If she is so opposed to the wearing of ID based on her religious beliefs then perhaps she shouldn't be in science and engineering. She is eventually going to have to deal with a lot of stuff that violates her religious beliefs. Of course, that is only the case if they actually teach her science.

Lawyer and politician is pretty much synonymous. The vast majority of politicians are lawyers. As I tell people. Being a lawyer is the only career where you get to create your own jobs and then get paid to argue with people about them.

If you want to stand up for something then you should be willing to let people know who you are. Otherwise your just another slacktivist pretending to be outraged.

If I try to submit a paper claiming that global warming is being caused by the hot breath of Galactus as he eats a planetary burrito is there anything wrong with refusing to allow it to be peer reviewed. Part of the peer review process is to keep stupid ideas from wasting the time of scientist.

Who? Me?

Someone needs to go back to Ninja school. The word Sasuke has a long tradition related to the ninja. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarutobi_Sasuke

When I read that the National Geographic had lost all respectability by asking people this question and whether "The Hulk" or "Batman" would be the best solution. A sad day indeed.

Some communities. How about the entire state of Tennessee which recently passed laws allowing creationism equal time in all science curriculum's and made it possible to fire teachers if they even mention "gateway sexual activities" in any area. What this country needs is a national curriculum which would apply to every state, city and town whether that town was in California or Tennessee. It also needs national textbooks with the subjects overseen by professionals in the field instead of local school boards deciding that "little Johnny Reb" needs to be told that America is a God Based nation like they did in Texas. The fact that most schools have become nothing more than sports star mills might have something to do with the state of education, too.

It was the Saga of the Pliocene Exile.

I'll second, third and fourth Jhereg Novels. Vlad is the biggest smartass of all time and lets not forget Loiosh....


Can I eat him boss? Can I, Please.

If processed correctly.

True. However, no one does. None of the agricultural methods used in large scale agriculture use any kind of watershed management. They just keep draiing the water from the aquifers and not worrying about replenishment rates. It isn't about rain. Its about water access to provide more food than rain can do. Rainfall isn't reliable for large scale agriculture. In many areas where agriculture thrives rainfall is completely insufficient for crop growth. Especially for places like China and India. The solution is to dig into the aquifers for supplies. The problem is that we are past the replenishment level for most of them and are draining water from locations where it was deposited millenia ago. The hydrologic cycle isn't capable of replacing at the level we are draining. If we stop draining aquifers and rely on rainfall for all production then production decreases to the point where it isn't sufficient to provide the level of food required. Simple fact. We are withdrawing water faster than the natural system works. The water in the aquifers is limited. Once they are depleted we are faced with the more expensive alternatives. Price of food skyrockets and production falls. Only the rich can afford food and the rest of the people starve.

Sure it would. It would pay for itself so well that it wouldn't be worth it. There just wouldn't be any profit in it.

No, they wouldn't. The introduction of that much Platinum would make Platinum cheaper than Copper. Too much supply + too little demand = worthless. They can only truly profit by keeping supplies scarce. The same reason the corporations oppose sustainable fuels and support intellectual property rules.

I am not saying its a bad thing. I am saying that Obama told the truth on that matter. He is correct.
The question is really what are you going to do with all the people who don't have jobs anymore simply because technology took the jobs. Eventually, it is going to bring the economic system we have to its knees because people are necessary for the greatest majority of the system. You can't simply teach them all to create the systems because everyone isn't meant to be a technician, a programmer, an engineer or a scientist. The end of the system equals most people without productive employment and a system where they don't have a place. Either you just let them die or you accept the full impact. The full impact being millions, if not billions, of people without anything to do, but still needing food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and all the rest. Capitalism simply isn't designed to deal with it and shouldn't be expected to. After all, its roots are from a time period when none of these things were possible and humans were the source of all the labor and energy which went into production.