>You know what's not a science but uses a lot of math? Economics, which is 3 parts ideology and 1 part math.

It sounds to me like you're running on three parts ideology and one part math.

Economics is actually very much a science! They make empirical studies of the world, and test them to see if they hold up.

Math is very much not a science.

>Maths is a science

Um, no. There's a reason why you get a BA in Math, not a BS.

Math is an exemplar of a priori thinking. You can literally do math in your head by just picking some starting axioms and deriving from there, with no reference to the outside world.

Science is an exemplar of a posteriori thinking. You make empirical observations about the world, generate hypotheses, and see if the evidence matches the model.

>... Replace with cheap bland French beer? I know they have not-so-great beer, and if not, definitely some cheap staple table wine. So change the complement to suit the location. He didnt literally mean it had to be bud light.

Actually, Budweiser is appallingly popular in France. I saw teens everywhere drinking it.

You can, you just need to phrase it right -

"I love how you can always find a table there!"

"You never need to tip the servers!"

"The bartender was at his best when serving Bud Light!"

>The idea that liberty and capitalism was what made America great is a giant lie. The US was just another Imperialist power like the European nations before it.

America was a very half-hearted Imperialist power, that just got into the game in the Philippines because all the cool kids were doing it. (Seriously - read some of the primary sources of the time in regards to McKinley and Funston.) America was much better about not keeping other countries after we conquer them than pretty much anyone else in the world.

Is Cuba an American state?

Iraq?

Germany?

You think Germany would have given back any of the other countries it overran?

No?

So you're wrong.

> It rose to power not because of voluntary mutually beneficial trade between free thinking people. It rose to power because it conquered, killed, stole, and was victorious in wars.

All countries, at some level, are founded on the right of conquest. What made the Aztecs have any more right to the land than the Spanish?

America's *strength* though, really was based on being an economic powerhouse of industry and trade. Look at the GDP of America in WWII and compare it with the USSR (whom it sounds like you would just love to pieces).

> This is what the interstate commerce clause is meant for: use federal power to force States to stop anti-business practices that hurt businesses and people when States attempt to destroy competition by preventing businesses and people from engaging in interstate commerce.

What?! No. Clearly you haven't been paying attention. "Interstate Commerce" means that if I grow wheat in my back yard and eat it, *that* is interstate commerce.

See? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

I don't know what kind of crazy English language you are speaking there, buddy.

>What we need is a revision that turns incorrect automated takedown notices into a contempt charge. That is exactly what it is., a failure to show the care and seriousness due to the DMCA process.

They considered this, but Goodlatte and other representatives in the pockets of industry explicitly rejected it because it might have a cooling effect on takedowns. :p

>Aliens ...sending us messages a million years ago ... ?

Drink your Ovaltine.

This is a great overview of gaming, thanks.

> Electrically-powered synthesis of methane from H2O and CO2 already exists, and the process of forming longer hydrocarbons from methane do, too.

Yep. I think we ought to focus more of our research dollars on making this cheaper.

If we start having more solar/wind than we know what to do with, using excess capacity to build up hydrocarbons is theoretically a great way to store the energy that would play nicely with our existing infrastructure, and would suck carbon out out of the atmosphere (though it'd get cycled back out) rather than from the earth's crust.

>Not "right" by the OP's definition, no. Even in 1906 they could not have reasonably predicted the conditions of 2014.

They wanted to widen and straighten the streets. This would have made a pretty significant impact on the road conditions in SF, even today.

Could you imagine what London would be like today if they didn't remodel a bit after 1666?

>Yes - damn the city planners of the 1870's for not anticipating the conditions of 2014.

I know, right? It's not like all of San Francisco ever got hit by a massive earthquake and fire or something.

Actually, they did have their chance to rebuild the city right - they knew their layout was shit and considered it - the trouble was figuring out how property rights would work when you moved all of the lots around was too much of a nightmare for the city, especially given that they'd lost all their records in the fire. So they were basically forced to allow everyone to rebuild right where they were before, using a city layout that would make old European cities cry from dysfunction.

>I don't understand completely how this all has gone so far so fast. Just 15 years ago, this all would have been unthinkable.

The FISA court has been around a lot longer than 15 years. It was founded in 1978, and has been a civil rights issue for those of us paying attention for a long time now.

The American legal system, as you say, is based on being able to confront your accuser in a criminal case (6th Amendment), to examine evidence held against you, and that trials in abstentia are a violation of our natural rights.

So yeah, Pope, I agree with you for once.