Next you are going to tell me that the Republicans want to push grandma off the cliff, take food from starving children, and ruin the environment.

Yes... What's your point?

Will the plot summary for the end of the show be published ever again?

It was up briefly years ago but seems to have fallen into the memory hole.

Yes, I can come up with a thousand free market answers. And yes, that pretty much answers your question.

Would you buy a vehicle from any company whatsoever if you knew that parts were difficult to acquire? A manufacturer can play a game with parts availability only if they don't plan to stay in business.

Maybe we should go back to renting our phones from ATT as well.

What fazed me is ðey never even estimated ðe costs

Im am not sure if these are valid options for this guy: he wants to keep his small business, and asks if he can develop free software instead of closed softare – and still make a living.

Yes, SQL is quite adequate, more so than most due to being declarative. The issue is not SQL per se, but poor support for it in everything but PostgreSQL and IBM DB2. The advantages of procedural languages (including OO and functional ones) are more in standardisation than in the language per se.

All science, including the technology robots are built on, is an outgrowth of the scientific method. Research, reasoning, and altering your path based on data. If you wish to reject that method when building robots, that's cool. You are going to get a shitbot. You want to reject one of the consequences of scientific research, I call on you should reject all the outputs of scientific research. To assert that the method of gaining knowledge only works as long as you get to ignore the parts that you don't think you "use", or "agree with". Well then you'd a damned fool, and I suggest you return to the stone age animal herders afraid of the night.

While I don't dismiss trade style training programs or apprenticeships, no part of US high school education make you an expert in anything. The idea, however, of forcing every student into advanced section of every topic is foolish, few people do well in all areas all the time. I excelled in the hard sciences, I could have also excelled in history, but I just didn't care; now oddly I have a not insignificant interest in politics and policy, while my job is IT.

Short version, calculus isnt for everyone, and trying to make every child pass calc is a filing venture. However having basic exposure to the whole set of topics breeds a better base for success than trade only (excluding everything else) programs.

Unfortunately, it will take the child until they are 20 or so to feel the full effects of being poorly educated, worse, being denied the tools of critical thought. At that point bringing that person up to the capability to deal with the technology of the workplace that will face them in 2030 will be nearly insurmountable.

The mere fact that someone should be able to assert that any old idea they have, has equal supportability because of what they assert semantics of words to be, is wrong at best, and megalomaniacal at worst. And we all know that this isn't about "alternate 'theories'" this is about attacking things that don't support the christian creation myth.

I challenge *any* "teach the controversy" supporter to lay out their syllabus and rubric for *ALL* alternative science theories. As it has been stated above, it would have to include astrology, and alchemy, probably phrenology, humors, and I guess demonic possession.

You cannot be honest in this "teach the controversy" thing and only do one piece. Doing so is really a lie to yourself, and everyone knows it.