Isn't that the point? Isn't it impractical to have different set of units for day-to-day life and for everything scientific, technical, or international? It certainly feels like over time our daily life is getting more technical, and more international.

I don't think they do. It's just that many of them (the ones we hear about most, too) don't concern themselves enough with the long term that finite natural resources become a serious issue.

This is unfortunate, and it's all the more unfortunate that such "long term" issues are now not so long-term anymore, to say nothing of those that are hitting us right now.

"Sustainability" has been a key word in several areas of macroeconomics for decades. Unfortunately not in all areas of economics. Also, it was long taken in a narrow, technical meaning.

Indeed, and mouse click events will be tweeted individually. The client can access them by "following" the relevant window!

Along the same line, framebuffers will be replaced with tumblr accounts.

And even then, we put those on breathing machines.

At this point what we are stuck with is a bunch of people who are too stupid to die.

You're so right. It did seem strange when I read it, but then I was in a hurry to get this posted and go back to something resembling work, so I must have turned my critical thinking off.

Oh, that one's easy: it's Jesus. It's been a shorthand for his name since the 14th century.

See for example this:

So for clarity, they should have written:

FTFY.

Try to use your firearm against the power of the US government or its agents, and then come tell us how that went.

That power was transfered in its entirety long ago. Here I'm merely paraphrasing Bruce's argument above, btw.

GP says:
"eventually, they'll set the minimum and maximum wages to the same levels"
Obama said:
"I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."

and you say (of GP):
"His argument would only be fallacious if it weren't exactly what is being proposed by the left today"

Do you stand by that comment? Can you see the nuance between the two statements quoted above?

Do you think saying "some people have earnings that are unreasonably low / high" (respectively 7$ an hour, a bazillion an hour), is exactly the same as saying "everybody should earn the same?". Because that's what you just wrote.

Thank you for a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.

Just kidding, those are so common as to be plain boring these days.

Or, if marketing to some segments of the population: "our cars are motherfuckers".

Agreed, "our cars are tits" doesn't sound that good.

Having lived on both shores of the Atlantic, I very much believe that both systems would have a lot to learn from each other.

That is, if there was a substantial discussion instead of all the name-calling.

I know, this is slashdot, but in real life it's not that much better.

You know, with this little jab you probably hit the nail on the head (that must hurt, btw). One thing is the intrinsic properties of a given trade, and how they play with sex-dependent preferences, and another is the group culture that builds up within a trade. That very much depends on history, and... the gender ratio of that field, to begin with.

The very same quote popped up in my mind immediately. However strange it may feel to refer to Tolkien on this issue, this particular quote has something unusually profound and humane to it. I ascribe it to Tolkien's experience in world war I, when death must have become very real and familiar to him.

It gets clearer if you flip a couple pages of the magazine and read the "In this issue" box:

You understand that the second statement might be perceived as conflicting with the first one. Or maybe plain cynical.

Caviar is available for all, too.