Japan's richest and, therefore, most trustworthy man outlines renewable energy program.

I'm fairly certain that if they do come to destroy us Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, "Ahhnold," Tommy Lee Jones and Sigourney Weaver have got us covered. (Mostly Will Smith)

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=define%3Amerkin&btnG=Google+Search

...I'll just leave this here...

I'm obviously not going to RTFA so I'll just blindly ask instead. How are these rats being kept awake? It seems to me that you're not going to be able to ask these rats to voluntarily attempt to stay awake as long as possible. I would wager that the stressful conditions used to prevent sleep are probably just as much to blame as the lack of sleep itself for the untimely death of the test subjects.

Well you know what they say: "You can't have your Natalie Portman and eat her too..." ...or something like that.

Uhhh... how else are they going to install windows security updates. Duh.

I agree. Let's shield the children from any sort of challenge. That way they know nothing and won't ever ask us embarrassing questions that might be a challenge for us to answer in an adult manner.

I just want to clarify on breath test refusals. The law is on a per state basis but I imagine it is very close or similar to my state where I recently refused a test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent

The possession of a driver's license requires that you are willing to submit to a chemical test. Refusing to submit to the test results in the administrative act of your license being revoked. This is completely separate from the criminal DUI case. Therefore even if you are found innocent of DUI you will still have lost your license. You can fight this administrative revocation but you'll have to prove that the officer was not in his right to originally pull you over. This is a very difficult task because all the cop has to say is, "Oh, he swerved a little." I think that you'll be hard pressed to prove that you didn't swerve at all.

That may seem like a CH shade of meaning away from "admission of guilt" but really it's a separate offense that you're pretty much automatically guilty of.

Standard disclaimer: IANAL (But I've spent a lot of time talking to one recently)

Based on these being assessed as mostly harmless; my guess is that this encompasses something that the company regards as a possible trade secret that they don't want out. These secrets have to be protected well for them to hold that status in any legal scenario.

I think the difference is that being a straight male I can easily say to a relative stranger, "Well the other day my girlfriend and I were walking through the park..." and no one bats and eye. But if a lesbian says the exact same thing they tend to get "WTF I don't want to hear about your sexual orientationLOL I don't the gays but keep it to yourself." In that case you might as well provoke people with your sexual orientation up front to weed out the assholes quickly and move on to friends that are more accepting.

Nice! I'm setting this as my new wallpaper.

Hmm, I think we should give corporations the right to vote but remove their ability to lobby in any official capacity. If I have use a crappy form on a website to send an email to my senator's intern then so should they.

...well only since that judge ruled that being poor was a mental illness. Seriously, why don't they just go buy more money?

Every episode of Mythbusters is an example of how you are correct.

I was talking about the cost of storage for waste. If there nearly no waste then there is nearly no cost of storing it.