AL

Sorry, noted and corrected. Deaf people don't use braille. Where the heck did that come from?

This is beside the point. The point is that the particular scenario you described to justify requring English could easily occur to a tourist, a deaf-mute, someone with a cleft palate, or an inarticulate socially awkward teenager in any part of the country and the result would be the same. If you mandate that a poor 3rd world immigrant be made to acquire the resources to speak English, why not mandate that every deaf-mute buy one of those voice-boxes that Stephen Hawking uses? How does China requiring you to speak the language justify the U.S. doing the same? I think most Americans would agree that China's system of government and respect for human rights is not something to be admired or mimicked. Well I'm certainly glad most of our lawmakers would not entertain the idea of passing laws over perceived disprespect.

In this particular scenario, it would've been to their benefit to speak English, but how does this justify a general requirement that they speak English? Those people could've been tourists as opposed to immigrants. Would you then argue that tourists should be required to speak English? Those people could've been deaf-mutes and you would've had the same problem. I'm not sure what principle you're using to justify requiring the English language. What is, in principle, wrong with people that don't speak English? You don't like it? There are lots of things I don't like, but that hardly justifies banning it.

As I said before no one is being forced to do anything. You are not required to learn their language anymore than they should be required to learn yours. I understand not everyone shares my libertarian view on this, but unless your rights are being infringed upon in some way, I really don't see the justification for demanding that they speak English.

The very fact that there are people who do live here and don't speak English testifies to it.

There are inarticulate socially awkward young adults that work the fast food shops around here which can barely mutter some semblance of English, despite clearly being native-born English speakers. Should their right to vote be revoked? You do not need a grasp of the English language to understand American politics. Tonight's Cheney-Edwards debate was on several Spanish language channels, and was probably broadcast in SAP to boot. I agree it is to their benefit to speak English, but it isn't necessary and certainly shouldn't be legally required. You have a right to refuse to do business with people that don't speak English, just as the bank down the street has the right to setup an ATM in Spanish to cater to the Spanish-speaking community. I don't see how either of your rights are being infringed in any way here, and I fail to see how you could be threatened by businesses catering to other languages. If it is irrelevant, then I agree with you. But if you want a job as a Spanish interpretor and you can't speak Spanish, don't cry discrimination.

I watched a documentary on Discovery channel once long ago in which they tested the ultra-low frequency sound hypothesis and found that those exposed to it were more likely to report paranormal activity. If I can ever find some sort of machine or device that can generate these sounds, it'll present a golden opportunity to try this out on some of my superstitious friends.

If I eat cereal at 10:30, it is because I chose to eat the cereal at 10:30. I really don't see how it violates my will at all if I was destined to eat it and could not do otherwise. If I somehow, by some mysterious force, ended up eating toast instead of cereal, this would not be the result of my will, because my will was to eat cereal. This would in essence violate my free will, not reinforce the idea of my having it as some are suggesting here. My will is to eat cereal and that's that. It seems to me that some of you are arguing that free will only exists if you could potentially violate your own will, which doesn't make any sense to me.

Evolution does not say that humans descended from monkeys. That's just a Creationist straw man. Evolution does suggest that humans and monkeys are more closely related to one another than they are to say, a jellyfish, and that they share a recent (recent as in on a geological timescale, not as in "yesterday afternoon") common ancestor. I too, would like to know what the "severe loophole" is. The only major evolutionary event that doesn't quite have a satisfactory explanation yet (in my opinion) is the Cambrian explosion, but that hardly constitutes a refutation of evolution, and doesn't come anywhere close to supporting Creationism (the Cambrian era was not 6,000 years ago). All other Creationist arguments I've heard such as casting doubt on radiological dating, crying "lack of transitional fossils," or my all-time favorite "hurricanes don't assemble jumbo jets" are at best straw-grasping, and at worst testify to the willful ignorance of many Creationists.

The fact that uttering the word might induce a heart attack in an old lady, or cause a soccer mom to faint? Kidding.

That's in all likelihood a spurious correlation. I thought you were trying to show that video games themselves contribute directly to illiteracy, but it would appear the more likely scenario is that lack of reading is the cause. In that case, lack of reading (and thus illiteracy) could be caused by any activity x; video games need not be singled out. If you truly wish to find out whether or not there exists a causal relation between illiteracy and gaming, do a controlled statistical study. All this hypothesizing and asking for expert opinions from psychologists are no good if the empirical evidence doesn't back it up.

