When right brain picks up a Rubik's cube because it was asked to, left brain has no knowledge of that. So when the Rubik's cube is passed into the hand controlled by left brain, how does left brain know to even receive the item? Is it acting on habit - i.e. it's so used to cooperating with left brain and body parts that it accepts things left brain offers? And in that case, is the incorrect explanation from left brain influenced by what it thinks right brain wants? For favourite colour - is each side influenced by what it thinks the other prefers?

I suspect viral marketing techniques like anthropomorphising body parts is taking away slightly from the truth. It's a fun conclusion that captures the imagination to say that there are two entities, one in thrall to the other, but we are talking about a malfunctioning brain so the conclusions need careful consideration. These type of things can be a little economical with the truth to paint a better picture, I know the physics ones are on occasion.

The only official Calvin and Hobbes merchandise item ever made was sold in Norway, branded under the Norwegian name Tommy & Tigern (Tommy and the Tiger) - a binder for the monthly localized Calvin & Hobbes comic. I got most of the issues.
You can see several of the binders on a table here: http://m.finn.no/bap/forsale/gallery.html?finnkode=69073070#image1

I don't consider the chemical reactions of plants to be the same. I said that 'even' plants have a response to negative stimuli. Animals have instinct, a response coded into their DNA, that allows them to respond to negative stimuli. Does that make them a fully sentient being, capable of self-awareness and logical thought? No, it doesn't.

Do insects have rational thought? Do clams or lobster have rational thought? If your entire goal is to avoid (formerly) living matter that can respond to negative stimuli, then why draw the line at plants? Do you really believe that a sea urchin has more capability of self-awareness than a head of lettuce?

This is the fallacy of logic that lies at the core of vegan ideology. Vegans say "I will eat this item because it doesn't understand pain!" when there are, in fact, many life forms that do not understand pain beyond a stimulus reaction.

"When human slavery was the norm, one could have made a similar argument. Unless we were living outside of society, it would have been difficult to be 100% slave-free. Sure, we could have avoided owning slaves ourselves, but it would have been impossible to avoid all items that contained even a small degree of slave input. Slave labor would also have been used in public and private construction. Would it make sense to tell someone who was trying to abolish human slavery that unless they stayed off the roads they’re a hypocrite? Would it make sense to say that since we can’t 100% avoid items made with even a small amount of slave input, therefore human slavery is morally okay and we should go ahead and own slaves?

Of course not.

What we would say is that slavery is morally wrong and we must fight for society to abolish slavery. And in the meantime we should avoid items made from slavery to the extent possible, particularly the primary owning of slaves ourselves and any products made primarily through slave labor."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/100-vegan/

“A principle is a principle, and in no case can it be watered down because of our incapacity to live it in practice. We have to strive to achieve it, and the striving should be conscious, deliberate and hard.” ~ Gandhi

Hmm... Democrat failure of 8 years? I seem to recall the Republicans have controlled the budget, more or less for 6 of those 8 years, and solidly for the last 2. I seem to recall we were in a budget surplus before Bush Jr took us out of it for an unjust war built on, at best misinformation, and very possibly lies. All the while the same people crying about the deficit now said then that deficits don't matter. What happened is a failure of Obama, it's a failure of the Republican policies as Obama's weren't even given a shot as the modern day Republican doesn't want a democracy, what they want is a dictatorship where they dictate the rules and compromise with the other side of the isle, formally known as politics, is bad and it's my way or the highway mentality is the rule of law for the party. Hell, the party abandoned its very own plan for affordable health care and now call it one of the worst things ever... their own plan... the same plan, funded the same way with the same penalties for not participating, that they tried to pass into federal law 3 times is now one of the worst things that our government has ever passed.

Cruz and Trump will isolate America from our allies, especially if Trump won. None of our allies (save perhaps Israel) would want to associate with us. They are already mad at us for Bush's wars and both Cruz and Trump want to escalate those wars and "carpet bomb" millions of innocent people to get to a few bad people? Trump wants to kill their families, which will make it easier to radicalize more and more people... and before one says that is the brutality of that religion, which religion is the one wanting to carpet bomb innocent people to kill a few guilty people and torture people and other crimes that their Christ would never support? Of course everything the Republicans want to do is exactly what ISIS has publicly stated they want other nations to do, so perhaps the Republican party is in league with ISIS?

Their policies, especially Trump's, regarding items made out of the country (jobs sent overseas by the same people that Republicans love... the same people who take for themselves while they refuse to pay living wages to their employees for pure greed reasons) would result in an economic melt down in the US as countries and businesses refuse to do as much business with us... or they move from the US dollar as the standard currency as retribution, which again wrecks the US economy.

