Names trend over time in rather smooth curves of popularity.

In the U.S., there aren't any laws about what you can call your kids, but the Social Security Administration tracks popularity of names. For instance, the second most popular girl's name this year is Emma, which was also the third most popular in 1880 ... and the 451st most popular at its low point in 1978. The most popular name today, Sophia, tracks a similar curve with a low point in the '40s.

The most popular girl's name in my age cohort was Jennifer — the #1 girl's name from 1970 to 1984! — but Jennifer has been on the way down ever since. Today's American girls are more likely to have an Aunt Jenny than a classmate Jenny. To me, Jennifer (or Jessica, Melissa, Amy, or Heather) sounds like someone my age, not a little kid. Young girls are named Ashley, Hannah, Madison, Alexis ... and baby girls are Isabella, Sophia, Emma.

Male names are stabler than female names, but mostly because some names (Michael, Matthew, Daniel, William ...) are persistently popular.

I like that you're presenting evidence that you've gathered and talking about how it has changed not only your conclusions, but your methods for gathering data.

Remember, "Y is technically X" means "Y is not X, but I'm being disagreeable."

In the U.S., when laws are stricken down as unconstitutional, they are not automatically repealed or removed from the statute books. They are just ignored and not enforced.

For instance, after the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, all state sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional. However, the states don't have to formally repeal them (which would require effort from their legislatures) — rather, those laws are simply considered null and void, unenforceable. Some states went and repealed them anyway, but Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas have not.

So yes, there may be some states or towns that have laws on the books discriminating against atheists, or imposing punishments for blasphemy, or even requiring everyone to go to church. But because these laws are null and void under all sorts of court rulings, it is incorrect to say that atheism is illegal; just as it is incorrect to say that sodomy is illegal.

(There are certainly plenty of people — including many government officials, government school teachers, etc. — who discriminate against atheists, of course. And against Jehovah's Witnesses, Wiccans, and other religious minorities.)

Suppose we consider the players' actions in the Dictator and Ultimatum games not as attempts to gain or distribute money as an end in itself, but as (sometimes expensively-signaled) communications with the experimenter, the counterpart, or some other audience — possibly including the self.

In other words, the goal of my immediate act is not to gain for myself nor to give to others; it is to make a statement about what sort of person I am (generous! fair! realistic! not a sucker!), or what sort of society or economy I expect (or desire?) to live in.

Your criticism would be correct if addressed to Thomas's post. The argument there was of the form "If X, then Y" ... with the implication of not-Y and therefore not-X. My post was just establishing that Y.

Now, when we have nearly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last decades, in dry places like Death Valley or Riyadh or Siberia, the effect of CO2 should be quite visible.

http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_DeathValley_DeathValley_CA_April.html

Maximum temperatures in Death Valley have indeed been trending up over the last decades. The yearly maxima in the last ten years range from 100 to 113F, mean 106.7F; the maxima in the '60s ranged from 89 to 106F, mean 100.8 ­— an increase of ~6 degrees F. Mean low, mean high, and mean temperatures are up about ~2 degrees.

So, that checks out.

http://www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Riyadh/404380.htm

Looks like they're up a bit in Riyadh, too, although that's just from eyeballing it.

So, you're right — the effects do appear to be quite visible.

... for a product that's actually clinically tested and pretty well known to work?

Yes, please. We might call these "post-scarcity socialism", "welfare-state socialism" (or "welfare liberalism" to Americans), and "Communist Party socialism".

(Of course, there is the argument that we could be living in a post-scarcity society today if it weren't for the increasing fraction of wealth held by the ultra-rich.)

Hmm ... sure, I'll go along with this.

2012 donations:

Against Malaria — $5500
CFAR — $500
Ada Initiative — $500
Kim Suozzi's cryonics fund — $250
Local cultural groups (theater, puzzles) — maybe ~$50 total

Is this an accurate summary or restatement?

1. A system of morals should endorse its adherents teaching it to other people; it should not be exclusive or socially self-undermining. You should not think, "I mustn't teach the true morality to those people, because the world will be worse if I did."
2. People who learn a system of morals should subsequently behave better, according to that system's own evaluation; it should not be personally self-undermining. You should not think, "Wow, I wish I had never learned about the true morality; since believing it, I've become worse at what it says I should do!"
3. A system of morals should actually talk about actions, not just about believing that system; it should not be solafideist.
4. A system of morals should not be for its own sake.