Evolution is imperfectly results-driven, being stochastic rather than deterministic. A trait that confers an advantage may not come to dominate, for a variety of reasons. It may be (necessarily or accidentally) linked with a trait that's a disadvantage. It might not be enough of an advantage to overcome bad luck. It may diverge into a new species that's then wiped out somehow.

It's explained in Doctor Who: Time Lords have neat communication abilities that they can share with others. That way, everything sounds like English to the Doctor's companions.

I've seen two positions on the definition of a derivative work. One is that the GPL goes much further than the law does, and a court will scale it back. The other is that, if you're taking advantage of the GPL, you need to abide by their definitions. It will be interesting to see what a court decides.

How did it compare to the heinous crime of being accused of having sex with a game reviewer?

Technically, all the weather is a direct result of global warming, in the sense that we wouldn't have this exact weather without it. Weather is chaotic, after all, and a small change in conditions (like half a kelvin of warming) will lead to great changes in outcome. Without global warming, we'd have different hurricanes etc.

What we can't know is whether a weather condition would have an analog in a world without human CO2 production that would have been more or less severe. Sandy was partly due to global warming, but what would be the chance of getting something that destructive without global warming?

Growing arctic ice thickness? Arctic ice is getting less and less area. I wasn't able to quick find anything on thickness, but isn't volume what we're primarily interested in? We seem to be losing that at both poles. Decrease in tornado activity? Was there an actual prediction for more tornadoes? How much decrease? Right now, we can look at a significant change in tornadoes and say "that looks funny", but I don't know how else we're supposed to interpret it.

Germany did pretty much steamroll Western Europe up to the coast, except for Spain and Portugal. Taking Britain was going to be a lot harder, and everybody knew that. The German plans to invade southern England in 1940 are positively ludicrous, and their attempts to suppress British air power caused them losses they never really had a chance to recoup.

Germany then attacked the Soviet Union, and failed in 1941, before the US had any significant impact on the war. The US didn't have an army on the European mainland before September 1943, and the US air forces didn't have a serious impact before mid-1943. Eventually, the US had a major role, but it came much later than any time Germany could possibly have won, and primarily accelerated the end of the war and kept the Soviets out of most of Western Europe.

The US was engaged in the Pacific, and the majority of the resources available in 1942 went there, but the US was really not ready for a war by the end of 1942. The US was frantically building up a large army, but it didn't start to show up until sometime in 1943 and wasn't anywhere near full strength before 1944.

My health care providers will use generics first, that being clinic policy. I have no doubt that I'd be covered for expensive drugs if I actually needed them, but the need would have to be demonstrated. (I have been given free samples of expensive drugs that the doctor happened to have.)

The real irony is that governments in the US pay more for health care per capita than the total health care costs for some countries with comparable health care. We could completely socialize medicine without raising the amount the government currently spends on health care and still have a decent system.

A slippery slope argument is that something, once introduced, will eventually dominate (otherwise it's not a slippery slope argument). It claims that we can't have a good mixture of the new and old, because the new will inevitably take over. Therefore, it logically implies an all or nothing argument. If you accept a particular slippery slope argument as valid (and there are slippery slopes in the world), then you accept the corresponding all-or-nothing argument as valid.

How about we learn a bit of history before saying stupid things about it? Hitler was not a socialist. His contemporaries did not consider him a socialist. The NSDAP purged its socialists in the mid-30s. Hitler stayed in power largely by being buddy-buddy with big industrialists, unlike any Marxist I'm aware of. As far as Orwell, 1984 and Animal Farm are pretty obviously based on the Soviet Union (with clear allusions to Trotsky vs. the old guard) - you know, an actual left-wing Socialist-wannabe totalitarian state?

I await your documentation that Marx and Engels called for racial extermination. It would also be interesting to see any coherent argument, based on facts, that the National Socialist party was, after the mid-30s, Socialist or leftist (as I am well aware of right-wingers through history that didn't like democracy).

One problem is that he's wrong, just going with the "big lie" technique. His reasoning is either circular or relies on falsehoods.

Wikipedia lists the Soviets as the first to try to provide universal health care, and doesn't mention Nazi Germany. The Brits had a minimum wage law in 1604, and the Nazis practiced slave labor. Social Security was introduced by the definitely-not-left-wing Bismarck in the German Empire. The 102% tax is definitely something I'm unaware of, despite reading about the period, and I'm confident that if it existed it was in the context of moving companies from the control of people the Nazis didn't like to Nazi cronies. I'll be happy to look into an substantiation of that.

Up to the mid-30s, the National Socialist party had a good many Socialists, but they were purged then, and the National Socialist party remained Socialist in name only, pandering to large corporations. Any belief to the contrary relies on what they said, not what they did, and they lied a lot.

I'm not going to dig through your claims, except to point out that Social Security was devised by Otto von Bismarck for the German Empire, not the Nazis, and everybody who bothers to dig through such things is well aware of that.

Your political rants are equally wrong. Are you going to try to tell us that the TSA was created by leftists?

Okay, how much money has gone into propaganda (on the side acknowledging AGW), and how much into research? I keep having the feeling that you're strenuously arguing against something that doesn't really exist.

The big problem I have with what you say is that it's purely negative, saying why things won't work, and suggesting that only with some improbable developments can we affect global warming. If, after all, people are going to use lots of cheap energy no matter what we do, then there is no solution. If we can influence behavior to reduce carbon dioxide production, even a little, we're at least buying time and options.

I'm also puzzled by "crypto marxist", as if totalitarianism was only post-Marxist and had never appeared in anti-Communist governments. You describe them in some detail without, as far as I can tell, showing that there are a significant number of crypto-Marxist environmental idealist fanatics. We know there are some (see the recent Greenpeace article), but I've seen no evidence that they're at all important (as opposed to loud).