Slashdot Mirror

I'll no doubt regret agreeing with Spun on anything, but he's right.

Science, and for that matter logic has been condemned as an instrument of the patriarchy for around 30 years now. It's a core tenet of Post-Modernism that logic itself is a tool of oppression to be discarded, and Post-Modernism devoured academic feminism decades ago. I read peer-reviewed papers (in philosophy) to this effect in the early 90s, and it's only become more mainstream in academia.

If you look at history serious science (not pseudo-science) has been at best tolerated and worst condemned usually with loss of life since science has a tendency to find out how things actually work in the real world. This, of course, makes many religions very uncomfortable since the God of the gaps is shrinking.

You only have to look at the Theory of Evolution (not to be confused with Abiogenesis ) and Astronomy which is not to be confused with the so-called psudo science of Astrology.

Even today you have smart (I am being polite here) people who deny the evidence preferring to believe some "old" books that were purportedly written by their deity of choice but strangely all have earthbound writers and publishers.

It wasn't that long ago that HIV/AIDS was spreading like wildfire on the African continent because there was a belief that HIV/AIDS could be cured by having sex with a virgin...

additional examples:

Penis-Snatching Panics Resurface in Africa.

Witch doctors sacrificing children in this drought-stricken African country

Malawi Police Arrest 140 After Mob Attacks on 'Vampires'

In any case, I agree that

Really, you agree that that slipshod, incoherent, thoughtless post is what it means to be an American?

That's damning by association. Don't you dare insult America like that again.

Further, if you want to understand how to parse the language, and avoid the misunderstanding that the 2nd only applies to militias, there are lots of articles out there which discuss how to parse it in the context it was written in, such as this pretty long article about it.

Lots of articles? True. But that's an empty and vacuous article that fails in the second paragraph:

But the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is indeed a well-crafted sentence.

No, it is not. It's poorly written, and an honest historical analysis would admit it. The most damning thing? He doesn't deny the facts of the inconsistent written versions. So by his own words, he should know better.

I don't know why so many fools insist on sanctifying the specific wording of the Amendment, when they could accomplish so much more avoiding such wasteful and fruitless argumentation by engaging in a direct addressing of the particulars instead.

some other reading on the subject.

That's what it should mean to be American. Thoughtful, earnest consideration, by people with the integrity to realize that they cannot rest on the laurels of the past, that glorification of what was is a way to ignore what is, and that they need to be responsible for their own decisions.

This is the sort of thing that makes me think that the Second Amendment Advocates are worse than the Sixteenthers, they could make a legitimate and persuasive argument, but obstinately refuse.

Try "Male Superiority in Spatial Navigation: Adaptation or Side Effect?". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 87 (4): 289â"313. ISSN 0033-5770

Here's a less rigorous but interesting experiment: https://www.livescience.com/15...

What is interesting is that while there do appear to be some physical differences between men and women's brains when doing some of these tasks, they basically amount to nothing when you remove the cultural influence. You can devise tests that allow either gender to do better by tailoring to their specific traits, but in practice for almost every real-world task both perform about the same with any cultural differences being overcome with fairly minimal training.

"Playing an Action Video Game Reduces Gender Differences in Spatial Cognition". Psychological Science. 18 (10): 850â"855.

No one except you claimed that everything would die off.

FUD about climate change comes from many supposedly authoritative sources:

Stephen Hawking: Earth Could Turn Into Hothouse Planet Like Venus

NASA scientist warns of runaway global warming

don't waste space on dead people
it makes no sense you even have a choice about this

Or skip the energy waste of cremation and just go with a natural burial in a compostable coffin:

https://www.livescience.com/74...

Underwater volcanism is my first guess. There is probably a convective current starting from the heated area at sea floor beneath the hole. The heat source was probably always there, but now the temperature of sea water has risen enough that with additional heating it is enough to melt the ice.

Perhaps. I'm a firm believer in the laws of thermodynamics, but I certainly wouldn't declare this as related to AGW. This despite the denialists rushing to declare that people are saying it is, so they can have a strawman to beat up.

And yes folks, we are allowed to speculate. Scientists do this all the time in order to eliminate unlikely candidates for the phenomenon, like the open water being caused by the pancake syrup at iHop.

