You're error lies in the fact that the amendment voted against by the Republicans (no 'the right') was an amendment to completely abolish Medicare overnight. After having much of society live on Medicare for so long, then have it suddenly removed, would create a serious market problem. It was written in an extremest point of view, not allowing for a gradual decline but a sudden stop. I don't believe may people would agree with this procedure, and voting against it definitely does _not _ imply an 'embrace of Medicare' as you've stated.

But regardless, what does this thread have to do with the topic?

I would more blame the government for using way too much of our tax dollars, and not take the time to hit the little "Windows Update" button or install some virus protection. We're not talking about some 70+ year old grandma, but a government with a multi-trillion dollar spending plan. I would expect multiple levels of encryption, routine computer updates and a full suit of anti-virus software on each machine with internet access just to start. For that I blame the government.

So, what I'm gathering from this is that most, if not all, politicians are corrupt and there to make another buck? Sick joke if you ask me. They're already living in the top .1% of American income off our tax dollars, then they screw the producers to make some more money. Why haven't we revolted yet?

Second that. There is a lot of good material out there that is not provided by the RIAA and MPAA. You just have to look a little harder for it. If we start demanding content that is not protected in such crazy ways, then that's what stores will begin to provide. It's a business, and they're in it to make money.

Is it just me, or is the battery display outside of the screen area? If someone understands, could you explain how this would work.

I've never been to Detroit, but my friend who lived there several years tells me that it's all but become somewhat a ghost city. Gangs and drugs are everywhere, and government funded housing to help out the people there are nothing more then crap holes. And it blew him away the first Halloween, as he saw people burn dozens of abandon buildings to the ground for fun.

He told me that back at the boom of the American Auto Industry the unions would ask for a raise, and if the company refused the union workers would move to the company down the street. Back and forth it would go until welders were being paid well over the national average. Why wouldn't the car companies move out?

I'm tired of hearing people complain about how we ship everything in from China, then complain at the checkout that it's too expensive. A large part of our American lifestyle is made possible by using cheap labor in other countries. (Oop, that was a tangent)

I live in a right to work state, and I would rather hold a low paying job doing something I don't find enjoyable then have to join a union. I will be really disappointed if the tech industry decides to start having unions on a large scale. In my opinion, today being a member of a union is like telling me that my job isn't important enough, or that I'm not good enough, so I need big brother to step in for me.

I concede. Didn't do my homework (i.e. 3 sec. search on Google) to find out, but I did find this page that has a long list of impressive things NASA did come up with. Though all this digresses from the point. Again, what I'm worried about is that Obama won't just "can" Griffin, but use this as a reason to pull substantial funding from the program, and possibly shut it down.

A student I knew did a story on Obama and NASA. I can't remember all the specifics, or his resources, but some of the report was that Obama favors social programs over space exploration. Here[LINK] is a link to the first report I could find on Google given back in 2007. It basically says that Obama wants to delay the space program for 5 years and put the money into education.

I too believe that general education here in America has a lot to be desired, but there are so many life saving and other useful technologies that have come from the program. For a simple example, NASA came up with the first prototype of creating Velcro. Who would have thought.

I don't believe that Obama has some affinity to keep the program around, and he never mentioned prior to the speech given last month that he grew up on Star Trek, or loves what they do at NASA. My worry is more then changing management, it's that he will try and take this out of the budget completely.

Consider this argument. One which I do not believe to be used by either political or religious/secular "side."

Life begins at conception, but the babies right to life begins before that. Right to life begins with consensual intercourse. While sex usually brings feelings of pleasure and euphoria, I will argue that the ultimate goal, or reason, is to procreate. When two persons consensually engage, they also agree to any consequences resulting from their actions. Consider this our "Terms of Use." If pregnancy occurs, the babies life is protected, and the parents have the obligation to defend the babies life until delivery. At that point they may feel free to give the baby up for adoption.

In the case of rape, intercourse is not consensual. Because of this the responsibility of procreative powers does not lie on the unconsenting person. There was no agreement made to protect the baby's life, thus the mother (if the one raped) cannot be held responsible if she decides to abort. Here the baby has no clam to his/her mother's protection.

I'm sorry for the coarseness of the argument. If this offends anyone, I would ask for the benefit of the doubt. It's highly unlikely that anyone would have taken the time to read a post long enough to contain the entire argument.

