It's anti-social to object to meaningless phrasing?

Unless the F-16s are going to be running on something that the average person would identify as "fat" rather than "jet fuel" then the headline as written is pretty stupid.

Even if a fuel is made from animal fats, it stops being fat when its refined into fuel. If my faucet breaks and I melt some ice cubes, it would be similarly stupid to say "Ice has replaced water in my glass."

The oil is being replaced by oil. This story is insulting to the intelligence.

It is true that some individuals have and continue to achieve the things you mention. However, the parent is making a critique of our behavior as a group.

While I neither agree nor disagree, your hasty reply intended to dismiss as pessimistic an opinion that hits close to home only seems to make his point wouldn't you say user 465911?

Let me counter your anecdote with two of my own. In the house of one of my childhood friends, multiple TVs were on almost 24 hours a day. You could not speak to any member of that family while in the same room as one of those TVs without their gaze migrating away from you and back to the TV.

Needless to say, this was not a healthy family and it did not stay together long.

My parents severely restricted my access to TV and incidentally I went to better schools and I earn more money than my childhood friends who had TVs in their rooms.

What do these anecdotes have to do with the effects of TV on 2-year-olds? Not a lot.

Hear, hear! The truth of what you say should be obvious to everyone because as we all know, coded systems never have unintended consequences and can always account for every situation that comes up "in the field".

Additionally, your comparison is quite apt because as everyone knows code is not ever subject to interpretation when it is executed. That is why we use one code to express everything.

I am reminded of the invention of the first formal symbolic logics. Philosophers were rightly excited to have settled all human argument because finally each side could simply write down their arguments as symbolic logic and then whoever was correct would become self-evident.

Bravo, sir. I hope your insights shake the foundations of our legal system and I wish to subscribe to your webinar and such.

I made one one in my tu-tu! --timothy

Please take some time to fill out the Slashdot survey! We require your feedback to improve the site since we operate it with our eyes closed. Thanks!

A much more innovative and effective strategy would have been to fire everyone and then hold auction-style interviews. Whoever agrees to work for the lowest wage gets a job.

This contradicts my instincts about the chemistry of our atmosphere. Just who performed these "laboratory studies"? If they were funded by government money in any way then they are probably part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to debunk my gut feelings.

From TFA:

The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.

So now that global warming has been exposed as a fraud we're supposed to be scared of the Sun as well? Leave it to tree huggers to care more about ozone, which is poisonous, than human life.

I don't know about you but I'm perfectly capable of purchasing sunscreen. For the amount of money I'd save with the tried-and-true inhalers I could probably buy enough sunscreen to protect myself from this so-called "ultraviolet" light for a decade or more.

I am continually amazed that people want the government to pass laws in the name of environmental protection -- if someone is polluting your air or water you don't need to call the EPA, you should be exercising your individual property rights the way our founding fathers intended.

Actually he was correct in pointing out an important, if subtle, misapprehension a lot of people have about "survival of the fittest". Darwinian fitness is merely a measure of how many of your offspring survived to have offspring of their own. Everything else is a value judgement.

It's 0k, we all mistakes.

Someone should have attended Spotting Sarcasm 101.

O not 0. The "O" stands for "oxygen", doofus.