You are correct that volcanic activity is a good first guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Antarctica is a pretty busy place in that way. A group has claimed to have found 91 previously unknown volcanoes, https://www.engadget.com/2017/... but these have not been confirmed as of yet.

This one is active and confirmed https://www.livescience.com/41... .

Global warming? I seriously doubt it. A problem for humans? Not unless this is the initial bowshots of a nascent super-volcano. Interesting as all hell, and it surely wouldn't hurt to find out the cause.

Almost none of the fundamental technology we are using right now is based off developments due to the profit motive. This is a myth the rural population tells its children.

Your statement is about as accurate references to the tooth fairy or santa clause

The internet? Defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Computing? Defense. https://www.computerhope.com/i...

Electricity? Pure intellectual curiosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Home electricity distribution? Half profit motive, half ego battle.

https://www.livescience.com/46...

Roughly 1/8ths of the underlying motivations came from profit motive.

You can start here, or here. Of course that's just from the past week or so, this stuff is becoming more and more frequent and obvious to anyone who studies this area. Please feel free to expand your education on your own, don't limit yourself to us holding your hand and showing you what is happening.

US in Longest 'Hurricane Drought' in Recorded History

The facts disagree with you

https://www.livescience.com/53...

I, for one, am much better at staying up than getting up. If I don't drink two cups of coffee before a shower, I'll forget whether I washed my hair. This may happen up to five times (I think...) in a row. Most of my "wasted" time in the mornings is the minimum amount of time to scrape the blear out of my eyes and make sure I'm safe to drive before I get in a car.

Here are some links to more information on atomic clocks, their development, and why they're needed:
How and why atomic clocks were invented
How atomic clock accuracy was greatly increased
How atomic clocks work
Animations showing how atomic clocks work
Why atomic clocks are needed for GPS
Video showing how atomic clocks are used for GPS

Starlight, starbright. Want to go even further back, watch the skies, well at least get a computer to watch the skies https://www.livescience.com/34..., so pick the brightest for a location fix and of course there is our own sun and moon. So tweak to adjust the light sensor to suit a specific frequency of starlight and know the time/date and you are pretty much done, tie that into radar and then well, if you are fussy, provide satellite upload for shipping telemetry and everything should be fine. In fact shipping telemetry upload should be compulsory prior to a ship entering territorial waters (ship details, crew details, cargo details, location and course and that should start at least 100km from port of destination).

When it comes to global warming, Fido and Fluffy are part of the problem, a new study by UCLA indicates. Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found.

That's a weird definition of "significant" given that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 alone are around 10 billion tons per year.

That's ten billion tons of carbon, which comes out to about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide. (Increased to about 40 billion (metric) tons now.)
https://www.livescience.com/47...

Turns out there's more than one horse in the barn. You don't leave the barn door open just because one got out. We've not had any problems. Every impact so far? Great, we've survived them. Heck, hundreds of people survive a drunk drive every night. We still try to stop them if we can. And no, the serious people looking have done more than just guess or blow smoke.

Don't conflate them with the people full of shit.

Here are some non-slashdot articles for you as well...

As you can see my question was not unreasonable...

https://www.ecowatch.com/megad...

https://www.livescience.com/21...

Exactly what I was going to post

Fat = more estrogen = less sperm

Not to mention the other parts of our diet.

Try the massive contamination of drinking water with estrogen from birth control pills as well as the estrogen mimickers such as soy products.

Every time Mr. Skinny Jeans gets a soy Cappuccino along with his Tofu smoothie, goodbye a little of the Mr. and hello a little more of the Ms.

I'm all for reproductive rights, but if you even mention the possibility that all those birth control pills are screwing up the hormonal balance of literally everything that uses water, at least in the U.S., holey moley, the feminists will scream bloody murder.

Repeat after me: "Nothing, nothing on Earth matters more than MY reproductive rights!! Not my health, not your health, not the frogs and fishes health. NOTHING!!!"

