It's so fitting that your username is Jane Q. Public. You are an excellent representative of the general public and their ignorance on all things scientific.

I really doubt that you would have it on the same level as we have it today, but I don't think that is the reason to legalize drugs.

We should legalize drugs because it is the right thing to do. The drug laws are a relic of the past when people thought that it was okay to legislate their brand of morality. We now know that drug prohibition causes much more harm than good, and so that makes it dangerous and wrong to continue down the prohibition path. The war on drugs is a failure, and to keep pushing for these laws either means that you're insane, or you want to manipulate the public or are being manipulated.

I do think that as a side benefit of legalization we will see less violence and criminal activity by the cartels, less money to corrupt politicians, less money to buy arms, less money to pay muscle, etc. etc, but of course we won't see these benefits if we don't even try.

Firewire is so dead, here's an article talking about how Steve Jobs said Firewire is dead.

DST is an anachronism. Only old people (esp. those in congress) oppose getting rid of it. I suspect that when they die off we'll be able to relegate it to the dust bin of history.

Reminds me of an old joke: if the opposite of pro is con, the opposite of progress is ...

Don't be put off because of its religious origin - it's the demonstration of a point that has been known for thousands of years.

Well, they did go through the Bell Riots first.

I'm thinking that we're going to have to go through something similar, but with the current thinking among conservatives, it's going to be a lot worse. The Fuck-You-I-Got-Mine Capitalism is going to come to a bloody end.

Let's just take a look at mass murder. I'm sure you remember the story about the walls of Jericho, right?

Maybe that doesn't fit the exact description of genocide, but it is GOD commanding mass murder.

This is my favorite sentence from that chapter:

See, the Creator of the Universe needs some cold hard cash, similar to today. You'd think he'd be even better than the fed at printing money being the all powerful ruler of everything, but alas, no.

Regarding the actual definition of genocide, this is him saying to commit genocide:

Show me where, in anything that I just posted, that it says not to take it literally, because it looks literal to me. Or do you mean that your pastor told you not to take it literally?

The bible as a work of literature has its exemplary moments, and I would encourage everyone to read it, from start to finish. But as a book on morality it is severely lacking in that you can never tell what to take literally, and what to not take literally. I guess use your own judgement? Well, you don't need the bible to do that.

Funny story: I remember going online once, only to randomly end up in some sort of exchange. It was magic. There were spontaneous gatherings of bitcoins popping into and out of existence. A person called 'MagicTux' kept telling me over and over that the future was now.

I cannot ever recall groups of people who are not experts in a field so fervently trying to discredit the experts in that field, and to disprove the science in that field, all while using anything but the generally accepted methods of that field.

I don't see wildlife biologists using historical populations of wolves to try to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity. I don't see archaeologists using ancient mummy wrapping techniques to try to disprove the theory of solar spot formation. But here we have a political scientist using statistics from economic data to try to discredit the theory that more energy in a weather system will cause more energetic events. It's getting to be so ridiculous that I bet in the near future we *will* see a wildlife biologist using historical wolf populations to disprove that the globe is heating up, or that it is but man is not the cause, or that man is the cause but you can't do anything about it anyway, or that you could, but it's actually better for everybody so don't do anything, or please, just anything but not to burn less oil.

You guys that deny climate change is happening (or whatever your flavor of denialism is taking on these days), do you ever wonder if by buying into what these guys are saying that you're just playing the stooge?

And then that multidisciplinary team of geneticists, oncologists, toxicologists, and general practitioners can retrain to get jobs fixing robots right alongside the truck drivers and warehouse workers.

A convenient way to dismiss someone's argument with which you disagree, but really have no basis for your disagreement.

Our worst fears about what the NSA was/is doing to privacy and our constitution have been realized and you are trying to trivialize it. Just because you're tired of hearing about it and want to move on to the next thing doesn't mean the rest of us don't feel that this is one of the most important things that has happened in our government during our lives. We need to focus on this shit like crazed lunatics if we are going to clean it up.

So again, fuck you.