Soccer also needs bigger goals if it wants to thrive in the US. Scores like 2-to-1 are too boring for a US audience that prefers instant and constant gratification. Some also feel it's too random: small differences make too big a impact. Offense sells tickets. Get it up to 15 or so point averages if you want it popular in the US.

Or perhaps get rid of the goalie, or draw a line to push the goalie out of the scoring box so that fields don't have to install giant goal boxes.

Indeed. English is flooded with wannabe teachers and dreamy literature fanatics. Economics less so. The opening is comparing apples (English) to peaches (Economics) to oranges (CS). I guess it was written by an English major, eh?

Except with fishing, at least you get to eat when you win.

I don't golf much, but in my experience, no. It just requires leverage and precision. When I was at a big law firm, I would sometimes play in "scramble" golf tournaments, where bad golfers (like me) teamed up with good golfers (3 or 4 to a team), and you took everybody's best shot. In one of these tournaments, I won the overall prize for best drive (this was against a number of lawyers who golf a lot). I do not have any special upper body strength, and certainly no skill. I just happened, that one time, to strike the ball just right so it flew straight, and flew a long way. And it was a one-off thing. Most of the rest of my drives didn't even go the right way. I doubt you will ever see a noob accidentally make a one-off farthest discus or javelin throw.

I know it would vary based on the yield of the nuke and the relative shielding of the device, but let's say...

1) "Rogue" small-yield nuke detonated at ground-level (eg, snuck onto a shipping container or other similar delivery).

2) Standard-size ICBM delivered to target intended for ground destruction.

3) Standard sized ICBM delivered for maximum EMP yield.

Can you use a single nuke to EMP the entire continental US?

What kind of shielding is necessary to block EMPs? Is my TV in the top floor of my house junk but maybe my PC in the basement likely unaffected? Is there a shared risk from the electric grid?

Because there is so far no scientifically validated reason to think it's a health problem: the water is regularly tested at the point where it's drawn from the reservoir, to monitor the water quality, and it's of excellent quality. Water quality isn't some weird mystical thing that depends on what you personally find the right thing to do, but is measurable.

I think the particular problem with the U.S. is those con-men haven't been put out of business: there is still a whole slew of private companies getting their grubby hands into healthcare. And they are still profiteering from misleading people, providing substandard service, advertising things people don't need and/or that are quack bullshit, etc. There is regulation but the regulation has you dealing with insurance companies, for-profit health clinics, all sorts of nonsense.

I agree that an unregulated laissez-faire health market would be ridiculous, but the U.S.'s system is only slightly less ridiculous. I think we did it right in Scandinavia by just taking an axe to the whole sector of privatized medical care, replacing it with an efficient and much less complex state-run system.

The real costs of medical stuff (operations, hardware, medication, etc) has long since been lost to the bureaucrats.

I think that's how it should be, having medical services delivered in accordance with their needs rather than in accordance with market mechanisms and profits. But you need an actually compete system of health bureaucracy that is aiming to maximize outcomes for the country's citizens given the available budget. Not, as the U.S. seems to have, bureaucrats looking to profiteer for some insurance companies and biomed labs.

Here in the Nordic countries medical devices do not cost nearly as much as they do in the U.S., and that's because we have more and better bureaucracy, not because we have a free-market health system (in fact providing private healthcare is illegal).

Term limits are:
1) Undemocratic
2) Stupid
It takes a while to do anything, so while you may make it harder for elected leaders to do bad things but you also make it harder for elected leaders to do good things.

The smart power hungry sociopaths will just create or move to positions of power where the term limits (and elections) do not apply to them and continue influencing the incompetent figureheads and ruling over voters. Becomes less democratic that way too.

Which seems similar to what is happening now, only more so.

People deciding who they want as leaders is democratic. Term limits restricting their choice is not democratic.

The real solution is the smart people taking the time to educate the stupid and ignorant ones rather then going "Oh Noes, the voters are too stupid, we should remove choice from them - even the choice of re-electing someone they want for another term".

It seems to me that 98% of the US voters who bothered to vote prefer either R or D, instead of the other alternatives. If you think they shouldn't then you shouldn't be trying to stop them against their will. You should be trying to convince them.

Unless of course there are no better alternatives. In which case, Democracy is working as well as it can, and your real problem is elsewhere.

Unless you only respond after X + random Y milliseconds, no matter how long it actually takes to do the calculation (where X milliseconds is longer than the max time it takes to do the calculation).

Takes more time, but makes timing attacks a lot harder.

How about call it "SpreadOpenSSL" or similar. Truth in advertising and all that.

"The tairsts are trying to git nukalar weapons. We must make sure their missionification is not completificated."

Maybe they like their water to have more body?

Not me though.

Water is filthy, fish have sex in it.

It's okay, they are married.

You don't get a temple "pass" unless you fully pay 10%. If you don't have one, word gets around. Maybe your parents just accepted the fact that they were not entirely "in".