Estrogen

Estrogen

Estrogen

The hottest part of the day is between 2 and 3 pm, because of thermal inertia. And now they're getting rid of the 3-hour break just as global warming is going to make it a smart move, or in some areas, a matter of life and death. A heat wave killed almost 15,000 in France. Not normally a place you'd associate with death by heat.

And it's just going to get worse, when you combine increased high temperatures and an aging population.

CO2 isn't pollution and is a red hearing argument to justify any action the manipulators want.

Plants breathe it.

There are historical times when it has been much higher than it is now.

Volcano's release it at staggering rates that may or may not outpace what humanity does. Regardless, even ones that appear to be dormant and inactive can still release it.

If you want to lower CO2 levels plant more plants to breathe it in and quit polluting the oceans - something which all costal nations are guilty of, many worse than the U.S. The right kinds of plankton can suck that right out of the atmosphere.

That money was meant to weaken the U.S. to knock us down a few notches so that we're easier to manipulate and control.

Climate change is real and always has been. Pollution is real and should be avoided. The U.S. was historically probably the worst on earth, but no longer and we're improving all the time. Everyone on earth can learn from our mistakes, our contribution is in R&D that we are sharing, the fact the nations that didn't have to contribute despite being physically huge and huge polluters aren't taking full advantage of the R&D we've put into doing these things cleaner should be a larger concern. China already effectively runs on slave labor and has streams of our money coming in - they can clean up over there, they can afford the labor to implement clean factories anyways.

True, of course (maybe with some slight adjustment to the exact timing). The idea that the globe is ever static is a problem when talking about "survival" of species.

The Great Barrier Reef is about 500,000 years old, but it hasn't always looked as it does today. Reefs on Australia's continental shelf have taken on many forms, depending on the sea level, and the current formation is about 6,000 to 8,000 years old.

According to the Australian Institute of Marine Science and other scientific research, the current reef began to form during the Last Glacial Maximum. This period, which occurred from about 26,500 years ago to 19,000 to 20,000 years ago, ushered in significant environmental changes in the region, including a dramatic drop in sea levels.

The land that forms the base of the Great Barrier Reef is the remains of the sediments of the Great Dividing Range, Australia's largest mountain range. About 13,000 years ago, the sea level was 200 feet (61 meters) lower than the current level, and corals began to grow around the hills of the coastal plain, which had become continental islands. The sea level continued to rise during a warming period as glaciers melted. Most of the continental islands were submerged, and the coral remained to form the reefs and cays (low-elevation sandy islands) of today.

https://www.livescience.com/62...

History is a good teacher.

The Colony Shale Oil Project was started in the 1970's as a result of the OPEC oil embargo and the oil shortages and (relatively) high prices that Americans experienced through the 1970s.

The project continued for almost a decade, and when it was about to start producing, OPEC started pumping more oil and dropped the global price to the point that the project had to be abandoned.

This is all pretty well documented and understood, what questions do you have about it?

If you think of say an urban area and the task of the robot(s) is to secure a building it has to execute so many practical little details, just using a door handle is challenging outside the lab.

The Russians apparently solved the door handle problem a while back...

You live in an alternative universe. War is one of the most profitable businesses in America. Just because it causes the government to go into debt when we bomb countries that did not attack us doesn't mean that defense contractors don't make huge profits. But you knew that so I assume you are not trying to have a meaningful discussion.

How about black hole spending on biomedical research to cure cancer, instead of killing people with bombs?

Deforestation never happened http://www.livescience.com/276... and the earth is flat.

I remember a long time ago a person I used to know had an uncle who needed brain surgery. The surgery went fantastically well. But he died from brain fungus. You are at risk, any time you open the skull. I did a search on Google to see if they have solved the problem, but the results were very discouraging. One was quite unnerving! http://www.livescience.com/477...

All they need to do is to heat it to below absolute zero and then let it warm up a little.

Daylight savings is the perfect example of government's regulatory overreach interference in people's lives for theoretical gain. What is there is an increase in stress, time, money and heart attacks.

It's a concept that kills people, something studies have shown for years. Meanwhile anyone who wants an extra hour of daylight can make a personal choice and adjust their sleep schedule.

http://www.livescience.com/567...
https://permies.com/t/509/Debu...
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfor...
https://www.theatlantic.com/na...

