Or perhaps one day, in some far remote future, we'll come up with a phonetic language and dedicate our minds to ideas instead of esoteric rules about apostrophes.

"You can go out in the woods, build a cabin, and live without electricity or indoor plumbing."

Maybe we could. Let's think about it.

We'd probably have to buy the woods we wanted to build in. We' might need a building permit for the cabin, followed by an inspection. We'd need a permit for a well. We'd probably need to register our firearms, buy a fishing license and hunting license and tags. We might need a business license if we plan to sell those crops, plus all the government oversight selling food would bring.

So, yeah, maybe it's possible. It doesn't really seem like most people could afford it, and it doesn't seem like most people could comply with all the rules of the various agencies and jurisdictions that could be involved.

I think the reality is that lifestyle of 200 years ago is gone. Whatever semblance might remain is costly and wrapped in red tape.

Stockholder banks get a guaranteed 6% dividend.

How did you get from here:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modigliani%E2%80%93Miller_theorem)

to here?
"The Modigliani-Miller theorem of finance shows that how you finance a good idea doesn't matter."

"The Fed gives the government zero cost borrowing"

If only that were true. The Federal Reserve is a cabal of privately held banks that charge interest.

Engineers have bosses. Sometimes in a complicated situation where there are no good answers, engineers do what their bosses say.

"He is ...a very controversial figure in science journalism (in a good way)"

Good why? Does he have a gift for explaining new scientific discoveries to laypeople? Does he somehow further the state of the art?

Sounds to me like what he does for a living is tell people that scientific progress is ending. I see no compelling evidence from him supporting that point, and I see nothing good coming from pushing that idea.

Many Americans don't even accept evolution or global warming yet. Pretending that where we are is the furthest we'll ever get is not constructive and not correct.

If this is all he's got, I wouldn't even call him a science journalist. He's more like an op-ed columnist/author.

If it wasn't a surprise, shouldn't Ukraine have been ready to arrest the hooligans that they instead allowed to steal Crimea?

A while back I was prescribed an anti-depressant. The doctor said he didn't know if it would work for me. He said it wasn't even well understood *how* it worked.

That confused me because presumably whatever was in the pill was added for a reason, but clearly there's a lot of trial and error. And clearly there are extremely nasty side effects from many drugs.

So many pharmaceuticals' effectiveness may be overrated, as may be their safety. I'm not sure some medicinal plants are necessarily less effective or less safe.

Presumably chemicals in our drugs are often extracted from nature. why wouldn't the same chemicals in their natural form have the same potential to work? For example, willow bark has salicin (from whence aspirin came), and has been used medicinally since the time of Hippocrates.

The idea of treating the whole person instead of just the symptom is a growing concern in western medicine. This has always been the defining characteristic of homeopathy's holistic approach.

So many homeopathic treatments are almost certainly bunk, but throwing out all homeopathy may be short sighted, just as throwing out all of western medicine would be.

What "mission statement"? This?

GP is right. They can't process and analyze as much data as they collect, so they don't produce useful intelligence.

That's forensics, not intelligence.

Just curious - if they are way off ethically and morally, why would you take that same approach?

I am a Mormon atheist who preaches living for this life instead of for an imagined next life.

May I please be the most annoying person in the great shit hole taxonomy of your mind?

Nope.

Atheism: I'm not playing your stupid game.

Only religious people claim that the lack of religion is itself a religion.

"Faith" is a belief. By what bizarre mental gymnastics do people claim those without belief have faith?

Since the law has not yet been drafted, it's kinda hard to say what it's like. But it appears to be the intent to make it a criminal act to upload revenge porn to a website, and to expose the website to some liability for uploaded content.

So I'd say it's more like suing a website for your ex uploading embarrassing pictures of you.

You seem to have the impression I conceded defeat, and that I was challenging you to next beat someone else.

My point was only that I am an anonymous layman, and if you managed to defeat me in a debate it would prove nothing. This isn't a frivolous political argument at a donut shop.

If the science is wrong prove it on scientific turf. Show NASA where they got their physics wrong, teach NOAA how the climate really works, show the field biologists where all the specimens they couldn't find are hiding.

You haven't disproven a thing. All you've discredited with your lie ("Greenhouse gas theory... has been thoroughly discredited"), esoteric microquibble (" the experimental apparatus..."), and innuendo of bias ("Fourier's conclusions about his friend's experiments") is yourself.