Another funny joke: The three are talking again. The capitalist says "I love capitalism." The socialist wants to comment, but isn't allowed to. The communist doesn't say anything because he was taken away and shot last year.

I'll be here all week, try the veal!

You know, let's extend this to all of society. We need to eliminate the middleman "money" as a barrier to entry for all kinds of success. It's not fair that some people live in nicer houses than others. The government should decide who gets what house. And so on.

Hey, funny joke: A communist, a socialist, and a capitalist were standing around and chatting, and the socialist complained: "The other day, I had to stand in a queue to buy some meat." The capitalist asked: "What is a queue?" and the communist asked: "What is meat?"

Alright, noted. *grumble, grumble* With the country largely split down the middle into a two party system, you will find plenty of loons in both parties. There are other conservative-leaning individuals who know that the solution to undesirable speech is not censorship, but rather more speech. Read Mark Steyn on this any day of the week, or as quoted in the newspaper article, Eugene Volokh.

Will the owner of that private property try you in a private courtroom and sentence you to a privately owned prison for attempting to bring a gun onto the plane?

You're welcome to your opinion that the 2nd Amendment was a mistake.

These were items confiscated, i.e. stolen from citizens. Heaven forbid that American citizens think they have a right to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms is the mark of a terrorist. Not the kind of terrorist who actually blows up buildings or shoots people, mind you, rather just one who plays the part of "Terrorist" in the Security Theater.

Only to neo-Nazi mass murderers, huh? Thank you for sharing your fair, balanced, and nuanced opinion today.

What? Admitting you don't know the answer to that is racist!

You are using a lot of words, but you haven't added anything to the conversation. Nobody denies that there is a unique bell curve for each population, or heck, that the bell curve moves over time with the Flynn effect and the like.

No, the dogma I referred to has nothing to do with the scientific method, as it arrives at its own definite conclusion about the measured intelligence gap: that it's not genetically driven in any substantial way. It's dogmatic opinion and political correctness, not science.

That's politically correct baloney. Tests can be devised to gauge many types or aspects of intelligence. You can measure an individuals aptitude and/or ability, and then use it to predict in a very general way how that individual will perform on various tasks that benefit from such intelligence.

I characterized it as his expressions of honest (at least I take him at his word) opinion.

You appear to be part of that species of fence sitters who are unwilling to commit to anything even when your position gets ridiculous. Of course some intelligence tests have some part that is biased toward cultures. They are still of some use at estimating the parts of intelligence we most care about for practical purposes. And more particularly, IQ tests are useful at predicting aptitude to excel at Western intellectual pursuits including academics in general. Do you disagree with that?

Watson is a scientist. He's very intelligent. He's also a fallible human being. And he's old. Put all those together and you have a recipe for some unfiltered opinions. As long as he's honestly speaking his opinions, I personally disagree with blacklisting such people from society.

When you think about it, our culture's political correctness has some weird quirks. Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down, because ours is supposed to be a secular society informed by science. But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of; the best that can be said is that we don't (yet?) understand all the many factors that affect intelligence. Therefore (correct me if I'm wrong), honesty should compel us to admit that genetics, including genetics exemplified in racial groups, may constitute major factors in intelligence. And therefore, Watson's fundamental heretical belief may be... true? Is it OK to talk about this?

I think it's telling that the ultimate way Apple found to improve on Objective-C is to put it on a retirement path by introducing a replacement language. That's mostly all I'm saying here.

The problem isn't clear naming of variables. It's boilerplate in the library that you can't get away from. Talk about making your skin crawl, try doing very much with NSString's. Anyone who has worked in a high level language with a concatenation operator (typically "+" or "&" or ".") will feel bewildered at the ridiculous hoops Objective C makes you jump through.

Check out: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/510269/shortcuts-in-objective-c-to-concatenate-nsstrings

Every action that should be common, quick and simple requires forming a committee.