But environment has a huge influence over biology. Think of a goldfish floating around in a bowl on your kitchen countertop. Now look at these babies. I think that is a good analogy for the stimulating effect of environment on the modern mind. Think of how hard it was for the first europeans in the west to recognize the natives as fully human. I realize the conventional wisdom is that these europeans were practically deranged by prejudice. But it is also true that, due to circumstances, the natives had an extremely impoverished range of experiences and knowledge, relatively speaking. It is hard to understand how the same brain that considered throwing a spear to be inventive could later travel to the moon, with little biological change in between, but that shows how enormous is the effect of environment (to include culture, literacy, trade, etc).

This article talks about how in England there has been a huge increase in the number of measles cases since Wakefield published his claptrap about vaccines causing autism and other nonsense.

For those not bothering to read the article, this is part which you need to know:

This year, the U.K. has had more than 1,200 cases of measles, after a record number of nearly 2,000 cases last year. The country once recorded only several dozen cases every year. It now ranks second in Europe, behind only Romania.

it would be foolish to say that human activity has no consequence, though what matters is how much.

That has always been my opinion as well. We know the destructive capabilities we have on the environment (Love Canal, Bhopal, Agent Orange) as well as the general effects we have (heat islands around cities, depletion of water aquifers, increased desertification due to forest removal, etc), the question is, how much of what we do is causing the effects we see now? Is everything our fault, is this part of a natural cycle, or some combination thereof?

What's funny is we routinely see news articles where farmers are talked to and almost without exception they all say climate change is real and if you don't believe it, ask a farmer. Considering the conservative nature of most farmers, one would highly doubt they would be saying such things if they didn't believe it.

So do the decent thing America and get a socialized healthcare system

Fuck that. I shouldn't have to pay the medical expenses for smokers, alcoholics or drug users.

You want to ruin your body, do it on your own dime. I shouldn't be penalized for your actions.

When America can afford to look to the stars, they should. Until then, they are wasting their time (and precious taxpayer money).

If that isn't the finest example of short-sighted thinking, I don't know what is. What you're suggesting is we wait until the last possible second to explore what might be out there just because NASA's budget represents a fraction of a percent of the overall national budget.

If you're that concerned about Federal spending, we can cut the military by 50%, stop all subsidies to business (sugar productoin, ethanol production, farm subsidies in general, scientific advances, production incentives, etc), not to mention all the entitlements people complain someone else is receiving but not the ones they're receiving.

If you want to go that way, I'll back you, but you can't then complain when things fall apart because the private sector has come to rely on government largess.

Sure, any organization has internal conflicts of interest when somebody is tasked to train their own replacement etc. That half billion in savings is mainly going to be salaries after all.

Why should one have to disable these things? Why are they not turned off by default? Isn't that the mantra of the FOSS community, "Let me decide!"?

Or are we giving the Mozilla group a pass despite their continuing plunge into bloat and unnecessary cruft because they're Mozilla?

Saturn failed for many reasons, but having a single price wasn't one of them. The brand became so successful that it was taking customers away from Pontiac and Chevrolet which, similar to this article, griped dealers trying to sell those cars.

Then there was the fact that they lost money on every car sold and when they ran ads during the Super Bowl, didn't have cars available for people to look at after they saw the ad.

Here are three articles which give a bit more depth to what I just said:

Businessweek

Christian Science Monitor

autoblog

I am not agreeing with or denying what Hacker Factor is saying, but I would like to point out some minor issues with the analysis.

First, as to the lighting of the faces being brighter than in other pictures taken during the same procession, it is entirely possible there was a reflective surface to the crowd's right (picture left) which is making the faces appear brighter than one would think they should be in the alley way. Think of the reflective nature of the moon's surface which conspiracy theorists always ignore when talking about how bright things are in shadows. While the Photoshop effect could be the issue, note the wall to their right (picture left) which does have a reflective surface.

Note also the man on the far left, next to the wall. Note how there is sun shining on the white cloth directly below his face. As everyone knows, a white surface reflects large portions of light falling on it which would also produce the lighting effect seen on the man's face.

Second, as to the dirt on the girls face appearing differently in the photos, note the different angles of her head. In the winning photo the forehead is almost at a right angle to the picture taker whereas in the second photo it is pointing almost directly at the camera. The lighting in the second photo is much more diffuse than the first which could explain the difference.

Also note that in the winning photo, the crowd is in a part of the alley which has exposure to much more sunlight than in the second photo.

Again, I'm not saying the person didn't do what has been accused, I'm only pointing out possibilities to explain what is being shown.

Exactly. Politicians just love that former category, precisely because it never works. It never works and never solves the problem, so there is always a menacing problem they can promise to do something about the next time they campaign. It also has the side-effect of requiring a police state to have even a slight hope of enforcement, which again is great from the perspective of most politicians.

Politicians know the War on Drugs doesn't stop people from acquiring drugs. They know that mass shootings overwhelmingly tend to happen in "gun free" zones. They know even an outright ban on guns doesn't stop criminals from acquiring them. They know someone not afraid of a murder charge isn't going to be deterred by a weapons violation. They probably know that the USA has one of the highest murder rates of the industralized world ... unless you exclude Chicago and a few other cities where it is practically impossible to legally own a firearm; then the USA has one of the lowest. They understand all of this.

They are interested in perpetuating the problems. It's what wins elections. It's what makes people increasingly feel they need government intervention. It's fun to think of them as a bunch of morons who couldn't find their ass in the dark, but this is called allowing sentiment to interfere with judgment.

I guess my sarcasm was too subtle for the brilliant minds on here.

You have to register before you can vote but since each state has their voting registration laws, it varies. In some states you can register and vote on the same day, others you have to register a month or two in advance.

As to the photo ID issue, the claim that one needs to show ID to vote comes from the vast amount of voter fraud that occurs in this country. For example, in my state of PA, we had four cases over the last decade of voter fraud. Granted, none of these cases involved anyone actually voting for someone else, but the rampant amount of voter fraud has caused the Republican party, the party of smaller government, to force everyone to prove who they are before they can vote. If you don't have an ID, and there are many who don't for various reasons, the taxpayers get to foot the bill to get you one.

It's awful that universities have to do a "remedial year" to fix shortcomings in K-12

"Awful" is a strong word. In the past these students would have become blue-collar workers and never learned the material at all. Now that path is largely gone, so we're trying to help more people reach higher. (This is not just a glass-half-empty philosophical distinction; the percentage of students who enter college has gone way up in the last century including the last 20 years.)

I drive to and from work every day. While not the most exciting, having to dodge the large amount of idiots on the road keeps the ride from being boring.

Then there are the weekends and the few (remaining) curvy roads I can have some fun on while going to where I want.

So yes, I have to drive and for the most part, I do enjoy it. Now if everyone else would stop driving, it would be even more fun.

Spoken like a true programmer. Why make something elegant and fun when it can just work?

Driving is supposed to be fun. The sound of the engine, the shifting of gears, the lateral forces as you take a curve, all make driving enjoyable.

If you consider driving boring and tedious, I'm presuming you're one of those who thinks eating is equally boring and tedious and looks forward to the day when we can just inject nutrient rich sludge directly into our stomachs.