Since the topic is evolution of life on earth, if religion was an organism it would have to be of the parasitic variety that modifies host behavior to in order to reproduce itself, much like the kind of fungus that infects ant brains. There are of course many types of strains of this ephemeral brain parasite, but this AC seems to infected with the more malevolent sort that signals false imminent danger along with the behavioral modification required in order to avoid it. This seems to be the first stage in finding new hosts that are weak in cognitive and critical thinking ability and who are ripe for the mental conditioning necessary in order to continue its life cycle.

Evolution, in all its forms, truly is fascinating.

The legal consequences of sex discrimination and harassment in the workplace are so serious that it is unbelievable that HR would not have taken more decisive action. Given that neither Fowler nor the many other women she says have been harassed have sued over sex discrimination and instead chose to attack the company on her blog, it seems plausible that she is exaggerating in order to get back at her former employer (a form of indirect aggression).

Typing is slower than talking.
Talking is slower than thought.

But by how much? This question was relevant to designers of old pen and paper RPGs (who needed to be concerned about how much could be communicated in a combat round, with magical aids such as telepathy and other such things that the game rules allowed), but I've never seen it discussed by like, scientists.

So I googled it.

http://www.livescience.com/578...

But that seems to mostly cover the latency, not the bandwidth.

Is the bandwidth actually that important? Musk is probably using it as a standin for other things, but I really think we'd need some evidence to see that it is. Even this far into knowledge of cognition, we don't know which cognition tasks are actually difficult, versus which ones are difficult for humans. We also don't know how thoughts work in general, even if we have a pretty good idea about how some specific tasks are solved by humans.

Outgoing bandwidth seems like it might be a problem for a billionaire, or a president, or a teacher. But in general, is it really? In the time since I saw this article to when I clicked refresh, there's been quite a few responses. I've read some of them. I could read them all, given time. But the available data in this comment section will, before the discussion is archived, add up to several minutes of reading for someone who reads fast. Consideration of input bandwidth (and there, reading is much faster than typing, and I'm pretty sure it is faster than speech) seems pretty important, especially to the majority of communication which has to inform, express, and persuade rather than command and instruct.

Telling a computer what to do in little time or effort has been a pretty big push in most computing industries for years now, and somehow voice instruction ends up being lame compared to typing (despite its superior bandwidth), and giving detailed instructions, such as that needed when programming, seems to be very slow indeed when compared with more abstract communications.

So overall I disagree that output bandwidth is going to be the limiter here. There's already more discussion than you can effortlessly input on any topic, and the speed of deeper thinking seems to be pretty slow on a lot of measures anyway.

You've purposely ignored the switch that occurred between Lincoln's Republicans and today's Republicans.

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.

Here's another source:

1896: William Jennings Bryan incorporates the Populist Party vote, giving the democrats a sizable left wing on economics that it didn't have before.

1912: Theodore Roosevelt breaks from the republicans and runs as the candidate of the Progressive Party - this makes the republican progressive wing - once a third to a half of the republican coalition, much less committed to the party going forward and they never really reconcile. Republican leadership comes more and more from its conservative wing after that.

1932-45: Franklin Roosevelt essentially adopts most of the old Progressive platform and pretty much incorporates that whole vote into his Democratic coalition. This puts the party on a collision course when it comes to social policy.

1964: Lyndon Johnson essentially divorces the longest marriage the democratic party had: the one with southern whites. By making Civil Rights part of the Democratic platform, the republicans lose basically all of what's left of their black constituencies - which had been a significant part of their remaining progressive vote in northern urban areas. The democrats start to hemorrhage southern whites rapidly - you see George Wallace run for president in 1968.

2000: The process is 98% complete. By this time liberals are in the democrats and conservatives in the republicans for the most part.

There may be a reason for the attitude, or perhaps your nerd friends are chimps? http://www.livescience.com/262...

The discovery reinforces earlier discoveries from last year about civilizations that groomed the rainforests and lived in the regions for thousands of years before Columbus arrived (with diseases) that wiped them out.

http://www.livescience.com/516...

