European here. I follow American politics from afar, and from our trans-continental, somewhat neutral vantage point, I think it's safe to say that republicans or conservatives are, on average, the greater sociopaths by a margin.

Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump? Bill O'Reilly? Ann Coulter?

I have yet to find people that sprout such incredible nonsense as the above characters among democrats/liberals.

If you want a challenging civilization experience, C-evo Civilization is pretty good. It's basically a deterministic Civ implementation with unit design and some altered rules.

I mostly agree. But the problem with Skyrim mods compared to DOTA2, CounterStrike, TF, etc, is that Skyrim is a much more complex game and mods are much more intricate and risky as result. With a TF mod you pretty much know what you're getting whereas with a Skyrim mod it's almost impossible to know beforehand if it will work as advertised, or if it will break your game, be incompatible with other mods, corrupt your save file... it's simply a much more experimental and risky way of modding than TF. This is partly also due to the tools not being as good as they could be.
I think a payment system for mods is generally a good idea, but the tools provided by the develper then need to be up to the task to provide a baseline of quality and security. At the moment, the "quality control" is being handled by the modding community with tools like SkyEdit, Wrye Bash, Mod Manager etc, so from this perspective I understand those who feel a little cheated by Bethesda cashing in, as it is the modding community itself that is providing the tools that make it even possible to run multiple mods with a minimum of safety and compatibility.
I think if the payed mods announcement would have been accompanied by an updated CreationKit that handles these issues, it would have been much better received.

Also:

Not yet.

Could also just be construction work on an interstellar highway.

You seem to know what you're talking about. Maybe you can explain the article to me. First it says that the new PCIe SSDs achieve "much higher" speeds and "destroy the competition" and then it says that they don't really load anything faster and average consumers will hardly know a difference?

What?

Not to mention that the killer that gets sentenced for imprisonment may decide to turn himself in, with the hope of seeing liberty at some point in their lives.
Whereas the killer who knows he will be killed by the law has literally nothing left to lose and might keep on killing trying to save himself.

That's an interesting Wiki page. But I'm afraid those figures say almost nothing about the actual number of trees or forest density in those countries.
For example, Spain has a higher forest area percentage than Germany, 36% vs 31%. Not sure what counts as "forest area" though, because while it is true that Spain has more untouched wilderness than Germany, most of the land is dry with very sparse tree density. In contrast, Germany has mostly moist, rich land and very dense forests. By these accounts I wouldn't be surprised if Germany had three times more trees than Spain despite it being a smaller country with less forest cover.

You realize that the U.S. also fines and sanctions many European companies for misconduct or anti-trust settlements? For some reason when this happens it usually doesn't make news on Slashdot.

Also, it's a little ironic that you as a citizen are so eager to defend those companies that set up their financial HQ in some foreign tax haven so they have to pay next to nothing in taxes in the U.S., giving nothing back to society.

I don't think it's just an anecdote. I've experienced this myself for years, in my case related to nuclear energy. Whenever I formulate a post that's even remotely critical of nuclear energy on Slashdot, it gets downvoted Troll or Flamebait with amazing speed.

Parents post doesn't describe her "lack of accomplishments", but rather spreads out some baseless accusations in addition to attributing a tragic incident to her alleged incompetence.
I'm just putting his arguments into perspective in a language he understands.

Maybe you didn't notice, but the GOP stopped being the conservative party some time ago. These days the Democratic Party is the conservative party and the Republican Party is the NSDAP.

How about the fact that George Bush Junior was in charge when the first major terrorist attack on U.S. soil killed over 2000 Americans and destroyed the WTC?

How about the fact that the wars that GWB started have turned the entire middle east into a clusterfuck of terrorism, torture, genocide, rape and cultural devastation?

How about the fact that during GWB's two terms the U.S. debt started to soar as the economy started to collapse?

How about the fact that during GWB's two terms civil liberties were dashed and slashed in the name of the war against terror and that the U.S. engaged in torture and holding people for decades in prison without trial?

But you still just adore him, don't you?

It would be interesting to know how those temperatures were measured. The most common approach is measuring air temperature. Scientists have found however that the oceans act as a climate regulator for planet Earth and suck alot of heat and CO2 out of the atmosphere. Sometimes that heat comes back to the surface in bursts and sometimes it stays in deeper layers of the ocean. But the heat is never gone, it is simply in the water.

I wouldn't rule out that there have been some monster fires in the past that have been worse than anything we have experienced lately. But what I find hard to believe is that the total amount of burned m and CO2 released through fires was more 100 years ago than now.

Why? Most fires are caused by people. Voluntarily or by accident. The U.S. is much more heavily and densely populated now than 100 years ago, and we have many more appliances, tools and ways to cause fires today than in the past. It sounds illogical to me that 220 million additional Americans didn't have an impact on wildfires in the USA.

California is experiencing the worst drought (ever, perhaps). It is so bad, they are starting to ration water consumption. Scientific studies indicate climate change is real (unless you live in the USA), so in all likelihood the severe drought is an effect of climate change. And dry land causes fires easily. Ergo Climate change -> drought -> wildfires.

How is that simple deduction a red-herring?