Circuit Cellar's still around, and not half bad, actually.
Communist personality cults are just another religion. Don't agree? Go to North Korea and tell them they're "atheists." They'll send you home in a box.
Note that everything I said still applies if the IPCC is right but consistently unable to prove their case. Confounding factors are a massive hazard on geologic timescales as short as the ones for which we have genuinely reliable data. A ten- or twenty-year cooling trend could have the same effect as outright failure of the models.
Point being, we shouldn't put climate science and evolution in the same basket. They are not on equal footing. To pretend otherwise is to invite a cultural disaster.
h) The AGW "debate" in the USA closely resembles the Creation-vs-Evolution "debate", ie. a never-ending game of Whac-a-Mole against arguments that sound plausible but never stand up under scrutiny, no matter how convinced the creationists were when they were parroting them. One side has to spend vast resources to produce hard evidence, the other side doesn't feel they have any burden of proof whatsoever, they just make stuff up.
Actually it doesn't resemble the Creation/Evolution debate at all, and I get the heebie-jeebies when someone says it does. One of my favorite charities, the National Center for Science Education, has gone down this path recently and I wish there were a good way to talk them out of it.
Climate models are based on just that -- models. We could still wake up one day, slap ourselves in the forehead, and admit that our computer models are either grossly in error, or missing one or more key factors that would change their output drastically. The map is not the territory, science is not a democracy or a popularity contest, and climate modeling is not a "settled science." I don't care who says it is, and I don't care what percentage of climate scientists agree. It just isn't. Sorry, but that's not the way these things work.
On the other hand, we are absolutely not going to wake up one day and realize that we have the basics of evolution wrong. There is absolutely no possibility that we will discover that humans are not, in fact, descended from earlier hominids. There is absolutely no possibility that we will discover that we don't have ancestors in common with modern apes. That isn't going to happen. Too many independent lines of evidence have come together, making consistent predictions, providing confirmable explanations, and withstanding intense scrutiny.
My fear is that the global-warming thing will prove to be a red herring, as usually happens whenever "B...b...but 99% of scientists agree!!!11!" is the primary argument in favor of a theory. When that happens, it's going to be almost impossible to keep the Creationists and other assorted modern-day flat-earthers from gaining the influence over public education and popular culture that they've always dreamed of.
(Shrug) They're good multimeters. Unlike the Chinese toy knock-off, the safety certifications printed on the Fluke actually mean that they meet those standards, and the CE mark on the Fluke doesn't stand for "China Export."
To professional users and serious hobbyists, these factors are important.
I'm sure quite a few Indian and Chinese automakers would love to see the franchised dealer-only model go away.
Actually you may have hit on the real issue -- these dealership laws are really just old-fashioned protectionism in disguise.
... does any of this have to do with NASA?
That's not the point. The point is that the reason the loans were available to them at all was the government's decision to involve itself in the marketplace.
That's a bit of a double-edged comment, though, considering the subsidies Tesla has taken in the form of loans. When you encourage government to pick winners and losers, you can't be too surprised when they insist on doing both.
That said, good on Elon Musk for calling bullshit on this particular issue.
Oooh, I like car analogies. Difficulty: the car is three billion years old, nobody has seen the service manual, and the maintenance records for its first 2,999,990,000 years are missing.
Science is not a democracy. If I had a nickel for every time when "95% of scientists" believed something that was later proven wrong, I'd have at least 25 cents.
I don't see a moral problem with it, as long as it saves more innocents from murderers than the innocents we execute.
Big "Dexter" fan, I take it? Because what you're saying is that you approve of a justice system that's indistinguishable from vigilantism.
How about Giordano Bruno? What'd he do, give the Pope a wedgie in the locker room after basketball practice?
The only downside i've really seen to the process is how they keep executing people who eventually turned out to be innocent
If that's not a dealbreaker in your opinion, there's something very wrong with you.
That'd depend on what the professor meant by "distance."