I missed it since I was born in the latter part of 1980, but my uncle who lived in Los Angeles, California at the time said that it too was covered in a thin layer of ash. That's about 1200 miles away.

My high school biology teacher taught the idea that genes for baldness are sex-linked on the X chromosome too. But I've heard reports that this is a myth -- baldness for a man can be inherited from either side. Webmd seems to think so too: http://my.webmd.com/hw/mens_conditions/aa151680.asp

I hope for its sake that that website is satire...along the lines of The Onion.

I'm not suggesting the original poster was correct with his "disproof" of abiogenesis, but why do a lot of people hold the idea that you can't prove a negative? Of course you can. The old cliche is there is no such thing as a square circle (by the usual definition of square and circle, i.e. no tricks with non-Euclidean geometries or unconventional metrics).

I already finished my undergraduate studies at Cal. School spirit meant nothing to me while I was there, so obviously it means even less than nothing now that I'm not there anymore. If I ever go to grad school at Cal, rest assured school spirit will rise back to its "means nothing to me" status.

Degrees aren't used in scientific circles? Radians are useful for theory, but degrees are far more practical. Astronomers, for instance, use arcseconds and arcminutes for their measurements, and those are based on degrees. Technically they can be converted to radians, but if you're an astronomer, what's more convenient: knowing an arcminute is 1/60th of a degree, or knowing that it is pi/10800 radians?

I grew up in Southern California, and there used to be a car chase every other week on TV. Choppers everywhere, but many times they do get away -- we (the U.S.) apparently don't have any sort of extradition agreement with Mexico, so once they cross the border, they are scott-free.

The first amendment doesn't even apply in this situation, even if the server was in America. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." This means the Federal government (plus state and local governments, thanks to the 14th amendment) cannot censor you by law should you decide to voice your opinions. This does not mean you cannot be censored by private entities who have the power to do so. If I own a billboard, I'm free to decide what doesn't go on it. If I own a forum, I'm free to decide what doesn't get posted. Not necessarily. What if the country you're in doesn't have an American embassy?

You mean this "proof?" -1 = -1 -1 / 1 = 1 / -1 sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1) sqrt(-1) / sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1) i / 1 = 1 / i i^2 = 1 -1 = 1 The fallacy is pretty obvious.

Very few immigrants come here to see other cultures. I think it's safe to say that by far, most come here for economic reasons, and as has already been pointed out, you do not need to learn English to be an economically viable agent in America.

I don't get where you people think that immigrants who don't speak English are somehow being "accommodated" by the rest of English-speaking society. There is no law, at least in America, forcing you to interact with people who don't speak English. They are in no way a threat to any of you. If you don't wish to do business with them, then don't. If you do wish to do business with them, then as any good business person knows, you have to accommodate your consumer base by reaching out. But no one is forcing you to do so and you are free to avoid whoever you wish. As for the talk of immigrants being rude because they refuse to learn the language...ever consider that most immigrants settle in diaspora communities, and thus really don't need to learn English to live and do business? If you're Chinese and live in China Town San Francisco, California, you're not really burdening anyone by failing to speak English. In fact, in this particular context, being able to speak Chinese would probably give you an enormous advantage over being able to speak only English. Now, I await somebody's xenophobic tirade about how these diaspora communities are going to destroy American culture, values, and language, and how change and the evolution of society and mores is a bad thing. Please, as if the English language has done a fine job of preserving itself, considering that our English looks nothing like Chaucer's.

What's wrong with them not being able to speak English? Does it affect your life in anyway? My old landlady was Russian and she didn't speak a word of English. But she's rich, runs a successful Real Estate business and has created a lot of jobs and housing as a result. She's done a lot of good for this country, but yeah, she should be shot since she doesn't speak English.

As I've stated in another thread, I consider myself a moderate libertarian. Many libertarians lean Republican rather than Democrat, but for this election, I'm going to vote Kerry over Bush. I think libertarians who vote Republican are kidding themselves. Bush has outspent Clinton's 8 years in just 4, and lest anyone wish to attribute the spending to two wars, just remember that the war in Iraq was not necessary and recall that Reagan fought no wars and still spent like a liberal. It's a joke to think that the Republican party is the party of small, efficient government. The Democrats are all about big spending, but at least they're honest. And frankly, if my tax dollars are going to waste, I'd rather they go to social programs like education and healthcare than increasing the size of the world's most powerful military force or building a missile defense shield that doesn't work and knowing full well our enemies would rather use a suitcase nuke than launch a missile.