Hmmmm....in America, and I'm pretty certain Iceland (the only countries I've been in with roundabouts) it's the reverse....the car in the roundabout has the right of way. The yield signs are at every entrance. That works fine on single lane roundabouts.

My big question is, on multiple lane roundabouts like freeways, which lane has the right of way? How does a car in the inner lane exit without just cutting off the outer lanes?

The Nation and Bloomberg ran with it. Two weeks late, but hey, it's something.

Stephen and Kermit ask 'The Big Questions' has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Stephen and Jennifer Lawrence Ask The Big Questions has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-and-Jennifer-Lawrence-Ask-The-Big-Questions

Tyson's only interesting statement before Nye spoke was to suggest Dawkins' question was wrong, or at least premature as he wonders, "...whether there is no such thing as consciousness at all".

It is a silly suggestion because we all agree we experience consciousness, therefore, de facto, it exists, as an experience. The question is why we have the experience, not whether we have it. This conclusion that experience of consciousness might not exist is what Nye was reacting to because Tyson hadn't said anything yet about where our understanding of it might come from.

After Nye's comment, Tyson says our understanding of consciousness might come from some place altogether unexpected. Most answers to the big questions do. That's why they're big questions. So to a scientist, that's an unremarkable statement, not worthy of comment. But you can't go from there to, "asking why is a bad question". Tyson's analogy with the procession of Mercury was a bad one because nobody suggested that perhaps Mercury's procession didn't appear out of whack. It did. People only asked why it did.

Because it provides far more than atheism. Not to you, obviously.

People go to look for answers and only religion can answer all of the really big questions.

Atheism provides no answers, only more questions.

But every path can have value, so stick with yours and we'll agree not to bother one another.

Pretty cool. I don't see it being too useful, but it's a very cool plane. It has nothing like the payload of an A-10, so the big question I'd have is what sort of endurance does it have? Given that they're planning on replacing A-10's that can stay on station for hours with F-35's that will only be able to for a matter of minutes, I guess it isn't considered a priority anymore (which could be right... might be better to get there fast, expend your weapons, then leave to rearm and come back fast). And then there are drones, of course, cheaper and with better endurance yet to back that up. Meh.

Anyways, it's always interesting to see the clever designs that never panned out. I wonder what this was developed for. The A-10 was already in service by then, so there is probably an interesting story behind it. Although, at the time I think the A-10 was intended as an anti-tank weapon and it wasn't until later (maybe when this was developed), that they figured out it could be good for close support too.

I recall a group in a music video doing the same thing a decade or more ago, digging up the dumped ET cartridges. Now the big question....WHY?

Yeah, yeah. But now onto the big question!

So, what are the oz things that the Americans are going on about?

@A10anis
while i do truly appreciate your change of tone,you fail to address that your original comment was smug and condescending.
which is what i was addressing.

and the word "ALL" is most certainly a blanket statement.

there are 4500 known religions (many defunct at present).
so maybe you can understand why i criticized your commentary as being overly generalized.

and i would also like to clarify a few things.
1.i find you to be an intelligent and insightful sifter.which is why i called you out.NOT to be an ass or to be confrontational but rather because i think you are a person who is better than your original comment.there are many i wouldnt have wasted my time on.

2.i am not a huge fan of organized religion.i have some serious issues with those highly influential institutions.

3.i actually agree with your basic premise:religion is control by use of fear.
so my issue with your original comment was not your basic premise but in its delivery.

4.dont be too quick to judge ALL religions solely based on doctrine and dogma.at its core religions are just human kind trying to make sense of reality and their place in it.religion is the beginnings of philosophy,and while it can be steeped in superstition and magic thinking,it has also offered some incredibly profound insights and understandings.
socrates,aristotle,plato..these were the beginnings of secular philosophy but before that? it was religion that tackled the big questions.

5.you really should watch the video.the book of enoch is...well..a bizarre apocryphal book.

anyways.i always enjoy your commentary and i hope you take my response with the humanity it was intended.

The big question is: in each community where you are paid this minimum wage amount, can you reasonably subsist on that much?

Some places, yes, I'm sure you can, and people on either side of the argument can cherry-pick abuses. However - and as a non-american this is a big deal - I believe that systems should be judged on how they fail rather than how they succeed.

It's not easy to make a nation-wide call, but it's better to protect those who can't protect themselvs.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The big question - if he'd taken the umbrella all the way down, would he have lived?

That's the big question. Population density, unemployment, culture... there are any number of things to consider here. The only thing that's clear from the statistics is that strict gun control laws do not seem to have any meaningful impact on violent crime, just as banning drugs and alcohol didn't have any meaningful impact on their existence.