Actually, it does.

There's not even an argument there. Current scientific knowledge indicates strongly that our brains are wired for language processes, but not for a specific language.

No. You are trying to introduce some kind of strange sideways category. Or maybe it is the word "algorithm" that's causing the confusion here. I've described my view, how about you describe yours?

Extremely doubtful he'll ever be anywhere near that furious. Which is all the more ironic considering this story- Mass is a blue state. How could such a thing happen in a state that's been controlled by the saintly Democrats since forever? But let's bring up Bush/Cheney, which really has fuck all to do with this story.
Election years (and the year leading up to them) crack me up. In the last few months, I've seen more comments about Bush and Cheney on teh interwebs than I have in the past 2 1/2 years.

The original post was confused. 2001 was not the "back in the day". Why waste time? If you want to pretend you're cool, boot an early kernel.

Damn, , Bazinga..! Remind me not to get into an argument with you.

Why repeatedly? When I went through the public school system, I only got tested once. I have no memory of the test, I don't think they told us what is was for at the time. I only found out about it when I got my records after I graduated high school. I don't even know which year it was taken.

Well, some motorcycle guys (in the more infamous gangs) might consider you to be a pussy if you don't ride a hog or know anything about mechanics, so yes, sometimes there is snobbery there. Though I've found, personally, the vast majority of bikers to be pretty cool guys, honestly.
But it's very definition, any kind of inclusivity implies an exclusivity - people belong to a group because of their similarities, and by the same token, people are excluded from the group for not having that something in common.

I concede that. But either way, with the death of oil, the ICE will be obsolete among other things, and people are going to have to start thinking harder about alternative energy.

Yep, actually.

I agree. The government has to be above board before it can expect anyone else to be.
I was just curious, and honestly a little surprised that not one person defended the IRS in this case, because of the hate of large corporations or rich people we so often see expressed here. I was just expecting it. The IRS really needs to be overhauled. Though I'd also like to see this accountant slip up again in the future so he can be nabbed legally, because he's a dirtbag.

Unions are no longer necessary. If you don't perform, get fired. Unions are for socialism and extortion.

That's scary. And the powers of the Federal government just keep growing like a cancer, and the states take on ever more subservient, delegated roles.
This country was never designed for a monolithic seat of power, and yet it keeps moving in that direction. And on a related note, no matter which side of the legalize pot issue you're on, I think it's good to see Washington and Colorado giving the finger to DC, at least it's something where the states and the people have reclaimed some authority, though there are other issues they should address too.

You think the US is doing nothing about alternative energy? You're not paying attention then. But from a pragmatic view, for now, the traditional methods of power generation still have priority because demands must be met and only oil/coal/nuclear can meet them in a sustainable manner. You can believe that when the oil wells begin to show signs of running dry, the energy companies will bust a move. They'll go nuts looking for other ways to provide energy. Yes, they're driven by profit, that's kinda what businesses do. But if solar/wind/geothermal can make them money too, they'll embrace them wholeheartedly, and they'll have the resources and motivation to catch up, if needed. I don't see us getting left behind in anything. This headline was misleading in what solar can actually provide, it was little more than a PR stunt. It'll be a long way off before truly green, sustainable energy is a reality. Placing current technology in large scale scenarios isn't likely to prove very useful, the tech still needs to mature.

but more methane emissions

It filled a Nietzsche.

How is that not relevant? A good many users here believe the rich to be essentially evil, corrupt hoarders of money, who have stolen more than their fair share of the common wealth from us, and who do not pay their fair share of taxes; and then to add insult to injury I suppose, use that wealth as leverage to pay even less taxes or none at all. You can't deny this is a common mantra here.
So, the ethical dilemma I proposed (and this is why it's devil's advocate): what if instead of an accountant in this story, the IRS had illegally come across a multimillionaire who had cooked their books? On one hand, bad IRS.. but on the other, bad multimillionaire. Sooo... would the 99%er's here still feel the IRS should get the smackdown for their actions and let the guy go free, or should there be an exception here?