Comment Re:Semantiquibbles, from Chef Boyardee (Score 1) 50
Comment Re:The quality of Telegram's encryption (Score 2, Insightful) 50
Comment Re:Oh, Please. . . (Score 3, Insightful) 158
Comment Re:Many reasons (Score 1) 283
Comment Re:The Actual Danger. (Score 1) 526
>That doesn't mean they're incapable
But they are, for the most part. Advanced math is literally incomprehensible for a significant part of the population.
Sadly, the same can be said about high school algebra.
Comment Re:Calculus is hard (Score 1) 526
Calculus isn't called calculus because it's hard, but the coincidence makes me smile.
To which coincidence do you refer?
Comment Re:The Actual Danger. (Score 1) 526
... in principle we can legislate
is a a few steps removed from having a bill that's likely to pass through this Senate any time soon, and it's certainly miles away from actually having a law on the books already. That's the difference . . as opposed to your Hasbro example, which should be covered by Toy Safety Act of 1984 which actually became law as part of H.R.5818 .
Comment Re:Won't anybody think of the Umpires? (Score 1) 75
Comment 3 dimensional? (Score 1) 182
Comment Re:I would be outraged maybe (Score 5, Funny) 112
Comment Re: One or two, here and there, or en masse? (Score 1) 31
Comment Re:What do you expect? (Score 1) 194
Frankly I'm not sure what's more worthless here; outdated legal terminology, the lawmaker, or the taxpayers ignorantly paying for all of this.
How about the taxpayers that are actively defending it.