You mean, a place with high-paying jobs that offer health-insurance, as well as some idea that just dumping crap into the environment might be a bad idea? That might actually be an improvement.

In the meantime, keep your paranoia to yourself.

Oh, if that would just be so..... Most clear clamshells contain cardboard INSIDE the clamshell that does one hell of a job of obscuring the actual product. This is especially a problem for headsets, where the connections, connectors and various fiddly bits are key indicators of quality.... except that they are hidden behind cardboard props. Makes the entire thing useless for figuring out what is actually inside.

If you're right, it would be interesting that the Republicans thought that the federal bailout was a bad idea, but that the local bailout via earmarks was just fine and dandy.

Don't flatter yourself too much, as I mostly remember you from a few epic facepalm moments, generally in the AGW and small government threads. That said.... two things: the funding angle leads you nowhere, as it applies to every single person with any sort of expertise in any area. The only people completely unaffected by the funding angle are people who have never been exposed to it in any fashion - i.e. the totally clueless ones. And secondly, you ought to read Asimov's letter on wrongness. You are the prime example of what equating wholly different levels of wrongness does to your position.

Finally, do you know what would truly and completely provide eternal glory and funding to a scientist? Disproving AGW. Yes, those who have no shot at glory will pursue the safe avenues for funding. The hotshots will go for glory.

It is, however, a good paraphrase of how he characterized climate scientists, and specifically Hansen, in the past. A bit of hyperbole, sure, but close enough.

I find it kinda funny that you think James Hansen (who do you think the J Hansen is, there?) is an authority to be believed when he finds negative forcings, but a total eugenic crackpot who is paid off by the EcoMafia when he finds positive forcings.

All models are wrong. Some are more useful than others. Which ones are useful, and why? Show your work.

The same mechanism that prevents access to multiplayer can also be used to prevent access to anything in the game. Why do you think EA forces you through their Origin servers when you play on the Xbox?

Oh hey, look! Edge cases that appeal to emotion. Two can play that game. To wit:
- I was raped, I can just have a child (or twins, or triplets) I don't have the money for or am ready to care for. Oh, and they'll go make some fine criminals.
- I was fired from my job when the bankers decided it was more lucrative to just liquidate the company, my kids can now go play in the sewer
- I'm an addict from medication received for an operation gone wrong, I can just go cold turkey and lose my job during the down period
- I had some bad breaks in life, I should be thankful that I can squat underneath a bridge with 30 other losers
- I have a 50k a year job and signed for a 100k year mortgage, but the bank that signed the loan is going under, so I'm going to lose everything
- I'm a banker who made catastrophic investments, and I should be able to take down the entire economy while I retire on my bonuses

You're willfully ignoring the lessons of history just to fuel your little libertarian flame of faith.

As they would say in Firefly: " Go suck it".

You understand the difference between a philosophy of society, and a specific document delineating the views of specific people on how to achieve a certain set of social goals that somewhat match certain tenets of said philosophy, yes?