Of less importance is that a Trump presidency and likely a Cruz as well would result in a guarantee that we'd lose the bids for the 2024 Olympic games and the 2026 World Cup, both of which we have a decent lead on as of now, but if men of hate and discrimination get in, then why would games of peace come? Trump wants to refuse to let Muslims even visit, and that would make a huge percentage of those who'd come for either or.

Anyhow to the subject of Bernie. Yes the Republican's would block everything as they do with Obama, but the conversation is moved and advanced for the people. I'd fear that if Clinton got in, the Republicans would spend all their time trying to impeach her rather than go about the process of governing. Bernie they'd just try to ignore and then get caught off guard as the nation caught onto his ideas and wanted to run with it and gave him a congress that would work with him.... of course a Trump nomination means they'd likely lose the Senate anyhow... which will be hilarious, doesn't matter if it's Clinton or Sanders in the office, because moments after the election, Obama pulls the moderate Supreme Court Justice nomination that the Republicans asked for by name before it became a political issue, and they instead get a more liberal justice... (I'm further amused by how they say they just want American's to vote on it... they did folks, 4 years ago, everyone knew there'd likely be an opening or two during his terms and he still won.)

What insulting ignorance you display with that first statement.
Let's discuss the bay area, where a studio apartment might cost you $1500 a month + utilities. There, even at $15 an hour, you are working 2 1/2 weeks just to put a roof over your head, then there's utilities, food, gas and insurance because you can't live where you work and don't have 4 hours a day to take public transportation, medical expenses, well, you're already FAR over what you make, and living like a monk. Now think about trying to raise a family of 4, even with 2 incomes it can't be done on $15 an hour...it really is an unwinnable struggle even if both parents have 2 full time jobs each.

You make the typical mistake of thinking that minimum wage jobs are all held by people who don't even really need jobs. That's simply 100% wrong. Most are held by adults that can not support themselves, much less have a family on $15 an hour. The amount of minimum wage jobs held by teenagers is only 20%...and that includes those not living at home. The group you describe as the norm is likely far less than 10% of the minimum wage work force.
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/demographics
Also, you ignore the idea that teens that work and live at home should be able to save money to move out, or for school...but even living at home isn't free (just cheaper, usually) and paying them a wage that leaves nothing for the bank means they can NEVER move out and are only going backwards financially. That's a terrible financial trap to design for our youth, and is a direct cause of people turning to crime as a last resort. EDIT:You also ignore the fact that many if not most teens living at home and working work to support the family, not for their own money, and their income is imperative in keeping the family financially viable.

Yes, it wasn't 'that long ago' that $15 an hour was a decent wage...but it was even more recent when <$.79 gas was the norm, or even high, $.99 cigarettes were expensive, $200 a month rent was average or even high, $25 a month water bill was considered excessive, milk was <$1 a gallon at 7/11, health insurance was well under $100 per month (often <$50 per month)....etc. Inflation has raised the price of most 'necessities' by at least a factor of 5 in the last 25 years, but not wages. Luxury items are just out of the picture for those living on minimum wage, so there's no point mentioning their costs.
Those making $15 an hour ARE ALREADY AT THE BOTTOM TODAY. [ EDIT: As I mentioned above, anyone making less than $22 an hour is making less (in purchase power) than minimum wage as it was originally set, they are all at the 'bottom'.] Yes, they should all get a 'boost' as well if life was fair. Clearly it's not, so it's good to prioritize and focus on those below the bottom first, then work upwards. It's also imperative to work from the top down at the same time, as the outrageous compensation at the top is a big part of how/why companies pay those at the bottom so poorly and claim it's all they can afford. If the CEOs keep taking 95% of the profits, the employees can never be paid 'fairly' or even humanely.

I feel the need to keep posting these links as long as i see videos on the Panama Papers

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1 Percent From Panama Leak
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/media_gatekeepers_protect_western_1_percent_from_panama_leak_20160404

Disgraceful BBC Panorama Propaganda Hides Grim Truth About Britain
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/disgraceful-bbc-panorama-propaganda-hides-grim-truth-about-britain/

Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak (Thanks @radx)
or if you're not able to view do to using Chrome
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/media_gatekeepers_protect_western_1_percent_from_panama_leak_20160404

Disgraceful BBC Panorama Propaganda Hides Grim Truth About Britain
alternative for chrome users
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/disgraceful-bbc-panorama-propaganda-hides-grim-truth-about-britain/

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

LOL I can't be a pig and Sarah Palin at the same time. Make up your mind

Those are all valid criticisms, but nobody apart from the flight engineers and test pilots truly know whether this plane is a lemon or not. If it does everything it's supposed to do, then it's exactly what the military asked for, just 10 years too late....

