That's why you hire a lawyer for them and have the lawyer start poking around. Even if the lawyer won't end up telling YOU what happened, they should be able to find out and ensure that the loved one is being taken care of adequately and not having their rights abused.

And yet, Windows 7 and higher ALREADY do this efficiently. Run a single batch file and watch your CPUs in Task Manager. All those single-threaded operations are running on different threads.

Just this weekend I realized that my motherboard's copyright date was 2009 (AMD Phenom X2 unlocked to 4 cores). It's 5 years old already (hard to believe) and I can play all the latest games on the top settings for the price of a $150 graphics card. I'm sure the 16GB RAM and the SSD help, but there is seemingly no reason to upgrade other than 4K, if you want to do that.

Cameras and cheap internet and criminal prosecution will probably avoid the problems you are listing, while creating even worse ones, thanks to the dishonesty of people like you.

We'll have flying cars by NEXT YEAR! Didn't you see the movie?!?

While funny, Right-click the tray icon and select "Quit Skype" and then "OK" when it tells you that nobody can call or text you on it.

Do you have an example of a matriarchal society where men do not overall prefer women younger than themselves? It only takes one counter-example to topple his claim, but you need to provide one.

"A" home server? Who would have just one?
Local DNS, DHCP and DCHPv6 servers need failover, and onsite online backups are done cross-server.
So I'd think any nerd would have at least two.

I also have two different wired networks - one that is used for clients to talk to the servers and the gateway, and one that's used for servers to talk between themselves. There's no reason for traffic between a client and a server or internet to get slowed down just because one server backs itself up to another.

And two different Wireless N networks - one 2.4 and one 5 GHz. That way, using one band won't slow down the other.

They already have been changed to glucose before they become fat, which means that the body quite obviously could process them. That they became fat is because there weren't any takers for the glucose.

Wow, I can't believe that someone missed the point so completely!
The point being that it is unlikely that the brain is stealing the glucose and thus stunting growth like the article supports, because when kids are fat, that means they have metabolized carbs->glucose->fat, and thus have had plenty of glucose. That fat kids' bones don't appear to shoot past normal kids in growth strongly suggest that there are other reasons why kids don't grow physically to adults in half the time.

I suggest that being smaller and having different proportions to adults triggers the "do not harm" and "protect" instinct in most adults, thus increasing the chance of reaching adulthood and bringing one's genes on.
There are probably other survival advantages, like having less mass and more flexible bones might be adventageous at the age one learns to climb trees and cliffs.
When reaching the age where one is going to procreate and bring up own children, the advantage is to have a more adult body, capable of hunting, foraging, carrying and protecting.

Get it now, or are you going to get sidetracked by a single word again?

No, it doesn't. You have the wrong idea of what "imply" means. It is not a synonym for "hint at" or "suggest" any more than "implication" is a synonym for "hint" or "suggestion". It is a near synonym to "mean".

That you have two X chromosomes and no Y chromosome implies that you are female. It does not merely hint at it.

When I used the word imply in the real world example of my GPP, it was to say exactly what I said. Not your uneducated guess at what it means.

That there is an inverse correlation between brain glucose use and body growth does not imply that the brain's use of glucose stymies the growth until later.
If that were the case, kids who are overfed carbohydrates would be smarter and taller, not fatter and dumber.

My guess is that slow growth is selected for because children who look like children enjoy special care and protection by adults. Growing to adult size by age 7 might be detrimental to survival.

The victim is never at fault.
That being said, there's an important question to ask.

Why is is that the other women present that night were not attacked?

Is it because they traveled in pairs? Is it because they never left their drinks unattended?

Yeah, about that. That's a symptom of acute alcohol intoxication too. As far as I know, I have never been date raped but in my younger days, there were many nights that I don't remember how I got home.

LK

If they knew of quality problems that might be a danger and failed to inform you in order to make a profit, yes, absolutely.

If he was black, the police would have just shot him.

LK