One side says that global warming exists and is manmade. They go too far and decide that your personal car and incandescent lights are solely to blame

You have a citation for that right? Who makes up this group that makes that crazy claim? "Personal cars cause global warming, but fleets of trucks do not" seems a stretch so where exactly did you hear that one? "Incandescent lights cause global warming but electric air conditioners on the same grid do not" also seems a stretch, who claimed that?

One side looks at that stance as foolish. But they go to far and reject global warming completely

Well the second part I have to give you since http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3760341&cid=43752787 in this very article seems to be doing that. I can't know their motives for the first part though - how have you managed to do that?

One bad stretch of a highway (192) is timed so that if you follow the speed limit you would run a red - but just barely - everytime.

Surely that means that when you actually stop at a red light you are now synchronized to hit greens the entire rest of the way - which sounds like the ideal scheduling for lights.

Because the word "primary" actually has a meaning.

Sure you need to be in good shape. But while humans are slower over a short distance they have significantly better cooling mechanisms and hence over a long distance the moose will collapse from exhaustion long before the human does.

Of course do you really want to run for 5 hours when it is hot to catch your food? Or would you rather use a projectile weapon of some sort?

If the probability of being caught is 40% then "twice the value" is not a "fair amount". That just means rational people will steal is and end up paying getting 20% off.

You should learn what multiply means before opening your mouth.

That would depend on the probability of getting caught.

You don't like the retouching, but given it won whatever the award in the title is clearly some other people did like it. So ruined from your perspective - made to appeal to the people judging that award in a less self centered perspective.

In order for either of those things to "take" you money, you would have had to given it to them in the first place. You made the decision, if it was bad that's your problem.

The US government seems to take money out of my pay, if my reading of my pay slip and of the various forms I file at tax time is any indication. I would be deported if I tried to vote (well if I got caught anyway), or maybe thrown in prison for a while and then deported I guess. I'm not saying I don't have a choice - I can leave anytime I choose, but I certainly don't vote them in nor did I elect them to do anything.

So no charity has ever used a slick sales pitch?

You can assign random nuances to words that no one else uses, just don't be surprised when no one understands what you are saying.

OK.

I guess if "I think language is X is better than language Y, and even though you haven't said a word I will assume you don't and belittle you" is humourous, have at it. I'll just find a job in which I'm more likely to be able to use the right tool for the job instead of the company mandated all purpose solution.

No I looked at four questions, most of which seemed to make an assumption on the what the prior answers would be before they were asked let alone answered. All of which seemed to be asked as if they already know my answer, in which case why ask?

Eg: "Justify why you didn't know that C++ can also do those things".

1. I didn't say C++ couldn't "do those things". Hence telling me a didn't know it could is just a tad of a stretch. Expecting me to justify whatever random thoughts happened to be in your head at the time also seems a bit of a stretch. I'd rather not work in an environment that requires mind reading, which I'm sure is my loss but I do seem to like it when people tell things rather than expecting to me know their thoughts.

Of course in reality my third answer would be a bit more in depth, but given I'd already seen question 4 there was no point in bothering since apparently you already knew my answer.

I didn't miss the sarcasm. It doesn't change that it doesn't make sense to make fun of a claim the person never actually made.

But sure, you could have just made it up completely rather than making an error in the logic of the claim.

Of course not, you should get a refund from whomever your logic teacher was though.

There's no need to.

If the first introduction is "why do you hate X?", when nothing has been said about X I'm not interested in working in that environment in the first place. Thus I'm not wasting my time with it. They can have fun with their "always use tool Y since it is always best" outlook, but I'd rather work someplace where the people are a little more rational.