I'm not sure about the Raton hotspot, but the rest is currently active. Just not active on human timescales.

I disagree. I can think of two, just in the US - the Long Valley caldera in eastern California and the Raton hotspot of New Mexico. Further, the largest volcanic eruption of the past 20 million years occurred at Lake Toba in Indonesia. What is special about that site (perhaps a large, geologically "rapidly" replenished reservoir of high viscosity, high volatile content magma?) may occur elsewhere in the Ring of Fire and other subduction zones.

Yes. It wasn't that bad. It amazes me how much power people are willing to hand governments to avoid the possibility of "sweat shops", "child labor", and other obsolete 19th century dangers.

Read some history on how Pinkerton operated. They didn't go after outlaws or bush unions without law enforcement support. It might just be a token deputy riding with a bunch of Pinkertons, but they had their backside covered.

But at least in the latter case, she can get her money back. She could also beg that congressperson for any private disputes as well. That option doesn't vanish merely because the problem is private.

And as to my "reading comprehension", I guess you should have written something other than:

and

Your story completely undermines your claim that it was just a dispute with Social Security.

Sounds like it's working for them then.

Because it's not NASA's job to develop a drive for which there is no supporting evidence that it can work. Even if such a propulsion system is possible, you still need to be able to get into space to use it. And you need to know stuff like what NASA actually does in order to do anything useful in space.

At this time, it is more properly CERN's task to invest in FTL research and they're doing an admirable job of it.

First, you admit here that species actually exist. Second, you're just not getting it. It's not just genes, but a collection of genes acting together. As I noted in response to serviscope_minor, there are other examples of macroscopic phenomena which don't make sense to consider only in terms of the smallest scale that contains the phenomena.

Finally, natural selection is just the winnowing process. An organism can indeed experience selection from a single gene (such as the difference between being susceptible to poisoning or not to some chemical in the environment, which can be triggered by a single gene). But it can also experience higher level selection (such as survival being dependent on morphological properties such as size, speed, or physical appearance) which can depend on a subtle mix of large numbers of genes acting together.

Except that species are a thing we actually observe. Trees don't breed with cats. And there are actually cases where closely species have evolved in a way to appear very distinct (for a recent example, guenon monkeys in central Africa.

Which makes it something that doesn't happen at the level of genes - by definition of "macroscopically observable".

We don't say, for a similar example, that music operates at the level of the Brownian motion of air particles even though sounds such as those of music are transmitted through such a medium. You would be glossing over both the macroscopic properties of the air medium which define and transmit sound and the structure of music (and its perception by a human audience) which differentiates it from arbitrary sounds.

What makes your perception even remotely valid?

Which are growing at a rapid rate and for which there are a lot more people. Basically, the economy is moving from the developed world to the rest of the world.

And there we go again. Fallacy after fallacy. Here, the fallacy of argument from authority.

And the ad hominem fallacy. You're not bringing a thing to the table.

Well, aside from that it's not particular mature to want to ban everything that can't be regulated, I suppose your worldview is seamless.

Give it a try then, if it's so easy to do.

Because only Libertardians would be concerned about a government that bans everything it doesn't control?

We have courts as back up. Relax.

Those customers aren't going to be its employees. And it can always sell to the developing world.

Sorry, I read to the beginning of the thread and get that now.

I still find it weird how you went straight in your reply to the above shallow observation into a criticism of Darwin and a discussion of morality changes in society.