It's not about you.

Go.

Except it was usually difficult for an 8-year-0ld to get hold of Playboy.  Now an 8-year-old can get it delivered to him.

I'd also take issue with whether internet porn and Playboy are really comparable.

Only one?  I heard that for years - it was all about some pipeline deal.  I think somebody even wrote a book about it.  Usually I'd hear about it from the crowd that thinks the New York Times is a Corporate rag and Obama is too right-wing.

I can't take seriously any article about inflation that talks about a "persistent decline in gas prices".

Pushing Daisies. 

They also have (or at least had) the complete works of "King of the Hill".

My biggest gripe with Netflix streaming is the way stuff comes and goes without much notice.  I don't mind so much with movies, but with multi(many) episode series it's truly annoying.

Amazon Prime Instant Streaming needs a MUCH better search engine.

Why is that a problem?

Probably for the same reason that I frequently see people driving through intersections after the light turns red and the cop waiting to go the other way doesn't bother to light them up and ticket them.   They don't think it's worth the paperwork.

It makes not one iota of difference how many non-citizens "want to live and work" in the United States. 

The question is, how many non-citizens do the people of the United States want to allow to come in to live and work in the United States.

It's not our immigration system, it's our citizenry.  For the most part, if you can believe the polls, they want fewer than are currently here.  The fact that non-citizens disagree with the citizens may be an interesting fact, but there's no reason the non-citizen's view should carry the slightest bit of weight in the argument.

On the other hand, Bush received a warning that "Al quaeda is determined to attack America" in August of 2001 and has been blamed by the left for not leaping out of his chair, yelling "Secure the airplane cockpits and evacuate the World Trade center". 

Meanwhile, Obama didn't think to protect our middle-Eastern diplomats *ON 9-11*, and 3 days after the Boston attack, even with pictures of the perps, Obama's anti-terror apparatus still hadn't identified the suspects even though they had pictures and one of them was on a terror watchlist and had been previously investigated by the FBI on suspicion of terrorism.

I've got to find a way to use that "speaking of drones" line.

Well, yes and no.  My understanding is the 'defense" justification was pretty much a fig leaf to justify the federal funding of the project.  Eisenhower's interest in highways went back to when he was part of a Cross-country military convoy in 19(20?) that took weeks to get anywhere.

I don't recall the exact wording of the question - wasn't it [essentially] asking which is smaller, an electron or an atom?

Given that an electron is a sub-component of an atom, doesn't it pretty much have to be smaller?  It's mostly just a simple logic question if you know that electrons are one of the three major sub-atomic particles [ electrons, neutrons, protons.  I watched WKRP].  It's not like you can have a car part that's bigger than the fully assembled car, right?

"Global warming" is the commonly used phrase for AGW, or Climate Change, or whatever the phrase of the week is.    The idea that human activity is increasing the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere which will lead to unacceptable and unnatural increase in temperatures that throw off the balance of the biosphere and kill us all.

"Atmospheric warming" in the question as stated [ "What gas ... causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise" ] is just the simple observation that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere is warmer than it would be if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere at all.  I forget the exact number, but I believe it's something on the order of 50-60 degrees Farenheit [I might be way off on that, so don't quote me].

And yes, 13/13, and it's embarrassing that only 7% nationally got all 13 right.

I'm willing to give a dispensation on the nitrogen question because that's a fact it'd be easy enough to forget.  And I'm willing to give one or two more to each individual just on general principle.  But there's no way ANYONE in the US with more than a 7th grade education should get fewer than 10 of these question correct under any circumstances.  And anyone who did should be stripped of the right to vote.

Too many people are trying to read politics into this quiz.  The question did NOT ask about "global warming", the question was "What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise?".  

CO2 DOES cause temperatures in the atmosphere to rise.  If there were no CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, the average temperature of the planet would be much lower.  That's a completely separate issue from AGW.

In fact, it was pretty ridiculous for the question to say "most scientists".  You'd be hard-pressed to find any scientist, even an AGW "denier" who doesn't "believe" (know) that the presence of CO2 raises the atmospheric temperature compared to if there was no CO2. 

The question was not "which of these is the strongest greenhouse gas", it was 'which of these is considered a greenhouse gas".