"The bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."

I made a career out of being fired by American companies for about 20+ years. Then, I got hired by a foreign one, which for a while seemed to be trying to make a career out of forcing me to quit! :( After 7 years, but of us seem to be failing in our cour objectives! :( Seriously, though, this company has a knack for "gitting r done" in spades, and allying oneself with one such would be my number one recommendation to anyone seeking a career in tech. THAT (i.e. serious cutting edge technologies and applications) is the main thing which is hard to do on one's own. Aside from that, I generally and strongly agree with all The Cat said about employers. It can be good to learn how to leave the scene of a disaster with dignity, however.

seems like the mimimum should be to enforce some kind of exercise. it doesn't get much more sedentary than lab animals. thus, if the results are actual (??), the findings should be low prot high carbs preferable IF SEDENTARY. (though that seems somewhat counerintuitive as well).

I think possibly the most significant thing he did was to get them to message him FIRST. As in David Halberstam's critical rule of diplomacy (from Best and the Brightest), the first to the negotiations table largely empowers the other to dictate the condtions of the armistice. Not that this is sufficient when dealing with women by any means, but it is significant.

The other important things he did with this experiment is to identify the most critical questions, and confirm that women put considerable stake in those questions and resultant ratings, based on the spike in inquiries he got. I, myself, have used the site, and find it to be good overall, though I'm less taken with the questions/ratings. My main interest there is a few show-stoppers, the NUMBER of questions answered, and the explanations included with the answers. To somewhat negate the whole thing, I think high confidence* in that system might suggest an authoritarian character, which is something of a show-stopper for me.

*I.e. causing one to be a first contacter.

...into a matter could hamper your "impartiality".

;P

...matter, which is one of the main reasons I continue to look at slashdot. Thanks for all insights provided.

In my opinion and limited but significant knowledge, killing an application in such a way is exactly (a) the power a company like MS has with their proprietary code base and (b) perfectly consistent with that I perceive to be their business model.

"Every need's got an eagle to feed."
("A pimper's paradise, that's all she was...")

Amount that I esteem BM: immense, though I can by no means claim to fathom his actual dimensions.

Amount that I esteem some middle American's thought about Darwin awards: immeasurably small

According to Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead, from whom he borrowed the reference Cowboy Neal (ie. Cassady) was "at the wheel of a trip to never-ever land."

This is just a guess, though still something you should have specified in your original description.

If when it originally died on the off chance that you initially powered back up into Windows first, then this Paragon thing (with the above mentioned deficiencies) would sound like the likely culprit. Otherwise, as people have mentioned, it is very strange that disk-wide issues should result from a loss of power.

Bro, yea, chkdsk, that's just ironic enough to be possible in a Windows universe! "Oh, and remember to be sure to allow it to complete uninterrupted!" lol

It's not the what that should be eligible for copy-right protection, it's the how. APIs are the what. The implementation is the how.

Or consider this - the genes they were looking at had nothing in the world to do with it. Problem solved! ;)

On what basis do you believe it/yours to be inherited?

I do not feel that I could definitively know the cause of this complex condition, but I feel some affinity with it (and aversion to its contemporary medical analysis). My favorite thing that I read was the (initially (in the US) lionized and ultimately demonized) Bruno Bettelheim's Empty Fortress. He was an early one to point out the genetic twins point, something which has somewhat amazingly been able to be glossed over by all the test-tube monkeys. Basically, I am concerned that, perhaps the primary political entity, parents, have been able to dismiss this, a virtual Emperor's New Clothes type scenario/campaign. Extreme as it sounds, I myself would not dismiss this out of hand. Finally, I am not at all about assigning any kind of blame, just getting to the truth of the matter.

Oh, we're talking about random MUTATIONS (ie. some other basis of non-identical genetic twin genes?) able to counteract this (purported) complex genetically coded condition IN ALL OF ITS MAJOR ATTRIBUTES???

Oh, and, to my knowledge, identical gestation environments theoretically equates to identical expression, NO, or do all of these (purportedly multiple) genes involved in this expression, simultaneously (in concert) decide whether to express themsleves or not?

If the preceding is not essentially the case with genetically identical twins, how is it that they even end up resembling each other consistently in the vast majority of the cases? Is it just that we can dispense with (the law of) genetic resemblance for this one special case?

"Autism has a strong genetic basis, but so far efforts to identify the responsible genes have had mixed results. The reason for this is that autism is influenced by many different genes, and different genes are involved in different individuals, making it hard to find the common genetic ground between patients."

Perhaps, alternately to considering a more complex/obfuscated genetic basis, we should again consider a NON-genetic basis?

How about the experiment everyone conveniently chooses to forget, the occurrence of autism in only one genetic twin (sharing identical genes, gestation environments, etc.).