I did cover bi. I don't know enough about transsexuals to know where they fit into this schema.
That is a fantastic diagnosis, doctor - I'm sure you didn't leap to any conclusions there at all.
Have you considered watching what Assange does, and listening to what he says? Coming to any OTHER conclusion would be the fantastic leap.
Actually have you found any private details in the publicized materials or are you just theorizing?
Why aren't you asking the author of the article that question? Regardless, prior leaks of this info show communications with HR, discussions of paychecks, etc.
If it's a matter of not having students who are sexually attracted to each other, they have a serious logistical problem:
I'm not positive, but I think you'd need something like this:
When they ace it, end up in one of the ultra competitive CS schools (or work environment) and haven't been exposed to whatever it is that causes female students to not do well right now, all in one shot? It would even out eventually, but the first few batches will be in for a rude awakening.
Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs! Well, actually, if they're female eggs than the federal government will be all over you. But if they're male eggs, screw `em. Because, you know, equality.
For those of the geological persuasion, 50 000 years is certainly 'right now'.
But it's not the same "right now" that includes driving cars.
McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics"
That's exactly what it was. How else would you characterize you being subject to felony federal charges if you (personally, or as part of a group) run an issue or party advocacy ad in the week before an election? It wasn't about the size or loudness of the "megaphone," it was about political speech, period. Unless you are part of one of the groups that the law allowed to continue. Which is the second reason why the law was struck down - unequal protection. The law abridged free speech, and applied the law unevenly to different parties. Unconstitutional right out of the gate on both counts.
Being subjected to over paid messages is NOT free speech it PAID for speech
It would be great if you can point out where, in the First Amendment, it says that your rights to say what you want about politics is taken away if you do it by, say, paying a printer to copy your message onto 500 pieces of paper you want to hand out. Paid speech! Paid speech! The government must censor that, since it took money to reproduce the message and spread it around!
Do you even listen to yourself?
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah