> because you're using terms like "pounded in everyone's head"

The BB theory is the only one that is well-known, because it's the only one that is mentioned in modern (and not so modern) textbooks, when making any cursory reference to a number of phenomena.
That doesn't make him a crank, it makes him savvy to the current state of education (largely, across the world). The crank part comes from promoting another theory as the only alternative.

Did not have the +1 for you today, sir.

> Failing to define a term

The term is self-defined. Common sense. Common human sense(s). Not limited to, or originally stemming from, "parables" or "superstitions", et al.

> Common sense is fearing something without understanding.

Continuing to try to redefine the concept to fit your beliefs, is disingenuous.

> Common sense is wrong more than it's right.

This is inaccurate.

> It's only good for making guesses about things you don't understand, and is worthless for evaluating things you understand.

You are intentionally perverting the meaning. Conscious understanding is less used than common sense. You survive because of common sense, not despite it.

> Fewer people working means fewer people paying income tax
> Fewer people working does mean fewer people filing taxes.
> Level of fraud is immaterial to that point.

Fewer people filing does not equal less work. They still have to calculate and decide to try to collect from non-filers and when to schedule that based on a predictive model paired with an existing workload. Which is easier, figuring out if your W2s match up with employers who have turned in theirs, or figuring out what you didn't claim (if there was something you omitted)? You really think the IRS doesn't care if you didn't make any money AT all for a year? You are required to file or the IRS takes additional action. Welcome to America. People who do not have legitimate incomes also tend to rise, which then lends to more fraud and more work to understand who misused who's social security numbers (sometimes random, sometimes stolen as mine has been) or who work for whom and what the record should reflect to produce the proper accountability for you as an individual. This includes fines, of course. I have seen it take about 5-7 years to catch up. Talk to a tax preparer or something before you see a fine for a few thousand dollars when you do get an income. Sometimes they are efficient enough to wait till you have money to try to do a takeback.

reverting bad mod

> you need two sets of one way tickets: JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK->somewhere else

You missed the opportunity where you can only save on half the trip and pay normally for the other half.

The idea is that even JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK , you still save money.

So there's a lot more gore and less funny than you would hope. Most of the movie is pretty lame after the Eminem interview, where you're still trying to figure out the movie's "style" and probably have a bit of hope left in you. Mostly it's a mish-mash of vignettes strung together to try to tell a boring story. Reminds me a lot of the terrible Dumb and Dumber To, but not as bad. I'm not sure that's a compliment. Go watch Top Five or the revamped TMNT, which are both better films.

> Voting 3rd party just makes the problem worse.

In every way, it does not.

> Alternately, nobody I know had even heard of the movie before the hacks

In the US, it's was pretty hard to miss. From the media coverage over the last few months to the previews that have been in theaters since March. Not to mention that Seth Rogan has been talking about it since he started filming and James Franco since at least the last Planet of the Apes movie (where his character was barely included).

> Papers that are not addressing AGW and take no position on AGW are irrelevant, no matter how many ad hominem labels you spew and assumptions you make.

That statement is incorrect. Such papers are specifically relevant. Scientific papers that do not take a position are not excluded as a factual record that serves as credible evidence. Irrelevancy would be based on insufficient rigor or correlation.

> Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach

Please point to the study that demonstrates this. I would argue the opposite.
Runtime definition of types (modifications to a prototype has the same effect) has never been shown to be more productive than static typing, so I have to question assertions that it's obviously true.

> Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web

Java on a browser wouldn't be Java anymore than javascript is (they share some syntax!). Any modern scripting language is going to have to deal with a browser environment in similar ways, so we can just treat them the same. Why isn't a scripting language appropriate? Yes you would have to design a syntax for portability and make a browser vm, but so what? That's part of implementing a language in what we currently have as a browser client.

Looks like JJ can do action scenes but just throws in stuff "to make it interesting"...like a lightsaber cross-guard! Also the intro dialogue? Phantom Menace level bad.
The initial shot is obviously pre-finished. It slowly builds from raw to production level scenes. I have high hopes, but it will have bad parts.