Not bogus at all - I'm sure they really did make those predictions.
There's no defense for that.
Unless worker pay is determined by supply and demand, as in, say, a capitalist economy.
Lots of places have 'reasonable' public transit but relying on it may still be a compromise in quality of life. On the other hand if the public transit really does (more or less) replace car ownership, then that can alter the cost of living calculation substantially.
Einstein was an excellent scientist, but in pop culture he's known for being a celebrity, not for what he actually did. Most pictures of Einstein were taken decades after he did his best work.
Physicists actually do believe in version of the Steady State theory, except instead of "new matter is continuously created as the universe expands", new space and new dark energy are continuously created. There's no contradiction with the Inflationary Big Bang theory at all.
If a judge wilfully undermines the rule of law, they should be impeached, disbarred, and tried for, probably not treason but something for sure.
The catch would be it would be next to impossible to prove they exercised bad faith short of them openly boasting about it.
Not merely generate fear, but manufacture it industrially.
It really wasn't about inclinations - before the discovery of the red shift, a static universe was what the available evidence indicated.
Not exactly. The loan is an investment which has an expectation of being paid out over a long time period. Until that period has expired, it does not make sense for society to give up on collecting that debt.
This is actually the *same* rule that applies to ordinary bankruptcy - if you borrow money to invest in, say, a self-employment business, and file for bankruptcy the next day, that debt won't be discharged because you never had a good faith intent of repaying it. There's simply a different time scale involved when the money was invested in education.
That doesn't mean the existing law is perfect - it's quite abusive in other ways - but it's not inherently evil simply because the same principle is applied differently for a different kind of debt.
You're missing the point.
Empty it where?
...with all those Scots running around for hundreds of years achieving great scientific and economic advances leading to the greatness of the British Empire?
The idea of prison was originally that a criminal forfeited their right to live.
In the case of capital punishment, the person's life was ended outright, but the idea of imprisonment was that the lesser punishments were achieved by depriving a person of part of the rest of their life. If you spent X number of years in prison, then X fewer years of your life were available to you. In principle, a prisoner should have no opportunity of spending any of their time in prison constructively, and all confinement should be solitary.
That is why there is a certain intuitive appeal to solitary confinement as a punishment.
Unfortunately, it turns out that solitary confinement is actual torture, is counter-productive, and diminishes those implementing the prison system.
No-one has found a perfect way to punish and rehabilitate (both legitimate goals).
Aren't the "known forms of life" the, um, forms of life we already, you know, know about, i.e. not the same ones we're going to find on alien worlds?
Not to mention that the "redesign" was achieved by drilling holes through the security that NT had, resulting in security weakness that to this day have not been fixed.
Worse than whether IE could be removed or not, was that the dependence on it was a deliberate design flaw retrofitted into the OS exclusively for the purpose of pretending to follow the law.