That would make YOU the grime.

No, and neither have you. Isopropyl alcohol on the other hand...

Obama is not a sexless god, he's a eunuch.

People eat the center filling of the Oreo but then you're left with all that useless cookie no one wants. Give us less cookie, save money, and pass the savings on to us.

Maybe they should instead research how they can make revenue exceed expenses, since Uber is pissing money away at a phenomenal rate.

They've improved. It USED to be learning to use the BBC computer... the one used all over the world so long as it was in the UK.

You're right, in a pedantic sort of way. It's an easily human readable translation of machine code. But in a practical sort of way, you can program in it, thus it can be considered a "language".

They could always have asked "What computer language should Brad and Angelina's divorce be coded in?"...

Seriously Miss Universe is only once a year. Yet I'm seeing "which is the most popular language" every month or so here. Who gives a shit? Certainly not your CPU. It all gets compiled down to assembly anyway. THAT is the most popular language, even if few humans code in it nowadays all computers read it.

Tell that to Leto II...

I give the bible as much credibility as I give Frank Herbert's Dune series. In fact, the latter is much better.

Are the "scientists" conducting these "studies" psychologists or behavioral scientists? Because as far as I know, those are the only "scientists" who study why people would react one way or another to a situation. I mean marketing people do too, but that's hardly science. The cited article is unclear although what is clear, apart from the APA format of citation, is that it does not follow the standard format of SCIENTIFIC articles. Usually an article by SCIENTISTS doesn't go "1. Introduction 2. Conclusion". There's a whole lot missing on things like materials and methodology, discussion, etc.

So if you want an additional tip as to why people (including scientists, for I am one) reject climate change "science" - here's a big hint: follow the scientific method. Note that I am not even discussing the actual data evidence for or against climate change. I am discussing the lack of credibility of people who call themselves "scientists" but clearly are not. The scientific method and the way scientific articles are laid out is not new and does not need to be reinvented.

Perhaps the confusion arises because social sciences people are actually starting to believe that they are "scientists" because they took Poli Sci.

This kind of thing only works on the weak :)

Lawyer acts like he's doing a fucking public service. What a crusader for truth and justice. How about - AT ALL TIMES when I'm home, fucker. Hah, it's not like he cares, he's getting paid either way.

You've discovered that cheaters gain an advantage.