Really I see everyone in these fields having to make the choice between a "Greek" or a "Roman" education. That is (as explained in the preface of Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers) she will have to decide whether she wants industrialize or philosophize her talents. Go the path of Bertrand Russel, or Jack Kilby. If she want cash, then she should become an engineer. If she likes to theorize about things no one else really cares about, then become a university professor doing research.

I guess in more seriousness, math will help her in almost any field. The problem solving strategies that one learns while developing their first rigorous proof will be a bonus in any field, and math in general is applicable to almost anything. Also, you could see how inquisitive she is on these things when presented with a challenge. For example, have her research the Collatz Conjecture and see if she finds it fun to solve a problem just because it hasn't been solved. Math at the higher levels is much more creativity and deep thinking then the 'holy crap my calculator could do this' math of high school.

As you can probably tell, I didn't have a lot of friends growing up. But hey, I didn't really care. Now I'm a digital systems analyst/program optimizer and I love it. Of anything, I would just say don't let academia ruin a possible interest. All the qualification and quantification that they put you through can really destroy a kids desire to learn just because they want to.

The ambiguity in the language of this report leaves so many possible interpretations that it is impossible to definitively understand what they are even talking about. For example "...proteins were correcting any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations, constantly restoring the chain to working order...steering organisms toward evolutionary changes that make the creature fitter."

Restore means to bring back to a former, original, or normal condition, while fitter has three meaning in the Biological sense: 1.being adapted to the prevailing conditions and producing offspring that survive to reproductive age; 2.contributing genetic information to the gene pool of the next generation; 3.(of a population) maintaining or increasing the group's numbers in the environment. The only definition that could work in context is "being adapted to the prevailing conditions." Proteins restoring the original information does not imply adaptation. I would say more of a self-preservation mechanism.

If to say, the cell is repairing itself as mutations are found, is nothing new. As far as I remember correctly, as the DNA is being copied it is also checked for irregularities. So wouldn't that mean the biological system is geared to prevent some parts of the mutation process?

To say the cell is recoding itself to make itself "stronger" or more adaptable to the environment, is that completely logical? Mutations can be caused by accidental DNA replication, or environmental affects. So what stimulus is the process receiving to create a "better" version of itself? What I'm trying to say is that without environmental effects the cell could be reorganizing itself into oblivion.

I enjoy this video. It's a very visual approach for people like me who really don't understand a whole lot about the complexity of the cell. In my opinion, for all the particle accelerators and spaceships we have, nothing comes close to this. And one last philosophical question. What determines randomness and order?

Oh, huh. I would have though that birth records, while the person was still alive, would fall under Clinton's medial privacy rules. Interesting. Thanks for letting me know that.

Despite the article count, I believe most people who didn't vote for Obama still feel we don't know enough about him. Mainstream media coverage isn't sufficient information to choose a candidate, only necessary information to make us fall in love long enough to vote.

Why are we grouped into Obama or McCain? I didn't vote because, well first my vote doesn't really matter.

• Difference in popular vote: 6.37%
• Difference in Electoral vote: 36.33%
• Only vote that matters: Electoral

Also because I think none of the candidates had my best interests in mind. With all the technology that is out now, why don't we elect our president by popular vote? We now have the precision and speed able to do so. Shouldn't that be a topic for debate over the next four years?

It's funny how there is a name out there for everyone who has an opposed view. Beyond trying to qualify my post by simple definition, try providing a point of clarification, or a counter argument. Even if you feel correct, your point doesn't provide substantial grounds to lead anywhere.

I admit my post doesn't well explain what I was trying to say. My point is better stated at the end of a thread above:

The information in my original post was only meant to support that argument. My apologies that the argument wasn't placed before the evidence. I can see how that would make me appear Trolling.

That is a sad rebuttal. Before you try and goose me, I didn't vote. McCain is about as mentally capable of running the county as Dwight Schrute. You over zealous stereotyping side-swipes the argument.

Actually I think it's illegal in all States to release personal documents of that kind. The point, which you so cleverly didn't address, is that Obama lied and posted false information about himself. I'm not the one posting half truths or opinions. I have presented current information, and asked readers to judge for themselves.

To bring this back to the original article, media bias doesn't only exist in what is reported, but also what isn't. Legal precedings, personal affiliations and more were never reported. I don't care so much that Obama had x more articles, or front page articles. If that's what people are relying on to get the "fair" coverage they want, then the Country is already in a mess. What is more important is that the information is true, unbiased and without reporter opinion.