Due to the biological differences inherent to men and women, the ideal reproductive strategies are different for men and women, with the tl;dr version of it being quantity and quality respectively. Quantity requires more persistence than nuance compared to determining quality.

According to Slashdot, Betty White is a terrorist?

The Guardian had a huge trove of documents, and most of them haven't come out yet.

No, I know it's PR, I'm just wishing that they would actually do something constructive instead of trying to look good.

In practice, it would be better, and this process can and should be incredibly open, with, at most, a small period of nondisclosure until the bugs can be fixed and patches distributed. This is in line with best practices, and it would limit the ability for such accusations.

Can't we just work together and find a safe place to put all of our authoritarian politicians, maybe Yucca Mountain? It was designed to handle dangerous materials for long periods of time.

How about, instead of playing war games, you use the same resources to actually secure the vital infrastructure that we get regular scare stories about, or audit widely used FOSS before the next shellshock or heartbleed?

If I had to guess, there are both positive and negative effects on celebrities as scientists, dependent upon enough factors that there's no good way to make a headline. The effects a celebrity scientist has are dependent upon why people identify with them, how the public reacts, and of course what the scientist does. If the results of celebrity scientists are making cool posters for dorm rooms and/or being eye candy, then yeah, they probably aren't doing much for it. But, if they are testifying before Congress to act on scientific data or fund research, or encouraging people to improve their critical thinking skills, they are immensely helpful. It's also important that they stay on that side of the line. Discovery Channel and shows on the Discovery Channel have had issues with that.

If you really want to advance scientific literacy, you're going to have to dispel the idea that it's common for something to have virtually only positives or only negatives, as in reality, those kinds of things are quite rare.

There is no perfect way to avoid fruitless effort, but a number of steps can be done to minimize them, including understanding of defining principles for how something functions.

I feel like it's a set of traits that seems tailored to fit a very narrow mold. Favoring optimism over pessimism, for example, is problematic. This is especially true if, in practice, what is emphasized is simply being optimistic, as opposed to the more specific traits mentioned, like being able to continue after failure and realize potential opportunities.

Nuclear warfare and a society with that kind of tech would leave behind much more than civilization we've found so far, and India is the second most populous country in the world by a rather large margin, which would make it harder to hide something there than the Amazon. Also, in order for them to develop the kind of technology to have a nuclear state, they would need to have had advanced farming, and would have had to have had a bigger population than the rest of the world combined at that time to have the manpower to have developed such things. Occam's razor is screaming that this is just a bullshit theory that's been made up.

If the makers are claiming 75% and nobody is trained against these kinds of polygraphs, they probably won't be a bit different in the real world any further than 5 years from now.

Of course economic plausibility is tied to economics, and if the economics change, so does the plausibility. If fuel gets cheap enough and piloting these things is automatic, the price difference could be minimal, thus making them much more practical.

Nuclear war that destroyed a civilization would probably leave some kind of trace, as would a civilization that advanced. The burden of proof would lie with those making such an outrageous claim.

http://www.kanyetothe.com/foru... Appears to be an example to the contrary, with a pretty noticeable difference of a fairly recent release, and I know a number of digital remasters have a lot of that going on, with The Stooges' Raw Power being one of the most egregious examples.