The most important thing to remember is:

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR BITCOIN!!

OLDUVAI GORGE, Warringah, Monday (NTN) — A new theory suggests that Tony Abbott's ancestors evolved remarkably punchable facial features, accounting for people's deep desire to do so today.

The bones most commonly broken in prehistoric Liberal Party punch-ups gained the most strength in early "conservative" evolution. They are also the bones that show most divergence between Liberals and Nationals.

The paper, in the journal Guardian Australia, argues that the reinforcements evolved amid fighting over females and resources, in which communication by kicking each other's heads drove key policy changes.

Fossil records show that Australopithecus menzieii had strikingly robust facial structures. This was long seen as an adaptation to a tough diet including nuts, seeds and Malcom Turnbull's balls. But more recent findings suggest that violent intra-party competition was the cause: the "protective buttressing hypothesis".

Interestingly, the evolutionary descendants of Australopithecus — including more left-leaning humans — have displayed less and less facial buttressing. "Human arms and upper bodies are not nearly as strong as those found in Liberal Party members," said the author, Prof David Carrier, dusting off his gloves.

Studies from Canberra emergency wards show that faces are particularly vulnerable to violent injuries, many self-inflicted from being banged against desks when Coalition policy proposals reach the news.

"The historical record goes back a short time, but anatomy holds clues as to what selection was important, what behaviours were important; and so it gives us important information about what caveman notion Mr Abbott is going to come out with next."

Photo: Tony Abbott actually getting punched in the face. What a happy-making photograph this is.

Wouldn't it be more fun to relive the story of the first time he got laid?

IMO he should have spent more time thinking about his cartoon strip, which (back in the day) had one that was funny, interesting, or insightful out of every few hundred.

So what's the possessive plural for "glasses"?

Disappointingly computer-centric too. My favorite desktop environment consists of a pencil, a paperweight, and a stapler.

And I can put my head on it for a nap whenever I think that will increase productivity.

(As for the survey, I voted, but I'm not sure it's correct to identify one as my favorite when I haven't actually tried all of them.)

Actually lots of idiots are in total denial.
Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".

It's seasonal, and one of the reasons for the increase is increased precipitation (caused by, you guessed it, global warming).
The sea there is actually warmer, and the land ice is shrinking.
In short, this is only interesting if you need facts with superficial interpretations that can "refute" global warming to the uninformed masses.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

p.s. - I notice in another skepticalscience link that gw deniers have joined evolution deniers in invoking the second law of thermodynamics as "proof that it couldn't happen". As if scientists are ignorant of the 2LoT.

Bullshit. Democrats are crap, but when it comes to ruling for the interest of moneyed interests there's no comparison.

You know the saying: the proper role of government is to help the rich get richer faster than they would without it.

> Why does the legal system allow settling class action suits?

Because when all the basic facts are the same, it makes *a lot* more sense to have one trial covering 64,000 victims than it does to have 64,000 trials. The *only* people who benefit from having all those unnecessary trials are the lawyers. If anything, class actions are less profitable for lawyers than the alternative.

Furthermore, unlike this case (where each plantiff suffered substantial harm: tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars each), imagine a case where the harm suffered is small-but-nonzero. (For example, a few years back, the music CDs with the rootkits on them. For most people, the harm is the cost of the CD, around $15. Maybe twice to four times that if you want to include the cost of rootkit removal) In those cases, nobody in their right mind is going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to file a lawsuit to recover $15. So the victim's choice is a class action suit or nothing at all.

Surely it's still carbon neutral, given it's from already-present carbon grown from air in the first place (like all plants)?

Every hypothesis is "an assumption". But some stand up to scrutiny and offer a lot of explanatory value.

As for evolution, what you said isn't heresy - it's a claim that you didn't try to back up.

That's one spin you could put on it.

Another choice is "How is a country full of people that believe nonsense going to survive the 21st Century?"

I guess that means I'm not a Slashdotter, because I don't believe any of those things exist (or are possible).

(Too bad...)