" Venice DOES seem to have major problems with flooding, something that will be very expensive to fix"

Mainly because Venice is sinking:
http://www.livescience.com/191...

I have evidence that sitting is possibly more or at least dangerous http://www.livescience.com/530...
If you are chasing some sort of optimized outcome for each individual you need to start addressing daily habits like sitting and diet before focusing on smoking. If you are willing to go that far, I'm not sure we have even the illusion of individual liberty or self determination left.

http://www.livescience.com/576... describes growing a mouse pancreas in a rat for diabetes research. There are many good applications of this type of research but I can also see it going very wrong.

The appendix is a slimy, dead-end sac that hangs between the small and large intestines. It's about a half inch in diameter and three inches long. As quickly as 11 weeks after conception, the appendix starts making endocrine cells for the developing fetus. Endocrine cells secrete useful chemicals, such as hormones, and the appendix endocrine cells secrete amines and peptide hormones that help with biological checks and balances as the fetus grows.

After birth, the appendix mainly helps the body stave off disease by serving as a lymphoid organ. Lymphoid organs, with their lymphoid tissue, make white blood cells and antibodies.

The appendix, by virtue of its lymphoid tissue, is part of a complicated chain that makes B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and a class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A antibodies. The appendix also produces certain chemicals that help direct the white blood cells to the parts of the body where they are needed the most.

The dirty gut is a good training ground for young white blood cells. The appendix, with its sac routinely collecting and expelling foodstuffs, exposes the white blood cells to myriad bacteria, viruses and drugs passing through the gastrointestinal tract. This way, the white blood cells learn to fight potentially deadly bacteria, such as E.coli.

The appendix's contribution to the body's white blood cell and antibody production reaches its peak when you are about 20 or 30 years old, then production falls off sharply. By age 60, the appendix serves very little active purpose. ...

Emphasis mIne.

In the long gone '60s, Sony's researchers found out how to simulate 3D as we know it nowadays. A comprehensive study on how it worked and any side effects was ordered. The results were disturbingly negative and social responsibility prevailed over profit & greed. The technology was buried and disappeared. 40 years later someone rediscovered the tech or simply came across the old files. It was the same old dangerous shit. But times, they are a'changing, and the old responsibility was long gone. Everyone jumped on the 3D bandwagon, public health be damned. But it failed in the marketplace as the old Sony researchers had predicted: it was bad for you and the effect wasn't worth the risk.

I guess if true 3D laser holography doesn't evolve to an accesible level, in 20-30 years we'll see this shit rise again like an immortal coackroach. A few links for your enlightment:

http://www.audioholics.com/edi...
http://www.strabismus.org/all_...
http://www.techrepublic.com/bl...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/08...
http://www.livescience.com/496...

The U.S. Department of the Navy rather keeps close tabs on the ocean

What, you mean the Northwest Passage is now open just like it was in 1854? Shocking.

Arctic and Antarctic are warming hasn't escaped their notice

Again, so what? Who gives a fuck? Man-made or natural variation. Change is permanent. It's always happening. Why are you getting into a funk about it? There's nothing you can do. Next you'll be telling me man-made climate change will increase volcanism. Which would be, you know, the most fucking retarded conclusion ever published in the history of science.

I listened and looked. Trouble is, I don't think you do. The second one with the news reporter is just damning if you bothered to watch it. So I'm disappointed, however not surprised.

Let's look at your link to hurricanes. To preface it, have you ever read the book "how to lie with statistics." I still own the copy I bought when I was in college in the 1980s. Lend it out from time to time, however I see it's online as a PDF now. You should read it. You really should read it so you know when you're being lied to. So what does the article say? Really not a whole lot, it also begins in the 1970s. Ok, this is your first major indication you're being lied to. Why just the 1970s? If they go further back, it disproves what they're trying to indoctrinate you with. They'd have you believe that bad storms never happened before. Hogg wash. In fact HOGG Island, NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 1890. Yes, 1890. I can cite plenty of other storms past that. So no, they are not stronger and they are not more frequent, and they know it. If they really were, oh boy - you'd really hear about it I'm sure. They would be in our face.

