not the only way!:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

My grandpa was 50 miles from Hiroshima, in the navy. He died of thyroid cancer in 2008.

More to say. Doom 3 sucked b/c it was easy. Monster closets blow, but not as much as crackhead imps

I new Doom-like game could still be super-cool, if it were fuck-all hard and full of archviles and shit. It wouldn't sell, but I'd kick ass at it. The only problem would be AI. I think the best solution would be to keep them stupid, just like before. Crazy? Maybe. But I bet, if a 'clever' version with a 'plot' and 'advanced AI' came out, I'd be playing the new 'DOOM 2 ' mod in a week, and vice versa, except I wouldn't play the "HALF LIFE MOD" (I'd be too busy kicking ass!). In a month I'd be playing the team fortress mod though, once I'd beat the game in NM

There's a difference. In creationism, people assume an understanding or expectation of the thing outside of creation. Believers have an expectation of the afterlife, and they are notorious for using that as a justification for whatever they like. On the other hand, creating a framework for asking questions about the world as a simulation, coming from a questioning (rather than believing) mindset, might lead to some interesting results.

I looked over a few, and tried bits of them. One thing I noticed was egregious, amazing amounts of trans fat in a cookie. Like, would certainly cause heart disease if eaten x times, where x is not a giant number. I could see keeping these things for a hunting trip, but if you were surviving in a bunker, I think they might kill you before the thing you're hiding from.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...
I think it's less straightforward. I think population will level out at some unnacceptably high point, and we will grind the biosphere down to waste until influenza or some coronavirus wipes a third of us out. And then repeat!

Forgive my ignorance, but I want to make a part of this argument clear for myself. XX male syndrome is caused by SRY being erroneously included in assortment into an X chromosome, but I was told in lower bio classes that a Y was part of an X. Clearly the description of this condition contradicts my limited understanding of the contents of X and Y chromosomes. Then without further information I could conclude that neither femaleness nor maleness is 'normal'.

This is called 'male', but that seems like more of a judgement call than anything. A person with this condition is sterile. A person with XY chromosomes (therefore lacking FOXL2), but defective SRY turns out more like a female actually: XY female.

Hadn't thought of that yet. This could really suck for poor kids, if loans and grants became scarce due to tuition tax.

I might agree with you, with the caveat that this raises serious issues with cultural assumptions. Like maybe an American woman who was born in Baghdad would complete a degree because she wanted that validation. Or a Chinese American might need to graduate because of family expectations. Also, I might strongly distrust someone who did this if they came from riches, depending on my perception of their character otherwise.

So? Females are the norm, and males the exception. Females carry young, raise young, and in general, are healthier, smarter, and live longer. And if you advocate change in any way, shape, or form, it is probably less important than the general recognition that gender needs to be irrelevant, or maybe slightly biased towards females.

"Most delicious mushroom they've ever eaten." Maybe I should tank up on sylimarin and go mushy hunting.

Reasonable arguments based on mountains of evidence don't seem to be making any impression on a substantial and vocal segment of society. I for one get really pissed off about this because scientists are, by and large, ridiculously hard-working, honest, and relatively pleasant people. I think the kind of articles that appear in Junk Science are not just lame excuses for journalism, but really disrespectful to a lot of good people, and just generally un-civil. Ad hominem should never get on the table, but there you go.

I'm studying mathematics right now. I'm in abstract algebra, combinatorics, real analysis, and a seminar on math history with proofs, and last quarter I took abstract set theory. It's all good, and all challenging, and all elegant and beautiful and subtle. My classmates sometimes complain about not favoring real analysis or geometry, but I don't really feel the distinctions. I do think Euclid is great, but set theory could be awesome too, if it were presented well. My problem with public math education is the lack of variety and choices. Graph theory and probability (with some proofs) ought to be available alternatives to calc 2 in every high school. I would like to speak to the situation in elementary school, but I don't know enough about it. I don't know if this is really a funding problem, because teachers are never paid enough. We don't have culture in the USA, so money is the only thing to chase. A person with a bachelors in mathematics could go into training to a variety of careers that pay $50-150K/year, or they could get a teaching certificate and somehow find a way to actually get logical thinking into high schoolers via set theory, and make...$40K? Woohoo! With a culture that respects such behavior, it might be worth it, but there is not much of that here. Better go for the $$$.

Talk to foreigners. People are outraged and disgusted by being searched when they enter the country, by Guantanamo Bay, by many things America does. As much as I love and defend STEM, technical knowledge is only a small part of life. Churning out code monkies who have a mental world map of "Anime comes from Japan, Europe is That Way, Mexico is That Way,..." is generally a really bad idea.