How to tell if someone is a wacko: is he a medical doctor who doesn't accept the underlying principles of modern biology? If so, then yes, he's a wacko.

That doesn't mean he's wrong with regard to economic matters, but it does mean you don't want to blindly hitch your intellectual wagon to his.

I's a fallacy in a logical context. Trouble is, people, and governments, are not logical entities.

I have nothing to hide, but I still don't post my name here...

As if that's even the slightest inconvenience to the NSA.

... of less healthy people, who probably experienced more malnutrition and disease in childhood, might explain it.

More likely it's just a bug in the survey's methodology.

... After all, they apologized and fired the Bertelsmann exec responsible.

Oh, wait, no, they didn't fire him. They promoted him to the position of President of Global Digital Business, US Sales, and Corporate Strategy.

Sony customers deserve their own entry in the DSM-V next to sufferers of Battered Spouse Syndrome.

If the answer involves giving money to Sony, you asked the wrong question.

It's far from clear that airbags are a net safety win for drivers who wear their seat belts. They're certainly profitable for the manufacturers, though.

It's an engineer-driven company. The earnings are complex numbers, but P/E is real. Wall Street just hasn't caught up with the newest GAAP guidelines yet.

I thought of this. Easy way to turn $80K into a few million, assuming you can borrow that much TSLA or buy enough call options.

Now, their plans are priced for things like gynecological exams for men and prostate exams for women

I don't understand this argument. How can these factors possibly cause the insurance to cost more? If they're impossible, which they are, then they cost nothing to underwrite.

No, that's not going to happen. This isn't 1930. Agriculture is a solved problem in the USA, with near zero marginal cost of production and almost no dependence on human labor.

Nothing short of total nuclear war is going to interrupt the flow of bread or circuses in America. You'll have to find some other trigger for your revolution.

If that's not libel, then the law has a bug, and needs to be fixed.

Regardless of the obscure legal technicalities, the facts are as follows: (1) Twitter is drawing a distinction between "safe" and "dangerous" sites; (2) Twitter is suggesting that the site in question is "dangerous," and (3) Twitter is causing the victim to suffer demonstrable losses as a direct result.

Twitter's act of drawing a distinction between "safe" and "dangerous" links should be what incurs the liability. They should not be able to wiggle out of it by using qualifiers like "potentially."

Everyone who has released software and had it marked by IE's SmartScreen filter with a lurid "Untrusted" warning dialog will understand this. Companies should not be allowed to do this without accountability.

This is what /r/scholar on Reddit does.

But conservatives passed a law which banned that practice in the 1930s, although they prefer that most people remain ignorant about that, as most people still believe that closed-shops are still common.

Can you elaborate on that? My understanding is that there are still a lot of states without right-to-work laws. (Not trolling or arguing, just unsure what you're referring to.)

A physician who rejects the basic principles of modern biology is like an electrician who doesn't believe in Ohm's Law. I'm not going to hire them, and I'm damned sure not going to vote for them.