According to the following studies, darker skin colors are are significantly associated with poorer vitamin D status and whites are 30% more likely than blacks and 50% more likely than Hispanics to be identified with Autism. These trends do not seem to support the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency is a primary cause of Autism. http://www.medscape.com/viewar... http://www.aappublications.org...

For natural selection to remove a feature there must be not only a reason it is no longer an advantage but also a reason that it is now a disadvantage in terms of fitness.

It doesn't follow from the fact that there are bigger problems than Muslim terrorists that Muslim terrorists are not a problem. That's like saying because there is global warming from green house gases, we shouldn't be concerned about polluting our rivers.

Those are native issues inherent to any society and need to be addressed. Mass murder by foreign agents is not something we have to accept.

The facts couldn't be clearer. We need to act. Privacy and freedom are considerably less important to people's imperative to successfully reproduce than is safety. It's really futile to champion the former when the latter is under such pressure.

Reducing deaths from terrorist attacks is a tractable problem, the others you listed are not.

That's not really a sensible attitude. The scale of violence that's possible with 400 terrorists is enormous.

casualty*

One form of causality is a necessary consequence of something that also creates a great deal of good in our society and the other is not.

There appears to be a new trend. http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirt... http://i0.wp.com/espnfivethirt...

Mass surveillance is a necessary consequence of mass immigration from the Muslim world.

Project Include? More like Project Usurp.

I find that what many people think of when they think of "math" is really just calculating (solve for this variable, optimize this curve, etc.)---what I like to call end-user math or craft-math. It's more akin to cooking or repairing an engine than it is to writing software. The other kind of math, the real kind, if you will, is proof writing. It's a creative process, both goal-oriented and expository, and subject to principles of elegance and efficiency. All of these features it has in common with software development.

This is a misrepresentation of the problem. Clearly, observed behavior is the result of a particular combination of input and program. The question isn't whether it's one or the other, but rather, given the knowledge of only one or the other, how much of the observed behavior can you explain? And, moreover, to what extent does the input change the program?