That only works with some people. But I will take your word that for you specifically, sugar can hide the taste. Not for everyone. Specifically, I am a supertaster and can taste alcohol no matter how much sugar you try to use to hide that bitter junk. Honestly I don't drink much (Martini was an example/joke)

And yes, all alcohol tastes like bitter junk to me. There is no such thing as a 'good' wine, beer, whisky etc. if you have the fully activated TAS2R38 gene. Only you poor non-super powered mortals, with your weak tongues with a puny, normal number of fungiform papillae can truly enjoy alocohol.

I, and many other people, drink only for the social and pharmaceutical aspects of drinking.

I heard a rumor (or possibly just started one :D) that one of Panda's competitors tagged Panda as a malware. So apparently Panda just took their word that Panda was malware.

You've got to be kidding, right? We take such a small amount of wind that it wouldn't matter at all. You might as well complain about all that light we are absorbing with PV panels will not leave enough for plants.

The politics of anthro climate change are "It doesn't exist, shut up, stop telling me the 'science'". You are stupid not because you disagree, but because your arguments SUCK.

You are correct that overpopulation used to be a problem, but the developed world has basically solved that issue. See Japan, where the population growth is basically negative. Note, we have always had a solution to overpopulation, it is called WAR - kill enough people and the problem is solved. But recently we have come up with far better solutions involving birth control.

Your malthusian prediction is garbage.

Overpopulation is no longer the primary cause of climate change, instead greed for the Western European lifestyle is the primary cause. The solution to that will almost certainly be technological improvements across the board, and energy - including wind - will be the primary tech improvement that eliminates the problem.

But let us reword your position for a moment to point out the folly (currently at least) in its usefulness.

Here in my home country, if I desired a hamburger I happen to know from experience that most restaurants will have such a thing to sell to me. Ignoring jokes about McDonalds not having real food for just a moment, I know they are the most common place around to find a hamburger at.

Then you come along and (correctly, but uselessly) point out that the laws of physics do not rule out the possibility of finding a hamburger sitting around in some random persons back yard, and so such places should all be equally searched as well.

Yet if you or I were to travel to a country we have never been to before and happened to desire a hamburger, we would search out a restaurant knowing the chance of finding a hamburger there, even without ever having visited a restaurant in that country before.

No one is actually arguing that it wouldn't be possible to find a hamburger in a random persons backyard (although many would argue if it would be a good idea to eat it :P ) but from experience we know the odds of finding one in such a place are much much lower than compared to a restaurant.

Likewise, we know life on earth is more likely to be found in water than not.
That doesn't mean there is NO life outside of the water at all, just that the odds of finding it in water are higher than finding it elsewhere.

Again, no one is actually arguing that water is required for life in general, only that our sample of one shows a much higher chance of finding it, and our sample size of one is all we have to formulate characteristics to actually look for and detect.

So looking for life in water, that is similar to life on earth, is what we have the best description of (as crappy as it may be) and so the best chance of actually detecting, and our one sample shows it as the highest likelihood of occurring in water.

This is why we look for water and use the characteristics of life we have to match on - because it gives the best chance of success.

As our samples of majorly differing life forms increases and our characteristics to match on increase, we will have better odds of success looking elsewhere.

But with our current knowledge and technical level, it makes no sense to search for hamburgers in random back yards when we can search in restaurants first.

You always aim for the low hanging fruit first, then move on to the harder to reach fruit after.
You have to learn to walk before you can run.
Insert additional cheesy proverbs here (especially if they make good hamburger toppings! sorry, I think I'm hungry)

Just because searching for life as we know it in water is the first step does not exclude all the other harder to detect steps, it only delays them until later, hopefully to a time we are better equipped to do so both with technology and our knowledge.

It's also worth pointing out that no one is actually forcing you to look in the most common places for the things we know how to detect - you are free to look anywhere you like for things you can't describe, if you so wish.
It's just that your odds of success are so drastically lower, even compared to the already seemingly low chances in finding life in water on another world, that few people would be willing to throw money at you for the task.

And that, put simply, is why we look for water on other worlds in our search for life.

