Google wouldn't NEED to determine what topics are "inappropriate". It's called "user preferences".

I always thought it would be a good idea to put a countdown timer (or some similar) up there so that you would know EXACTLY when the light was going to turn red.

That would also solve the problem with "shortened" yellow lights.

If Radon is being released BEFORE a quake occurs, wouldn't it be insignificant to the amount of Radon released DURING and AFTER an earthquake? And therefore, if the atmosphere was heating before the earthquake, wouldn't it be doing so much more significantly during and after the earthquake, so much more so as to be obvious?

Sheesh. I don't know if I'd consider Ron Paul to be a Libertarian anymore ever since he said outlawing abortion is a "Libertarian principle". Yea...in bizzaro world maybe.

If I can't trust Ron Paul to be Libertarian in social matters, how can I trust him to be a Libertarian at all? He sounds like a plain-old Republican to me. I might as well be voting for Huckabee.

If dolphins are so smart, how come they haven't built a translator to communicate with us yet?

Free electricity? Sign me up!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this prior art? http://www.wetlandsonline.com/ProductImages/strap-ons/se-1514-01.jpg

That's an ultra-libertarian view of government, and it's not entirely accurate. Don't get me wrong....capitalism is great at steering money and resources towards where it's useful. However, capitalism also has some very significant shortcomings too. For example, many corporations today are not investing for long-term sustainability, but rather short-term profits. The almighty buck is all that's important. The environment, product safety, employees, etc... are all hindrances to the bottom line. And unbridled capitalism naturally leads to monopolies, where all the original benefits of capitalism cease to exist. And without regulation, you end up with extreme pollution, slave-like wages and working conditions, extreme polarization between the "haves" and "have-nots", etc...

You need government taxation and spending to pay for stuff that requires long-term investment, like roads, and scientific research that may not pay off for many years. You also need government to create a somewhat "fair" system (i.e. graduated taxation rates) to create a stable society that isn't going to revolt and overthrow the government every 10 years. And you need government to regulate industry to prevent monopolies from forming, and from allowing things like the financial crisis from occurring (which lets be honest was a product of decades of deregulation of the financial sector).

Capitalism is a lot like a Ferrari, and government is the 'brakes". Sure the brakes slow down the car. But you still need brakes. Without it, you end up with spectacular crashes (e.g. the financial system crisis).

Interesting. Why do you feel that the most effective way to combat trolls would be to silently flag their account, allowing them to post and continue viewing the forums as normal, but everything they do is completely invisible. The system could also generate fake replies to their replies and threads, also completely invisible?

I care about energy usage for one reason...battery life. A laptop consumes about the same amount of energy as a 60w light bulb. So does it really matter in the larger scheme of things? And I'd think that manufacturers are already trying to make their operations as energy efficient as possible, because it affects their bottom line.

The reason why I use compact florescent bulbs instead of conventional light bulbs is because if you replace EVERY SINGLE BULB in my entire house, the energy savings add up. But I've only got ONE laptop, so I really don't care if it's using 60w or 50w or 40w or whatever.

I've had that argument drilled into me as a kid. But it doesn't hold water anymore. To me, that argument that "1 day == unknown amount of time" seems like a desperate attempt to reconcile what is clearly written in Genesis. It's no different that the "Bible Code" folks who pick and choose parts of the bible to come up with a seemingly coherent argument.

It comes down to this...if the Earth wasn't made in 6 days, why did God say "6 days"? Why couldn't he just come out and say how long it really took? Did he not realize that many of his followers would take that literally? He didn't even bother putting in a footnote there in Genesis saying something to the effect of "I don't REALLY mean a day here.".

And another thing....the quote "A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day" comes from 2nd Peter. That was written almost 1500 years after Genesis. How were people supposed to correctly interpret Genesis during those 1500 years without the benefit of the context provided by Peter? Did God not care if those people had no way of correctly interpreting his words?

Sorry...but there are just WAY too many holes in your theory. And I also don't buy the argument that humans were too "simple" to understand the meaning of 4 billion years. Even the dumbest people alive today can grasp the concept of a "really big number". Do you think those ancient's heads were going to explode if God told them the Earth was 4 billion years old?

I think the governor is already aware of this fact. But the facts don't matter. The fact is that the state needs money to pay for Medicaid. And she's a Republican, which means she can't increase revenue by appearing to raise taxes. So the only politically viable way to fix the problem is to find a scapegoat. And what better scapegoat is there than blaming all your problems on lazy people? And for many Americans, fat == lazy. For a Republican governor, it's a win-win situation. You're discreetly raising taxes and simultaneously taking on the "lazy liberals" while giving the hard-working "real" Americans a break.

See how that works now?

Good one guys, but I saw that coming from a mile away! Oh wait...it's March 31st.

If the 2012 movie taught me anything, it's that any disaster can be prepared for....except for maybe a movie with a really horrible plot line. There's nothing really to prepare you for that.

A bigger question is where in SPACE are these particles going to appear (assuming it comes back at the same point in space it left)? If the particle moves back in time 1 second, the LHC will be 250km away from where it's going to be when the particle disappears (assuming speed relative to the center of our galaxy, but choose your own frame of reference). How would this ever be possible to test?