Yes I did read the article and the idea that something can aim and focus it's primary means of imaging seem intrinsic to that ability, much like different types of animals that can see visible light with their eyes can aim and focus them

Yep, AC had me at, 'as important as have a good understanding'...

FWIW, I learned as much about economics from 'The System of the World' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_System_of_the_World_%28novel%29) as I did an MBA program

Interjecting knowledge transfer into entertainment, instead of foisting ridiculous misunderstandings and bullshit, would go a long way to bettering our society

Nope, but I get big laughs by picking up the mouse and trying to dictate into it

Many colleges have a Philosophy degree in the Computer Science department
https://www.cis.ksu.edu/phd

I learned logic from NAND gates and RPN in my first year of an EE program, ymmv

All I know is that I tested out of all of my humanities credits when working towards a degree

My daughter is going to college to become an English teacher.
I think that it is to spite me, but I bet that she'll be working as a tech trainer before long

To be honest, the sheer mass of the US student body pretty much guarantees that even the hardest push towards STEM education will only result in a small percentage of students really moving in that direction.

I only wish that most of the HR and Sales types that I gather requirements from had some baseline exposure to logic :/

What did they do, look up the wikipedia article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Or maybe this Encarta article from 2000
"The echolocation sounds of toothed whales, produced in their nasal passages, are focused into a narrow beam as they pass through the melon, a waxy, lens-shaped body in the forehead. The echoes are received by the lower jaw and pass through oil-filled sinuses to the inner ear, which is insulated from the skull by a foamlike pad that cuts out irrelevant noise. Upon closing in on their prey, both sperm whales and killer whales can produce pulses strong enough to stun their prey."
http://autocww.colorado.edu/~f...

Stories about using it to stun fish have been around for over a decade
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Maybe the real news is that /. fell into a wormhole during the last outage and is reposting stories from 1999

I must have put too much sugar in my coffee, I missed the subtle taste of irony

FTA
" An NSA police officer shot one of the people dead dead and seriously injured the second."

Apparently the culprit was shot double-dead
Nerds love zombie stories, hence it is on /.

It is still easier to place solar panel farms a few hundred miles from Beijing and build transmission lines than to put them in orbit or the stratosphere

So, if Green Peace is fighting against the to primary providers of baseline power, no wait, they are also fighting against hydroelectric dams, so if Green Peace is fighting against the three primary providers of baseline power, where exactly do they think that the power is going to come from?

Are they suggesting that we are going to reduce the amount of power the individuals use?
Do they think that we are going to reduce the number of individuals?

Suspicion just requires that I see things that make me suspicious

Greenpeace claims to advocate for the environment
CO2 presents a huge threat to the environment
Nuclear power offers a way to maintain a baseline power supply without creating CO2
Greenpeace constantly works against the building of nuclear power plants
When one of the founders of Greenpeace spoke out about the advantages of nuclear power not creating CO2, they removed him from the organization
Nuclear power represents a threat to the fossil fuel industry's position as the primary baseline power supplier
By fighting nuclear power through lawsuits, Greenpeace makes it more likely that we will continue to use fossil fuels, even though they are causing damage to the environment by releasing CO2

There is nothing slanderous about stating the facts that present themselves
If I want to say that it makes me suspicious, then that is my right

I find your definitions to be very insightful, and have found myself in the liberal end of the pool based on the groups that you have defined

I think that the current conservatives have co-opted the definition to line their pockets and I find that to be unfortunate because I come from a long line of decent conservatives who did not value money over people

Our current health care system is profit based, and has seen larger increases in cost than nationalized healthcare systems like Britain, Canada, Spain, Taiwan or Australia

How is promoting a healthcare system that is not cost effective fiscally conservative?

I will have to say that we have a fundamentally different views on how the economy works

A recession is great for people who have cash on hand to buy up assets at foreclosure rates, it is horrible for everybody else who has debt against their assets, needs jobs or has their money in the stock market

The primary way to end a recession was demonstrated by FDR as he applied Keynesian economics to put cash into the economy at the consumer level, by hiring them to create infrastructure. This ignites markets by creating demand, and prolongs the recovery by creating resources for those markets to use and grow larger.

This continued growth was demonstrated over the following three decades as the American economy, and middle class grew at phenomenal rates

Some people do not believe in Keynesian economics. They call their version supply side economics and believe that you need to 'give' money to the corporations (via tax breaks and corporate welfare), and that it will somehow trickle down to the consumers. This has not been demonstrated to work out very well for the American economy (makes it prone to boom bust cycles) or the American middle class, which has been reduced by these policies.

I only see President Obama's shortcomings to be that he paid heed to supply side demands by including tax breaks in the stimulus and failing to spend more money on infrastructure build outs

As far as your claims of inflation, I find those to be spurious, much like the cries about hyperinflation resulting from the initial stimulus

Obama is living with the structural deficits placed on him by the prior admin and Congress, recognized war debt and the need to pull the country out of the recession.

The prior administration received a country with a positive position to reduce the national debt and ran it into the ditch with tax breaks to the wealthy and unfunded mandates, much like Reagan did before

I am continually taken aback at how the gop talks up the need to be tight with the purse strings, but continually drives more debt up, while the last two dem administrations have shown more economical savvy

The last time around, with Clinton, the gop claimed that he received a lagged positive effect from the prior admin, I doubt that anybody will believe that bull this time around