SH3RL0CK

Why would no experience as a judge be a concern regarding a candidate for the very top judge in the nation? Indeed, having a well over a year experience in arguing court cases should have prepared Ms. Kagan for any conceivable issue that might be presented before the supreme court [/sarcasm] Without question experience is important, and there are many others who are more qualified candidates. That said, I do very much like her academic experience. And the President is Constitutionally permitted to appoint anyone he pleases. As per my previous post, I am optimistically looking forward to the confirmation hearings as I'd like to know more about her. With the virtual supermajority of democrats in the Senate, I'd say she is a shoo-in unless the media decides to 'bork' her (which they clearly aren't going to do).

I'm a bit concerned because I think she lacks experience...it seems to me to be like the Harriet Miers nomination by GW Bush. Note in particular from the article I don't mean to say that her other experience counts for nothing, but clearly this should be at least a concern. I would think there are candidates with more relevant experience...and I would expect the Senators to question this aspect. However, given a near super-majority in the Senate and what seems to me to be a favorable press, I don't doubt she will be confirmed. I'll wait until the confirmation hearings before forming an opinion on her however.

But why should this be? Why wouldn't there be migrations in both directions? However, looking at the evidence, it does appear to be the case. Maybe the Sahara desert is a large enough obstacle that it couldn't be crossed by a substantial number of people (though I'm fairly certain it wasn't always a desert- and besides the Nile River and the oceans provide paths around it)? The theory that modern Homo sapiens drove away Neanderthals (hence none in Africa) doesn't seem to fit given I think there must have been significant interbreeding to add even 1% to the genome of a population.

It would appear genetic evidence has now determined that for non-African humans, humans are 1-4% Neanderthals: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/05/07/theres_a_little_neanderthal_in_us/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed4 Not sure what implications this might have regarding how we view ourselves...

While this is true, many of the parents of children are understandably asking, are we sure the studies are correct? Have the studies considered all the possibilities? Probably not - I don't know that this is even possible. FWIW, I agree with you. But the solution to this issue is to solve the autism question. The Pharmacutical companies and the government should also recognize that people will naturally view them with suspicion...these rightfully lack public trust because they HAVE performed things like the Tuskegee experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment from the article:

I now know these were not dinosaurs, but I still have to ask why these animals went extinct. Consider also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichythyosaur which is nearly identical to today's dolphin. So why do we have dolphins swimming in the ocean and not Ichythyosaurs? I can't imagine the ocean temperature dropping by enough to cause extinction...

If only this were the case, I can't quickly find what Rick Perry used to scientifically decide this vaccine was warranted. However see the following... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry#HPV_vaccine Now maybe all the above is coincidence and the decision was the right decision, though poorly handled. But given the above reference, I have to believe that financial gain for both Gov. Perry and Merck was some factor in this decision.

Really? How about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesosaurus or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliosaurus considering the vast heat capacity of the oceans, I have to wonder why these dinosaurs are still not around. Edit: Ah, I see the rest of your post where these are now not considered dinosaurs...I did not realize the scientific consensus had changed regarding these animals.

I'll have to watch it when I get more time. But I do have a concern about getting a vaccine for every little possible germ. At some point the costs to society outweigh the benefits to society (but not the benefits, or should I say profits at our expense, to Big Pharma). I'd rather have the sniffles for a day than get a vaccine shot with my arm sore for the next week and worrying about getting one of the "rare" side effects with "minor" complications (at least rare and minor as defined by the pharmacutical companies). After all, pharmacutical companies do make money on vaccines, and from a business perspective they will push as many as they can. Of couse they will claim that the vaccine is necessary. And, they will use government to help them make their profit, which IIRC was a concern (albeit I think unwarranted in this case) about gardasil in Texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil (emphasis mine) Who can say that in the future Merck won't want our government to mandate (for a profit to them of course) a vaccine with serious side effects to prevent diseases which nobody would ever realistically get anyway? Anyway I'll try to take a look at this tonight if I get time.

This is a good observation. While being "fair" and "irrational" may lose you the $1 you may have otherwise gained, it also forces the others to offer more than the $1 because they do need your participation (or at least the participation of a majority). If you are the top guy and a majority of the others won't settle for $1, wouldn't you offer, say $100k each so that you can get perhaps $400k instead of nothing? If you aren't playing "fair" and are being entirely rational, all you will get is the $1 if you are not the top guy. Why settle for that when by being irrational you can get more? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And then sometimes you have to play it out so that others know you aren't just bluffing. So what if you, as exec # 7, lose $1? Its not a big deal because on the next time everyone else knows they have to offer more, perhaps considerably more, to get your participation.

No problems with harmonics or noise either? What power rating(s) did you selected for your inverter(s)?

Most appliances don't run on DC power, nor at the voltages likely supplied by the solar panel. How did you address this issue?

Ok. So something that benefits only a handful of people is pork. Something that benefits everyone is not pork. At what percentage of the population does a pork project become not pork? 51%? 33%? 0.01%? Probably someone will bring in the collective cost associated with such percentages...in other words, maybe I don't mind 0.01% of the population getting a benefit if it costs me $0.0000000000000001, but maybe it bothers me if it costs me $1000. Or maybe not, depending on what specifically it is. I'm really pointing out that one person's pork is another persons necessary program, it is subjective and cannot be easily defined. The original post asked where to cut spending? I would suggest we look instead at what NOT to cut first and break things listed there (in post # 1) up into three groups: 1) What functions are absolutely necessary by the government? These I will contend are by definition not pork and cannot be eliminated. Maybe reduced, but we still need them. My list would be National Defense, Basic Scientific Research, possibly Foreign Aid. 2) What functions are not necessary by the government - but are either more cost-effective or more efficient when run by the federal government than run by the states or private enterprises? These I will also contend are not pork as the benefits outweigh the costs to society as a whole. Possibly these programs can be cut, but should not be eliminated. My list would include Transportation, Mass Transit. 3) What functions are not necessary by the government nor are more cost effective or efficient than either the states or private enterprise? I would suggest that these programs be cut drastically if not eliminated outright given the current budget deficit. Should the budget deficit shrink due to either an economic recovery or budget cuts, then we can consider refunding these programs. My list would include agriculture (basic research excepted) and housing. I'm not sure where to rank social security, medicare, unemployment benefits and some others. Social security CAN, without a doubt, be done more efficiently by private individuals, but that does not mean it WILL be done more efficiently. Likewise with medicare, unemployment benefits, etc. Also, these programs provide a benefit which may outweight their costs... Where would others rank these items? Other thoughts?

Of course I see the benefit to social security and to education. But proponents of pork can point to benefits also. The bridge to nowhere would have been very nice for the handful of people who used it. Where is that line between a useful program and pork?

So then what is the difference between enriching a specific politicians constituency politician and the constituency of a specific political party? Either one could be at the expense of the collective whole? Social security in its current form gives those over 60ish money from those under 40ish. National defense on the other hand, simply protects all citizens in the US. Now don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting social security is necessarily pork...just trying to figure out what is, and isn't pork spending.