oddly enough, I'm pretty sure it will break for Slashdot subdomains.

That's a touchy subject. Seems like I see an article on /. about how "fiber is coming to rural VT" at least once every couple months. Well heck if I've ever met someone who has it, outside of the FiOS service in Burlington (which definitely isn't "rural VT").

You must live somewhere with public transit if you think that raising the driving age to 21 is even feasible.

Bingo.

And in this day and age, it takes much less skill to build things that go boom than it does to learn to shoot well.

I don't want to spend my hobby time fixing a bug that someone else has already fixed or adding a feature that someone else has already added. If you're going to use my code for free, then you're going to have to do me the courtesy of returning the favorite. If you want to negotiate a no-questions-asked license that involves giving me money, that's a different story.

*eyeroll* FUD troll is FUDdy. Also...how's that LLVM/Clang/WebKit/CUPS you're using?

This is why I LGPL most everything I release. You're welcome to do whatever you want with my software, but if you make changes to my code, I want to see them.

Ah, yes, you're completely right about that. What I was trying to get at, and communicated incorrectly, was that better behaved distributions can cover up sloppy sample technique.

It actually doesn't matter that the sample is such a small percentage of the population. It's size that matters, not percent

This is only true given a certain set of underlying assumptions about the backing distribution, which are often poorly controlled for in experiments like this.

I did that to a lot of school graphing calculators, in TI-Basic: While 1 Input "",Str1 Disp rand*10^(randInt(-5,5)) End

Meth is almost exclusively a scourge on the poor because it's cheap and prohibition has driven up the cost of less toxic drugs.

...it makes you better able to make reality-informed decisions based on whatever ethical norms you subscribe to: science is descriptive, ethics are prescriptive. If you're a completely amoral sociopath bent on making people miserable, scientific literacy will enable you to achieve those ends. If you're a consummate altruist and want to improve the lives of those around you, scientific literacy will also enable you to achieve those ends.

I think you meant to reply to the post above mine :)

Guess what: I'm a Baptist. Half my extended family are in the long term mission field, and both my grandfathers have been pastors in evangelical churches at one time or another. My uncle did graduate work at Princeton Theological Seminary, my godfather is a philosophy professor at a Lutheran school (Augustana), and I've been studying theology and apologetics as a primary hobby for the better part of a decade. Let's consider the possibility that your family's warped view of sola scriptura has misinformed your view of what the doctrine actually means.