that whole "we've sent things to Mars" myth that the Conspiracy is trying to force on you. I think the whole thing was shot on a soundstage in Southern California ... I'm pretty sure I can see the support wires.

To say they can't means the market isn't growing, which shows your lack of udnerstanding

Um, no, I think the lack is on your part. Even a 100% monopoly can gain sales, but they can't increase market share -- that is, the fraction of the market they reach. If the number of searches doubled, and Bing doubles and Google doubled (pretending they're the only two engines), then their market share remains the same, 10% and 90% respectively.

There are four bridges running east/west over the bay

But only one leads to the Playtronics factory where the MacGuffinn is held...

Wow. I hope I am making the mistake of responding to a troll, because if you genuinely believe what you wrote, you are a sad sad person. People with dyslexia aren't "slow" and they certainly aren't what you wanted to imply, which is stupid. They have a neurological condition to affects their ability to visually process information -- a condition which, in fact, they can overcome by training themselves to compensate. I teach, and I have taught dyslexics as well as non-dyslexics. You know which group was in fact smarter on average? Neither ... because it's not about "smart".

The reason ignorant people think dyslexics are "slow" is that the ignorant people have one model of learning and when someone fails to follow it, they conclude that person is flawed. But in fact, when given the freedom to adapt their learning styles to their unique demands, dyslexics (and many other supposedly "slow" students) prove themselves as capable, mentally, as so-called normal people. In fact one thing educators have learned -- which apparently hasn't filtered down to your level yet -- is that there is a nearly infinite variety of learning styles and that none of them is "right".

As for the GPP, I understand why the prof might recommend that his students not take notes. I think it's misguided but his experience leads him to that conclusion and who am I to gainsay it? But to forbid students from attempting to learn in the style they've developed -- a style, by the way, which seems in no way to detract from anyone choosing to do it the prof's way -- is simply arrogant and asinine. Indeed, it's about as dumb as an obsession with "covering material" rather than, say, comprehension of same.

And by the way, your "insight"

You're upset because you learn one way and would rather have instructors doing that, ensuring that only a minority do well... Wait a second, that's just what you said! Holy shit, the street goes both ways! You're right in that everyone learns different. Why couldn't you have fully applied that thought to your statements?

is so transparently bogus it's hardly worth mentioning. The parent post was not attempting to inflict a particular learning style on anyone; it was questioning why the original prof saw fit to do so. My taking notes in no way forces you to take notes -- but the prof banning notes most certainly imposes his preferred learning style on me. Despite that wonderful rhetorical trick you think you pulled, there is simply no equivalence in the two stands.

It's not just about making money. (I know -- the horror!) It's also about control and access. Why should any one company, even Google, get sole and exclusive rights to works in the public domain?

How about get rid of private autos in the city entirely and improve the mass transit? I don't know how/if this would work for Chicago. But it's the best way forward in Manhattan, I can tell you.

My own "pet theory" for this was that they would never be detected because although they do exist, they perturb the measurement device to the same degree that they do everything else

In what way does it make sense to say "they exist", then? If they by definition cannot be measured, then they can't interact with the Universe in any way. From a scientific viewpoint, then, they don't exist.

I'm pretty sure that the problem here is that theory predicts there should be some measurable effect and so far, there isn't.

If they do things to far out of line, they can certainly expect to loose their jobs.

Uhhh... are you living in the same country as the rest of us? When corporate heads screw up, they leave the company with tremendous "golden parachute" severance deals, then go on to be hired by some other company at even higher compensation. They most certainly do not end up suffering the way free-market zealots say they should.

The government is still moving money around, which is inefficient. Its like moving energy-there is some loss for administration at the least.

Right. That's why the best thing for the economy is for all the money to be stuffed into mattresses, so it doesn't circulate at all.
Oh, wait, no, that's not right. It's the other thing, you know, dead wrong economically. Velocity of money is important and when you're in a credit crunch (which we still are), one key thing is to keep the money moving. It's a lot like oil in an engine. If you "save" all the oil in the pan, the engine locks up and destroys itself.

In the constitution itself...

Minor nit, but the 14th Amendment is "the Constitution itself". Amendments are part and parcel of the document -- that's why they're amendments, not appendices. They change the document (which, incidentally, is why it's a "living document").

It'd be fine to say "In the original Constitution, ..."

Some people assume that traffic can be modelled like water in pipes. "Road is congested? Make it wider and the congestion will ease." What they don't realise is that motorists are more intelligent than water particles.

Also, when you treat traffic as a compressible fluid, you get 20-car pile-ups, because cars aren't compressible... or at least, they're not uncompressible afterwards...

personally, the only thing i am sure about when it comes to this debate is that there are not enough human beings on earth to significantly change a structure as large and complex as the earth's atmosphere.

Then you are sure of nothing, because it's already well-established that the activities of humanity have impacted the atmosphere. Ever hear of acid rain? or the ozone hole? or even just heat-islands around cities?

However, it doesn't contradict, and in fact confirms, that there was a general consensus that we would eventually enter another ice age.

And there still is such a consensus. The tricky bit is, what is "eventually"? People were always thinking in terms of 20,000 years or longer. Even if we fail to act on C02, eventually the Earth will return to glaciation... if you wait long enough.

Thank goodness. I thought I was all alone in feeling this way about Ellison's "City" script. It's a steaming turd of poor writing that respects none of the conventions of the show in which he brutally tried to shoe-horn it. It makes characters act in uncharacteristic ways, gets preachy at the wrong moments, and all in all just plain sucks. I'll go further: I haven't read anything by Ellison that even remotely justifies his reputation as a mover-and-shaker in science fiction. It's all pretentious, tedious, smug crap. He's just someone who caught the New Wave and rode it for all it was worth, and was catapulted far beyond his meager talents.

Harlan Ellison is a nightmare from which science fiction is waiting to awaken.

There is zero evidence for most of what is written in scripture, especially the parts that creationists/ID believers subscribe to.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "evidence". The divergence between those espousing science and those railing against it is, more often than not, a disagreement on what is the ultimate arbiter of truth. To a scientist, the ultimate arbiter of truth is the physical world. The Universe cannot be wrong. To a fundamentalist, the ultimate arbiter of truth is the Bible (or Koran or other source). The Bible cannot be wrong. In any conflict between your ultimate arbiter of truth and some interpretation of the world, the interpretation has to lose.

But if you and someone else disagree on the ultimate arbiter of truth, it's unlikely you can ever "resolve" any differences at all. You're not speaking the same language.