>>The fact of the matter is, the climate is changing because the climate is never and has never been static.

This is often-repeated bullshit.

Yes, the climate has always change. It's always changed for a reason, and we typically can figure out what caused it. Was there a drastic change in the atmosphere due to extreme volcanic activity, or impacts from asteroids, or the evolution of plants that started pumping out oxygen, or human industry pumping out CO2? Did the sun significantly strengthen or weaken? Did tectonic activity drastically change the landmasses of the earth, affecting things like albedo?

TL;DR: the climate doesn't just randomly shoot up and down for no reason.

Incidentally, I honestly don't know why Americans prefer corn-fed meat. It seems fattier than grass-fed and doesn't taste 'right' to me, but I suppose that's simply because I grew up eating 'our' meat and got used to that taste. As you say, a preference thing.

We have a lot of corn. Cheap corn.

It's not good for the cows, and the resulting meat isn't great, but feeding corn to cows is a cheap and fast way to get cows to gain weight.

Why, there are plenty of open source jobs! Just last week I started working in Happy-Land, in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane!

Come join me, and bring your friends. We're having a tea party later.

I hope Romney wins this so America can have a constructive debate over economic equality.

Not if Romney has any say in the matter:

"You know, I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare,"

"It's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like."

I think the "uncanny valley" characteristic here is pretty damned far fetched. If Romney looks creepy, what makes Obama look any less creepy? Or any holywood movie star, for that matter?

The difference is that Romney's behavior and demeanor seem slightly-off in a not-quite-normal-human-behavior sort of way. Thus, the uncanny valley. It is similar to what we would expect from a person, but it isn't quite right.

So basically, the difference is he is a less-convincing actor than Obama and anyone else in Hollywood. It throws us off, and therefore he appears creepy.

The Statist solution to the failures of the State power is to give the State more power

Actually no. Most people believe there are some things the government can handle better than the private sector, and many things the private sector can handle better than the government. The trick is to know the difference, and to find a balance.

I agree that each of those have happened, but which one of those required government involvment? I'm pretty sure many if not all of those have been accomplished within the private sector also.

I wasn't saying that government was the only way or even the necessarily the best way to accomplish those services (I think in many cases it is, but admittedly that's up to debate.) I was merely responding to the initial post stating the government was organized crime. My response (paraphrased from a Monty Python film) was just meant to illustrate that the government can and will provide valuable public services, sometimes more effectively than the private sector can provide them. I believe in applying the best tool for the job, whether it be the public or the private sector. Of course there are often abuses, corruption, etc, but by categorically denying that a government can ever accomplish anything worthwhile, that's just zealotry.

Government is organized crime, nothing more, nothing less.

Apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what has government ever done for us?

So if all local businesses that pay more than minimum wage require familiarity with a particular expensive Microsoft product, then isn't Microsoft exercising undue market power over the labor market?

Microsoft's job in this context is to sell as many copies of Office as it can. Every local business can look at MS Office and competing products and determine what the best choice for them is. If every company decided MS Office is the best choice, then I don't see how that has anything to do with Microsoft exercising undue market power. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone to use Office.

A smart employee would familiarize themselves with the commonly used tools in their area of expertise.

No. I was just stating what I thought should be in the quote.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

how many lost because they had been using AbiWord, LibreOffice Writer, or some other non-Microsoft word processing application?

I'd guess zero, but even if it were all 17, if the job requires the use of Microsoft Word, then the company is going to look to hire someone who knows how to use Microsoft Word.

Seconded.

I very much prefer to have all work-related communication done via email, or at the very least, an instant messenger of some sort.

I like having a written record of the conversation that I can refer to later. Face-to-face/phone conversations or online video-chat conferences leaves too much reliance on human memory and hand-written notes. Or an audio/video recording of the meeting that I'd have to sit through AGAIN when I didn't want to sit through it the first time.

I get phone calls from people all the time, and most of the time I tell them, please just write me an email.

Would you sit through Creationism 101 as required curriculum for a science degree (paying for it as part of tuition of course) with no objections?

Why would Creationism 101 be part of a science degree? I might be expected to sit through that class for a theology degree at a religious school.

If you want to study science, then study science. Keep anti-science religion out of it.

Maybe you're not smart enough to realize how that could put you in trouble, perhaps you don't remember any time when the elderly were stuck too ill to work, and they were unable to get a pension, or save things up, maybe you think they deserved it, and you know you can plan for the future yourself...but you know what? Other people are more practical and thoughtful, and realize that the whole outweighs the whining few.

First off, I'll say I'm not one of those "destroy social security" types, and I have no problem with social programs. One issue I do have with social security is that everyone is entitled to it, whether they need it or not. What would be wrong with reforming it so only people who actually need social security get paid by it?

What I mean by that: the way to play Morrowind and Oblivion was to build a "custom" character class designed specifically to AVOID leveling up, with certain major skills deliberately left aside to only be used (hand-to-hand, shield, etc) when you were ready to sit down and level. Otherwise, you'd screw your stats by leveling too fast, too hard, with too many skills left in the dust until you found yourself facing enemies that were far too powerful for you to handle.

IIRC, Morrowind didn't have monsters that leveled up with you. It had it's own set of leveling issues, like it became impossible to level up any more or increase stats beyond a certain point, but I was able to play and enjoy Morrowind without focusing too much on gaming the leveling system.

With Oblivion, I completely screwed up a few games and wasted many hours by leveling "incorrectly" and running into exactly the problem you described. Plus I generally disliked the idea of leveling up but the monsters kept up with me- why bother leveling up if I'm just going to be running in place?