That sounds like a strong reason to pander to the base if neither party has accurate polls for guidance. If the candidate with the lager base can make swing voters not vote by pandering to the base (as you suggest), then that candidate has won.

I've been burned by interminable pools too. I'd be a lot more willing to answer polls if the people on the phone started with something like, "Hello. We're doing a political poll that has X questions and will take about Y minutes. Are you interested?" Y would be 3-4 minutes tops. I'd answer that type of poll.

I agree that there could be positive effects if polling became useless, but there could also be negative effects. It's not clear to me which effects will be stronger. My guess is that it'll be a wash.

Two possible examples:
-I think that politicians have a good idea of what their base wants even without detailed polls. If politicians have no idea what the rest of the electorate wants, maybe politicians will pander even more to their base because it's a known quantity.
-When there's real hysteria, politicians don't need polls. Take the recent ebola scare/hysteria. I don't think politicians jumped on it because of polls.

Oh, don't worry. Robots will put us out of business soon enough -- averting a malthusian catastrophe ;)

He kind-of-sort-of recommended three children when he said that there was no need to breed like rabbits. I think three is larger than the average size of a Catholic family in the USA, but maybe it's smaller than the world-wide average? In any case, I agree that the pope is a smart guy. I've been pleasantly surprised by him.

You don't see any hands because those are ridiculous solutions. I do know people who have, for sustainability reasons, moved to densely-populated areas and sold their car -- instead choosing to use public transportation, bike, walk, etc. (They rent cars/trucks when necessary, which isn't often.) Many young people are also making this choice, although I can't vouch for all of their motives.

Yes, the suburbs and many American cities are designed so that anything except a car is an impractical way to get around (with limited exceptions). However, that doesn't mean that cars are the only solution to transportation. It simply reflects where you chose to live.

I disagree. You have to assume that people interested in their (and their offspring's) physical well being, and scientists darn well can tell us if something is good or not. (I'm not saying that's the only assumption you have to or should make, but those other assumptions can be factored in too.)

However, the scientific answer is a much more complicated calculus. The pope can just tell people to stop destroying the environment. Science gives more nuanced answers like: this amount of environmental alteration will give you a better diet/lower infant mortality rate/more material wealth/etc., but go beyond that and the opposite will happen. E.g., catching this many fish is sustainable, but catching more that that will lead to population collapse and you not catching anything -- i.e. that's a bad decision.

Is that math somehow morally empty? That's an individual's decision. Then again, the majority of humanity doesn't take their cues from the pope, so some will see his proclamations as morally empty too (although non-catholics may see logic in the pope's writing, in which case we're back to judging the morality of math).

It's a little weird to say that the pope went there when in fact the pope took the position furthest from there, but that's semantics.

Regardless, my point stands: the pope is restricted by his moral authority, and that's a real problem if he's leading the charge. (That said, I think the pope will do much more good than harm, but he could do so much more good if he would tell people to use condoms.)

(I have another response to your original post, but I'll put it in another comment.)

Krauss brings up points that the pope doesn't _because_ of the pope's "moral authority". For example, Krauss makes the point that contraception is a must. A large world population is simply unsustainable without doing major environmental harm (and may simply be unsustainable, period). Needless to say, the pope couldn't really go there, although he has previously said that people should have fewer children -- never mind how.

So, while I think the pope is doing much good, he is dangerously restricted by the very moral authority you mention. It's a double-edged sword.

In these uncertain times, you can't be too careful. We should all be driving armored vehicles, like the Marauder. Top Gear did a wonderful review of the vehicle, showing how practical the Marauder is for normal city driving.

Review part 1
Review part 2

Wow, you're right. They've co opted the + to search Google+ pages. WTF? From the page you linked to: "[+ symbol usage:] Search for Google+ pages or blood types Examples: +Chrome or AB+"

Let's be honest, Uber is a cab company in everything but name. So, it's no surprise that governments treat Uber like a cab company -- something governments have the power to do.

Many commenters (understandably) don't like the regulations for cab companies and thus don't want to see Uber treated like one -- leading to the senseless denial that Uber is cab company (which it is).

What these commenters suggest is not how the legal system should work. The executive branch of government should enforce the laws. Commenters should instead take issue with the legislative branch for writing the laws in the first place.

And you know what? In some places the legislative branch does listen. Here in WI, the state legislature passed a law last month preempting local ordinances and allowing Uber to operate state wide (with some regulation). As a consequence, Uber is extending service to 5 new areas in Wisconsin. (Believe it or not, that means Uber will operate in 8 Wisconsin locations. Apparently there's demand. Who knew?)

It's true, but I believe that science is making progress and there is better evidence now than there was when the previous "reforms" were made.

This cycle is hardly unique to nutritional science, and it's easy to think that we're simply going in circles. However, I think it's more of a helix than a circle. Yes, we do sometimes get close to where we were before, but we never go exactly back to the same point because we have progressed forwards -- although often less than we'd like.

Although many people don't think about lard in baked goods (other than maybe biscuits), it works quite well there. Oreos was made with lard until sometime in the '90s when the replaced it with -- wait for it -- partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. It looks like we've come full circle. (Yes, I know oreos aren't exactly the greatest baked good, but it can work elsewhere too.)

That said, you only listed tallow and lard. Don't forget about butter and rendered chicken fat (schmaltz), which is really good stuff (and is often a byproduct of cooking chicken).

On an unrelated note, Wisconsin is ahead of the curve on regulating trans fats courtesy of the butter lobby:

97.18 (4) The serving of colored oleomargarine or margarine at a public eating place as a substitute for table butter is prohibited unless it is ordered by the customer.
97.18 (5) The serving of oleomargarine or margarine to students, patients or inmates of any state institutions as a substitute for table butter is prohibited...

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.g...

Hell, it was illegal to sell margarine here for many years.

The plan did go through. US production restarted in 2013.