The foreign policy of both Russia and the US is far more motivated by domestic policy than "imperialism" or "cold war tactics".

Putin just needs to appear to be winning. Winning wars, media arguments, just winning anything. Crossword competitions, ice hockey games, fishing, push-ups, literally anything. With not much to be gained in Ukraine quickly, he can switch to helping Assad to quash rebels and appear to fight the IS. Russian air support and logistics will have small losses and big PR gains. Putin is clever so he will avoid direct confrontation with the IS leading to a long stalemate and much destruction, in Iraq mainly.

Obama needs to do stupid unworkable things like "spread democracy", "help Israel no matter what", "broker peace in the middle east" and "support 'friends' of the US, some of them as bad as Assad" - its nearly impossible for him to have a sane middle east policy. There is nothing Obama can do in the short term in Syria. He probably cant reconsider his position on Assad and there is no reasonable path to topple Assad gracefully. Also no direct path to fight IS - Turkey will fight Kurds before fighting IS, Israel has to be careful.

Is Iran the key then? Iran is definitely not to be trusted http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11903290/Eight-of-Irans-womens-football-team-are-men.html

I used to think anti-vaxxers were just morons but she talks about the fear of trusting in a system where certain fringes have exploited FUD to prey upon people who's only thought is the safety of their kids.

And only when the worst occurs, these poor bastards realise that the real danger is contracting the disease, and the FUD is distracting them from it...

Hopefully, this might leads others to reconsider their stance.

I think the last time I went in a Radio Shack was sometime around 2003ish. I remember it distinctly because I wanted to buy plain old AA batteries, and it was the closest store. I hadn't been to one of their stores in a while and was surprised when they asked me for name, address, and phone number. To buy batteries. With cash.

So, I said my name was Jasper P. Whillacker the Third, with a 555 phone number, and living at 123 Fake Street. The clerk evidently got a lot of that. Just asked me if I wanted to reconsider and give my real name/info, I said no, so he used some fallback customer ID and let me check out. Went back a few more times over the next 2-3 years (it was close to my house at the time), and the same dude always remembered not to ask about name/info ... so I guess that is something.

Ask the engineers whether religion influenced their lives or not - you don't speak for them.

"Religion" doesn't claim anything (it's not an entity). People who have religious beliefs sometimes have. I've never seen it claimed except in movies. Perhaps you live in an area where it is often claimed (and I feel sorry for you if that is the case). Either way - don't paint religious people the world over with the same brush because of your limited experience (note: everyone has limited experience one way or another - it's just the way it is).

Science doesn't do anything by itself. People use the scientific method to achieve things. In a device like this, it is a biomedical engineer doing most of the work. Funnily enough this happens to be my field (I moved over to it from health science a few years back - just a few years study left....).

Meanwhile, religious people built much of what you enjoy today which utilises the scientific method as a starting point.

Your idea of religion, while sometimes true in a very limited sense, is maligned and doesn't correspond with anything but the current anti-religion zeitgeist. Which is a pity because you seem like a smart person and could do much good for other people (and in general hating on people doesn't achieve that). Perhaps in time you'll reconsider people with religious beliefs in a better light.

Things like this can be frontpaged if need be. Actually i feel 32 votes is quite good for the amount of traffic we get these days. I'm sure the votes were actually a small percentage of sifters that actually saw the post. Many probably didn't care or were neutral which wouldn't be shown in voting. Also i think this is something that's considered and doesn't set anything in stone one way or another. Polls outcomes don't necessarily make it so.

As lucky was quoted as saying
"If the constituency stands united with a single voice, perhaps the site admins would reconsider the issue."

It was decided years ago those are far too easily abused, but hey this is a meritocracy. If the constituency stands united with a single voice, perhaps the site admins would reconsider the issue. Maybe start a poll.

Chain mail was never just metal rings...it was always backed by hard leather at the least. I do not find it believable that a 10# bow could penetrate -real- chain mail. When he gets some unbiased, reputable third party to verify his claims I'll reconsider...until then, I can't see this as anything more than some kid's fantasy.

"But when people are not only wrong, but so dismissive of those who know a thousand times more than they do, one realizes that such people are simply ineducable: they don't know how to assess evidence or argument; they don't know what real scholarship consists of; and they don't know who the real scholars are; yet they do not hesitate for even an instant before insulting and ridiculing scholars whose shoes they are unfit to tie, often people who have spent decades immersing themselves in the study of a particular subject." -- Trancecoach's inspiring profile quote.

@Trancecoach - keeping in mind that you hold scientific rigour in the highest regard, judging by your love for the text above - could you please tell me what you think of the paper after my criticism?

You can either claim that i do not have a scientific objection to the paper, or you can admit that the paper is unscientific, and therefore meaningless in the context of a scientific discussion about climate change.

Surely a man of science such as yourself (see above paragraph, very inspiring) wouldn't disagree with me - no uncertainties, highlighting of meaningless data points showing a total lack of statistical understanding, no key or legend for plots rendering them COMPLETELY useless, not listing sources therefore none of it is provable, having sarcastic digs at previous scientific work..... It isn't as though i've nit-picked problems with it, these are problems that render the work meaningless. The author is not making a scientific argument, and this is a scientific debate.

Right?

Would you say, perhaps, that you don't 'know how to assess evidence or argument?' That you 'don't know what real scholarship is, nor who the real scholars are?'

Please. Please read your own profile quote back to yourself and consider it and how it relates to your own approach. I would love you to come out of this with a net gain in understanding, i am not trying to ridicule anyone. Ensure that you are one of the educable.. I have also had to reconsider my own approach in the past, i would say it's a good thing.

*unban...reconsidered up further research...

PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT SECOND BAN INVOCATION....

...original invocation questionable.

*unban...reconsidered upon further research...

PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT SECOND BAN INVOCATION....

...original invocation questionable.

back your viewpoint up with evidence instead of strawmans, ad homs, anecdotes. and other fallacies and we might reconsider.

again, stop pretending you're a victim. You didn't just get physically assaulted like the kid in the video.

wow, you didn't read my comment about nuance, did you, Lantern. comprehension fail...or could it be something else.

Hey @dag, I'll give you an opportunity to reconsider just who is really trolling who.

so sick and tired of this crap.

You assume that he'd obtain the gun legally instead of just borrowing it, stealing it or buying it from illegal sources. Considering that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, that's a flawed assumption.

In the video, the ex doesn't just burst into the house immediately upon arrival and then shoot the woman. He stands at the door, pounding and shouting long enough for the woman to call the police. If she had a gun in her house, she would have had more than enough time to grab it and clearly state "I have a gun and will shoot you if you enter my house." That alone would have been an effective deterrent, most likely causing the ex to back off and reconsider his actions. The only reason he brazenly stormed into the house was because he knew the woman was unarmed and didn't pose much of a threat. Killing the woman wasn't even his goal either. He wanted to take the baby and only shot the woman because she physically tried to stop him.

I don't know if that's really a point missed. This paradox that we give up certain freedoms to live in a free society isn't new or controversial imo. The discussion, and the thing Snowden seems to be addressing, is that of a simple cost benefit analysis. I'd wager that a proportion of Americans might, given the revelations on the NSA, still opt for them to continue or even increase their operations in the belief it might make them safer. If they are convinced that not only does this collection of data not offer them protection, but it also comes at great monetary expense, then they might reconsider.

Question: What do thirteen-year-old bullies do while watching this video?

• a) They reconsider their behavior and eventually stop bullying their peers.
  
  
• b) They laugh their asses off without listening to the text and try to re-enact scenes from the video the next day.