You'd be surprised. It depends heavily on which question you ask. Often questions about specific policies get way more support than more abstract questions. Here's an example from a Quinnipiac national poll from a few days ago (N=1610, MoE = +/-2.4%). For the question:

26% of Republicans answered "support", while 69% answered "oppose". But that same poll also asked:

For this question, "support" won 90%-9% among Republicans. The poll also asked:

which was supported 85%-12% by Republicans. Other polls show similar results. These are both measures that have been debated since the Orlando shootings. PollingReport is a good site for finding polls if you want to see more results for yourself.

You can see this sort of behavior in other issues as well. Health care reform was a big one -- the individual provisions were popular, but when asked about "Obamacare" people gave very negative opinions.

Of course not. Polls on evolution are careful to distinguish between evolution being "guided by God" and evolution as a purely natural process for that reason. But there does seem to be a floor of about 30% for support for Creationism no matter how the questions are asked. More specific polls are rare, but there's a 2005 Harris poll with some dismaying results (N=1000, MoE=+/-3%).

Did 38%
Did not 54%

Have 49%
Have not 45%

Do 46%
Do not 47%

This seems to have had a priming effect on the standard question:

Evolved from earlier species 22%
Created directly by God 64%
Powerful force/intelligent being 10%

And finally, the most relevant question for this discussion:

Evolution only 12%
Creationism only 23%
Intelligent design only 4%
All three 55%
None+Unsure 6%

I don't think there are necessarily a ton of people who are hard-core anti-science ideologues, but the people who are functionally anti-science (in cases that make them uncomfortable) are not a tiny minority by any stretch.

Unfortunately, this is quite wrong. The numbers you get depend heavily on how you ask the question, but recent polling suggests that a plurality of Republicans (48%) believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time vs. only 27% of Democrats. About a third of *all* adults in the U.S. hold this position. If you ask whether God created humans in their present form, it's closer to 40%, and has been for decades. You can find other polls here showing similar results.

Regardless, overall popular support turns out to be less important than one would hope. What matters more is who's politically involved -- who votes in primaries, who runs in school board elections, who causes trouble when politicians vote the "wrong" way. The Republican party is also much more disciplined than the Democratic party, so you'll regularly see the Republican-controlled House and Senate voting in lockstep against even against ideas that have majority support among their base. (Gun control laws are the most recent example.)

Thanks; I am interested. I should read the history SE more often.

"Flamebait" doesn't mean "made up", it means "intended to produce Inflammatory comments". Which both of your posts clearly are (and anonymously posted too!).

Sorry to hear about your grandpa, though.

The parent is obvious flamebait, but I like history, so I'll share some here...

There was an interesting article in Foreign Policy a couple years ago (possibly paywalled link here) which argued that the Soviet declaration of war was what really prompted the surrender. The author bases this on several arguments, among them:

* The atomic bombing of Hiroshima did not particularly stand out in the context of a huge and destructive conventional bombing campaign.
* The Japanese Supreme Council did not discuss the Hiroshima bombing at all, and indeed, did not seem to care much about the destruction of cities.
* Soviet mediation was seen as the last hope for avoiding an unconditional surrender.
* Japanese forces were deployed to defend against a U.S. invasion, not a Soviet invasion from the opposite direction.
* Giving the atomic bomb credit for provoking the surrender was politically convenient for the emperor as well as the United States.

It's worth a read if you can actually get to the article. There's a comment on the AskHistorians Reddit about the article by Restricted Data (Alex Wellerstein), which gives the original source of this argument (Tsuyoshi Hasegawa), and offers some historiographical context:

Hasegawa's book is very well done. He has managed for the first time to really put together a cohesive, persuasive argument about the end-game machinations in Japan, the United States, and Soviet Union. The other historians of the bomb I know are pretty convinced at least to the point that the Soviet invasion was more influential on the Japanese than the bombs. Not all of them think the bomb was of no influence, or that it would have ended without using them, though Hasegawa himself is apparently convinced of this, from what I've read.

(Personally, I am on the fence to the degree that I just don't see how we can disentangle the atomic bombs from the Soviet invasion as fully as would be necessary to say this with authority, but I am convinced that the Soviet invasion mattered at least as much, if not more, than the atomic bombs.)

The same comment also points out an important aspect of the "moral" debate:

Note that the question of whether the bombs "worked" or not is a completely separate one from whether the people who used them were justified in doing so according to what they knew at the time. People tend to think that the former implies a moral argument about the latter, but it is an entirely separate issue regarding motivation and "the decision." (Note that even characterizing the use of the bomb as being the result of some large moral deliberation, or some sort of invasion vs. bombing tradeoff, is kind of anachronistic.)

He also has a related article here.

I don't have much of an opinion on whether the atomic bombing was "justified" or not. Large-scale attacks on civilians were common through the war in both theaters, so focusing solely on the atomic bomb seems rather limited to me.

I know this is a sarcasm thread, but 24 bits is actually a lot for an ADC. You're talking 0.2uV/LSB with a 3.3V reference. Even getting close to that requires careful attention to noise sources and PCB layout. 16 bits is pretty hardcore in its own right. 8-, 10-, and 12-bit ADCs are far more common.

Especially since Konami's already done it more than once.

It almost sounds like Bitcoin would benefit from having some kind of organization to produce and manage the currency. Something like a bank, only more centralized. Perhaps we could call it a... central bank?

Nobody's winning yet; the primaries are still going. The parties have not chosen their candidates, and polls are not very meaningful this far out from the election.

Today is "Super Tuesday", when a bunch of states have their primary elections. Hillary is ahead in polling vs. Sanders for the Democratic nomination, and Trump is ahead of everyone else on the Republican side. But primary polls are notoriously unreliable due to the low turnout. If the polls are correct, Hillary and Trump will win decisive victories today and almost certainly win the nomination.

I second this. The value of the comments section is (and always has been) informative commentary from people who know what they're talking about. The folks who want to read trolls can go look at 4chan or YouTube comments. Fears about groupthink are wildly unfounded -- people get modded up for "controversial" opinions all the time without any Microsoft/Apple/Google/Facebook/liberal/feminist/GNU/Linux/Gnome/KDE/Sony/BSD/Minix conspiracy stopping them.

The theory that anonymous commenting will somehow create a utopia of free speech has utterly failed. Pseudonymity is almost always good enough. I'm fine with letting logged-in users have their posts show up anonymously for the special cases.

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally. Even in a general nuclear exchange, we're probably not going to attack our own allies. And I hope we wouldn't be stupid enough to try to start a world war with a billion Muslims while already fighting a nuclear war against Russia, China, or whoever.

Sure. But the difference between "pretty much" and "indistinguishable from the original hardware" is not always a small one, and some people care about it more than others.