I also don't understand the fixation on evolution. A certain percentage of any population, any country, any religion, will say that they believe what their religion teaches because that's what they've been taught to say (whether they actually believe it or not is another issue).

Take another look at the numbers for Republican vs. Democrat. They are much closer than the summary (mis)led you to believe by quoting the Conservative vs. Liberal numbers.

Also notice the subtle wording of the AGW question: "The earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity". The word "mostly" is clearly there to bias the answers. They didn't ask "Is the earth getting warmer?", or "Is human activity contributing to the earth getting warmer?"

Where do you see that? Church membership per capita is way down in the US.

Also keep in mind the the Pew Trust is notoriously liberal, especially related to environmental issues. It isn't a surprise that their survey pushes their agenda. They're also known for sending their own employees (and having them claim to be from the general public) to attend congressional hearings so it appears there's more grass root support for their causes than there actually is.

Aside from pointing out the glaringly obvious (people who identify themselves as Conservative gave responses consistent with what you would expect from people who identify themselves as conservative, same for LIberals), /. the summary ignores far more interesting points.

1) There is a much smaller difference between Republicans and Democrats than there is between Conservatives and Liberals, e.g. the Evolution question goes from 21% versus 54% (Ideology) to 57% versus 72% (Party Id).

2) Several of the questions show a fairly small difference between Republicans and Democrats (pesticides, animal research, world population, vaccines, manned space programs, bioengineered fuel, and space station).

It sounds like they're considering various alternatives and haven't made the final decision. I suppose it would be easier to make that decision if the commercial rockets were rated for manned missions, but the recent launch failures are a reminder that rocket science is right at the edge of what humans can engineer.

So California needs to cut (or not change) the compensation of ten occupations and increase it for four. Seems reasonable.

As opposed to posting an opinion on /.

You don't seem to understand what you have written.

You claimed that this prototype aircraft "makes it very clear that it's entirely possible" to replace fossil fueled aircraft with solar powered aircraft. The only thing that Solar Impulse has made clear is that a solar powered aircraft can be flown; there is nothing to indicate that a solar powered aircraft of any design or any efficiency can possibly replace fossil fueled aircraft as you claimed.

Storing a few hours of power in a battery doesn't solve the problem.

This article was discussed on slashdot a couple of weeks ago. It explains why Dr. Laurence's conclusions are dubious at best.

You did indeed make that claim:

Nah, have the JetPack guy save the family's poodle while the family drowns.