Your first citation about rising global temperatures. Here's a spot that I think you don't realize or understand. Things are warming up. We're not denying that. In fact, if you go back to Venice, you'll see water was rising up in the 1300s when they were trying to keep the Adriatic out way back then. Then we hit a little ice age - which we're coming out of right now. We are in fact going back to where we used to be before the little ice age. Please consider this article - http://www.livescience.com/143... . So this is showing you that Greenland was MUCH warmer than it is right now, and not that long ago (geologically speaking). At this point you should understand that this Man Man GW is almost certainly just a scam.

As for the fuel companies, do you really think that? You think that they won't adapt? Those guys will make a bunch of money either way. It's a red herring argument to fool people. What I can show you is Al Gore makes a boatload http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... . I think it's been well documented on /. that in "science" you want to show MMGW - lots of funds. Want to show MMGW is a scam - you'd get tarred and feathered. You won't get a dime. It clearly isn't what a Democratic administration wants. It's all about control and money.

However plenty of real scientists throughout the world are speaking up. That's why they are having such a hard time. There just is no legitimate science behind it. Again, my citations and you can look up what they're saying like I did.

So just because I showed you in an easy to understand video you don't believe it? ok.
1) Algore was a D student in science at Harvard - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...
2) Teacher was Roger Reville, who told him he was wrong - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Yea, I know, a youtube video, it's actually a transcript from a chemical film based motion picture back in 1980. The citation also goes into Mr. Armstrong, and so on.

There are plenty of other citations about the same thing if for some reason you don't like cnsnews or the youtube transcript.

Could go on. However one thing is very clear to me - if Prof Reville where here today, he's say it's not a factor. That's what the real numbers show. The numbers before they are "adjusted". That other citation I gave you shows that graphically.

So where am I wrong? Algore didn't really have Reville for a professor at Harvard? He didn't really get a D? He hasn't systematically set up condi

Yeah, better be careful out there. They've hit magma in Iceland before.

http://www.livescience.com/301...

And elsewhere they're doing it intentionally! That's the kind of thing that makes me nervous.

https://science.slashdot.org/s...

I'm surprised to hear of them pumping water down a well with a magma chamber and having it work out so well!

https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

Hitting mud can be just as bad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The above is a glimpse into the mindset that is necessary before one becomes a suicide bomber and detonates in a crowded marketplace, or perhaps, someone who sets a person on fire for whatever reason and feels self righteous while watching them burn. It's always a little disturbing to be reminded that these self-flagellating and mentally scarred people exist.

Religion seems to evolve in a way that modifies human behavior much like this brain fungus alters the behavior of ants in order to best propagate itself. Here you see it compelling its host to spread itself, like some sort of ephemeral parasite.

Most of the shaking during an earthquake happens at frequencies which most closely match the resonance frequency of a 3-story building. If you look at pictures buildings damaged in the Loma Prieta and Northridge quakes, you see most of the collapsed buildings were 3- or 4-stories. Those two were quakes which were just on the cusp of being strong enough to collapse buildings (in an area with strict earthquake building codes). It's harder to see this in larger quakes because they have enough energy to collapse buildings outside this height, and subsequent fires (or tsunamis) can wipe out buildings which survived the initial quake.

A smaller building, like 1-story, has a higher resonance frequency and just gets moved from side-to-side by an earthquake. A larger building like a skyscraper kinda just shimmies in place. It's only the 3-story buildings (and to a lesser extent the 2-story and 4-story buildings) which shake more and more the longer the earthquake goes on, and eventually fall apart. For a large skyscraper, you just have to make the support structures connecting the building to the ground strong enough to withstand this shimmying. Or decouple it entirely from the ground by mounting the building on flexible joints which allow the skyscraper to shake at its lower resonance frequency while the earthquake shakes at a higher frequency. (You can see in the test that the 5-story building has a slightly lower frequency than the input earthquake shaking.)

The main danger of building on landfill is, as you've alluded, that one section of the land underneath the building will liquefy more than others, causing the building to tilt. Not a problem for a short, broad structure like a warehouse, but a serious danger for a tall structure. If you're building a skyscraper on landfill, you're supposed to dig down deep enough to sink the building's supports into bedrock. That way your skyscraper is essentially built on solid ground, just that its lowest levels are underground surrounded by a bunch of landfill, instead of its lowest levels being the ground floor and basement. That the building is sinking indicates this wasn't done.

