His name's Stroustrup. Bjarne Stroustrup.

No, he didn't break OPEC. He nearly broke the US, though; his plans resulted in manufactured shortages of gasoline and sky-high (for the time) prices.

Because one of the early studies on this estimated cell phone use by comparing cell phone call records (as recorded by the phone company) with accident times (as recorded on the police report.) One of those is quite accurate. The other... ain't. And what's likely one of the first things you're going to do after you get into a minor accident.... call someone.

The no-fly list means you don't board. There's another list, called the selectee list, which is for hassling people.

And of course it's blatantly unconstitutional on its face, it violates due process and constitutes attainder. But the constitution is not being respected so it doesn't matter.

What's going to need regular maintenance on a Tesla? All-electric drivetrains require very little maintenance. There's fewer moving parts, the transmission is incredibly simple and robust (1-speed, doesn't have to shift even for reverse), mechanical stresses on all drivetrain components are far lower because there's no percussive impacts from cylinders firing, and there's no high temperatures because there's no combustion.

So why does Tesla charge $600/year if regular maintenance is so much less expensive than for gasoline vehicles (which don't cost $600/year in maintenance either)

The FBI also interviewed some other people in his circle. And the gov't can't restrict your travel without probably cause and, ultimately, some sort of judicial determination. It's called Due Process--i.e. gov't officials can't just decide to fsck-you over, not at least without a nod from a court.

Apparently you haven't heard of the no-fly list, where they just say "Sorry, no boarding for you, go home, kthxbai".

Actually it doesn't resemble the Creation/Evolution debate at all, and I get the heebie-jeebies when someone says it does.

In the Creation/Evolution debate, one side has solid theories backed by evidence, the other side has either pure faith or shit they made up by starting from the conclusion and attempting to construct a plausible chain of reasoning leading to it.

In the climate debate, neither side has solid theories backed by evidence, and one side has shit they made up by starting from the conclusion and attempting to construct a plausible chain of reasoning leading to it. Of course, both sides accuse the other of being the latter.

Obligatory: What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

Ah, the Pascal's Wager of warmist doctrine.

The fallacy is the idea that there is no deleterious effect to the proposed "solutions" for warming.

At this point, the IPCC is looking more like bad disaster fiction.

I have no clue what "Common Core" is but I tutor many kids and all of them learned multiplication by skip counting, counting equal sized groups, *and* memorization of the times table up to 12 (why 12 is really beyond me).

Practical reasons -- many things in commerce are/were denoted in dozens.

Spinoffs from Nazi technology got us to the moon. That some good can come out of evil does not make the evil less evil.

I believe that reading of the CFAA -- that violating the TOS is a felony -- was struck down by the 9th Circuit in the Lori Drew case. Which doesn't mean they can't try to prosecute you for it, it just means it's an uphill battle (especially in the area of the 9th circuit).

None of those movies got preachy about misogyny (although Catching Fire preached to the teenage choir about a lot of other stuff of course, like every coming of age story). All pretty white too of course ...

Anyone who is falling over themselves to congratulate Hunger Games and Catching Fire for breaking traditional gender roles is going to be VERY disappointed when Mockingjay comes out.

Women on an average get 30% less than males for the same work. That is sexism.

It's also false.