken the facts on your assumption "never before been ghosts and therefore make for a really stupid hypothesis to test". You simply do not know this because not all ghost stories have been investigated and there really is no way to do it accurately
Again, my post is not about disproving ghosts. It's about the uselessness of looking for them.
...when they supposedly don't even follow laws of nature like Physics. I mean hell, outside of seeing one that couldn't be explained away, how could you legitimately check them? You couldn't weight it because they float, you couldn't lock it in a box because they move through solids, you can't kill it without invoking some other supernatural incantation or something.
This has been answered, and only provides further reason against bothering with scientific endeavor.
This because no qualia are actually specified by use of the word "ghost."
And there likely will never be any with attitude like yours. Don't look into any of it because there is no information pointing to it being real so I "believe it's not real".
Look up the term "qualia"- it might actually help you understand the rest of my point. We can all see past your hostility and detect your embarrassment.
I was thinking "religion", "[enter deity here] spoke to me and told me you must [enter BS here]" and "get into heaven."
This is fun!
Considering you're confusing the methods behind discovery and invention with the the scientific pursuit of answers to known phenomena, you're hardly in a position to critique comments on the nature of scientific work. But on to the meat of the issue...
Your rant claiming GP argues you shouldn't check on strange noises is simply a strawman of your own device, and the "think of the children" appeal to emotion was tasteless. Instead GP simply states the obvious notion that a real scientist would not continue to associate strange noises with ghosts, because strange noises (or anything for that matter) have never before been ghosts and therefore make for a really stupid hypothesis to test. Should you actually discover a ghost, that'd certainly be worth studying, but until then the whole topic at hand is nearly as useless as your post. Speaking of the topic at hand...
Even a proton pack prop, as suggested above, is as good an idea as you can get for a test for "ghosts." This because no qualia are actually specified by use of the word "ghost." This leaves you with no idea what you are looking for when you happily ignore the fact that there's actually something causing the air to vibrate which should be the real focus of inquiry. Choosing night vision goggles like all those idiotic shows on television is no better a choice than a seismograph, scales, or Geiger counter. They all share equally unreasonable expectations of detecting whatever it is your think a "ghost" might be.
and (2) if many people do it, it will bankrupt the people who are advertised by the spam. This threat may convince companies that will hire spammers to think carefully before hiring a spammer.
But that's exactly what makes this one guy unremarkable. He's not going around helping others to sue the spammers which you suggest is the solution to the spam he "hates."
Sadly, he's not there to solve the problem. He's just another asshole out to make a quick buck without doing an honest day's work. That should never be praised, regardless of the harm he inflicts on other parties we don't like.
It's entirely possible that his taking $4,000 from that company actually causes them to increase the amount of spam they send in order to compensate for that "business expense". In this scenario, would he still be worthy of the praise he's getting?
... considering that accessing an email address requires you to verify that it's "really" you ...
Ah- but those quotation marks are key here.
Email only requires that you are a partner to the secret for unlocking access, not the person whose name is on the account. Gmail doesn't care that I'm neither my mother nor grandmother when I'm asked to sign into their accounts on occasion. So an identity verification analogy doesn't well. A closer analogy would be to FedEx delivering a package to my house and giving it to anybody who opens the door and signs for the package (even a burglar could get it).
As for technical ability to open the email, the defendant claims she stored the password in a book sitting next to the computer, which is the only thing you'd need as her husband. That she didn't seek to guard it settles arguments about locking her account.
Your right, we should just make everyone sign a contract.
1) It's "you're", as in "you are".
2) You can't force people to sign contracts. He did so of his own free will. He didn't have to accept being deputized, and he could have found a different place to get a gig as a pilot.
...blah blah blah...
3) Uh-huh...
Hes so dangerous as he is now. /sarc
4) It's not him who is the concern of the TSA, it is his action of revealing possible security holes which is the danger with which the government must be concerned. If you want to talk about how this is only "security theater" that's fine, but what does liberty have to do with this matter? Note that he has not been arrested, or even detained for questioning. What trial are you talking about? What treason charges have been brought? Your grip on reality is what you should be concerned with.
5) You're a jackass. You should get that checked.
Yawn.
Then stop voting for those sock puppets and bitching about how somebody else is at fault for what's "wrong with America today."
If ever there was something needing a -1 Redundant, your post is it, Jim.
...TSA is not a company (correct me if I am wrong), it is public: which means he is informing the owners of the company (the public)...
Nonsense. You don't get to just waltz into a military base and take a tank out for a ride, because you "own" it.
Perhaps collectively, you could say that the public owns everything that government does. But as individual private citizens we don't own government. We only determine it. It's independent of us, while being subject to our approval. Your right to information about the TSA's operations is limited to the FOIA. No more, no less.
This pilot was acting as an individual, not in an official capacity which would require him to report his concerns to his supervisors. He was not "whistle-blowing" because, as you pointed out, he was not speaking out against his employer. More than that, his speech is probably contractually limited based on his access to security protocols, in which case he's may have breached that trust as well as actual security. It's nice to see people standing up to government, but it's not certain that this man was doing the right thing.
Your understanding of the definition of "smart" is wrong. You confused my use of the word "grow" for "evolution". And then you misunderstood my use of the word "evolved" to mean literal evolution, rather than being a slight against the idiots among us who think scientific progress stems from religious conviction. When people call you a neanderthal, they don't really mean you're not as much a homo as they are. Not genus-wise anyway.
All in all, great job showing us how incapable you are of reading what wasn't a very difficult post. Picking part of one sentence to take out of context to suit your "argument" kinda gave away the fact that you are nothing more than a loon.
As for the demonstration of Godwin's Law, that's some really twisted "logic" you've got there-. How exactly did you get from a discussion about the relationship between belief and science to intentional depopulation and genetic machination? You might want to get some professional help for that- that wasn't where I was going, you introduced that line of insanity all on your own. My actual opinion is you'll never breed with anyone worthwhile and that's good because we'll always need your type to milk cows and flip burgers. Mmmm... Cheeseburgers...
If they had then a federal judge never would have found the law unconstitutional.
I believe you meant to say "...one out of three federal judges examining the issue so far, who is also connected to anti-healthcare reform, never would have found the law unconstitutional."
Just because one lower-court activist judge has a problem with the law doesn't mean the law is actually unconstitutional. Of course, we could change that if you don't mind throwing away the constitution in which you only claim to believe.