This is more evidence that Pluto is getting colder. That the Earth is warming while other planets are getting colder is yet more proof that we are responsible for global warming. I'm sure the deniers will be out in force to accuse me of being a shill, but global warming is an undeniable fact.

Actually Pluto is getting Warmer like most of the solar system. Now when this gets ugly, I want everybody to notice that not only did I not start this, I didn't say anything about terrestrial anthropogenic warming either.

That the Republicans then talked of further delaying for the next 4 years should Clinton win sends an even more ominous message that they care more about politics than the Constitution, the Country and *all* of its people.

Where in the Constitution does it say there must be 9 supreme court justices?
Will you complain if Trump nominates us up to 11 justices and congress doesn't blanket approve his choices?

Never said otherwise, but there's a fairly long history of having 9 (since 1869) and certainly an odd number is more productive than an even number. It still holds that the Republican's actions on this are simply and purely partisan, not altruistic. As far as the actual number, this was/is actually set by Congress. From Why Are There 9 Supreme Court Justices?

The original U.S. Constitution did not set the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was up to Congress to decide, and in 1801, it set the number at five. But things didn’t stay that way for long.

"The number of Supreme Court justices has changed over the years," Kathy Arberg, spokesperson for the U.S. Supreme Court, told Life's Little Mysteries. "The number of justices has been as high as ten.”

Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863.

Then, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.

However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.

Why would you think he's smart enough to understand that?
Racism is correlated with stupidity.

There is plenty of evidence that more intelligent species kill off less intelligent species. So, where there is any pressure toward diversity at all, it follows that evolution tends to produce intelligence. Even if intelligence only provides an advantage in some tiny percentage of cases where life can exist (which seems quite pathological to me), that's all it takes to generate intelligence.

And considering how much information is out there about how money affects people's behavior and rationality, I think my case is strong.

http://www.livescience.com/112...

https://www.researchgate.net/p...

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://nymag.com/news/features...

Where do you get fear-mongering about ruining all arable land?

All over the place...

"severe crop failures and livestock shortages worldwide."
- http://www.livescience.com/370...

"average yields are predicted to decrease by 30â"46% before the end of the century under the slowest (B1) warming scenario and decrease by 63â"82% under the most rapid warming scenario"
- http://www.pnas.org/content/10...

"most of the Western Hemisphere (along with large parts of Eurasia, Africa, and Australia) may be at threat of extreme drought this century."
- http://www.skepticalscience.co...

"25 million more children will be malnourished in 2050 due to the impact of climate change on global agriculture."
"irrigated wheat yields, for example, will fall at least 20 percent by 2050 as a result of global warming"
"business as usual will guarantee disastrous consequences for the human race."
- http://www.scientificamerican....

"Decreased arability. Prime growing temperatures may shift to higher latitudes, where soil and nutrients may not be as suitable for producing crops, leaving lower-latitude areas less productive."
- http://www.climatehotmap.org/g...

It isn't from the scientists.

That sounds an awful lot like "No True Scotsman" to me...

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...
http://www.iflscience.com/heal...
http://www.livescience.com/547...

Propylene glycol, a chemical found in e-liquids, can irritate the eyes and airways, Siegel said. Early studies have also revealed that when propylene glycol or glycerin are heated and vaporized, they can degrade into formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, he said. Both of these chemicals are considered carcinogens, although it's not yet clear how repeated exposure to them may cause cancer, he said.

does not require much looking..

Does not require much looking...

Does not require much comprehension, either.
I know English is hard, but try and look up the difference between will and can and will and may.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...
http://www.iflscience.com/heal...
http://www.livescience.com/547...

Propylene glycol, a chemical found in e-liquids, can irritate the eyes and airways, Siegel said. Early studies have also revealed that when propylene glycol or glycerin are heated and vaporized, they can degrade into formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, he said. Both of these chemicals are considered carcinogens, although it's not yet clear how repeated exposure to them may cause cancer, he said.

does not require much looking..

Does not require much looking...