I am amused that you say "laptops with much larger screen, keyboard and USB ports are far more cost effective" than using an old Android phone. If he doesn't have said laptop and DOES have said android phone...how exactly is it more cost effective to throw away the phone and buy a laptop?

You are correct, sir. That's why I don't support that idea. Remember, I was just giving the "super conservative" answers. The ones that most represented laissez faire capitalism, not the ones I necessarily agree with.

I completely agree with you that that is what will happen. Which is why I don't back either of those ideas. Really, I don't back most of the ideas I offered above, I was just responding to the asshat above me that seemed to imply those questions only "allowed' liberal answers.

Some of those Jews suffered immensely in their minds for the rest of their life. They woke up in cold sweats at night. They couldn't stand certain sights. For many of them, they couldn't be around certain smells without being reminded of a hell we can only imagine. Just because they were able to do things without therapy doesn't mean they couldn't have benefited from therapy.

Source: Talking to holocaust survivors who told me exactly those things.

The only one of those that I think couldn't be answered in a way in which you would seem to like is #2, because #2 requires you to accept the fact that the Earth's climate is changing (note that it doesn't require you to accept that man has caused the climate to change or that the change is unprecedented....and it even provides an out because it asks for a specific position on policies that I assume you completely oppose and then a general question on how to tackle challenges that cross national boundaries).

I think we all know what the liberal answers to these questions are, in general terms, so I'll go through the super conservative answers (there are a couple that I don't know the most conservative response to, but I will note them...and I'm sure there is one, I just don't know which response is the 'liberal' one and which is the 'conservative' one, so I don't know what to put) :

#1: Conservative answer is less government interference in scientific innovation
#2: Assuming you can accept that the climate is going through some changes, the 'conservative' answer is to oppose those policies (and preferably think up better policies to deal with any issues that may be caused by a warmer climate, should temps continue rising)
#3: The true completely conservative answer would be that the government should either not invest in research or the government should only invest in research that, for whatever reason, cannot be handled by the private sector...and much of that should be done by the states
#4: Conservative answer: As much as can be handled by the states should be, but we need to look at our policies for coming into the country (to protect against pandemics) and may need to do an overhaul of our defense preparations for biological attacks (depending on how they stand at the moment)
#5: The true conservative answer to this is that our public schools are failing and the federal government should stay out of education as much as possible. States should have the option to offer vouchers for private schools, as well.
#6: We should look at the natural resources available in the US and make as much use out of those as we can to become independent of other countries when ti comes to energy, in the meanwhile, let the energy companies continue researching any alternative energy source they feel will be profitable and it will be implemented as soon as it can be.
#7: The only real role of the government here is to make sure that what is sold as food is safe and edible. If it passes those tests, then there is no reason companies should be required to label what is in them, but they will if the market demands.
#8: The federal government shouldn't be involved, this is a state matter
#9: The federal government should stay out of the internet.
#10: If the pollution negatively impacts someone, then the company should be held responsible and pay a penalty. Most companies will avoid harsh pollution if it will affect their bottom line. I don't know what the most conservative response to the foreign policy question is, as what is 'conservative' in foreign policy is a little hazy these days.
#11: Make sure that any scientific advisors are well educated and know their given fields. Accept input from experts when making a decision.
#12: Space exploration, etc. should be handled by private companies.
#13: Again, I don't know the conservative answer to this one.
#14: Make vaccinations available and MAYBE make the most vital vaccinations required to take advantage of public services (public schools, for example). If vaccination levels begin to drop enough that 'herd immunity' will become no longer viable, then in the interest of protecting the rights of the young and those who cannot receive vaccinations (because of allergies, etc.) then vaccinations will need to be required. (Note: Politically popular or not, that is the policy of a true conservative on this. Keep the government out of it unless it is negatively affecting the rights of other people more than enforcing a government policy would violate your rights)

Now, most of these responses are on a continuum and, depending on where someone lies on the spectrum of liberalconservative, the answer a particular person wants to hear will fall somewhere within the spectrum. But these are actual conservative answers to these questions.

Other jobs she had before being appointed a FEDERAL judge by BHO (from the same link):
Superior Court judge as appointed by the Republican governator.
Senior Associate at a different private law firm (doesn't say what types of cases she handled).
Assistant US Attorney.
and more.

So, yes, one of her jobs was working patent cases (note it doesn't say whether she worked cases enforcing patents, defending against alleged infringement, or both), but it wasn't her only job. Congratulations, all you've shown is that this judge has some experience in the type of law she is judging in this case. What was your point?

