Gravy train? Retired and comfy?

How much money do you think CERN researchers make?

Really?

I mean this honestly -- is that common at all? I literally don't understand how that could be a breach of privacy. And even if it is, how could it not be the least of the privacy violations here.

Maybe if you're testing rote memorization of facts. But climate change is a math / science question.

If you have a math test that is set appropriately to test you, then some questions should be right at your limit. In fact, a properly administered test at the end of a University course of either math or a math-heavy science course is very likely to end with many people being *almost* right but having a key error.

If you don't have experience with this, then you've never been appropriately tested. I don't care how smart you are.

You're basically saying you've never in your life been wrong about anything. It's just ridiculous.

Irony overload.

First of all, you actually have the same problem he's talking about -- an inability to tell the difference. I thought the first AC making fun of Republicans was being ridiculous but you're a great example of what he was talking about.

Second, you're referencing "Bush Lied People Died", which was a case where people doggedly insisted that Bush lied (instead of him behaving, perhaps poorly or inappropriately, but nevertheless honestly reacting to the legitimate information he had). You're talking about somebody still yelling that. For pointing out that making an incorrect prediction isn't lying, nor does it mean that no prediction you ever make will ever hold.

Wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

I'm curious why you even believed this. My knee-jerk reactionw as "there's no way that's even close to true" and a quick search bore out that instinct..

I would rather reality.

Among other things, hyperbole can lead to inaction as soon as somebody calls one bluff. There's a mostly-incoherent incoherent post above from a guy who found two incorrect statements about climate change and therefore doesn't believe it happens. That's a result of hyperbole.

Your second link shows it earning money at a low but fairly consistent rate, completely defeating your assertion.

Your first link shows them losing money over one quarter and predicting more losses, which would make this year a big loss. Which is obviously not ideal, but hardly consistent when the four year trend prior was profitable:

http://investing.businessweek....

They certainly can't afford to become consistent in losses of this year's scale, but you can hardly say that they lose money consistently (yet).

Amazon has low profit *compared to its size and revenue*, but a mom and pop corner store with this kind of profit would be astounding.

Here's their past few years:

http://investing.businessweek....

2010: 1.15 billion
2011: 631 million
2012: loss of 39 million. So admittedly, Mom & Pop would be in trouble if they started in 2012.
2013: 274 million.

I would love to have a mom and pop store that made approximately 2 billion dollars profit in the past four years.

Now, this year looks like it might be another loser year, but it's hard to tell because the xmas season tends to be disproportionately profitable. They do operate right on the knife's edge, playing the long game that we so often say that companies can't bring themselves to do. But the way you write that makes it sound like they have a lifetime and yearly net loss, and no, Amazon is overall much more profitable than a mom and pop corner store.

Measures like return on assets could be another story.

Is this really controversial? The proof is in the amount of money spent on advertising. Sure, some advertising just gets the word out, but, for example, McDonalds or Coca-Cola ads are all about behaviour modification, because everybody has already heard of both things, even though individual people widely believe they are unaffected by the ads they watch.

That's why things like this study are useful to establish that violence is *not* among the things that are easily injected into consumer thoughts. Now, of course, a key difference is that McDonalds and Coke are specifically trying to change your behaviour. Games aren't trying to make you more violent, they are mostly just trying to be fun and occasionally they might try to make you think about something when the game creators are feeling particularly artsy. Arguably that one US army game might actually be about promoting violence in some sense, but it's an extreme exception to the rule.

Sexism is like violence in that it can be part of a game, both purposely and incidentally, but it's very rare that the point of the game is promoting sexism. So is the salient difference here the intention of the media? Or is violence just especially repulsive? That would be a follow-up.

Cite? That seems like an extraordinary claim.

I think you're trying to say is they haven't done good capitalism.

Literally the definition of capitalism is

(cite for that exact phrasing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...).

The word owned there is relevant. Theft is a subversion of ownership and thus stealing can legitimately be called anti-capitalist.

That said, the GP wasn't defining capitalism, he was saying capitalism relied on profitable manufacturing of goods. I would clarify that this is one of several things it relies on, I don't disagree that capitalism relies on that.

That's like saying mass media is feudalism. Or that the flu is capitalism. You're thinking of public healthcare, not public health.

Having established that -- public health is inherently not individual (that's what makes it public) and therefore it literally cannot be an individual responsibility. Calling it an individual responsibility is tantamount to calling for irresponsibility.

That doesn't necessarily mean that government has to do it -- washing your hands is a public health issue that has some government involvement in places like restaurants and also in educating students in schools, but is mostly a cultural thing that is enforced through parental teachings, shunning, etc.. Sometimes governments jumpstart these things -- seatbelt wearing is just an unconscious fact of life for most people my age and younger, but it's also an enforced law and that's because after seatbelts were available people still didn't wear them. Seatbelts are thus mostly a non-governmental issue now (at least in the circles I run in), which was a governmental thing in the past. Standard vaccines are basically pushed by government agencies even though most non-crazy people tacitly support these measures.

It's legitimate to question whether this is a public health issue, or whether seatbelt wear was truly public health, or the degree of severity and "public-ness" necessary to warrant government intervention. It's pretty much ideological crazytown to deny that issues of public health exist.

Do you just go to appointments 15 minutes early to be sure, or do you let yourself be late half the time?

He didn't say every Catholic gets to interpret matters on their own. He said that not everything a pope says is considered infallible.

He's not being punished. He's being rewarded with more money. You just want to reward him with even more money than everybody else wants to reward him with. Everybody else is saying "that's kind of unnecessary".