Sotomayor is generally considered one of the most liberal Supreme Court Justices, but here she is issuing a ruling that will make conservatives very happy. In other words, she made the decision based on legal principles instead of her personal ideology. Don't hold your breath waiting for, say, Thomas or Alito to do the same, ever.

I would think that the person who made the sculpture knows best what it was meant for.

In the military, everyone knows down to the penny how much everyone else makes, or at least can figure it out easily enough. You look at their rank, their time in service, and various other factors such as their current assignment, whether they live on or off base, are married or single, etc., and the number is right there. And the reward for productivity is promotion, which leads to a higher salary. This never led to any problems that I saw; and while there are plenty of aspects of civilian life I like better than being in uniform, this isn't one of them.

I think the explanation is pretty simple: the vast majority of pickup trucks and SUVs these days are bought as status symbols and rolling penis substitutes, not as work vehicles.

You can be pretty sure they're going to be the first to do exactly that.

Also ... "eggheads"? Really?

You're a year or two ahead of schedule on your talking point. You're always supposed to say there's been no global warming for (YYYY-1998) years, where YYYY is the current year. The fact that 1998 was considerably warmer than both 1997 and 1999 has nothing to do with this, of course--it's just a coincidence that you're supposed to use that particular year as the baseline. Right now you're supposed to say there's been no global warming for 15 years. Since it's almost 2014, I suppose you could push things a bit and claim 16 years, but 17 years is right out at least until next Christmas.

Of course, as of 2010 or so even this meme isn't actually true, but you know, if you're going to repeat fact-free arguments, you might want to be at least consistent about it.

You're probably right. Everyone can identify with Shakespeare's drama, for example, but his comedy falls flat for most modern audiences--the only people who really seem to find it funny are those who know a lot about the culture of the era. Assuming our words survive, they'll provide great insight for anyone centuries hence who wants to know how we thought as well as what we did.

Which is why in another generation or two, it won't be a problem. When everyone's embarrassing adventures in their teens and early twenties are sitting out there in easily accessed archives, the social attitudes toward such things will be very different. Facebook and Twitter posts from 2013 will be no big deal in 2033 (and yes, I'd be willing to bet they'll still be out there and easy to find).

Slashdot comment of the year.

The beliefs are different; the thought processes are exactly the same. But then, I don't expect someone who can't tell the difference between an ad hominem argument and a simple description to understand that.

It's always cute when denialists think they're somehow different from antivaxers and creationists.

The problem with this from the scientists' point of view is that we have to live with the consequences too. Now, in my field I'm not likely to be issuing any dire warnings any time soon--but in the unlikely event that I did come across something in my work that could kill millions of people or crash the economy, I'd damn sure want to do something about it, if for no other reason than that my family and friends and I would be just as likely to be affected as anyone else.

Using precise terms to describe specific concepts is "Orwellian"? Riiight. Someone in this conversation is practicing the "black is white, war is peace, freedom is slavery" mentality, but I'm pretty sure it's not me.

To further your analogy, one of the passengers in the car is insisting that the acceleration has ceased because the slope leveled off for a few hundred feet a couple of miles back, and continues to claim that the speedometer reads 55 MPH even as the needle climbs toward 100 and the entire State Patrol is chasing the car down the highway.

"Global warming" and "climate change" refer to related but distinct phenomena, and climatologists have always used both terms with precise meanings. Here is a concise explanation. As a rule, it's a good idea to pay attention to the way scientists talk about things instead of the distorted version that gets filtered through the popular press.