The problem with only using "how I feel" as a measurement while ignoring scientific measurements of the effects is that human senses are pretty horrible and are often wrong.

Back in my day this was taught and demonstrated in public education (seems not to be the case anymore) and can be proven with a very simple experiment: the old warm and cold bowl of water trick.

Line up three bowls on the counter. Fill one half way with cold water and another half way with hot (to the touch, not burning) water. Put one hand in each for a few minutes.
Then mix the two bowls of water together in the last bowl to get warm water, and put both your hands together in that bowl.

The hand previously in the cold water will feel hot, and the hand previously in the hot water will feel cold, both at the same time and in the same bowl of water.
Your senses are completely lying to you. One bowl of water can't be two different temperatures at the same time.

Only our intellect is capable of recognizing the contradiction in the data from your senses to indicate neither can't be correct.

Only impartial scientific measurement can give you accurate data that is correct, combined again with our intellect to let us override data from our senses with measured data.

This isn't to say our senses aren't important or don't matter at all, only that our senses are just the first step in obtaining knowledge. All three (senses, intellect, and measurements) are required.

Please don't rely on one without the others, as that only serves to make your knowledge dubious, and draw into question any and all future knowledge based on that one incorrect fact.

First one, then the other.

How exactly are you supposed to stick this thing in someone's non-alcoholic drink and them not notice the taste? Or are they talking about adding more alcohol to my martini - in which case, yes please.

They only people that need to worry about this are the teachers at a high school dance. And we all know how effective they are at stopping kids from drinking....

Rats, I knew I should have checked with a lawyer before opening my Joe's Barber Shop and Scabies Quartet franchise!

It started with short stories - magazines were popular back when TV did not exist.

Then books started taking over. They made more money for several reasons.

Now a book is not profitable, at least not first ones. It takes time for authors to become famous enough to get enough readers.

So the only way to make money writing a book is to do it in series. First one creates a market, the second one makes small profit, the third or greater one makes the real money.

I can't see the trend continuing - having to write multiple series before you make a profit seems extreme. Or worse, not making any profit until it moved to video would be ridiculous.

Apparently so. People tell me all the time I have a unique smell that cannot be appreciated!

Part of the problem is that while talent is what people want, it is much harder to measure. It takes talent to find talent, and if they had talent in the first place, they usually don't really need it.

Skill on the other hand, can be easily teach, but they can also easily measure how much skill you already have.

So what ends up happening is they look for their keys directly under the streetlight, even though they lost them in the dark area on the other hide of the street.

I've seen it twice (outside of documentation, as you say)
Once while learning how to code finder extensions in pascal - poorly.
Another when the MB wasn't in a case and I accidentally dropped a couple HD screws out of my hand directly onto the MB.

Obviously both cases were my own doing and 'my fault', but I remember being pretty proud at the time seeing something so rare most people didn't know what that icon even meant.

I don't remember OS 9 too well, but wasn't the spinning beach ball a new introduction of OS X 10.0? Along with most of the candy style widgets?
In OS 8 I clearly remember the only 'wait' cursor was the wrist watch that always said 3 PM, and had no color in it.

But I admit it was some time ago now

Cable Co Exec: *Hands over envelope of cash* You my nigga?

Representative: It certainly appears so.

Cable Co Exec: The night of the fight, you may feel a slight sting. That's pride fucking with you. Fuck pride. Pride only hurts. You fight through that shit.
Because a year from now, when you're kicking it in the Caribbean, you'll say to yourself: I was right

Representative: I have no problem with that.

Cable Co Exec: In the vote, your ass goes down. Say it.

Representative: In the vote, my ass goes down.

Please note that this test includes buses - which are far more likely to become the first self-driving vehicle that a private car.

The vehicles travel slower, set routes. The cost to add the self-driving capability is a lower percentage of the total cost of the vehicle. Finally, over the long term they save money by removing the necessity of paying a driver.

Still not as perfect as using the tech on garbage trucks. They move even slower, have less union opposition (because you are only getting rid of the driver, not the attendants that load the vehicle. But no one's perfect.

So let me go back to how.

To bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.