And I'm hoping the next version of Microsoft Office will fix the ugliness that is Office 2013. Hoping, but not expecting.

(And yes, I use LibreOffice--at home.)

I've never heard *that* definition of liberals before. By that definition I must be a Republican-voting liberal.

" Immigration is a universal issue." Well, there is North Korea...

"... they consistently vote against their own best interests." Altruistic, you say? Ok, that was a cut. But perhaps what it really means is that some people decide their vote on factors other than self interest.

"Getting mad at them god-believers is actually exactly what they want you to." No I don't, and none of the other Christians I know want that either, although I'm sure there are such people somewhere. On the other hand, I do see a handful of vocal atheists who seem to want exactly that. Not saying you do, nor even that most atheists--nor yet that a substantial portion do. What I am saying is that wanting people who disagree with one's beliefs to get mad is perhaps a quality of the proud and boastful. And afaict, pride and boastfulness are no more prevalent among the religious, the unreligious, the left, the right, the...you name it.

Predict them, you can.

"...put Mother Nature on trial. It's she who sacrifices about one zygote for each two live newborns..." Well, better put her on trial for the fact that everyone (and every multicellular animal) eventually dies. But if your point was to say that aborting a zygote is not evil because Mother Nature does it, then by the same logic killing an adult cannot be evil, because Mother Nature does that too. In other words, this particular argument doesn't go through.

Duh, of course there are differences. The surprising thing is that these two differences are correlated. At least it seems surprising to most of us.

"sextant and a nice, accurate watch... it helps if you are outside and can see the horizon": In fact, the "true" horizon, which is almost never the case on land, except at the shore. (Of course, the OP is about ship navigation, so I'm being a bit pedantic.) Celestial navigation also involves several books of data, a large pad of paper, and a pencil with an eraser. Although I hear there are other ways to do the calculation now...

...and the other half will post to slashdot.

Sounds like you chose the right parents. Your name wouldn't be Lazurus Long, would it?

Actually, I carry that around with me. Doesn't weigh hardly anything.

I go trail running a lot, out in the woods. Surprise, surprise; there's little or no grass out in the woods. Ferns and a few small plants sprout up in the spring, before the trees shade them out. Then the growth down on the forest floor pretty much dies out until the following year, except for the few sunny spots where a tree has fallen. I guess there's a little moss, too, but cows don't eat moss.

I'll invent transparent solar panels right after I sell my current invention: dehydrated water.

You missed the point: a photon either hits the solar panel (and is absorbed, with some fraction of that absorbed energy turning into electricity), or it hits the leaves below. Doesn't matter how high the panels are. And I'm not sure where this reflected light comes from--maybe the steel frames holding the panels up in the air? It can't come from the panels, which are facing the sun--so any light they reflect (which is relatively little, since they're black) is directed back at the sun. And finally, cows can't graze off of dirt, you can only graze (if you're a cow) off of plants, preferably grass. Which has to grow out in the sunlight.

So as raymorris points out, you can put the solar panels out in the field, where they'll cast a shadow, preventing grass from growing; or you can put them somewhere else, where they won't get in the way and you won't need tall legs for them to stand on. Either way, the farmland and the panel-land will take up the same amount of room.