These days, most car stereos have auxiliary inputs. It's much easier to bring along your aux cable and iPod/generic MP3 player than several CDs.

"Bookophiles"? The word is bibliophiles, Leslie. #corrections

"Taken from a galaxy far, far away...not really, it's the same galaxy as you're in, but in SPAAAAACCCCEEEEE."

...also, if you really don't want to risk a pregnancy, the pill is not 100%, so why not be safe? Also, STDs. I don't know what STD you had, but I haven't seen many people with something like HIV say "Hey, if you haven't had HIV, you haven't lived"...

Right. You believe lethal force is necessary. Why? Because, as you said, the aggressor would have lethal force. So what part of your viewpoint am I misrepresenting?

Ah, thanks! That makes sense! I'm not sure how that would affect the sensors...I have to assume they've been tested and been reliable for the most part before being released, though. Perhaps they account for that? Maybe they don't take the absolute pressure as a sign of altitude, but a change in pressure? So when you…

Well, sorry to tell you this, but it won't be able to be used that way. The pressure gradient created by both the temperature differences as well as the smoke production and structural changes would completely screw with it. But putting aside the hope of firefighters using it, I think if you're in a burning building…

Well, yeah. But I don't think this was envisioned for use in a clean room xD . Though the domes I never really thought about in terms of needing to be pressurized...hmm...

Hm. Why is that? What's the benefit to not having equilibrium?

Sure, if you only consider that one aspect of the study. But then you're ignoring the rest of the study, which was done in multiple categories, about multiple health issues and benefits from multiple organic vs conventional sources.

I haven't used a condom in two years!

...do you write for American Pie, by any chance?

You're right. They're not the same. For example, it's completely impossible for a theory to be anything other than a fact, by definition.

You mean the difference between theory and hypothesis, right?

Which proposed remedies are these? 100% and 0% are very extreme numbers. I don't know a single scientist who would be comfortable claiming anything (even the existence of gravity) without SOME margin of error.

You mean #bazinga right?

Sure. That's fine. Except that's all assuming that what he's saying—there's no scientific consensus on the subject—is true. But it's not. It's just plain lying (or ignorance; I can't be sure on his part). There's plenty of consensus that global warming is happening, and that the activities of humans are a major player…

It doesn't really help. The shortened excerpt in the article makes it sound like he's saying "we as humans don't agree on whether climate change is real". The full answer you quoted makes it sound like he's saying "I believe in climate change myself, but we as humans don't agree on whether climate change is real".…

...which is what Leslie and the researchers pointed out. In that same quote. *Facepalm*

To quote the great Tim Minchin: "Alternative medicine is that which either has not been proved to work or has been proved not to work. Do you know what they call treatments that have been proved to work? Medicine."