Any suitability and fit for purpose criticism that anyone has ever come up with for the F-35 also applies to just about any piece of military equipment that has been created in the last 70 years. Engineering is a balancing act, and an iterative process. Almost every aircraft, and vehicle in the military today was built to fight a soviet army. Luckily that never happened. But that means that most aircraft and vehicles in the military today have been grossly modified to make them fit for a different purpose. The F-35 will probably go through this as well over the next 30 years, because it's a normal part of the life-cycle of military equipment. Almost every plane dropping bombs now was previously designed as a fighter. But nobody ever calls them out for being mutants like they do with the F-35, they call it additional capability. The F-35 was born with these capabilities instead of being added over time.


Expensive: I'll agree. Could the money have been spent better else where? Definitely. You could argue that the cost is tiny compared to that of a full scale war, maybe F-35 is a good deterrent. Air superiority is the key to winning a war. If you're going to spend money then that's where it should be spent. When the oceans rise enough, is a country like Indonesia going to lash out and try to take land and resources for their civilians? Maybe. I doubt all 200 million of them will just stand there and starve. (Ok I'll concede, this does make me sound a bit like Palin. But hopefully not as dumb )
They could have probably made 3 different stealth planes for 1/2 the cost, but that has it's own strategic downsides. You have to have the right assets in the right places or you have to spread them quite thinly. With a multi-role plane you have all of the capabilities everywhere. Just a matter of a loading it with different weapons.

Not needed: Time will tell whether this is the right plane, but new planes are needed. And they absolutely must have stealth. Within 10 years, weapon systems will be so advanced that if you are spotted, you're as good as dead. We are currently dropping bombs on fairly unsophisticated enemies, but wars tend to escalate quickly. You just never know either way, and it's better to be prepared for the worst. There are plenty of countries with very good planes and pilots that could get sucked into a conflict. If you're really unlucky you could be fighting US made planes with pilots trained in the same way, and you don't want to be fighting a fair fight.
Further still, Russia, China and Japan are developing their own stealth planes, which pretty much forces everyone else to do the same thing.
Especially if Donald Trump gets elected. You never know who that crazy asshole is going to provoke into a war

Doesn't work: It's still in development and testing.

Overtasked: It does the same stuff the aging multi-role planes (that were originally built as fighters) do. With the addition of stealth, and better weapons/sensors/comms. Small performance variables don't win wars, superior tactics and situational awareness does.

Underpowered: Almost every plane ever built has had it's engines upgraded to give it more thrust through it's life. And engines on planes are almost a disposable item, they're constantly being replaced throughout the life-cycle of the plane. Like a formula one car.
The current engine, is already the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter. It is good enough to fly super sonic without an afterburner, which none of the planes it's replacing are capable of.

Piloted: Agreed. But who knows, maybe a Boston Dynamics robot will be flying it soon

Test Failing: That's only a good thing. You want things to fail during tests, and not in the real world. Testing and finding flaws is a normal part of developing anything.

Fragile: That can be said for all US aircraft. They all need to have the runway checked for FOD, because one little rock can destroy even the best plane. Russian aircraft on the other hand are designed to be rugged though, because they're runways are in terrible condition. But in reality, all sophisticated equipment needs constant maintenance, especially when even a simple failure at 40,000 feet becomes an emergency.

Quickly Obsolete: Time will tell. Perhaps it would have been better to keep upgrading current planes with more technology like plasma stealth gas that make then partially stealthy, better sensors and more computing power. But by the time you've done that you've got a plane that's as heavy as F-35 anyway, and not as capable. Although it might have been cheaper in the long run.

Like I said in my previous comment. All of this doesn't make an interesting story so you'll only ever hear the two extremes which are "the plane sux" vs "it's invicible!!11" depending on your media source.

The article above does link to this, but the smiling man at the end is:
Image Number: 336609
“Eating rice, China,” Unknown, AMNH Digital Special Collections, accessed March 13, 2016, http://images.library.amnh.org/digital/item/336609

there's something incredibly disgusting about videos like this. all the effort, knowledge, technology, suffering, and geopolitics needed to make this item and then some twat with access to too much money destroys it for youtube views.

Dean Baker drops some MMT over at Truthout:

We Poisoned Kids in Flint to Keep Their Parents From Having Jobs