It's only relatively recently that congress has decided that they need to be in the role of executive or judical. Ie creating minimum sentencing guidelines because they felt judges were too lenient (never mind that the real reason was to get votes). Historically congress was limited to creating laws, but not enforcing or adjudicating them.

Now certainly congress and the people retain the power to sue the executive branch if laws are selectively enforced for the benefit of friends or other malfeasance.

(Personally I don't find a problem with this particular issue. However for the issue of same sex marriage in California with the Supreme Court, I do find it to be a lot murkier. I think it's presumably ok for the California government to not bother putting up a defense of the law in court, but given the nature of California that the proposition 8 supporters should have been granted legal standing (after all the voters created the law and are essentially a 4th branch of government with power equal or greater than legislative). Then when it did go back to state court it would have been overturned anyway. Ie, prop 8 overturned on principle rather than some odd loophole.)

I think he does have such power. If there is not enough resources to enforce all laws fully then the executive is certainly allowed to decide which laws to focus the most effort on. Similarly, in a small town the police chief can decide that no extra hours need to be spent enforcing the no-jaywalking rules.

Of course this means it needs to be applied fairly. Ie, if the mayor parks illegally and never gets a ticket but everyone else in town gets a ticket for the same thing, then that's an abuse of power.

The topic under discussion is the difficulty of creating a system that crashes that infrequently.

It's earth's crust rising out of the mantle, if anything the surrounding seabed will rise slightly with it, certainly not the other way around.

Extremely minimal, even if you have 2km sideways pull from the ice there's 6400km of downwards pull towards the center of the earth so water doesn't gather much Heavy mineral deposits or a thick crust directly under the water is different, that adds more compression without trying to counteract the sideways forces.

What's that on the front page?

I'd lean more towards the explanation that older people have more knowledge and experience which means they're more set in their ways and don't challenge accepted truths like the younger generation does. While it also from time to time produces gems it's also the cause of all the people trying to reinvent the wheel, why go for the new and crazy when you can use the tried and true. It might not be quite as glamorous, but the world needs both highly competent doctors as well as the odd Nobel prize in medicine.

High liability jobs will still probably go to professional drivers. An automated car manufacturer isn't going to deliberately take on arbitrary levels of risk just because some customer wants to automate the movement of hazardous waste.

Also, it doesn't take that long to move to other work.

NCC-1700, USS Constitution. First ship in the Constitution class, which included the NCC-1701 Enterprise.

If that's what he wants, then he's not trying very hard. It's been a year since Obama's "red line" speech on Syrian chemical attacks and all we've gotten in the meantime is a bunch of talk. If he really wanted a war, then the casus belli has happened. Where's the shock and awe?

I look forward to that time.

Why wouldn't humans exist? We're not talking of conditions that would kill humans after all. Just merely warm enough to melt ice on Greenland.

So we don't have even a scrap of evidence that there was ever life on Mars, but evidence is "building" that we come from there. No, that's not science.

And how are organic molecules going to turn into tar in the presence of ample water and little heat (such as the case on the surface)? He seems to have neglected that high levels of liquid water (yet another oxide, but one which was prevalent in the early Earth environment) also inhibits the formation of tar.

The only argument against water as the tar-inhibitor agent is that it is "corrosive" to RNA. But which of these three compounds (including oxides of boron and molydenum) are currently found in living cells in quantity?

On the contrary, and Samantha Wright please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think a whole big hunking lot of single-cellular life can in fact survive being frozen. I mean, come on, human fucking sperm even does. Never mind that frozen life is well, frozen. While the DNA repair mechanisms are dormant, so are the copying mechanisms. Bacteria can live quite deep within porous rocks. I'm not exactly sure if it's really necessary for ejecta to be always heated up to sterilization. Now I'm not saying that this little life-from-Mars theory has got any legs to stand on just yet, but your arguments don't really do much to discount it, I don't think.

In present money. Remember that will be more money by the time that ice gets "stacked".

Look at how much money is involved. These are scraps. For example, the total funding discussed in these articles is around $100 million over nine years. In comparison, the World Wildlife Fund, a large non profit that is one of the bigger private-side advocacy groups for global warming theory, gets that much in public funding every three to four years.

And look who's doing the funding. It's mostly by the Koch brothers not Big Oil.

And only 1031 years after it was named so in order to trick people into immigrating there, better late than never I guess.