Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Would be more interesting with better analysis (Score 4, Interesting) 446

by WrongMonkey (#48130711) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage
Note that your wedding wasn't really cheap, you just spread out your costs through expected reciprocal obligations. The biggest cost is that you'll be expected to continue giving 10% of your income to the Church for the rest of your life. At future weddings, you'll be the one expected to provide food, cash, gifts, etc. You probably consider your tithe and participation in your community barter economy to be a sunk cost, so it seems like a good deal. But from a outsider view, you're actually spending a whole lot more than someone who just rents a banquet hall and hires a caterer.

Comment: Re:Can't eat oil (Score 1) 213

by WrongMonkey (#48113361) Attached to: NASA Finds a Delaware-Sized Methane "Hot Spot" In the Southwest
Fossil fuels sustain life. Without heat, millions would freeze. Without fuel to operate machinery, modern agriculture would be impossible and billions would starve.

Almonds, though? You can live without almonds. We definitely don't need use a trillion gallons of water each year to grow almonds in a desert during a drought.

Comment: Re:Supreme Court (Score 1) 112

by WrongMonkey (#48113067) Attached to: National Security Letter Issuance Likely Headed To Supreme Court
The Citizens United decision has nothing to do with bribes. In 2004, Citizens United (the group) wanted to block Micheal Moore's anti-Bush movie from being advertised during an election. The FEC rejected that, ruling that documentaries were protected by the first ammendment. So in 2008, Citizens United made an anti-Hillary movie and started to advertise it during an election. They were quickly struck down by FEC, who were then struck done by the Supreme Court. If you're such a "staunch defender of the near-absoluteness of the first amendment", how can you honestly say that Micheal Moore (and Miramax films) can make a political documentary, but other people (and corporations) can't?

Comment: Re:What 20 years of research on pot has taught us (Score 1) 263

by WrongMonkey (#48106041) Attached to: Carl Sagan, as "Mr. X," Extolled Benefits of Marijuana

the scientific journal Addiction

That's sound like an unbiased source.

Even if we take all of those adverse affects at face value, they're either statistical noise or questionable casual link. It's not like smoking tobacco where the odds of developing lung cancer go up 23 times that of non-smokers. It's also not like alcohol, where tens of thousands of people die from overdose alone each year.

Comment: Re:Not Just Mars One (Score 3, Interesting) 269

by WrongMonkey (#48103793) Attached to: MIT Study Finds Fault With Mars One Colony Concept
The only assumption is that the colonization would be done with CURRENT technologies. The Mars Colonial Transporter, algae or bacteria as primary food source: these are still all on the drawing board, at best. Even the Falcon Heavy is a still in development.

The big problem is all the rocket jocks think that getting to Mars is hard part and they have the idea that since biology and ecology are "soft" sciences that those are just details that will work themselves out. Until someone starts a long term self-sufficient colony on someplace like Antarctica, its really hard to take an Mars colonization plan seriously.

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.