The point isn't that she couldn't have done it. The point is that it is completely understandable that opponents suspect her of doping when something like that happens. If she's clean and the tests show it, then good for her. But you can't blame people for being suspicious when something like that happens. If someone suddenly shows vast improvements, particularly when it happens during a major sporting competition, there is reasonable enough suspicion to call for testing there. If it was because we couldn't stand for the Chinese to beat us at Olympic sports, there would be calls for a LOT more testing, as they've beaten us in quite a few this year.

If someone hears a gunshot and walks into a room and you are there, with a gun, and someone is lying dead from a gunshot wound, then you can't blame them for suspecting that you killed the person. If, later, ballistics shows it wasn't your gun that killed the person, then the charges get dropped. (Yes, I know I'm simplifying that process, but it's just a simple analogy, it doesn't have to be perfect)

What you stated isn't a gap in their testing though. They weren't looking for functionality. They were looking for was to trigger a false positive for cheating that could get you banned. They don't support playing in Linux/on Wine, so if you have to tweak Wine a bit to play, they don't view that as their problem. So, they tested it, likely using whatever workarounds are commonly used to test on a 64-bit system, and didn't find any false positives that could get you banned..

This is one area where the cops in my area actually get it right (they normally don't around here). I drive through a school zone every day to get to work and, while annoying, it makes sense because there are always kids walking to the school (school zone is between 730-830). At least once a week, when school is in session, there is at least one cop sitting there.

Levels actually ARE additive, as long as you take into account the ratio of arsenic to water in the body of water after you dump arsenic into it when calculating the level (not to do so would be incredibly naive).

I never said we were releasing water with arsenic in it. I said I was releasing arsenic and you were releasing arsenic into the same body of water. So, let's say we use your levels. Let's also say there are 9,990 "parts" in a lake. I release 5, you release 5. Suddenly, it's 1 part in 1000.

OR

Let's say we WERE releasing arsenic that was 'watered down' somewhat. If we are releasing 1000 'parts' of diluted arsenic each into that same lake I was talking about before. Now, I release 6 'parts' of arsenic for those 1000 'parts', which brings the lake up to slightly over 1/2. If you release the same amount, that brings us up 11,990 parts, 12 of which are arsenic. Which is over the threshold of 1/1000.

Yes, I'm simplifying, the actual calculations would end up needing to be much more complicated and involve things like evaporation, the movement of water/arsenic, and other changes in the levels of water/arsenic. But my point is that one person can release something into water that in and of itself will not turn the water into poison but that doesn't mean that other people can't tip the balance by also releasing pollutants at 'safe' levels.

And it's good information to pay attention to. But this doesn't say "Make sure you take the historical sea level rise into account." That would be fine. This says "Make sure you take the historical sea level rise into account. In fact, make sure you ONLY take the historical sea level rise into account. Oh, and no matter what it looks like, you have to do a linear extrapolation. I don't CARE if the numbers start looking like hey are rising exponentially to you, you will extrapolate using a straight line, dammit!"

But it also doesn't mean you should give control to said bigger douchebag. If you have a choice between two bosses and one is a complete ass and the other is only kind of an ass...neither is good, but you pick the one that's less of an ass.

Until it gets appealed and, based on decisions by said Supreme Court, gets released. And if you think a jury for a case like this would end up as 12 old grannies, you assume the defense has an incompetent attorney and the prosecution has a good one....so, I think your logic is flawed.

Completely wrong. They aren't saying that educating people will increase their skepticism. They are saying that ONLY communicating sound scientific evidence will NOT fix the public conflict. Because people's opinion on this matter is influenced a lot more by their "beliefs" than by how much they know about the science. So, just communicating the science will not change things.

They NEVER said to convey inaccurate information OR not to communicate the correct scientific information. They just said that communicating sound scientific information would not be enough to convince many people. It's a simple fact of human nature that has been known for a while (many people will hang onto their beliefs in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary), they are just applying it to this particular subject here.

Here's the thing. That might be true (depending on how you want to look at it), but only if you are the only one polluting.

If I release arsenic into water in levels that are half what it takes to be harmful and you also release arsenic at the same level (within the same body of water), suddenly the level of arsenic is harmful EVEN THOUGH NEITHER OF US RELEASES IT AT THE HARMFUL LEVEL. By your definition, neither of us is polluting and so the water must not be polluted....yet the water is contaminated with dangerous levels of arsenic.