Maybe because you are looking in the wrong place. America spends more per student than almost any other country, yet we get worse results than some countries spending far less. So maybe the money isn't the problem.

Can you cite any peer reviewed controlled studies that show that "smaller classes" improve student performance in any measurable way?

That smaller classes are "better" is something that everybody "knows", but you would be astonished at how little actual evidence there is. The few studies that have been done have produced mixed results. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit in early grades. But brighter kids actually do worse in smaller classes, since it is harder for them to read ahead rather than follow along at the pace of the slowest kid. Some studies have found that much of the benefit is not that the classes are smaller, but that they are quieter. So some soundproofing might do more good than hiring more teachers.

The best performing schools in the world are in East Asian countries such as South Korea, Singapore, and some cities in China. They typically have class sizes more than twice that in America.

You could make the same cynical and nihilistic comment about anything given to these kids. Better computers? They will just get stolen. Better books? Those will get stolen too. Better classrooms? Target for vandalism. That way you can criticize anyone who does anything, and feel superior about doing nothing.

So? Are you offering to donate these? If not, then why are you sneering at the companies that are actually doing something, rather than nothing? You don't need a pencil to operate an iPad, and these poor kids will likely benefit more than most from exposure to technology.

I have found that if I sound confident, other people will listen and follow, regardless of whether I know what I am talking about. I have also found that women tend to be attracted to confident, self-assured men, and are less concerned about whether the guy is actually right or wrong. So, if my theory is correct, men should display more self-confidence. Maybe the author already considered gender differences, but I didn't RTFA, I am just assuming that I am right.

Yes, and Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution requires an actual enumeration. Any sort of statistical approximation is not legal. A count based on cellphones would skew toward young urban people (Democrats), and away from old rural people (Republicans). There is no way that would be passively accepted, and the courts have smacked down other attempts to "reform" the census.

No. Average-Joe farmer may not be able to save Monsanto seed, but other agribusinesses can splice out the RR gene, and insert it into other soybeans. So the market will become far more competitive. Gene splicing is not particularly difficult, and it is likely that some activist biology grad student will create some GMO beans and release them into the public domain.

I think it will happen, since the number of people that want to save $20 will be a lot higher than the number of people that will be too uncomfortable. Most people don't really care about getting a window seat, and most people in window seats don't even open the blind. I like window seats, and I enjoy watching the scenery go by, but a high-res monitor is good enough.

Nope. If they are using any reasonable de-dup algorithm, they will only be storing the diffs.

The patent for glyphosate (Roundup) has already expired. The patent on the gene for "Roundup-Ready" herbicide resistance expires in a few months.

GMO does not imply monoculture. GMO soybeans all have the gene for glyphosate resistance, but otherwise have a large amount of genetic variation.

False. Most insurance companies will give you a premium reduction for installing a speed tracker in your car. You can also get a premium reduction on your home insurance by installing fire and burglar alarms.

Plenty of weeds have already done that. So far, all of these weeds resist glyphosate via a completely different mechanism from the way GMO plants do it.

The creationists don't advocate violence, and (this may shock you) neither does the American Nazi Party. The ANP is anti-immigrant, and wants to end affirmative action, and all other "anti-White" discrimination, and even wants to deport "undesirables", but they don't advocate killing or physically attacking anyone. They are an odious organization, but if odious speech is not protected, then, in principle, nothing is. You don't need constitutional rights to say "I agree with the government."

Perhaps not. But if they allow some rallies, then, as a public institution, they cannot then ban others based on the opinions expressed.